Big Tobacco continues to use the framing approach in the kind of smooth, professional way that makes the rest of us look like over-enthusiastic school-kids. This time, they're fighting the F.D.A. by supporting the F.D.A. - genius.

The campaign centers on popular moves by congress to bring tobacco products under the regulatory authority of the Food and Drugs Administration. Essentially, there is a regulatory vacuum in the United States at the moment - while the American Food and Drug Administration is able to apply basic health requirements to many food, drugs and cosmetic items, they have no powers to regulate tobacco products. As a result, Big Tobacco is able to produce products that appeal to children, make wild health claims, resist calls to reduce or remove certain ingredients, and generally make a nuisance of itself in a bid to keep a steady stream of new customers coming in.

A pair of identical, bipartisan bills (a quirky American stunt from what I understand, perhaps one of my American readers can explain this better in the comments?) have been introduced into Congress to give the F.D.A. the powers that it needs, but the idea that the F.D.A. should regulate tobacco is obviously a big problem for the Tobacco Industry. If the agency gained the mandate, then all sorts of sneaky tactics would be cut off at a stroke, and profits would suffer. The F.D.A.'s "draconian" new powers would allow it to:

• Restrict tobacco advertising and promotions, especially to children.
• Stop illegal sales of tobacco products to children.
• Ban candy-flavored cigarettes, which clearly are starter products for young new smokers.
• Require changes in tobacco products, such as the removal of harmful ingredients or the reduction of nicotine levels.
• Prohibit health claims about so-called "reduced risk" products that are not scientifically proven or that would discourage current tobacco users from quitting or encourage new users to start.
• Require tobacco companies to disclose the contents of tobacco products, changes to their products and research about the health effects of their products.
• Require larger and more informative health warnings on tobacco products.
• Prohibit terms such as "light", "mild" and "low-tar" that mislead consumers into believing that certain cigarettes are safer than others.

Clearly all this has the Big Tobacco chiefs coughing and spluttering, much like many of their disease-ridden customers. So in response, they've financed a range of T.V. adverts and a website. Their framing strategy is brilliant. Instead of directly attacking the idea of regulation - which would be an obviously non-starter - they point to recent concerns raised about the F.D.A. (for an example read one of my first posts, on Heparin), and suggest that adding this regulatory burden would bring a struggling agency to its knees. One suspects they would make the same complaints about whichever agency was to be put in charge.

Tommy Payne, who some readers may be vaguely familiar with as the man who signed a number of famous letters giving cheques to various pro-tobaccor lobbyists (see here and here for example) spoke to the New York Times:

'A spokesman for Reynolds, Tommy Payne, said the company hoped that some members of Congress would see the ad and ask, "Is this the best time to pass this legislation, given the problems we have with the core mission of the F.D.A.?" Mr. Payne would not say how much the company is spending on the ad campaign. "It’s enough to convey the message," he said.'

The ad is up on youtube, and it's really quite staggering. The message is that American lives will be lost if the bill goes ahead. Honestly.

If that wasn't enough, the campaign website lists a number of critical facts, such as "Fact: The nation’s food supply is at risk." and "Fact: FDA plays a central role in protecting the nation from the potential effects of terrorist attacks". The implication again is that if tobacco products are subjected to FDA regulation, then the whole agency will collapse and Americans will starve and die of anthrax and blah blah blah.

It doesn't seem to occur to them that this is only an issue if, for some reason, the tobacco companies are hard to regulate. Or that an alternative might be to, say, campaign for more FDA funding. Still, it's a simple soundbite that will no doubt strike a chord with a lot of people, and it'll be interesting to see just how well it works...