Home | Non-food | Lifestyle | No More "Light," "Low," or "Mild" Cigarettes

No More "Light," "Low," or "Mild" Cigarettes

Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font

No More "Light," "Low," or "Mild" Cigarettes

Tobacco Regulation

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, signed into law in 2009, prohibits the use of the terms "light," "low," "mild," and other similar descriptors in tobacco product labels or advertising.

Starting June 22, 2010, the law prohibits manufacturers from producing any tobacco products labeled or advertised as "light," "low," "mild," or any other similar descriptor. However, manufacturers are permitted to distribute existing products until July 21.

On July 22, 2010, the law prohibits the tobacco industry from distributing or introducing into the U.S. market any tobacco products for which the labeling or advertising contains the descriptors "light," "low," "mild," or any similar descriptor, irrespective of the date of manufacture. However, consumers may continue to see some products with these descriptors for sale in stores after July 22 because retailers are permitted to sell off their inventory.

A Brief History

Cigarettes labeled "light," "low," or "mild" are often called "low-yield" because they deliver less than 15 mg of tar when measured on a standardized smoking machine. Starting in the 1960s (after a 1964 historic Surgeon General’s report on smoking and health), cigarette manufacturers made changes in cigarette design to achieve and promote low-yield cigarettes. Design changes included adding different size and density filters, ventilation holes to dilute the smoke measured, and chemical additives in the paper and/or tobacco. Advertisements implied that the low-yield cigarettes (i.e., those labeled "light," "low," or "mild") were safer than regular cigarettes.

However, there is no convincing scientific evidence to indicate that low-yield cigarettes are safe. No cigarette design changes have resulted in a decrease in the diseases caused by smoking.

In response to the new law, some manufacturers have switched to color-coded packaging to market cigarettes formerly labeled "light," "low," or "mild." For example, one manufacturer is using lighter-colored packaging to represent the former "light" brand, and another is using the term "gold" to replace the term "light."

Protecting Public Health

Prohibiting the use of terms like "light," "low," and "mild" is an important step to help protect the public health. Many smokers mistakenly believe that cigarettes marketed with these descriptors cause fewer health problems than other cigarettes. Removing "light," "low," "mild," and other similar descriptors will help ensure that tobacco product labels and advertising are not misleading.

Although many smokers believe that these products are less harmful, studies have found that:

  • Smokers who use light cigarettes do not reduce their risk for developing smoking-related cancers and other diseases.
  • Switching to light cigarettes does not help smokers quit.
  • Switching to light cigarettes may actually decrease the motivation to quit (i.e., many smokers may have switched to light brands instead of quitting because they mistakenly believe that they are less harmful than "regular" or "full-flavor" cigarettes).

Each year, an estimated 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, and another 8.6 million live with a serious illness caused by smoking.

All cigarettes are harmful to your health—regardless of their taste, smell, label, or packaging color. There is no such thing as a safe cigarette.

Help to Quit

Millions of former smokers have successfully quit. In fact, today there are more former smokers than smokers. For help, visit www.smokefree.govExternal Web Site Icon or call 1-800-QUIT-NOW (1-800-784-8669; TTY 1-800-332-8615).

 

Subscribe to comments feed Comments (5 posted):

qaz668 on 07/24/2010 19:27:08
avatar
My mom smoked for 50 years and used to start every day with a fit of coughing. Someone told me about electronic cigarettes, so I ordered her one. She loves it. It's different from tobacco as there's no tar, no carbon monoxide and doesn't have all the yucky stuff in it like cigs do. She's been able to get away from tobacco and is now breathing much better. If you want to check it out, go to: http://CleanGreenNicotine.*** . They have more info on it. Highly recommended!
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
Ian on 07/26/2010 04:20:35
avatar
There are some serious irregularities here. Firstly the technology for the reduction of tar and nicotine has been available for some years but dismissed by the anti smoking lobby using the same unproven arguments as placed in this article. Numerous medical journals report the reduction of tar and nicotine helps 'reduce' associated risks. However the article is at odds with the reports on that available technology by suggesting low levels of tar and nicotine are equally as bad as full strength and the case is dismissed. So what is the intent of the lobbying 'Do as I say, give up or die'?

How many lives have been lost and could have been saved if the campaign utilized both the anti smoking message at the same time encouraging those that do choose to smoke to at least use those products that cause minimal damage. The anti smoking lobby are playing God with no real scrutiny of their recommendations nor consequence it would appear for the deaths that could have been avoided.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
Michael on 07/26/2010 06:01:33
avatar
Something is wrong with the antismoking science. It says on cigarette packs : smoking causes emphysema. I have been smoking for 64 years and I am 86 years old and I have no emphysema. There is a rule in medicine (Koch postulates) to accept that an agent is the cause of an illness all users should get it and nonusers should not which is not the case as nonsmokers get emphysema as well because itis caused by deficiency of alpha1 antitrypsin. Naturally all the other diseases attributed to smoking are not restricted to smokers and not all the smokers have it and non smokers get it aswell. If the cause of a disease is not known than it is caused by smoking. I do not think you will have the guts to publish this email.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
please explain on 07/26/2010 09:51:46
avatar
i dont understand how smoking a 1mg cigarette-the lightest- could be as bad as smoking a 15mg-strong- cigarette?
i know theres the same amount of chemical additives,but surely there is less tar and nicotine absorbed in the 1mg one?it hurts my throat bad to smoke the stronger cigs hence smoking thing the b&h "Ultimates"-1mg.im not ready to give up totally yet(ive smoked for 6 years)
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
Electronic Sally on 07/27/2010 10:44:58
avatar
Great article. Its like saying a drop of acid wont kill you or it's just one bullet.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0

Post your comment comment

Please enter the code you see in the image:

  • email Email to a friend
  • print Print version
  • Plain text Plain text
Newsletter
Email:
Tags
No tags for this article

Rate this article
0