Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Tob Control. 2007 Aug;16(4):275-9.

Implications of the federal court order banning the terms "light" and "mild": what difference could it make?

Author information

  • 1Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California, 530 Parnassus Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94143-1390, USA.

Abstract

Federal District Judge Gladys Kessler found that the major American tobacco companies violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, defrauding the public by deceptively marketing "light" cigarettes. Judge Kessler's ruling prohibits the defendant tobacco companies from implying health benefits through using misleading terms such as "light", "mild" or "low-tar", or through other indirect means. This ruling could be interpreted narrowly as simply prohibiting certain words, or could be interpreted broadly as prohibiting implying health benefits by any other means, including colour, numbers or images. It is important to include indirect communications, as tobacco companies easily circumvent narrow advertising bans. A narrow interpretation would be inconsistent with the court's comprehensive factual findings of fraudulent intent by the industry. A broad interpretation of the Order, including existing brands, line extensions and new tobacco products such as potential reduced exposure products that are marketed as "cigarettes", Judge Kessler's order could make a substantial contribution to protecting health.

PMID:
17652244
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PMCID:
PMC2598546
Free PMC Article
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for HighWire Icon for PubMed Central
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk