The study authors attack the cigarette companies for substituting another term in the brand name for their products after removing the offending terms ("lights," "ultra-lights," "mild," etc.). But what they fail to acknowledge is that in order to comply with the law, the cigarette companies had no other choice. Had they simply removed the offending descriptor, this would have resulted in their having four or five brands with the exact same name, preventing consumers from having any way to distinguish these brands. Such a result would have effectively removed these brands from the market, which was clearly not the intent of Congress. Had Congress intended to remove these brands from the market, it would have simply banned these brands altogether.

Hopefully, the FDA will not be swayed by this nonsense.

Nevertheless, the anti-smoking groups insist that the tobacco industry funding should have been disclosed. For one, they argue that section 5 of the form insists that authors disclose any other conflicts of interest, even if they occurred prior to the past three years. Second, they argue that the history of funding by tobacco companies is well within the spirit of the disclosure requirement and that the authors have an obligation to let readers know that in the past, they have had financial relationships with Big Tobacco.

LAST：Easily Test Tobeco Cartomizers and Atomizers ohm Meter E-Cig-Test |NEXT：2014 popular disposable 808d 1 pcc kit