Sorry FDA, grotesque cigarette labels will not prevent anyone from smoking

Bloody urine, rotten lungs and amputated limbs are among the 13 images this will soon decorate all packs of cigarettes – that is, if the Food and Drug Administration succeeds.

The agency is trying to further reduce the smoking rate by making these grotesque representations on the cigarette warning labels, illustrating the potential consequences of regular cigarette use. Here's the problem: their approach is unlikely to work, and it will likely result in a new lawsuit that will cost the FDA and taxpayers millions of dollars.

It turns out that adding images to existing tobacco warnings has little additional effect on current smokers, according to a report. Study of BMJ journals and the National Center for Social Research. Of course, there are some subtle behavioral changes. Embarrassed smokers tend to hide their cigarette packets when they have the image of a decaying organ on the front. But there is no clear or obvious reduction in the use of mandatory lousy labeling.

Nevertheless, FDA leaders insist that their plan succeed. They often mention Canada's supposed success in labeling as proof that we should do the same.

Stanton Glantz, a researcher at the University of California at San Francisco, whose program has recently received $ 20 million of the FDA to study the harmful effects of tobacco, commented on a trial the FDA lost to RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company in 2012, when it first attempted to ask for warning images: "In Canada's experience, if the United States had put in place graphic 2012 [Canadian] law, there would have been 5.3 [to] 8.6 million fewer adult smokers in 2013 ".

But Canada has not even been so successful. After requiring companies to post similar images on packaging in 2001, Canada only saw a decline of about 2% smoking rate the following year, similar to the decreases observed elsewhere without such rules. And after the United Kingdom introduced similar images in 2008, he was actually stable, not decreasing, smoking rate for five years.

The warning images therefore do not have the quick impact suggested by the defenders. They are incredibly embarrassing for people who are already dealing with a very real problem that affects their health. Who helps?

Americans know what they are getting into when they smoke. To his credit, the FDA has already educated US consumers about the dangers of smoking.

In fact, when smokers are asked how many years their life expectancy is reduced by cigarette consumption, they usually overestimate the consequences. Young people are not as attracted to smoking as before, that's why smoking rate in America among young people have fallen more than 75% since 2000. Even among adults, the rate has dropped more than 25%.

Americans are obviously already disappointed with cigarettes, so why are these grotesque images needed?

The FDA is clearly drunk by its regulatory power. But if the agency wants to do something good, it should focus on what has already proven successful in reducing cigarette use.

For adults, this means allowing access to safer alternatives to cigarettes such as electronic cigarettes. It is true that the FDA has not yet clinically confirmed that e-cigarettes are effective devices to reduce smoking, such as nicotine gum and patches, but some studies show that they could even be more effective. And the recent incredible decline of sale of cigarettes is similarly attributable to vaping.

In the end, it is common knowledge that cigarettes are harmful to health. This is why adding images to warning labels did not help reduce smoking rates. Previous FDA attempts to require images have been rejected for reasons related to the First Amendment, as labeling mandates do indeed dictate a discourse that companies may not wish to engage.

That said, it may be useful to consider this type of explicit product warning if it does something useful. But, with no data showing that they are doing it, the FDA and taxpayers risk losing another multi-million dollar lawsuit for nothing.

Jacob Rich is a policy analyst at the Reason Foundation and a contributor to Young Voices.