FDA underestimated net benefits of warning labels on cigarette packaging

August 7, 2014, University of Michigan
smoking, cigarette

A paper released today by leading economists concludes that the Food and Drug Administration's controversial cost-benefit analysis of its graphic warning label regulation grossly underestimated the net benefits associated with implementing its own rule.

The authors, including Kenneth Warner from the U-M School of Public Health, stress that the FDA's approach, which counted the lost pleasure from smokers who quit as a cost of the graphic warning labels (GWLs), is a major flaw that severely undercuts the estimated benefits of the proposed rule. The authors urge the FDA to consider their findings in analyses of future proposed tobacco product regulations.

"The FDA estimate relies on standard economic models, but those don't apply well to cigarette smoking," said co-author Frank Chaloupka, director of the Health Policy Center at University of Illinois-Chicago. "For example, if labels effectively move smokers to quit or cut back, the FDA's analysis actually considers this to be a cost attributed to lost pleasure, rather than a benefit—that's a serious mistake.

"Consumers choosing to quit shows that they are deriving more utility from quitting than from continuing to smoke. Hence, their quitting produces benefits to them that exceed any potential lost consumer surplus."

According to the authors, the FDA's reliance on lost consumer surplus, "lost pleasure," that would result from reduced tobacco use, is a critical concern. Consumer surplus reflects the difference between people's willingness to pay for a product and the actual price they pay in the marketplace.

The authors say for most smokers it's inappropriate for the FDA to reduce the estimated benefits of its proposed GWL rule due to lost consumer surplus or "lost pleasure" because it's likely that the vast majority of smokers do not find smoking pleasurable and derive little consumer surplus from smoking.

These findings are explained in part because starting to smoke can be an irrational decision. Most smokers start at a young age and aren't well-informed rational consumers who understand the addictive power of nicotine or the health and economic consequences of smoking.

The evaluation, which was supported by a grant to U-M from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, discusses other concerns about FDA's cost-benefit analysis of its proposed GWL rule, which also apply more broadly to other tobacco regulation.

—The FDA's evaluation of the impact of GWLs on smoking prevalence underestimated the impact by a factor of 30 or more. The FDA estimated that the GWL rule would reduce smoking by 0.4 percent; more recent analysis indicates that the figure should be 12 percent or higher.

—The FDA omitted many potentially important benefits. The FDA failed to consider how GWLs would reduce exposure to second-hand smoke; this reduction could potentially prevent thousands of deaths and save $1.7 billion in lost productivity per year. Reductions in maternal smoking during pregnancy were ignored; the cost of several health care services needed to treat diseases caused by smoking were omitted; and the reduction in the number of cigarettes nonquitters will smoke each day was not considered in the FDA's analysis.

—The FDA further underestimated the benefits of its GWL rule by spreading the reduction in all benefits out uniformly over a period of decades. Discounting thereby diminishes the benefits. In fact, several benefits from quitting are realized rapidly. For example, the risk of a heart attack or stroke is immediately reduced after quitting and most excess risk is gone within one to five years.

"It's critical for the FDA to fully understand the substantial health and economic benefits of graphic warning labels and of future tobacco product regulations," said co-author Warner, U-M professor of health management and policy. "Most of the concerns we raise apply to evaluating the costs and benefits of other tobacco rules, especially the inappropriate handling of lost consumer surplus. We believe the FDA should consider our concerns in future analyses."

The paper, "An Evaluation of FDA's Analysis of the Costs and Benefits of the Graphic Warning Label Regulation," was submitted as a public comment on the FDA's proposed rule to assert authority over all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes.

Explore further: Graphic warning labels on cigarette packs could lead to 8.6 million fewer smokers in US‏‏‏

Related Stories

Graphic warning labels on cigarette packs could lead to 8.6 million fewer smokers in US‏‏‏

November 25, 2013
A research paper published in the scientific journal Tobacco Control, "Cigarette graphic warning labels and smoking prevalence in Canada: a critical examination and reformulation of the FDA regulatory impact analysis", shows ...

New study explores physician attitudes about use of e-cigarettes

July 31, 2014
Physicians are increasingly discussing and recommending electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) as cessation devices for their patients, but more research needs to be done on their efficacy and safety, according to a new survey ...

FDA extending comment period on e-cigarette rules

June 21, 2014
The public will have more time to weigh in on a federal proposal to regulate electronic cigarettes and other tobacco products.

FDA's 'first step' on tobacco rule is positive but not big enough, says the American Heart Association

April 25, 2014
American Heart Association CEO Nancy Brown issued the following comments today on the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) proposed rule to regulate e-cigarettes, cigars and other tobacco products:

The bigger the better: Cigarette warning labels prompt quit attempts

July 10, 2014
Cigarette warning labels can influence a smoker to try to quit even when the smoker is trying to avoid seeing the labels, according to a survey of thousands of adult smokers in four countries published by the American Psychological ...

FDA proposes first regulations for e-cigarettes (Update 2)

April 24, 2014
The U.S. government wants to ban sales of electronic cigarettes to minors and require approval for new products and health warning labels.

Recommended for you

Placental accumulation of flame retardant chemical alters serotonin production in rats

January 22, 2018
A North Carolina State University-led research team has shown a connection between exposure to a widely used flame retardant chemical mixture and disruption of normal placental function in rats, leading to altered production ...

Marijuana use does not lower chances of getting pregnant

January 22, 2018
Marijuana use—by either men or women—does not appear to lower a couple's chances of getting pregnant, according to a new study led by Boston University School of Public Health (BUSPH) researchers.

Americans are getting more sleep

January 19, 2018
Although more than one in three Americans still don't get enough sleep, a new analysis shows first signs of success in the fight for more shut eye. According to data from 181,335 respondents aged 15 and older who participated ...

Wine is good for you—to a point

January 18, 2018
The Mediterranean diet has become synonymous with healthy eating, but there's one thing in it that stands out: It's cool to drink wine.

Sleep better, lose weight?

January 17, 2018
(HealthDay)—Sleeplessness could cost you when it's time to stand on your bathroom scale, a new British study suggests.

Who uses phone apps to track sleep habits? Mostly the healthy and wealthy in US

January 16, 2018
The profile of most Americans who use popular mobile phone apps that track sleep habits is that they are relatively affluent, claim to eat well, and say they are in good health, even if some of them tend to smoke.

1 comment

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

not rated yet Aug 07, 2014
Unfortunately, the FDA, like every other government agency, can be manipulated by politics. Tobacco use is any form is a clear and present danger; we've know this since the 1970's. Big Tobacco and their political allies in Congress have dragged this out for 40 years. Our political system in Washington does not lend itself to quick solutions to critical problems. We see this every day when Congress cannot reach conscience on immigration, gay marriage, water rights, or any number of other issues. Science and politics have never worked well together. I doubt that this will change any time some.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.