About a month ago a New York Times reporter mentioned that the Food and Drug Administration intended to ask for presidential approval to work toward mandating a “drastic reduction” in the amount of nicotine to be allowed in American-made cigarettes. The FDA has been suggesting this for at least two years. According to The New York Times,

The agency’s aim was to slash the addictive nicotine to a level that would make cigarettes undesirable, helping people to quit smoking and cutting the rate of smoking beyond its current, historic low.

It goes without saying that almost everything in Washington will change to a greater or lesser extent once the new administration takes over. Journalist Christina Jewett noted that, due to the large number of special requests that customarily flood the White House just prior to a change of leadership, this one was made in more of a “wishful and symbolic” spirit, presumably so the agency could avoid criticism by appearing to try something meaningful.

She also mentioned that a proposal from any agency that needs review by the budget office would probably take months to work its way through that maze. On the other hand, an opinion piece by Brian Williams in a Wisconsin newspaper cites the reasons for asserting that…

In reality, the federal government has the authority to enact this change immediately. The Tobacco Control Act allows the FDA to adopt specific tobacco product standards if it is “appropriate for the protection of public health.”

Meanwhile, one particular cigarette company has given heavy financial support to the president-elect. Coincidentally, this is the same corporation that sells the most popular menthol cigarettes, which some reformers have been trying for years to get rid of, because the menthol makes smoking less aggravating to both the user and others in the area.

The argument there is, if the inhaled smoke were more abrasive, more people would abandon the habit, and the total cost to the government for health care would be reduced. Fans of menthol, on the other hand, have warned that the Black vote would be affected, because that segment of the population heavily favors menthol.

Similarly, any attempt to reduce the amount of nicotine in each cigarette will surely be met with vigorous resistance. On the other hand, at least one influential proposed member of the new administration is unhappy with the enormous and seemingly disproportionate government support that has been given to the tobacco industry. Naturally, this bias has been noticed by many other individuals and organizations.

Williams writes;

A World Health Organization study estimated in 2023 that the U.S. Agriculture Department allocated $437 million in subsidies to tobacco farmers from 2015 through 2020.

The reporter took a statement from Erika Sward, of the American Lung Association, who said,

We know that candy flavors and the marketing that tobacco companies do are what attracts kids and young adults to try tobacco products. But it’s the nicotine that attracts them and addicts them in this lifelong battle with attempts to quit and with tobacco-caused disease.

The arguments that warn of potential financial disaster in the cigarette market might not be valid. Typically, a business receives adequate warning about such changes in requirements — and plenty of time to make adjustments in their equipment, infrastructure, purchases of supplies and ingredients, number of employees, etc.

Also, critics of the nicotine reduction concept have voiced numerous objections including these typical ones garnered from the comments section of an article on the topic:

Alcohol prohibition didn’t work either…

Countless dictators have found that this does not work.

Joe Biden told reporters: Listen Jack, I’m banning cigarettes so people can smoke more pot, do drugs and become democrats.

Bans of products in demand create instant black markets and its inevitable violence.

Ban cigarettes… but give out free needles and make safe places to inject the drugs…

Yet [B]iden ignores the costliest component of healthcare, fat people.

Actually, this proposal is not about “prohibition” but about nicotine reduction. The other remarks, and many more like them, are just alarmist and irrelevant.

And then, there is this, from a two-day-old MSN story:

The Biden administration is a step closer to lowering the amount of nicotine in cigarettes after an 11th-hour proposal cleared a key White House review….The proposal cleared an Office of Management and Budget review on Friday, paving the way for FDA commissioner Robert Califf to issue it before the Trump administration takes control.

Written by Pat Hartman. First published January 10, 2025.

Sources:

“F.D.A. Tries Last-Ditch Move to Slash Nicotine Levels in Cigarettes,” The New York Times, December 11, 2024.

“Trump took on big tobacco before and won,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, January 9, 2025.

“Biden admin working to effectively ban cigarettes in 11th hour proposal a ‘gift’ to cartels, expert says,” Fox News, January 7, 2025.

“Late rule to lower nicotine in cigarettes clears hurdle,” MSN.com, January 7, 2025.

Image Copyright: Staffan Scherz/Attribution 2.0 Generic.