Abstract
The decision in RJ Reynolds vs. FDA (2012) to invalidate FDA's proposed graphic health warnings was based in part on the reasoning that the proposed graphic warnings cued emotional responses and therefore could not be considered "factual." However, this reasoning demonstrated the courts' fundamental misunderstanding of current behavioral-science research. In contrast to the courts' artificial separation of emotions from fact, we synthesize and interpret relevant research in basic decision sciences and describe an evidence-based characterization of how emotions influence consumer decision making through multiple mechanisms. We then explore how behavioral research gets "lost in translation" in the legal process and recommend ways that behavioral scientists can work with attorneys to remedy this problem. In order for science-based tobacco regulation to survive legal challenges from the tobacco industry, courts must have access to and be able to understand and apply the relevant research. Accordingly, behavioral laboratory researchers must consider the courts as an additional audience when designing research and reporting results. Researchers wishing to influence policy should also work closely with public health lawyers to have the greatest impact on the legal system.