The Power of Cigarette Warning Labels
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD, NYT
A provocative new study has suggested that the Food and Drug Administration greatly underestimated how much graphic warning labels on cigarette packs reduced the rate of smoking among Canadians. As a result, the study says, the F.D.A. vastly underestimated the impact such warnings would have in the United States.
The interpretation of this data is crucial because a federal appeals court blocked the F.D.A.’s first attempt to require graphic warning labels on the grounds that the agency had shown no persuasive evidence that the warnings were likely to reduce smoking rates.
Most experts agree that the biggest deterrent to smoking is raising the cost of cigarettes. As a result, whatever impact graphic warnings had after they were introduced in Canada in 2000 depends heavily on the cost of cigarettes in that period.
The new study, carried out by researchers from the University of Illinois at Chicago and the University of Waterloo in Canada, argues that the F.D.A. erred in calculating cigarette costs in Canada. Published this month, it says the F.D.A. used cigarette excise tax rates, which rose significantly during the decade, instead of the prices actually paid by consumers, which fell. According to the study, that caused the F.D.A. to overestimate the effect of prices and underestimate the effect of graphic warnings.
(More here.)
A provocative new study has suggested that the Food and Drug Administration greatly underestimated how much graphic warning labels on cigarette packs reduced the rate of smoking among Canadians. As a result, the study says, the F.D.A. vastly underestimated the impact such warnings would have in the United States.
The interpretation of this data is crucial because a federal appeals court blocked the F.D.A.’s first attempt to require graphic warning labels on the grounds that the agency had shown no persuasive evidence that the warnings were likely to reduce smoking rates.
Most experts agree that the biggest deterrent to smoking is raising the cost of cigarettes. As a result, whatever impact graphic warnings had after they were introduced in Canada in 2000 depends heavily on the cost of cigarettes in that period.
The new study, carried out by researchers from the University of Illinois at Chicago and the University of Waterloo in Canada, argues that the F.D.A. erred in calculating cigarette costs in Canada. Published this month, it says the F.D.A. used cigarette excise tax rates, which rose significantly during the decade, instead of the prices actually paid by consumers, which fell. According to the study, that caused the F.D.A. to overestimate the effect of prices and underestimate the effect of graphic warnings.
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home