Nearly 50 years ago, researchers linked the ubiquitous healthcare product to ovarian cancer. Today, the majority of talcum powder users are African American women. By knowingly targeting a black female demographic, Johnson & Johnson (J&J) spread cancer to a disproportionate amount of people of color.

An Initial Settlement

Jacqueline Fox, a wife and mother, used talcum powder as a staple in her daily routine for more than 40 years. She used Baby Powder in her underwear and on her body, according to court documents.

In 2013, doctors diagnosed Fox with advanced ovarian cancer. She died two years later in Oct. 2015. Her family testified on her behalf, and a St. Louis jury ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $72 million in damages.

Baby Powder Cancer

The association between talcum powder and ovarian cancer was first discovered in the 1970s, and then confirmed again in the 1980s. Scientists found talcum particles embedded in ovarian tumors, leading to more than 20 epidemiological studies that linked talc products to an increased risk of ovarian cancer.

Court records show that J&J had been made aware of the studies and subsequent risk. The publication of the research caused a decrease in the number of white women purchasing the product, leading to a decrease in profits.

Negligent Marketing

Instead of choosing to issue a warning about the health risk, J&J marketed the product to African American women who would be more likely to use it based on myths about black women’s bodies.

According to Omise’eke Natasha Tinsley’s article, published in Time, J&J capitalized on the fact that African-American women douche and deodorize their genitals twice as much as white women.

“Why do black women work so hard to keep our vaginas from smelling like we ever bleed, orgasm, sweat or eat catfish?” she wrote.

“Johnson & Johnson and other companies are ready to profit from these myths of the excessive black vagina,” Tinsley added. “They’re willing to capitalize on our internalized misogynoir even if we die in the process.”

Legal Battles

Johnson’s Baby Powder has been on the market for more than 100 years, and thousands have developed ovarian cancer as a result. Scores of women are now taking action against the pharmaceutical juggernaut.

On May 2, 2016, J&J settled a lawsuit with another African American woman who developed ovarian cancer after using its talc-based products. The jury awarded Gloria Ristesund $5 million in damages and $50 million in punitive damages.

J&J is being sued in more than 1,200 suits, according to the Washington Post. The majority of lawsuits are condensed in St. Louis, with 1,000 in Missouri and 200 in New Jersey.

While J&J plans to appeal the ruling and claims their product is safe, women are coming forward to raise awareness about the dangers of talcum powder and getting compensation for their injuries.

The post Did Johnson and Johnson Market Carcinogenic Baby Powder To African American Women? appeared first on Citizens Report.

Build-A-Bear has issued a recall of thousands of Starbrights Dragons with loose stuffing that could cause children to choke.

Build-A-Bear is voluntarily recalling about 34,000 stuffed animal toys that pose a choking hazard to children.

The stuffed toys are sealed with seams that may rip, giving children access to the filling. Children could potentially choke on the exposed stuffing while playing unattended.

Recall Details

The tracking label can be found on the tag located on the back of the leg.
Image: CPSC

The recalled includes about 33,600 Starbrights Dragon stuffed animals manufactured in China and sold in the U.S. About 1,000 products were also sold in Canada.

The satin seam on the stuffing is not secure and children could easily gain access to it. The stuffing could unfasten and pose a choking hazard.

The toy is easily identifiable with blue furry fabric. The dragon has embellishments including a silver satin stomach, feet pads, wings and horns. The toy has light-up horns and plays music when the hand is squeezed.

The stuffed animal is about 17 inches tall. The tracking label ending with 9333 or 9334 for America and 9337 or 9459 for Canada can be found on the label sewn on the backside of the leg.   

The stuffed animals could have been purchased at Build-A-Bear Workshop stores and online at www.buildabear.com between April 2015 and August 2015 for about $25.

Although no injuries have been reported, the company has issued a preemptive recall.

Recall Solution

Parents should exchange the stuffed animal at a nearby Build-A-Bear Workshop store.
Image: Logopedia

Consumers should immediately remove the recalled stuffed animals from children’s possession and return it to a local Build-A-Bear Workshop store to receive a coupon for any Build-A-Bear stuffed animal.

Call Build-A-Bear via phone at 866-236-5683 or email ProductHotline@buildabear.com.

Consumers can also visit www.buildabear.com and click on Product Recall at the bottom of the page for more information.

