FDA Sees ‘Carding’ as Key Deterrent to Teen Smoking : Enforcement: The goal is make cigarette purchases dependent on a photo ID. It worked in Sweden, but critics say the weak link remains uncaring adults.

If the new restrictions on cigarettes work as the government intends, a teen-ager trying to buy a pack would face a familiar question: “May I see some identification, please?”

“Carding young people is common practice in this country,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala. “If someone walks into a store who looks under-age and asks for a pack of Camels, the clerk will ask for a photo ID.”

“If you go up to Camden Yard [the Baltimore Orioles baseball stadium] and try to buy a beer, you have to show a photo ID,” added Food and Drug Commissioner David A. Kessler, the architect of the new proposals. “This will be no different.”

If a clerk confronts a teen-ager with that question each time he tries to buy cigarettes at the counter of his neighborhood convenience store and other measures designed to make cigarettes less accessible and desirable work as hoped, the effort to reduce smoking among young people could turn out to be the landmark health measure that President Clinton has proclaimed.

But that could be a big if--one that may not be resolved for years. Already, smoking by minors is banned in states across the country. But enforcement is so lax that the prohibition is virtually meaningless.

The Clinton Administration, which has projected a goal of reducing the number of children who smoke by half within seven years of the law’s implementation, has promised to put all its available muscle behind the new law.

Under the Food and Drug Administration--which has not hesitated in recent years to aggressively pursue those who violate its statutes--that could mean product seizure, civil fines and criminal prosecution.

“No one has ever said we are weak on enforcement,” Kessler said.

Experts point to the success of an almost identical program against teen-age smoking launched in Sweden in 1975 that dramatically reduced smoking in that country from 55% to 26% within 15 years.

“Deglamorizing cigarettes and enforcing the laws reduces kids from picking up the habit and, if they don’t start by age 20, they never will,” said Dr. David P. L. Sachs, director of the Palo Alto Center for Pulmonary Disease Prevention, who studied the Swedish program. “It absolutely can make a difference.”

But not everyone is convinced that the approach will be effective, particularly in light of how ingrained smoking has become in the modern youth culture.

*

“The responsibility lies not with the FDA, not with the President, not with the surgeon general--but with parents, teachers and others,” said Dr. Robert DuPont, the first director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. “They’re going to be let off the hook, thinking the problem is Joe Camel. The problem is the adults . . . who’ve turned a blind eye to kids smoking. Make no mistake: I’m all for what they’re doing. I just think it’s going to make a small difference.”

Kessler insisted that “parents’ warnings are hardly a match for an industry that spends billions of dollars every year to make cigarettes seem appealing. Today’s proposals would dramatically change that landscape.

“There is no one step you can take that will solve this problem entirely,” he added. “What is important is that it is a comprehensive set of steps. The only way to effectively reduce . . . disease is to prevent the next generation of young people from becoming addicted. Kids are starting at 11, 12, 13 and becoming addicted by 16, 17 and 18. If we can get them to 18 without starting, we can save lives.

“Don’t let the simplicity [of the proposals] fool you,” he added.

Kessler and Shalala said the new regulations would require cigarette manufacturers to ensure that many of the rules are obeyed--common FDA procedure--but a departure from the way current laws are carried out.

The proposal, for example, would end “impersonal” cigarette sales, meaning that only face-to-face transactions would be allowed and vending machines and self-service displays would be banned. It would fall to the companies to ensure that the items were removed and never replaced.

While vending machines account only for a small percentage of overall cigarette sales nationwide, they are a significant source of cigarettes for minors.

Also, manufacturers could no longer engage in such promotions as mail orders, free samples, the sale of single cigarettes (“loosies”) or packs with fewer than 20 cigarettes (“kiddie packs”).

“One of the things different from [existing] state laws is that the responsibility for compliance will fall not only on the retailer, but on the manufacturer,” Kessler said. “There is a responsibility on the tobacco industry to make sure there is compliance. This is a very big difference in the enforcement strategy.”

Thus, the manufacturers themselves would be required to remove the self-service displays they supplied, advertising, labeling and other similar items, as well as vending machines, and make sure--through regular visits to the stores--that these items had not been replaced, returned or that new items had been installed.

*

The FDA said that the obligation for such inspections would apply “only for those companies--typically the larger ones--for whom visits are part of their usual business practice.”

Nevertheless, interviews with numerous former sales representatives and managers indicated that companies all keep detailed records about their retailers, including “whether the retailer should be visited weekly, biweekly, monthly, etc.,” and that other entries often describe the types of cigarette displays in detail, the FDA said.

“At least one company also gave portable computers to its [sales] representatives,” and the data entered into them “were downloaded nightly and sent to company headquarters,” the FDA said.

Thus, requiring manufacturers to keep tabs on their retailers through business calls is “both feasible and reasonable,” the FDA said.

The FDA’s style, typically, is to pursue a violation at its site--whether in a store or factory--through a series of steps beginning with an informal warning.

If the warning is ignored, however, the agency would proceed to tougher action that often would involve the Justice Department.

It has called in U.S. marshals, for example, to seize products from factories, and shut them down and has initiated both civil and criminal prosecutions against companies that violate its statutes.

Kessler and Shalala said that enforcement should involve a “partnership” among the federal government, the state and local officials, parents and schools.