Comments on: WHO’s TobReg: Regulation for the Sake of Regulation? http://www.tobaccotoday.info/2008/04/07/whos-tobreg-regulation-for-the-sake-of-regulation/ Information on the Tobacco industry Thu, 29 Jul 2010 02:02:57 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: RENEGADE http://www.tobaccotoday.info/2008/04/07/whos-tobreg-regulation-for-the-sake-of-regulation/comment-page-1/#comment-431 RENEGADE Tue, 22 Jul 2008 02:44:08 +0000 http://www.tobaccotoday.info/2008/04/07/whos-tobreg-regulation-for-the-sake-of-regulation/#comment-431 Hey cig guy big pharma is causing so many problems. Who you think is supporting (funding) the anti smoking movement? They have billions of dollars in revenue at stake in nicotine replacement therapy! Hey cig guy big pharma is causing so many problems. Who you think is supporting (funding) the anti smoking movement? They have billions of dollars in revenue at stake in nicotine replacement therapy!

]]> By: CIG GUY http://www.tobaccotoday.info/2008/04/07/whos-tobreg-regulation-for-the-sake-of-regulation/comment-page-1/#comment-284 CIG GUY Wed, 11 Jun 2008 02:34:22 +0000 http://www.tobaccotoday.info/2008/04/07/whos-tobreg-regulation-for-the-sake-of-regulation/#comment-284 JR are you implying that big pharma is doing good them or are they actually fighting the development by others? JR are you implying that big pharma is doing good them or are they actually fighting the development by others?

]]> By: John Rolfe http://www.tobaccotoday.info/2008/04/07/whos-tobreg-regulation-for-the-sake-of-regulation/comment-page-1/#comment-276 John Rolfe Fri, 06 Jun 2008 12:48:54 +0000 http://www.tobaccotoday.info/2008/04/07/whos-tobreg-regulation-for-the-sake-of-regulation/#comment-276 Good question. Based on the submissions I have seen to date, the principal input has been Jack Henningfeld's presentation at the Waxman hearing: he and Mitch Zeller have Glaxo Smithkline as their principal client at Pinney Associates. I have seen nothing else that one might consider formal but this does not mean there is no behind-the-scenes lobbying. Based on how the Waxman legislation is currently written, however, one can only conclude that raising the bar on tobacco-specific THR products is in the interest of Big Pharma. Good question. Based on the submissions I have seen to date, the principal input has been Jack Henningfeld’s presentation at the Waxman hearing: he and Mitch Zeller have Glaxo Smithkline as their principal client at Pinney Associates. I have seen nothing else that one might consider formal but this does not mean there is no behind-the-scenes lobbying. Based on how the Waxman legislation is currently written, however, one can only conclude that raising the bar on tobacco-specific THR products is in the interest of Big Pharma.

]]> By: Patriot http://www.tobaccotoday.info/2008/04/07/whos-tobreg-regulation-for-the-sake-of-regulation/comment-page-1/#comment-275 Patriot Fri, 06 Jun 2008 05:04:27 +0000 http://www.tobaccotoday.info/2008/04/07/whos-tobreg-regulation-for-the-sake-of-regulation/#comment-275 Does anyone know if Big Pharma has any input as it relates to FDA regulation? Does anyone know if Big Pharma has any input as it relates to FDA regulation?

]]> By: John Rolfe http://www.tobaccotoday.info/2008/04/07/whos-tobreg-regulation-for-the-sake-of-regulation/comment-page-1/#comment-269 John Rolfe Sat, 31 May 2008 18:53:19 +0000 http://www.tobaccotoday.info/2008/04/07/whos-tobreg-regulation-for-the-sake-of-regulation/#comment-269 The only way to advance is for those in public health opposed to the demonization of tobacco producers and consumers by tobacco control to willingly stand up to the control radicals and to recognize that an awful lot of consumers are consuming nicotine in the most harmful ways possible when there are many other forms of nicotine consumption that are less harmful and that are more consumer satisfying than those offered by Glaxo and Pfizer. But tobacco control is sponsored by Big Pharma and they perpetuate the economic interests of Big Pharma. The only way to advance is for those in public health opposed to the demonization of tobacco producers and consumers by tobacco control to willingly stand up to the control radicals and to recognize that an awful lot of consumers are consuming nicotine in the most harmful ways possible when there are many other forms of nicotine consumption that are less harmful and that are more consumer satisfying than those offered by Glaxo and Pfizer. But tobacco control is sponsored by Big Pharma and they perpetuate the economic interests of Big Pharma.