The post Product Safety Recall: Build-A-Bear Stuffing Poses Choking Hazard appeared first on Citizens Report.

Polaris is recalling more than 50,000 ROVs with an impropetly routed fuel line that could leak fuel and cause the vehicle to catch fire.

Polaris is recalling about 53,000 RZR recreational off-highway vehicles (ROV) with leaking fuel.

The fuel vent line is a misrouted and becomes pinched and spills fuel. Free-flowing fuel is a dangerous fire hazard.

Recall Details

Polaris has recieved 25 complaints of fuel leaks for the RZR 1000s models.
Image: CPSC

This recall includes the 2015 Polaris RZR recreational off-highway vehicles models RZR 900, RZR S 900, RZR 900 XC, RZR 4 900, RZR XP 1000 and RZR XP4 1000.

RZR 900s came in black, camouflage, red and white. RZR 900s have a “900” decal on the right and left front fenders and a “RZR” decal on the right and left rear fenders.

RZR 1000s were sold in black, blue, green, orange, red and white. RZR 1000s have a “1000 HO” decal on the right and left front fenders and a “RZR” decal on the right and left rear fenders.

According to CSPC, the following models are being recalled:

The vehicles were sold from July 2014 through August 2015 nationwide. The RZR 900s models sold for about $12,800 to $18,300, while the RZR 1000s were priced at $20,300 to $23,500.

The company was notified of four RZR 900s vehicles with fuel leaks, in addition to two fires. Only one consumer was injured, reportedly receiving minor burns.

For the RZR 1000s models, 25 vehicles had fuel leaks. No injuries have been reported in relation to the RZR 1000s.

Recall Solution

“At Polaris, making great products is not just a job – it is a way of life,” according to the Polaris website.  
Image: Sleddar

Owners of the affected ROV models should immediately stop driving the vehicles and bring them in for repair. The vehicles should not be used until the problem has been fixed.

Polaris will contact customers directly and send recall letters to each registered owner. However, consumers are encouraged to contact dealers for a free repair.

Contact Polaris toll free via phone at 888-704-5290 or online at www.polaris.com and click on Product Safety Recalls for more information.

The post Product Safety Recall: Polaris RZR Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles Leak Fuel appeared first on Citizens Report.

Researchers from Korea University discovered that antibacterial hand soap, which contains the chemical triclosan, is no better at killing germs than regular hand soap.

You’re standing in the store and choosing between two soaps: antibacterial or standard. You decide to go for antibacterial because you want to be sure all the germs sticking to your hands are destroyed once and for all.

A new study proves that antibacterial soap is not at all superior to regular soap, despite clever marketing techniques. In fact, antibacterial soap may have unknown risks associated with its use.

The Study

Researchers simulated regular hand washing sessions with both antibacterial and standard soap.
Image: Gtec 24

Published in the Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, the study found that soap possessing the topical antibiotic triclosan is just as effective as regular hand soap.

Triclosan is an antibacterial and antifungal agent used in consumer products, including soaps, detergents and toys.

Korea University researcher Min-Suk Rhee and her peers used 20 strains of bacteria to measure the effectiveness of different kinds of soap. The researchers used one standard formulation and one with 0.3 percent triclosan, which is the maximum percentage allowed by law.

In the test, the soap was used for 20 seconds to mimic a regular hand-washing session. When measuring how much bacteria that was removed by each type of soap, researchers found no difference between the effectiveness of the two variations.

However, after nine hours, the triclosan-containing soap seemed to have killed more germs than the regular soap.

Potential Risks Of Triclosan

Triclosan is associated with various allergic reactions, hay fever and antibiotic resistance.
Image: Home So Good

Researchers also asked 16 participants to use both soaps before counting how much bacteria had been rinsed off their hands. There was no significant difference in the second test.

A study published in the Journal Of Allergy And Clinical Immunology found that long-term use of triclosan could cause various types of allergies, in addition to hay fever.

“Antibacterial activities of triclosan have been well documented. However, its risk remains controversial since various adverse effects have been reported, including allergen, antibiotic resistance, carcinogenic impurities and bioaccumulation,” Rhee says. “Our study indicates there was no significant difference in antiseptic effects.”

The FDA is currently reviewing triclosan for safety. The chemical has reportedly caused skin rashes and allergic reactions,  and also led to an increase in antibiotic-resistant bacteria. As the soap destroys pathogens on the skin, the body becomes more antibiotic resistant.

