Graphic Pictures on Cigarette Labels Banned...For Now

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, in its wisdom and aching desire to rid the nation of cigarette smoke, had issued new guidelines for warnings required on cigarette packages and advertisement, set to go into effect September 2012. The guidelines require the inclusion of graphic images on packaging and advertising material of the effects of smoking, including a body in the morgue, a mouth with cancer and a man with a tracheotomy.

I applaud the underlying goals of the graphic image warnings: to keep kids from smoking and encouraging smokers to quit. I think the method chosen to do this is inappropriate. Today, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon agreed, blocking the measure from going into action until a lawsuit brought by tobacco makers can be heard.

Tobacco companies have filed a lawsuit against the requirement for graphic images based on the First Amendment's right to free speech.

Imagine if every bottle, can or pitcher of alcohol contained graphic pictures, such as mangled cars and bodies. Would Twinkies and other junk food soon contain pictures of obese people, clogged arteries and fatty livers?

Whatever your stance is on tobacco smoking, how do you feel about the use of graphic images on packaging?

EU Bans BPA: FDA Still Studies the Issue

There are sufficient indications that bisphenol-A, or BPA, poses threats to the health of humans that the European Union, with its 27 member countries, have banned the chemical's use in the manufacture of baby bottles beginning March 2011. Canada was the first country to do so, along with France, Denmark and some of the U.S. states. It's the federal government who just can't seem to get on-board with the ban.

A January 2010 statement issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about its position on the use of bisphenol-A is the manufacture of plastic food storage containers basically said that the federal department was waiting on the outcome of further research. The FDA is also welcoming public input on the topic. There is also a link provided in the statement for those who wish to better understand and act proactively on BPA.

Much scientific research has already been conducted on the untoward effects of this chemical that is a synthetic estrogen substance. Read more here...and here...and here. There is much more research available to the general public--and surely to the FDA.

Senator Dianne Feinstein of California tried to add an amendment to a food safety bill up for vote, but the American Chemistry Council lobby squashed that attempt.

Is it also big business that is affecting the slowness of the FDA's move to ban bisphenol-A in the manufacture of baby bottles and children's cups? And why stop there? Shouldn't the chemical be banned in all manufacture--and not just in the United States, but in any products it imports?

There are so many things that capture the general public's attention, not the least of which is the current economic situation, but let's not be dissuaded from voicing our concerns to our elected officials on this important health topic. It's common sense.

Additional reading on bisphenol-A.