Smoke and Mirrors: First Amendment Protection of Commercial Speech and the FDA's New Graphic Warning Labels for Tobacco

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Daniel Coyle
Keyword(s):  
First Amendment ◽  
Warning Labels ◽  
Commercial Speech ◽  
Graphic Warning

scholarly journals The estimated effect of graphic warning labels on smoker’s intention to quit in Shanghai, China: a cross-sectional study

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruiping Wang ◽  
Yan Qiang ◽  
Yan Zhu ◽  
Xiangjin Gao ◽  
Qiong Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
Intention To Quit ◽  
Lower Percentage ◽  
Warning Labels ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Smoking Intensity ◽  
Graphic Warning ◽  
Cigarette Packs

Abstract Background Tobacco consumption is the leading cause of death worldwide. Overwhelming studies demonstrate graphic warning labels (GWLs) on cigarette packs are effective in eliciting negative response to tobacco smoking, modifying beliefs about tobacco dangers, and increasing reported intention to quit, but the estimated effect of GWLs on smoking cessation intention among smokers is still limited in China. In this study, we aim to understand the smoking intensity, smoking duration and smoking cessation intention among current smokers, and to explore how their smoking cessation intention would be influenced by the GWLs in Shanghai. Methods From January to June 2021, we totally recruited 1104 current smokers in Songjiang district and Fengxian district of Shanghai by multistage sampling design. We used Android pad assisted electronic questionnaire for data collection, and then implemented logistic regression for odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) calculation to explore how smoking cessation intention would be influenced by the GWLs among current smokers. Results One thousand one hundred four current smokers included 914 males (82.79%), with an average age of 43.61 years. 58.06% of current smokers reported smoking cessation intention due to GWLs. Logistic regression indicated a higher percentage of smoking cessation intention due to GWLs was among female smokers [OR = 2.41, 95% CI (1.61–3.59)], smokers with smoking intensity < 20 cigarette/day [OR = 1.92, 95% CI (1.44–2.55)], smokers with tobacco burden < 20% [OR = 1.94, 95% CI (1.35–2.79)], and among smokers had plan to quit in a year [OR = 6.58, 95% CI (4.71–9.18). Smokers with higher individual monthly income had lower percentage of smoking cessation intention (OR were 0.35, 0.46 and 0.41). Meanwhile, among 642 current smokers without plan to quit in a year, approximately 40% of them reported smoking cessation intention due to GWLs. Conclusions Smoking cessation intention due to the assumed GWLs on cigarette packs is high among current smokers in Shanghai, especially in female smokers, smokers with light tobacco burden and mild nicotine dependence. Incorporating smoking intensity as well as smoking burden into the implementation of GWLs as tobacco control measures would discourage smoking in China.

scholarly journals Can Speech by FDA-Regulated Firms Ever Be Noncommercial?

2011 ◽  
Vol 37 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 388-421
Author(s):  
Nathan Cortez
Keyword(s):  
Drug Administration ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Regulatory Scheme ◽  
Commercial Speech ◽  
Federal Food ◽  
Regulated Firms ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Regulated Firm ◽  
Free Speech Rights

For over a century, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) and its precursors have regulated what companies say about their products. The FDA itself notes that the regulatory scheme imposed by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act “depends on the use of words” and that its requirements can “explicitly limit speech.” For seventy years, the FDA had little reason to worry about First Amendment constraints. But since 1976, when the Supreme Court reversed its longstanding position that the First Amendment does not protect commercial speech, the Agency has had to confront–perhaps more than any other federal agency–the free speech rights of regulated firms.But how far do those rights extend, and what room do they leave for regulators like the FDA? The answer largely depends on another question: Is the speech commercial or noncommercial? The distinction is paramount. If speech by a regulated firm is commercial, then the FDA can ensure that it is not false or misleading; the Agency can require or compel certain speech; it can impose prior restraints; and it can even limit truthful speech, all within certain parameters.

scholarly journals Should Graphic Warning Labels Proposed for Cigarette Packages Sold in the United States Mention the Food and Drug Administration?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mia Jovanova ◽  
Chris Skurka ◽  
Sahara Byrne ◽  
Motasem Kalaji ◽  
Amelia Greiner Safi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Middle School ◽  
Tobacco Control ◽  
Drug Administration ◽  
Source Credibility ◽  
Food And Drug Administration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Smoking Prevention ◽  
Warning Labels ◽  
The Us ◽  
Graphic Warning

Abstract Introduction Under the US Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has the authority to implement graphic warning labels (GWLs) on cigarette packages. Neither the original labels proposed by the FDA nor the revised labels include a source to indicate sponsorship of the warnings. This study tests the potential impact of adding a sponsor to the content of GWLs. Methods We recruited adult smokers (N = 245) and middle-school youth (N = 242) from low-income areas in the Northeastern US. We randomly assigned participants to view one of three versions of the original FDA–proposed warning labels in a between-subjects experiment: no sponsor, “US Food and Drug Administration,” or “American Cancer Society” sponsor. We tested the effect of varying sponsorship on source attribution and source credibility. Results Compared to unsponsored labels, FDA sponsorship increased source attributions that the FDA sponsored the labels among both middle-school, largely nonsmoking youth and adult smokers. However, sponsorship had no effect on source credibility among either population. Conclusions We found no evidence that adding FDA as the source is likely to boost source credibility judgments, at least in the short term; though doing so would not appear to have adverse effects on credibility judgments. As such, our data are largely consistent with the Tobacco Control Act’s provisions that allow, but do not require, FDA sponsorship on the labels. Implications This study addresses the FDA’s regulatory efforts by informing the possible design and content of future cigarette warning labels. Our results do not offer compelling evidence that adding the FDA name on GWLs will directly increase source credibility. Future work may test more explicit FDA source labeling and continue to examine the credibility of tobacco message content among high–priority populations.

scholarly journals Emotional Impact and Perceived Effectiveness of Text-Only versus Graphic Health Warning Tobacco Labels on Adolescents

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro Margalhos ◽  
Francisco Esteves ◽  
Jaime Vila ◽  
Patrícia Arriaga
Keyword(s):  
Smoking Status ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Emotional Impact ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Perceived Effectiveness ◽  
Warning Labels ◽  
Health Warnings ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Graphic Warning ◽  
Valence And Arousal

AbstractThe study of smoking in adolescence is of major importance as nicotine dependence often begins in younger groups. Tobacco health warnings have been introduced to inform people of the negative consequences of smoking. This study assessed the emotions and perceived effectiveness of two formats of tobacco warnings on adolescents: Text-only versus graphic warning labels. In addition, we analyzed how emotions predicted their perceived effectiveness. In a cross-sectional study, 413 adolescents (131 smokers, 282 non-smokers) between 13–20 years of age rated their emotions (valence and arousal) and perceived effectiveness towards a set of tobacco warnings. Results showed that graphic warnings evoked higher arousal than text-only warning labels (p = .038). Most of the warning labels also evoked unpleasantness with smokers reporting higher unpleasantness regarding text-only warnings compared to non-smokers (p = .002). In contrast, perceived effectiveness of the warnings was lower in smokers than in non-smokers (p = .029). Finally, high arousal and being a non-smoker explained 14% of the variance of perceiving the warnings more effective. Given the role that warnings may play in increasing health awareness, these findings highlight how smoking status and emotions are important predictors of the way adolescents consider tobacco health labels to be effective.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document