The FDA Says Its Plan to Cut Nicotine in Cigarettes Could Extend American Lives by 134 Million Years

What if smoking was not addictive?

Andy Parkinson/Mirrorpix/Newscom/ZUMA

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Cigarettes are responsible for nearly all tobacco-related diseases and deaths, and one key factor is the highly addictive nature of nicotine in tobacco. Last week, the Food and Drug Administration released a proposal for a rule that would limit nicotine levels so that cigarettes and other tobacco products are “minimally addictive or non-addictive.” But what would this really mean in terms of public health? 

Back in July, Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb announced he wanted to place nicotine at the center of the agency’s efforts to regulate tobacco. (A federal law prevents the FDA from creating a policy that would eliminate nicotine altogether.) Each year, smoking cigarettes is the primary cause of 163,700 cancer deaths, 160,600 deaths from cardiovascular and metabolic diseases, and 113,100 deaths from pulmonary diseases for adults over 35 years of age.

Alongside the new proposal, the FDA funded a study, “Potential Public Health Effects of Reducing Nicotine Levels in Cigarettes in the United States,” which was published in the March 2018 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine. 

“Our findings show that reducing the nicotine level in cigarettes has the potential to substantially reduce the enormous burden of smoking-related death and disease,” the authors of the study wrote. “We estimate that a nicotine product standard for cigarettes in the United States could save millions of lives and tens of millions of life-years over the next several decades.”

The FDA proposal is based on research that supports limiting nicotine to 0.3 to 0.5 milligrams per gram of tobacco in a cigarette, compared to the 10 to 14 mg of nicotine currently in a conventional domestic cigarette. The study estimated that if a policy limiting cigarettes to a “very low nicotine content” is put in place by 2020, it could lead to these three outcomes:

Fewer New Smokers

About 5 million adult smokers would quit smoking within one year after the new rule is implemented. More than 33 million people would not become regular smokers by 2100, helping bring down the portion of the adult population who smoke cigarettes to about 1.4 percent.

 

New England Journal of Medicine

Longer Life Span

As the number of new smokers drops due to the policy, the life expectancy for people who don’t smoke increases. The study projects the US population could gain 134 million years of life by the year 2100. 

New England Journal of Medicine

Millions of Deaths Avoided

The policy could significantly reduce preventable tobacco-related death and disease, the study found. By the end of the century, researchers anticipate that more than 8 million premature deaths from tobacco could be prevented. 

New England Journal of Medicine

One potential concern the FDA notes in its proposal is that low nicotine cigarettes could be misconstrued as “healthier” than their original versions and lead to increased smoking. The FDA also speculated that users might try to add nicotine themselves in liquid form, or an illicit trade of high-nicotine cigarettes could emerge. 

The FDA’s proposal is open for comment through June 14, 2018

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate