Tobacco Documents Online

I~EW YORK Ne~ York, New Code for C~garettes p~ ~k at ~e F~ ~ d~ ~a~g ~ aide pae~ ~d ~ only ~ ~ ~ ~e F.T.~. o~ is ~t it ~t ~e ~e me~ ~ ~ ~ ~ by ~e ~t~ ~; it ~ not ~n~ ~ o~ ~e ~¢co lobby ~ f~8 ~ dd~t it iffi ~e ~u~ ~e m~od~ ~ whom ~ a ~ ~d ~M~ ~. ti~. Yet the ~ ~ ~e B~n ~e~, pl~ l~ ~ d~ ~8t ~e ~e ~ ~ve~ ts of on ~vlduM ~o~ It ~ not ~ou~ ~k. I~ b~ ~ ~¢~ ~ ~e ~ which ~uld done by a ~gher ~du ~ or by d~ ~ moke ~ ~ey ~ ~w, but at 1~ ~d~ ~e F.T,~ ~ ~ ~ ~d ~ A~. ~ ~e u~tlai ~ • W ~e ~ ~e ff n~ aett~ly ~flle, ~ A~OU mug ~e I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ P~ ~ ~ help to ~ ~ • ~e ~m~. b~ ~ ~e public, ~sr~ the ~, ts at ~e. ~e ~ve~ent m~t play t~ Washington ~ D.C. J~ne 27, 196~ To Tell the Truth Page The out.rage of the cigarette industry over the new Federal Trade CuJnma~slop regulations is ~urely a bit overdone. Obviously, the Industry is unhappy ~th the )'I'C'a ruling that beginning next year a prominent warning mnst be placed on all cigarette pack~, and that by July, 1965, a zlmtJar ,earning must be included in all cigarette advertising. It may be that the requirements are unwise: but it is hard to see how they can be termed an unlawful act of regulation. For years, the FTC has dealt with the sensitive problem of truth in advertising, and for year~ It has been especi~y concerned with deceptive practices in cigarette advertising An imposing series of court deeisless has upheld the Commie. aion'a fight to protest the eon~amer frem deoep- tire claims that smoking was semebew beneficial to health end even weight.sliuuuing. Last January.. a bins-ribbon comm/ttee appointed by the Surgeon General reperted its conclusion that there was o causal connectien between cig. nrette smoking and lung cancer. This determina- tion was net lightly or arbitrarily made: it was based on exbausUve study of oil available ev~. denc~, And this Judgment presented an obvious proble~ to the FTC, since failure to disclose aerial facts about a product ten.totes one of the practices that the Conunisstou is tnstrueted by law to prehibit. The feet that Congress also IS eonsldering iegislstien hardly pre-empts ~e field. The more difficult question ~s wlsether the new requirements ore "~lse. Admittedly. the labeling provision raises some philosophic problems, though it is torturing logic to suggest that automobile udvemsing m,lht, also contain th~ warning that car accidents can cause death. The important dtsll~cUon is that tragic accidents result from normal circumstances, whereas lung cancer can result frem what the cil~arelle industry would re~ gard as e perfectly normal daily quoth ef cigarettss. ~tl~er, the ph/insophic problem lies in the enemies that beset the whole question of tobacco. As the industry itself potnt~ out, mllliom of per- sons are dependent on sale of tobsceo, and elg. araite sales pour some $3.2 blllinn annually into Federal. state and local rases. Moreover, the Gov. er~re.ent is deeply involved in eneournging, through the iarm program, the very crop which when processed h branded es e menace to health by another orm of the Federal Gevernment But these are poradesea with which the FTC cannot be expected to grapple. Whet was before the Commission was the n~rro~ser quentin, of whether the American consumer is entitled to know the hazard he risks in cigarette smoking. After due deliberation, the FTC is asking the cig- arette industry to tell the truth. Since we have been for ~ ~ong bombarded with ad.ertising designed to make us adopt the habit. It hardly seems outrageously unfair In require o little more sander in the luture to atone for what cannot be undene in the east.