Studies show that standard soap is just as effective as antibacterial soap. Messing with triclosan, even if you’re trying to get clean, may be an unnecessary risk.

The post Antibacterial Agent Triclosan Associated With Allergic Reactions appeared first on Citizens Report.

Fujitsu, a multinational information technology company, is recalling about 300 notebook computer batteries that will potentially overheat and catch fire.

Fujitsu America is recalling about 300 Fujitsu notebook computer battery packs at risk of overheating and catching fire. The battery packs pose a fire hazard to consumer and the company is offering replacements free of charge.

Recall Details

The battery’s model number is located on the white label.
Image: CPSC

Fujitsu America is recalling notebook computers with lithium ion batteries in the Celsius H720 and LIFEBOOK E752, P701, P702, P770, P771, P772, S752, S762 and T580 models. The battery packs were also sold separately.

The product is 8 inches long, 2 inches wide and about 0.8 inches high. Model number CP556150-1 including all serial numbers, and model number CP556150-2 with serial number range Z120102 through Z120512 are included in this recall.

The model and serial number is located on the white battery label on the bottom of the computer. The batteries were sold between August 2012 through July 2015 for about $150.

The company was notified of the battery packs catching fire three times, specifically in Asia. Incidents occurred twice and Japan and once in China, causing fire damage to rugs, bedding, a desk and other furniture. No injuries have been reported.

Recall Solution

Fujitsu will replace defective battery packs free of charge.
Image: BH Photo Video

Fujitsu urges consumers to immediately turn off the computer, remove the battery and contact the company for a replacement free of charge. However, the Fujitsu notebook computer can be used without the battery pack by plugging in the AC adapter.

For more information, contact Fujitsu via phone at 800-838-5487 or online at www.fujitsu.com/us. Click on “Important Announcement: Voluntary Battery Recall and Replacement.”

“The Fujitsu Way embodies the philosophy of the Fujitsu Group, our reason for existence, values and the principles that we follow in our daily activities,” according to the website.

The post Product Safety Recall: Fujitsu Notebook Computer Battery Catches Fire appeared first on Citizens Report.

The FDA evoked the sale of four cigarette products manufactured by R.J. Reynolds.

The FDA, recently tightening its regulatory grip on cigarette manufactures, banned the sale of four kinds of cigarettes on Sept. 15.

Manufactured by R.J. Reynolds, the banned brands include Camel Crush Bold, Pall Mall Deep Set Recessed Filter, Pall Mall Deep Set Recessed Filter Menthol and Vantage Tech 13. The action was taken because the manufacturer failed to prove the cigarettes were not more harmful than comparable tobacco products.

The FDA Pulls Cigarettes Off The Shelves

The FDA ordered that four cigarette brands be removed from retails stores because they failed to achieve substantial equivalence status.
Image: Pipes Magazine

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 was passed to allow the FDA to deny cigarettes and other tobacco products that may pose a greater public health risk than comparable products on the market.

R.J. Reynolds released new products that were commercially marketed as of Feb. 15, 2007. In 2011, the company applied for substantial equivalence status.

To receive that status, R.J. Reynolds would have to provide evidence that the products didn’t raise new questions for public health. The company could also receive the status by proving the new products had the same characteristics as an existing product.

The FDA found that the four banned brands were not the same as their predecessors and questioned if the newer versions could be more harmful.

In the announcement, the FDA said that ingredients, engineering and chemistry of the products were analyzed. The agency also measured how these factors could influence cigarette toxicity, addictiveness and appeal to smokers.

For example, Camel Crush Bold cigarettes have a small menthol capsule in the filter, which might make the cigarette more appealing to consumers.

Matthew Myers, the president of Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said the products “deliver menthol differently and at higher levels, have added sugars and other sweeteners, new filters, and tested differently for harmful and potentially harmful constituents.”

Retailers have been told to immediately stop the sale of banned brands and dispose of them within 30 days. The consequence of noncompliance is financial penalties or criminal prosecution.

“These decisions were based on a rigorous, science-based review designed to protect the public from the harms caused by tobacco use,” Mitch Zeller, the director of the Center for Tobacco Products at the agency, said in statement.