]]> By: CIG GUY http://www.tobaccotoday.info/2008/04/07/whos-tobreg-regulation-for-the-sake-of-regulation/comment-page-1/#comment-266 CIG GUY Sat, 31 May 2008 16:04:05 +0000 http://www.tobaccotoday.info/2008/04/07/whos-tobreg-regulation-for-the-sake-of-regulation/#comment-266 Any one know if there is any organization working on getting the message out and trying to get an open forum to advance the industry? Any one know if there is any organization working on getting the message out and trying to get an open forum to advance the industry?

]]> By: TAZ http://www.tobaccotoday.info/2008/04/07/whos-tobreg-regulation-for-the-sake-of-regulation/comment-page-1/#comment-208 TAZ Sat, 03 May 2008 17:40:05 +0000 http://www.tobaccotoday.info/2008/04/07/whos-tobreg-regulation-for-the-sake-of-regulation/#comment-208 Cig Guy, I think your on target. An environment needs to created for advancement in the industry not a emotionally charged movement that may also have suspect support that stifles any advancement! Cig Guy, I think your on target. An environment needs to created for advancement in the industry not a emotionally charged movement that may also have suspect support that stifles any advancement!

]]> By: John Rolfe http://www.tobaccotoday.info/2008/04/07/whos-tobreg-regulation-for-the-sake-of-regulation/comment-page-1/#comment-201 John Rolfe Thu, 01 May 2008 19:53:39 +0000 http://www.tobaccotoday.info/2008/04/07/whos-tobreg-regulation-for-the-sake-of-regulation/#comment-201 At the TMA conference in Williamsburg, Virginia from May 18-21, I understand that harm reduction is a key subject with demonstrations of some of the newer products along with discussion of FDA, WHO etc. At the TMA conference in Williamsburg, Virginia from May 18-21, I understand that harm reduction is a key subject with demonstrations of some of the newer products along with discussion of FDA, WHO etc.

]]> By: CIG GUY http://www.tobaccotoday.info/2008/04/07/whos-tobreg-regulation-for-the-sake-of-regulation/comment-page-1/#comment-182 CIG GUY Wed, 16 Apr 2008 05:15:28 +0000 http://www.tobaccotoday.info/2008/04/07/whos-tobreg-regulation-for-the-sake-of-regulation/#comment-182 As civilization advances man finds advances in science and technology. It is absolutely possible that science will make these advances. However, if the government does not allow this it would seem to me that it is so grossly wrong. Any new legislation on tobacco related to reduced harm should allow for the advance of science and technology. Just think one day in the past the wheel was a square. Now I know it is simplified but can you imagine that! Could one day in the future man look back and go what were they thinking when a new age of tobacco was allowed to produce a harmless tobacco product. I agree with Michael Siegel that more and more the anti message is along the tune of "because I said so" with little support. I think we need to get the word out. Allow folks to advance learning and develop new reduced harm products. As civilization advances man finds advances in science and technology. It is absolutely possible that science will make these advances. However, if the government does not allow this it would seem to me that it is so grossly wrong. Any new legislation on tobacco related to reduced harm should allow for the advance of science and technology. Just think one day in the past the wheel was a square. Now I know it is simplified but can you imagine that! Could one day in the future man look back and go what were they thinking when a new age of tobacco was allowed to produce a harmless tobacco product. I agree with Michael Siegel that more and more the anti message is along the tune of “because I said so” with little support. I think we need to get the word out. Allow folks to advance learning and develop new reduced harm products.

]]> By: tatler http://www.tobaccotoday.info/2008/04/07/whos-tobreg-regulation-for-the-sake-of-regulation/comment-page-1/#comment-177 tatler Wed, 09 Apr 2008 21:06:57 +0000 http://www.tobaccotoday.info/2008/04/07/whos-tobreg-regulation-for-the-sake-of-regulation/#comment-177 These proposals from IARC and WHO are unhelpful as they only raise more questions. Cigarette manufacturers are being discouraged from reduced exposure (PREP) product developments in part because of the unhelful positions of WHO, CDC and IARC. And the ultimate loser is the hapless smoker who perhaps could benifit from a future PREP - if one were allowed to exist. WHO is essentially ignoring existing smokers rather than helping encourage PREP development. You simply cannot produce a potentially safe cigarette in one development pass. Quite apart from the absence of scientific proof, it will not be acceptable to existing smokers - who will need some time to gradually migrate their tastes to new products. These proposals from IARC and WHO are unhelpful as they only raise more questions.

Cigarette manufacturers are being discouraged from reduced exposure (PREP) product developments in part because of the unhelful positions of WHO, CDC and IARC. And the ultimate loser is the hapless smoker who perhaps could benifit from a future PREP – if one were allowed to exist.

WHO is essentially ignoring existing smokers rather than helping encourage PREP development.

You simply cannot produce a potentially safe cigarette in one development pass. Quite apart from the absence of scientific proof, it will not be acceptable to existing smokers – who will need some time to gradually migrate their tastes to new products.

]]>