There’s real progress to be had for harm reduction in getting this news out to the general public.
There are advantages in harm reduction by smokers migrating to smokeless products. However, it would also be helpful if the relative harm for the various type of smokeless tobacco were made public. They are not all equal - but it seems quite clear that snus is the least harmful. If this is correct - we should say so.
6 comments ↓
Now this is what I think folks need to know - The anti - tobacco folks are just totally irrational as the T word just makes them go stupid. Moist tobacco is so less harmful than cigarette smoking. Folks I have heard that “it’s the smoke” that is what causes harm. We do noeed to let folks know that there are tobacco products that are less harmful.
I was thinking about this last week and I’m wondering if I as a retailer could put up news articles to communicate that smokeless is a good alternative to smoking.
A good buddy of mine actually quit smoking as his doctor recommended he use pouches of Skoal. He liked the idea especially since he was able to switch up on flavors. He mentioned a very interesting benefit in that when we play hoops he doesn’t get out of breathe as quick as he did when smoking.
I’ve been a dipper of the fine Copenhagen brand for over 40 years now and I’m glad to see that folks are trying to get the word out. I find enjoyment in the product and I think that there are more serious issues in our country that health agencies should focus on. Good to see folks get the real truth out!
A VERY INTERESTING ARTICLE ON THE TOPIC WAS SENT TO ME THIS PAST WEEK!
Industry and public health should partner
Bill Godshall, Executive Director of Smokefree Pennsylvania, discusses the
postive health aspects of swapping cigarettes for smokeless tobacco
products
World Tobacco
Smokeless Special: Harm Reduction
May 2008
As commonly used, different tobacco/nicotine products confer vastly
different health and safety risks for users and others. Truthfully
informing tobacco consumers about the relative and comparable health risks
of various tobacco products can reduce the morbidity and mortality risks of
tobacco use, which should be a common goal for public health and the
tobacco industry.
Unfortunately for consumer and public health, the overwhelming majority
(about 85%) of smokers (and nonsmokers) inaccurately believe that smokefree
tobacco products are just as, if not more, hazardous than cigarettes.
Although reduced ignition propensity (RIP) cigarettes reduce fire and burn
risks (compared to other cigarettes), there is no evidence that any type of
combustible cigarette (including filtered) poses fewer health risks than
any other type of cigarette. Additionally, many (perhaps most) smokers
inaccurately believe that nicotine in tobacco/nicotine products causes
cancer.
Is nicotine a health risk?
Nicotine is what makes cigarettes and most smokeless tobacco products
highly addictive, whereas cigars are less addictive because most cigar
smokers don’t directly inhale the smoke (as occurs with cigarettes). But
cigar smokers who inhale similar to cigarette smokers face similar health
risks, which is why cigars are not less hazardous alternatives for
cigarette smokers.
On a mortality risk scale from one to 10, on which nicotine products sold
as smoking cessation aids are a one and cigarettes are a 10, smokefree
tobacco products commonly used in the U.S. and Sweden are a two or less.
In essence, combustible tobacco products, smokefree tobacco products,
nicotine products sold as smoking cessation aids, and other nicotine
delivery devices all compete against each other in the nicotine products
market, and all of these products rely upon the tobacco plant for their
nicotine.
Smokefree tobacco products account for about half of all nicotine
consumption in Sweden, where more men use snus than cigarettes. In the
rest of the E.U., Australia and New Zealand, where most smokefree tobacco
products are banned, cigarettes account for virtually all nicotine
consumption. In the U.S., smokefree tobacco products account for about 10%
of nicotine consumption, while cigarettes account for the most of the rest.
Meanwhile, nicotine products sold for smoking cessation account for less
than 1% of nicotine consumption in all countries.
Even if overall nicotine consumption remains the same, the health of
tobacco users and the public can improve as the percentage of nicotine
consumed from smokefree tobacco/nicotine products increases.
Education, not legislation
Survey data indicate that about two million male ex-smokers in the U.S.,
and several hundred thousand ex-smokers in Sweden, have already quit
smoking by switching to smokefree tobacco products. This appears to be a
recently growing trend in the U.S., as consumption of moist snuff has
increased to an estimated 1.2 bn cans this year.
Public health agencies have an ethical duty to provide accurate health risk
information, and tobacco users have a human right to be provided accurate
health risk information. But instead of educating tobacco users about the
comparable health risks of different tobacco products, government health
agencies and many health organisations have been misleading tobacco users
(and the public) into believing that all tobacco products pose similar
health risks.
A 1986 law requires all smokeless tobacco products sold in the U.S. to
include a misleading warning that states ‘this product is not a safe
alternative to cigarettes,’
and ‘this product may cause mouth cancer,’ which has been widely adopted by
many health agencies and organisations as a talking point against smokeless
tobacco products.
Despite the overwhelming evidence that cigarettes are more hazardous than
commonly used smokefree tobacco products in the U.S. and Sweden, this
author is unaware of any government health agency websites or educational
materials that inform cigarette smokers (or the public) that smokefree
tobacco/nicotine products are less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes.
But a growing number of public health advocates are challenging the
abstinence-only anti-tobacco goal and mindset of those who oppose tobacco
harm reduction. Educating smokers about the comparable health risks of
smokefree tobacco/nicotine products can and should be embraced by the
public health community and the tobacco industry.
Would seem to this simple farm boy that it has to do with the smoke! The burning of the product is what produces the smoke. Read an interesting article on artificial sweetners that seems to present a more serious risk than “dipping” but I don’t see the health advocates attacking the sweetner industry like they do the moist tobacco industry. I think it is time that folks begin to realize the inconsistencies out there.
Pretty interesting blog going on here. A friend of mine told me to take a look at it so here I am. I have a question for someone who may be in the know. When you make the claim that smokeless tobacco is 98% safer than smoking cigarettes is that because more folks smoke. I guess what I’m saying is if 1000 folks smoke and a 1000 folks dip are you saying that less folks by dipping will experience harm by 98%? Always wondered if this was the case. Can someone answer this?
Leave a Comment