Last week the Food and Drug Administration proposed a series of large, graphic warning labels for cigarette products sold in the United States. Backed by legislation created last year which granted the federal government power to regulate tobacco products, the proposals generated controversy between the industry and anti-smoking advocacy groups.

The debate over warning labels revolves around why and how the federal government ought to implement its regulatory policy, not the need for tobacco regulation itself.

Examination of political background and international necessity demonstrates the use of graphic warning labels to be fully justified.

In approaching the warning labels, the federal government must balance interests of individual liberty and popular protection. Lawmakers must consider the liberty of smokers and advertising rights of tobacco companies.

With the graphic labels, the government furnishes a warning equal to the level of danger presented by smoking, a practice tobacco companies themselves regard as harmful. The fact that smoking frequently infringes upon the health and living of non-smoking Americans, including children of smokers, presents compelling need for government action.

The use of graphic warning labels for harmful products is a good balance for the government to strike. Labels allow the preservation of consumer choice, while helping liberties in the long term through accurate information without actual prevention of purchase.

Finally the graphic warning label policy is justified for its preventative nature. Rather than furthering its interest to promote health after the emergence of smoking-related diseases, the government fulfills its responsibilities before and during the purchase of cigarettes.

Significant international benefits will also result from the new policy. The United States has signed, but not ratified, the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which has the approval of 171 other countries.

The treaty calls for countries to adopt policies strikingly similar to the new FDA guidelines. Fulfilling the treaty’s obligations before it is submitted to the Senate for ratification next year is an important step in American global leadership.

Internationally, the United States cannot afford to be an outlier on such an important issue for global health. Ratifying a treaty that lacks American backing may be less appealing to foreign governments, as well as diverting resources that could be used to implement the treaty’s policies in the context of international organizations.

Tobacco companies operate on an international scale. For this reason, regulations of the industry must also exist on an international level. The United States houses the top four international cigarette manufacturers by revenue. An American government committed to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control will go a long way toward strengthening global health.

The choice to smoke ultimately rests with the individual. Graphic warning labels give smokers the right to continue and will improve liberties, health, American image and strength of the international community for years to come.

Pearce Edwards is a sophomore political science major from Albuquerque, N.M.