WASHINGTON, June 24—The Federal Trade Commission announced today that it would require cigarette packages to carry a warning that cigarette smoking is dangerous to health.  The statement will be required on all packs, boxes and cartons of cigarettes sold, beginning next Jan. 1.  The exact language of the cautionary statement will be left up to cigarette manufac­turers. They will be required to state “clearly and prominently” that cigarette smoking “may cause death from cancer and other diseases.”  A similar warning will be re­quired in all cigarette adver tising beginning July 1, 1965, under the terms of a regulation issued today by the commission.  The requirement involving cigarette advertising could be abandoned or postponed, how­ever, the cemmission said, if the tobacco industry can convince it before the middle of next year that such a warning has become unnecessary.  The circumstances under which the commission would abandon its requirement that cigarette advertisements con­tain the health warning were not made entirely clear in the announcement. It was indicated, however, that one prerequisite might be that the industry it­self participate in campaigns to educate the public concern­ing the dangers of cigarette smoking,  Changes in the content of cigarette advertisements would clearly be required.  [Prices of tobacco issues took moderate to sharp losses Wednesday on the New York Stock Exchange. Liggett & Myers and Philip Morris were hardest hit, both off 1½. De­tails on Page 45.]  The commission's decision that the absence of a health warning on cigarette labels was unfair and misleading was based on the findings of a special com­mittee formed by the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service, Dr. Luther L. Terry.  That committee, after review­ing many studies of smoking and health made in recent years, concluded that “smoking is a health hazard of sufficient im‐  Paul Rand Dixon, the com­mission chairman, announced in testimony before the House In­terstate Commerce Committee today that the commission had decided to go ahead with its plans to require the health warnings. The text of the com­mission's proposed rule and a 153‐page report, supporting its conclusion that the new rule was necessary, were made pub­lic later.  Mr. Dixon told the committee he had no doubt that the com­mission had the authority to impose the cigarette regula­tions. Tobacco industry spokes­men indicated, however, that they would immediately chal­lenge this point in the courts.  The commission's rules were first proposed in somewhat dif­ferent fonn in January. Its decision to go ahead with the rule caught the industry by surprise, however, and no for­mal announcements concerning plans for a legal challenge were made immediately.  Gov. Terry Sanford of North Carolina announced that his state would participate in any court action that was taken in the case.  North Carolina's two Sena­tors, Sam J. Ervin Jr. and B. Everett Jordan, both Democrats, said that tobacco growers and cigarette manufacturers had in­formed them they planned an immediate court test of the commission's regulations.  The Senators said that they would themselves sponsor Con­gressional action to prohibit the commission froni putting its rules into effect should the court test fail and should they be unsuccessful in an attempt to get the Administration to withdraw the regulation.  The Federal Trade Commis­sion, as an independent agency, is not directly subject to the policies of any Administration. However, White House pressure has successfully been exerted on many of these agencies in the past.  The commission's rules, in contrast to the proposal it orig­inally made, do not attempt to limit in any way the affirma­tive claims that are made in cigarette advertisements.  The commission said that it had dropped this part of its pro­posed regulation, tetnporarily at least, because of the indus­try's plans to act voluntarily to end appeals lo young people and other “undesirable prac­tices.”  The industry recently named Robert B. Meyner, former Gov­ernor of New Jersey, as admin­istrator of it3 voluntary adver­tising code. It has received Jus­tice Department assurances  The commission's report warned cigarette manufactur­ers, however, that the commis­sion world “maintain a close surveillance” of the industry's behavior under the voluntary advertising code.  The commission noted that it was not prescribing the precise language of the warning it will require on cigarette packs and cartons. It said it would hold itself available for con­sultatidn with the industry and would give advance approval to warning phrases if found acceptable.  While the words “death” and “cancer” do not have to be used, under the commission's rule, Mr. Dixon conceded that he knew of no adequate sub­stitutes.  If the industry, as expected, goes into court to ask that the rule be prohibited from going into effect while the legal power of the commission is tested, the litigation might take up to four years, Mr. Dixon said.  The commission's decision to go ahead with the rule now was made by a 3‐to‐1 vote. Corn­missioner A. Everette Mac­Intyre said that he would have postponed the effective clate of the labeling order, as well as other portions of the rule, until July 1, 1965, and would have acted only after giving the in­dustry opportunity to under­take a labeling program volun­tarily.  Members of the commission who voted to adopt the rule, in addition to Mr. Dixon, were Philip Elman and John R. Reilly.  This article can be viewed in its original form. Please send questions and feedback to archive_feedback@nytimes.com
FTC requires cigarette pkgs beginning Jon 1 to stale 'clearly and prominently' that cigarette smoking 'may cause death from cancer and other diseases'; similar warning in ad to be required by July '65 unless indus convinces FTC that warning is unnecessary; Comr Dixon announces regulation, HR com; has no doubt of FTC authority; indus to test it in cts; Gov Sanford says NC will participate; NC Sens Ervin and Jordan to sponsor Cong action to bar regulation if ct tests fail