title: Philip Morris' FDA gambit: good for public health?
abstract: The objective of this study was to determine whether the 2004 USA Dewine-Kennedy Bill is congruent with Philip Morris' core policy principles for United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation of tobacco and what impact that would have on the public health. I compared the Dewine-Kennedy Bill with 1999 Philip Morris core policy principles for FDA regulation. Additional supporting data on FDA regulation from 1998 to the present were collected from previously secret tobacco industry documents, relevant newspaper reports from Nexis-Lexis, federal statutes, and federal regulations. The main outcome measure of the study is a comparison, summary, and analysis of the Dewine-Kennedy Bill with Philip Morris' core principles for FDA regulation, and the result is that the Dewine-Kennedy Bill is compatible with almost all of Philip Morris' core principles on FDA regulation. In conclusion, The Dewine-Kennedy Bill, at best, was mixed in terms of the enhancement of the public health. On the one hand, proponents of this legislation argued stronger FDA regulatory requirements would have some effect on reducing youth and adult tobacco consumption. On the other hand, tobacco products would have remained a politically and economically viable and legal product consumed by millions of Americans many of whom would have continued to suffer from tobacco-related illnesses and deaths.
authors.affiliation: Department of Political Science, The University of Oklahoma, 455 West Lindsey, Room 2I7, Norman, USA. mgivel@ou.edu
authors.forename: Michael
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Givel
mesh_terms: D033161:Government Regulation; D006801:Humans; D011634:Public Health / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000639:trends; D011640:Public Policy; D018570:Risk Assessment; D040242:Risk Reduction Behavior; D019460:Tobacco Industry / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D014481:United States; D014486:United States Food and Drug Administration