IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/10.2105-ajph.2013.301737_3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When health policy and empirical evidence collide: The case of cigarette package warning labels and economic consumer surplus

Author

Listed:
  • Song, A.V.
  • Brown, P.
  • Glantz, S.A.

Abstract

In its graphic warning label regulations on cigarette packages, the Food and Drug Administration severely discounts the benefits of reduced smoking because of the lost "pleasure" smokers experience when they stop smoking; this is quantified as lost "consumer surplus." Consumer surplus is grounded in rational choice theory. However, empirical evidence from psychological cognitive science and behavioral economics demonstrates that the assumptions of rational choice are inconsistent with complex multidimensional decisions, particularly smoking. Rational choice does not account for the roles of emotions, misperceptions, optimistic bias, regret, and cognitive inefficiency that are germane to smoking, particularly because most smokers begin smoking in their youth. Continued application of a consumer surplus discount will undermine sensible policies to reduce tobacco use and other policies to promote public health.

Suggested Citation

  • Song, A.V. & Brown, P. & Glantz, S.A., 2014. "When health policy and empirical evidence collide: The case of cigarette package warning labels and economic consumer surplus," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 104(2), pages 42-51.
  • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2013.301737_3
    DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301737
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301737
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301737?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Helen G. Levy & Edward C. Norton & Jeffrey A. Smith, 2018. "Tobacco Regulation and Cost-Benefit Analysis: How Should We Value Foregone Consumer Surplus?," American Journal of Health Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(1), pages 1-25, Winter.
    2. Philip DeCicca & Donald Kenkel & Feng Liu & Hua Wang, 2017. "Behavioral Welfare Economics and FDA Tobacco Regulations," Advances in Health Economics and Health Services Research, in: Human Capital and Health Behavior, volume 25, pages 143-179, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2013.301737_3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.