A Response From R.J. Reynolds

R.J. Reynolds claims that the FDA ban is unjust because the company successfully proved the substantial equivalence of their products.
Image: CBS News

The company gave a statement that asserted a strong disagreement with the decision.

“Our submissions to the agency on these brands were comprehensive, and we believe we effectively demonstrated substantial equivalence,” according to Jeffery S. Gentry, the company’s executive vice president for operations and chief scientific officer.

R.J. Reynolds is currently examining options for moving forward.

Financial services firm Cowen and Company said in a research note that the four banned products accounted for less than 1 percent of the company’s sales. It’s not likely that the action will have a serious impact on R.J. Reynolds.

The firm predicts that the company will file a legal injunction to suspend the action. The other option would be to pull the products before legally contesting the findings.

As the FDA increasingly wields its power, it’s interesting to reflect on the nation’s tobacco history. Gone are the days when cigarette companies could alter existing products and introduce new ones as they pleased.

The post FDA Bans Four Cigarette Brands From Shelves appeared first on Citizens Report.

Poison control reports a 400 percent increase in the number of calls related to young children ingesting hand sanitizer.

Hand sanitizer is innovative. It’s a quick and easy way to keep germs at bay. But if ingested by children, the disinfectant can be very dangerous.

Since 2010, poison control centers report a 400 percent increase in the amount of children aged 12 and under who are becoming ill from consuming hand sanitizer.

Evidence Of Poisoning

The Georgia Poison Center has analyzed call data from poison control centers across the nation. Representatives from the center found a 400 percent hike in the amount of calls related to hand sanitizer poisoning.

Hand sanitized contains 45 percent to 95 percent alcohol, according to CNN. Alcohol poisoning can occur if just two or three pumps are consumed.

Children and toddlers are especially susceptible to the toxic effects of the popular germ killer.

Six-year-old Nhaijah Russell drank three or four squirts of hand sanitizer at school, which she said tasted like strawberries. Russell ended up in the emergency room, unable to walk or speak clearly.

Russell’s doctor, Dr. Chris Ritchey, told CNN that her blood-alcohol level was .179, which is twice the legal limit for an adult. The poisoning caused Russell to fall and hit her head, which prompted doctors to keep her over night to monitor signs of brain trauma.

It is important to note how much hand sanitizer is ingested. Smaller amounts may be less dangerous, but poison control should be contacted if any amount is ingested.

“A hand sanitizer pump dispenses approximately 2.5 mL of liquid. If one pump of a 62% ethanol-containing hand sanitizer was ingested by an average 2 year old weighing 15 kg (33 lbs), a blood alcohol level of 17.3 mg/dL would be expected, considerably below a toxic level of 80-100 mg/dL,” according to Texas Poison Control Network. 

A Slow-Growing Trend

While older children may intentionally ingest hand sanitizer, it is unlikely that younger children are aware of the product’s alcohol content.
Image: Babble

The Georgia Poison Center’s director Dr. Gaylord Lopez said that 3,266 cases involving young children ingesting hand sanitizer was reported to poison control centers in 2010. In 2014, the number increased to 16,117 cases.

Ingesting hand sanitizer is becoming a dangerous trend. While teens and pre-teens may be drinking it to get drunk, young children are unaware of what they’re consuming.

Lopez urges parents and teachers to keep hand sanitizer out of children’s reach, monitor its use, or switch to non-alcohol based products or sanitizing wipes.

Contact the American Association of Poison Control Centers at 1 (800) 222-1222 for more information.

The post U.S. Children Poisoned From Drinking Hand Sanitizer appeared first on Citizens Report.

A new study confirms that youths who use electronic cigarettes are more likely to switch to traditional tobacco cigarettes.

Vaping is a relatively new fad, and researchers all over the world are trying to figure out how it will impact the population.

Because so many scientists are gathering data on vaping, the studies often conflict. Some support e-cigarettes as smoking cessation therapies, while others reject them as gateway products.

As the FDA grapples with how to regulate e-cigarettes, a new study sponsored by the National Cancer Institute shows that teens who vape are more likely to move on to traditional tobacco cigarettes.

The Study

Researchers surveyed approximately 700 e-cigarette users and non-users and tracked the amount who begun using traditional cigarettes one year later.
Image: West Texas News

The study will be published in the November edition of the journal JAMA Pediatrics. It’s one of many that attempts to discern the benefits from the negative effects of e-cigarettes.

