English
Italiano "Eat this soup or jump out of the window!"
At the local store in the USA, cigarette brands are few but “carefully selected” ones.
The U.S. market finds its grotesque paradox in tobacco
“Eat this soup or jump out of the window!” A popular Italian saying that means: you have no choise.
In Switzerland, a citizen can choose the cigarette he wants to be addicted to from an assortment that includes hundreds of national and foreign brands; in New York a smoker can find fewer than 10 choices on the shelves of his local store and he is compelled to get used to one of these. Then, when he has become addicted, he can always find "his" brand. Brilliant!
In the past in the Soviet Union, the only available cigarettes were the socialist ones. Today in U.S., the only available cigarettes that smokers can buy are the ones of Big Tobacco.
This is because Consumer Protection management has been entrusted to “The Family”, of a small group composed of the producers of the few winning brands that have earned a place on those nearly bare shelves.
And this happens almost all over the world. Competitive free marketplace? Copyright protection? Racketeering?
The famous 18th century philosopher was referring to cases like this when he affirmed that: "It is difficult to draw a line that separates business from theft".
In "Big Tobacco's Last Battle", a suit brought by the US government, worth an improbable sum of 280 billion dollars, against the five main cigarette manufacturers (those who won the places on the local store shelves), there is no reference to these shelves.
The colossi cannot disclose their recipes and the dates and places of production of their tobacco without disastorous consequences to their iron grip on the market. If they described the contents of their cigarettes, now the approximate formula "Nicotine + recycled waste + artificial flavors", the consumer would frantically seek out other brands to be addicted to. Imagine the chaos there would be on the shelves!
Step 1: "HELP"
Since 1997, the tobacco industry has given more than 28,7 million dollars in political contributions to federal candidates, national parties and non-party political action committees. This total includes $16.8 million in soft money and more than $11.8 million in Political Action Committee (PAC) contributions. Since 1999, tobacco companies have spent more than $112 million to lobby the U.S. Congress.
Step 2: "BEING HELPED"
The impact of the tobacco industry's contributions is evident in the recent debate on the legislation that gives to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to regulate tobacco products.
A House-Senate conference committee defeated the FDA legislation at the beginning of this month, when the majority of the Senate voted in favor, but the House majority did not.
The Conference members who voted against the FDA legislation had received in contributions from the political action committee (PAC) of the Tobacco industry $27,255, on average five times more than those who had voted in favor, with an average of $5,505.
Conference committee members who voted against FDA authority and received the largest tobacco industry contributions from 1999 to 2004 include Rep. Richard Burr (R-NC), $95,750; Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), $49,000; Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY), $47,241; Rep. Phil Crane (R-IL), $39,500; and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), $33,000.
Most of the conferees who voted against FDA regulation received a major portion of their tobacco industry contributions from R.J. Reynolds and other companies opposed to FDA regulation.
Richard Burr, for example, received, legally, contributions from: ALTRIA POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, ASWORTH CORPORATION, BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO, CIGAR-PAC, DIMON INCORPORATED PAC, LOEWS CORPORATION/LORILLARD, RJR POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, STANDARD COMMERCIAL TOBACCO, SWEDISH MATCH TOBACCO COMPANY, SWISHER INTERNATIONAL INC PAC, U.S. TOBACCO EXECUTIVES, UNIVERSAL LEAF TOBACCO COMPANY.
From Bad to Worse
Herès another reason why the colossi cannot disclose everything about their cigarettes. Legislation passed by Congress on October 17th 2004 abolished the obligation of inspection of imported tobacco; this inspection was supposed to keep out of the country products treated with pesticides that are forbidden in the USA but that may be permitted in other countries.
"This means that imported tobacco, that is becoming more and more a base for American companies, could lead to the production of cigarettes that are even more harmful, says Tom Glynn, director of the department of Science and Trends for the American Cancer Society.
About 60 of the 4000 chemical substances that are freed in the combustion of cigarettes are tied to cancer. The result of adding more additives to this number will lead to a product that is already toxic, that will become even more toxic.
The Agriculture Department, the Homeland Security Department and the Food and Drug Administration all have authority to inspect other imported agricultural products to ensure they meet U.S. standards. Officials at those agencies said they did not know of another agricultural product that comes into this country without some kind of inspection… INCREDIBLE!
The Network
Consumers today can find the most complete selection of products only on Internet. But there seems no political will to give rules to Internet.
U.S. Newswire has written: "The problem of contraband and Internet sales of tobacco products is a serious one that Congress should address. But the approach advocated by Philip Morris and Rep. Blunt, and that is taken by similar legislation recently introduced by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), is narrowly written to protect only Philip Morris' commercial interests, and not the broader public health or state government interests involved".
Grotesque
In the Soviet Union, at least, the cigarettes on sale were the socialist ones "in the interest of the collective good", and it was unthinkable that the authorities did not have the power to be informed on their make-up / ingredients.
But in the USA today the cigarettes displayed on the bare store shelves of the home of the free market are the brands chosen in the interest of no one knows who. (an undislosed few)
Meanwhile, the Food and Drug Administration attempts in vain to apply the law but, for mysterious reasons it never succeeds.
No Comments