Accounting for “Lost Pleasure” in a Cost–Benefit Analysis of Government Regulation: The Case of the Food and Drug Administration's Proposed Cigarette Labeling Regulation
Authors: Frank J. Chaloupka, Jonathan Gruber, Kenneth E. Warner
Journal: Annals of Internal Medicine (2014)

Ideas and Opinions6 January 2015Accounting for "Lost Pleasure" in a Cost–Benefit Analysis of Government Regulation: The Case of the Food and Drug Administration's Proposed Cigarette Labeling RegulationFrank J. Chaloupka, PhD, Jonathan Gruber, PhD, and Kenneth E. Warner, PhDFrank J. Chaloupka, PhDFrom University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois; Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts; and University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan., Jonathan Gruber, PhDFrom University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois; Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts; and University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan., and Kenneth E. Warner, PhDFrom University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois; Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts; and University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Author, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/M14-1910 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail The 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (FSPTCA) gave the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to regulate the manufacture, distribution, and marketing of tobacco products in the interests of public health. In 2010, the FDA proposed a rule requiring cigarette packs to bear large graphic warning labels, which represented the agency's first major proposed tobacco regulation. Federal agencies proposing any significant regulatory action, defined as one having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, are required to evaluate the regulation's costs and benefits. Accordingly, the FDA prepared an economic impact analysis ...References1. Chaloupka FJ, Warner KE, Acemoglou D, Gruber J, Laux F, Max W, et al. An evaluation of FDA's analysis of the costs and benefits of the graphic warning label regulation. Comment ID: FDA-2014-N-0189-65050. (Submitted comment in response to Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0189, RIN 0910-AG38.) Posted 12 August 2014. Accessed at www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FDA-2014-N-0189-65050 on 14 October 2014. Google Scholar2. Azagba S, Sharaf MF. The effect of graphic cigarette warning labels on smoking behavior: evidence from the Canadian experience. Nicotine Tob Res. 2013;15:708-17. [PMID: 22990228] doi:10.1093/ntr/nts194 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Huang J, Chaloupka FJ, Fong GT. Cigarette graphic warning labels and smoking prevalence in Canada: a critical examination and reformulation of the FDA regulatory impact analysis. Tob Control. 2014;23 Suppl 1:i7-12. [PMID: 24218057] doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051170 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. Johnston LD, O'Malley PM, Bachman JG, Schulenberg JE. Monitoring the Future National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975–2012. Volume 2: College Students and Adults Ages 19–50. Ann Arbor: Univ Michigan; 2013. Google Scholar5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General, 2014. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2014. Google Scholar6. Fong GT, Hammond D, Laux FL, Zanna MP, Cummings KM, Borland R, et al. The near-universal experience of regret among smokers in four countries: findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Survey. Nicotine Tob Res. 2004;6 Suppl 3:S341-51. [PMID: 15799597] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Quitting smoking among adults—United States, 2001–2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2011;60:1513-9. [PMID: 22071589] MedlineGoogle Scholar8. Warner KE, Mendez D. Tobacco control policy in developed countries: yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Nicotine Tob Res. 2010;12:876-87. [PMID: 20702814] doi:10.1093/ntr/ntq125 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9. Gruber JH, Mullainathan S. Do cigarette taxes make smokers happier? B E J Econom Anal Policy. 2005;5:1-45. doi:10.2202/1538-0637 CrossrefGoogle Scholar10. Kollath-Cattano CL, Abad-Vivero EN, Thrasher JF, Bansal-Travers M, O'Connor RJ, Krugman DM, et al. Adult smokers' responses to "corrective statements" regarding tobacco industry deception. Am J Prev Med. 2014;47:26-36. [PMID: 24746372] doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2014.02.006 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: From University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois; Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts; and University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Disclosures: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M14-1910.Corresponding Author: Jonathan Gruber, PhD, Department of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 40 Ames Street, E17-220, Cambridge, MA 02139; e-mail, [email protected]edu.Current Author Addresses: Dr. Chaloupka: Institute for Health Research and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago (MC 275), 444 Westside Research Office Building, 1747 West Roosevelt Road, Chicago, IL 60608.Dr. Gruber: Department of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 40 Ames Street, E17-220, Cambridge, MA 02139.Dr. Warner: University of Michigan School of Public Health, M3174, SPH II, 1420 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2029.Author Contributions:Conception and design: F.J. Chaloupka, J. Gruber, K.E. Warner.Analysis and interpretation of the data: F.J. Chaloupka, J. Gruber.Drafting of the article: F.J. Chaloupka, J. Gruber.Critical revision of the article for important intellectual content: F.J. Chaloupka, J. Gruber, K.E. Warner.Final approval of the article: F.J. Chaloupka, J. Gruber, K.E. Warner.Provision of study materials or patients: J. Gruber.Statistical expertise: J. Gruber.Obtaining of funding: F.J. Chaloupka, K.E. Warner.Administrative, technical, or logistic support: J. Gruber.Collection and assembly of data: J. Gruber.This article was published online first at www.annals.org on 14 October 2014. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics Cited ByShock and awe or incentive-compatible harm reduction? Graphic health warnings on tobacco packagesQuality control in food supply chain with dynamic quality characteristicsSmokers' Regrets and the Case for Public Health PaternalismWhen Are Nudges Desirable? Benefit Validity When Preferences Are Not Consistently RevealedCost-Effectiveness of Using Mass Media to Prevent Tobacco Use among Youth and Young Adults: The FinishIt CampaignThe Welfare Effects of Nudges: A Case Study of Energy Use Social ComparisonsReassessing the importance of 'lost pleasure' associated with smoking cessation: implications for social welfare and policyTobacco Regulation and Cost-Benefit Analysis: How Should We Value Foregone Consumer Surplus?Behavioral Welfare Economics and FDA Tobacco RegulationsEconomic Approaches to Estimating Benefits of Regulations Affecting Addictive GoodsRetrospective and Prospective Benefit-Cost Analyses of U.S. Anti-Smoking PoliciesResearch on Cooperation Strategy of Enterprises' Quality and Safety in Food Supply ChainBad Habits and Endogenous Decision Points 6 January 2015Volume 162, Issue 1Page: 64-65KeywordsAdolescentsDisclosureEmotionsForecastingHealth economicsPrevention, policy, and public healthTaxesTobacco control ePublished: 6 January 2015 Issue Published: 6 January 2015 CopyrightCopyright © 2015 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF DownloadLoading ...