Subject(s)
Cosmetic Techniques/economics , Dermatology/economics , Internet/ethics , Marketing of Health Services/ethics , Physicians/ethics , Bioethical Issues , Cosmetic Techniques/ethics , Cosmetic Techniques/standards , Dermatology/ethics , Dermatology/standards , Ethics, Medical , Humans , Internet/standards , Marketing of Health Services/standards , United States , United States Federal Trade Commission/standardsSubject(s)
Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals/classification , Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals/standards , Drug Substitution/standards , United States Food and Drug Administration/standards , Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals/therapeutic use , Drug Approval/methods , Drug Substitution/methods , Humans , United States , United States Federal Trade Commission/legislation & jurisprudence , United States Federal Trade Commission/standards , United States Food and Drug Administration/legislation & jurisprudenceSubject(s)
Antitrust Laws , Health Facility Merger/legislation & jurisprudence , Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act , Georgia , Government Regulation , Health Facility Merger/economics , Humans , Ohio , United States , United States Federal Trade Commission/legislation & jurisprudence , United States Federal Trade Commission/standardsABSTRACT
The Federal Trade Commission plays a unique role in enforcing well-established standards ensuring that consumers can make informed purchase and use decisions about health-related products and services based on truthful, non-misleading advertising claims while encouraging competition. Deceptive and unfair practices are defined. The importance of the "net impression" that ads convey to consumers and the need for substantiation of objective, factual claims is explained. The FTC uses its enforcement powers and consumer and industry outreach to create a climate for preventing misleading advertising.
Subject(s)
Advertising/standards , Marketing of Health Services/standards , United States Federal Trade Commission/standards , Advertising/legislation & jurisprudence , Consumer Product Safety/legislation & jurisprudence , Consumer Product Safety/standards , Deception , Dentistry , Humans , Marketing of Health Services/legislation & jurisprudence , United States , United States Federal Trade Commission/legislation & jurisprudenceABSTRACT
The genotoxic and cytotoxic potential of mainstream cigarette smoke condensate (CSC) from a new cigarette that primarily heats tobacco (TOB-HT) was compared with that of CSC from a Kentucky reference low "tar" cigarette (1R4F) representative of the current US cigarette market, and Kentucky Reference 1R5F, representative of ultra-low "tar" cigarettes on the US market. TOB-HT was evaluated at concentrations which induced concentration-dependent positive responses with 1R4F and 1R5F in an in vitro toxicology test battery which included sister chromatid exchange, chromosome aberration, and neutral red cytotoxicity assays in CHO cells, and the Ames bacterial mutagenicity assay. CSC from 1R4F and 1R5F was positive in the Ames assay with Salmonella typhimurium strains TA98, TA100, TA1538 and TA1537, and negative with TA1535, while CSC from TOB-HT was negative in all five strains. CSC from 1R4F and 1R5F cigarettes was positive in sister chromatid exchange (SCE), chromosome aberration (CA) and neutral red cytotoxicity assays, while CSC from the TOB-HT cigarette yielded negative results in all the above endpoints. These data indicate that in these assays the genotoxic and cytotoxic potential of CSC from the new cigarette that primarily heats tobacco is significantly less than CSC from Kentucky reference 1R4F and 1R5F cigarettes, which are representative of cigarettes currently sold in the US.
Subject(s)
Nicotiana/chemistry , Plants, Toxic , Smoking/trends , Tobacco Industry/trends , Tobacco Smoke Pollution/adverse effects , Animals , CHO Cells , Cell Cycle , Chromosome Aberrations , Cricetinae , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Mutagenicity Tests , Neutral Red , Reference Standards , Sister Chromatid Exchange , United States , United States Federal Trade Commission/standardsABSTRACT
Mainstream smoke from Kentucky reference low "tar" (1R4F) and ultra-low "tar" (1R5F) cigarettes and a test cigarette (TOB-HT), that primarily heats tobacco, was compared for cytotoxic and genotoxic potential using cellular smoke exposure technology (CSET). CSET includes a computer controlled 30-port AMESA/Battelle-Geneva smoke generator which exposes cultured mammalian Chinese hamster ovary cells (CHO) to whole smoke. Cytotoxicity was assessed using the neutral red assay and genotoxicity was assessed using the sister chromatid exchange (SCE) assay. Compared on a per cigarette basis, mainstream smoke from 1R5F and the TOB-HT cigarette was significantly less cytotoxic and genotoxic than the smoke from the 1R4F cigarette. The cytotoxic and genotoxic activity of smoke from the TOB-HT cigarettes was slightly greater than the smoke from the ultra-low "tar" Kentucky 1R5F reference cigarettes. In conclusion, in these assays mainstream whole smoke of the TOB-HT cigarette had slightly greater cytotoxic and genotoxic potential compared with an ultra-low "tar" 1R5F Kentucky reference cigarette and significantly less activity compared with the whole mainstream smoke from a low "tar" 1R4F Kentucky reference cigarette, representative of the US market average cigarette for FTC yields of "tar", CO and nicotine.