`
Former U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy advocated for updated warning labels on alcoholic beverages in January, citing the need to inform the public about the link between alcohol and cancer, a connection many are unaware of. This action is potentially life-saving.
However, experiences with tobacco regulation suggest that caution is warranted. The initial labeling of cigarette packages was considered a public health victory, but the law’s vague warning (“Caution: Cigarette Smoking May be Hazardous to Your Health”) did little to curb smoking and instead hindered more effective regulations, strengthening the tobacco industry’s position. The Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965 primarily benefited Big Tobacco.
In the early 1960s, nearly half of Americans smoked, despite growing evidence of tobacco’s link to cancer. The 1964 Surgeon General’s report definitively linked smoking to lung cancer, convincing a large percentage of Americans about the health risks. This report also spurred regulatory actions, including FTC scrutiny of tobacco advertising and state-level restrictions on cigarette promotion, according to Harvard University history of science professor Allan Brandt.
While figures like Sens. Maurine Neuberger and Warren Magnuson championed the cause in Congress, the tobacco industry successfully pushed the 1965 law through, recognizing the inevitability of government intervention but preferring the more amenable legislative route. Michael Pertschuk, a Senate staffer, described the bill as “a sorry piece of tobacco knavery” in his book, noting that the tobacco industry got exactly what it wanted.
By 1966, cigarette sales reached a record high, and the FTC found “virtually no evidence” that the warning labels had any significant impact.
The law prevented state and local governments from implementing stricter labels and gave the tobacco industry significant legal protection. The industry later argued that the labels provided sufficient warning to the public about the risks of smoking.
The New York Times called the law “a shocking piece of special-interest legislation,” designed to protect the tobacco industry from proper regulation. An Atlantic Monthly article described it as “The Quiet Victory of the Cigarette Lobby.”
This pattern of the industry co-opting public health measures continued with other tobacco policies. For example, in 1969, Congress banned cigarette advertising on TV and radio. The Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to provide free airtime to anti-smoking advocates, who effectively encouraged people to quit. Tobacco companies, unable to collectively halt advertising due to antitrust concerns or individually without losing market share, saw banning broadcast advertising as the best option.
The tobacco industry “acceded” to this law, allowing Congress a moral victory, but smoking rates increased after the ban, according to economist Kenneth Warner. Smoking rates decreased by 7.2% in the three years before the ban, but increased over the three years that followed.
Over time, cigarette package warning labels were strengthened, both in wording and variety. In 1984, Congress introduced four new labels, acknowledging the ineffectiveness of the old ones. While this seemed to signal a decline in Big Tobacco’s influence, the fundamental issue of efficacy remained. Experts deemed the labels “woefully deficient” and “virtually invisible.”
From Big Tobacco’s perspective, conceding to this bill might have helped the industry stave off more pernicious tax hikes. Some argue that taxes are more effective at helping people quit smoking than labeling. Tobacco taxes actually declined in real terms in the 1980s and 1990s, despite repeated pushes for increases.
The key takeaway from tobacco policy is that reform requires vigilance to avoid inadvertently benefiting the industry. It’s about standing firm against special interests co-opting public health language for self-serving “compromises.”
When implemented correctly, warning labels are valuable as public acknowledgment of a product’s harms and as a catalyst for further action, even if they don’t dramatically change behavior. In a society bombarded with conflicting information but sensitive to cancer risk, simply calling for updated labels provides a useful spotlight.
Changing behaviors requires more than just warnings. Higher taxes, legal action, and comprehensive anti-smoking campaigns were key to reducing smoking rates in America. If the U.S. is serious about reducing alcohol-related harm, Murthy’s cancer warning labels are merely an initial step. These warnings, combined with regulations like higher alcohol taxes, are more likely to save lives.
Simar Bajaj studies epidemiology at the University of Oxford and is an award-winning journalist who has previously written for Washington Post, The Guardian, National Geographic, NPR, and The Atlantic.
Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. . Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.