Researchers at the University of Pittsburgh and Dartmouth-Hitchcock Norris Cotton Cancer Center conducted a study that tracked 694 people between the ages of 16 to 26. The majority of participants were considered to be “non-susceptible” and had no intention of smoking cigarettes. Only 16 people, or 2.3 percent of participants, were already using e-cigarettes at the start of the study in 2012.

One year later, 37.5 percent of e-cigarette users had transitioned to cigarettes, compared to only 10 percent of youths who were not already using e-cigarettes.

About 31 percent of e-cigarette users changed their mind about intending to smoke cigarettes, compared to 9.3 percent who were not using e-cigarettes at the beginning.

The authors took additional factors that could have influenced e-cigarette users into account. The study did not focus on the frequency of e-cigarette use, intention to experiment or if e-cigarettes and cigarettes were being used simultaneously.

Results And Regulation

The FDA is in the process of deciding how heavily e-cigarettes will be regulated.
Image: Electronic Cigarette Consumer Reviews

The study was limited by the small sample size of people already using e-cigarettes at the beginning of the trial. The small sample size made it difficult to prove the results would be easily replicated.

The results are based on the idea that e-cigarette users are becoming conditioned to enjoy sensation-seeking behavior, which could make them more likely to smoke traditional cigarettes. Some also argue that vaping is more attractive to younger generations.

“E-cigarettes are not subject to many laws that regulate traditional cigarettes, such as age limits on sales, taxation and labeling requirements,” said lead author Brian A. Primack, MD, PhD, director of CRMTH and assistant vice chancellor for health and society in Pitt’s Schools of the Health Sciences.

“They also come in youth-oriented flavorings that laws have limited in traditional cigarettes, such as apple bubble gum and chocolate candy cane.”

These individuals may have transitioned to smoking tobacco cigarettes regardless. But when the authors adjusted the study to include additional factors and sensation-seeking tendencies, there was still a link between e-cigarette use and a transition to traditional cigarettes.

The study authors cite three main reasons that e-cigarettes might be a gateway to traditional smoking:

• E-cigarettes deliver nicotine more slowly than traditional cigarettes, allowing a new user to advance to cigarette smoking as he or she becomes tolerant of nicotine side effects.

• Unlike other forms of nicotine, such as smokeless tobacco, e-cigarettes are designed to mimic the behavioral and sensory act of cigarette smoking, allowing the user to become accustomed to the act of smoking.

• E-cigarettes are not subject to the same regulations as traditional cigarettes, potentially renormalizing the act of smoking after decades of public health efforts to shift public norms around smoking.

The FDA is in the process of analyzing data from various studies to make decisions on how to regulate e-cigarettes. Some hope that e-cigarettes could be a healthier alternative to traditional cigarettes, whereas others believe the products could create a new generation of nicotine addicts.

“It will be important to continue surveillance among youth of both e-cigarette use and overlap with use of other tobacco products,” according to the study authors.

The post E-Cigarettes Might Be A Gateway To Traditional Cigarettes appeared first on Citizens Report.

Bosch, a trusted manufacturer of multiple security products, is recalling hundreds of smoke detectors that failed to sound during installation testing.

Bosch Security Systems Inc. is recalling almost one thousand faulty smoke alarms that could fail to alert consumers if a fire broke out.

During installation testing, two alarms failed to sound. Failure to notify residents of the presence of smoke or a fire could be extremely dangerous, resulting in injury or death.

Recall Details

Only RFSM-A detectors with a date code of 458 or lower are included in the recall. The date code is located on the package label and inside the detector.
Image: CPSC

Bosch is recalling an estimated 950 Radion wireless smoke alarms because the model failed to sound during installation testing. The smoke alarms are a part of Bosch’s security solutions.

The alarms are made of white plastic with a control keypad labeled “Bosch” on the front face.  The product measures 5.6 inches across and 2.4 inches high.

“The alarms have a Bosch label on the back with ‘RFSM-A,’ a bar code with ‘F01U263962’ and a 17-digit serial number starting with 0922320XXX. The XXX in the 8^th through 10^th positions of the serial number designates the date code. Only alarms with date codes 001 through 458 are included in the recall,” according to the CPSC. 

The smoke alarms were manufactured in China and sold in at dealers nationwide from November 2013 through October 2014. The product was priced at about $125.

Recall Solution

Bosch urges all dealers to inspect inventory and ensure any affected stock is returned to Bosch using Bosch’s Advance Exchange process.
Image: Imron

Bosch has contacted dealers and installers to inform them about the recall, but consumers should immediately contact the place of purchase for a free alarm replacement.

Contact Bosch at 800-289-0096 or reach out online. For more information, check out Bosch’s Technical Bulletins and Safety Recalls page.

Bosch is an international technology service provider dealing in industrial, building and consumer goods for more than 125 years. The company is represented in 150 countries, offering video surveillance, intrusion detection, fire detection, voice alarm, and access control and management systems.

“For more than 125 years, the Bosch name has stood for quality and reliability. We are there for our customers during all crucial phases of a project: before, during and after the sale,” according to Bosch’s website.

The post Product Safety Recall: Bosch Smoke Alarm Fails To Sound appeared first on Citizens Report.

The FDA has issued letters to three tobacco manufactures urging them to alter the advertising tactics used on natural and additive-free cigarettes. The FDA believes the wording will lead consumers to believe that some kinds of cigarettes are safer than others.

You’re a dedicated cigarette smoker, but this year you want to make an effort to be more health conscious. When shopping for cigarettes, you may see a product that has the words ‘natural’ or ‘additive-free’ written on the label. You compare the packaging and choose the brand that seems the healthiest.

In a recent crackdown, the FDA has demanded three tobacco companies stop advertising their cigarettes with wording that may be misleading to consumers.

This is the first time the FDA has taken action to enforce a law that was created six years ago. The historic move will change the way tobacco products are labeled.

Steps For Stricter Regulation

American spirit cigarette advertisements feature the standard surgeon general’s warning and an additional warning for cigarettes with no additives.
Via: Flickr

An FDA ruling in 2000 compelled cigarette companies that claimed their products use natural tobacco had to include “no additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette” on the labeling, along with the standard surgeon general’s warning.

But in 2009, legislators passed the Tobacco Control Act, which gave the FDA the authority to “regulate the manufacture, distribution, and marketing of tobacco products to help all Americans, especially young people, live longer, healthier lives.”

The law allowed the FDA to:

• Require new and more effective warning labels on tobacco products
• Establish and enforce restrictions on tobacco advertising and promotions
• Require tobacco companies to disclose what is in their products
• Review tobacco manufacturers’ claims of “modified risk” products to prevent misleading claims
• Educate consumers about the dangers of tobacco use, among other powers

The FDA first exercised the law by sending a warning to Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co.,  ITG Brands and Sherman’s 1400 Broadway N.Y.C. about the advertising tactics used to sell their cigarettes. The brands sell American Spirits, Winston cigarettes and Nat Sherman cigarettes, respectively.

The warning letters discuss violations of section 911 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, urging the companies to alter their labeling to make sure that it doesn’t present “a lower risk of tobacco-related disease” that makes their product appear “less harmful than one or more other commercially marketed tobacco products.”

Setting An Example

The FDA is waiting for a response from three companies that have been asked to alter the advertising on their cigarette packages.
Via: Viral Sneak

The press release detailing the offense was issued on August 27. The three companies were contacted by the FDA and must respond to the letters in no more than 15 business days with an explanation of how they plan to remedy the issue.

The FDA believes these companies are not in compliance with the law. The companies have the option to give an explanation and  provide evidence if they believe they are not in violation of the law. If they fail to respond, the FDA may initiate civil financial penalties, criminal prosecution, seizure and/or injunctions.

ITG has responded in a statement that its product complies with the state and federal regulations. According to the representatives, “while we disagree with the FDA’s position on this issue, we intend to engage with the FDA and respond to their letter in the coming days.”

According to a statement from Mitch Zeller, director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, the agency is just doing its job.

“The FDA’s job is to ensure tobacco products are not marketed in a way that leads consumers to believe cigarettes with descriptors like ‘additive-free’ and ‘natural’ pose fewer health risks than other cigarettes, unless the claims have been scientifically supported,” he said.

“This action is a milestone, and a reminder of how we use the tools of science-based regulation to protect the U.S. public from the harmful effects of tobacco use.”

The post FDA Acts Against Tobacco Industry’s False Advertising appeared first on Citizens Report.