Entries from March 2009 ↓

As some of you may know, I have been at the forefront in providing scientific critique of Jim Pankow’s attempts since 1997 to misrepresent the amount of free-base (unprotonated) nicotine (FBN) in mainstream cigarette smoke.  The lastest Pankow article appeared on March 13 in the Articles ASAP section of the web edition of the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry (J. Agric. Food Chem., Article ASAP • DOI: 10.1021/jf803018x • Publication Date (Web): 13 March 2009).  Research was partially funded by attorneys from Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins LLP (anti-tobacco folks), contained many nonrelevant citations, questionable data (deliveries determined under MDPH conditions less than those reported for FTC smoking), and the claim that filter cigarettes were smoked to 23 mm butt length.  While Pankow’s data are now showing FBN to be 0.03% or less of total mainstream nicotine, their validity is questionable.  Indeed, Pankow admits to having a problem explaining why his FBN numbers are so much lower than he had reported previously.

JHL

The World Health Organization believes higher prices deter smoking and limit uptake. As a result they enthusiastically endorse higher tobacco taxes; particulary cigarettes.

Governments, at least many of them, think this a great idea and have happily complied – taxing their constituents almost literally to death. The UK and Brazil are two good examples.

So far so good (if you’re a government) but now the dependence issue takes precedence. The huge tax revenues are hard to give up – so what to do when smoking really declines – impacting that precious revenue stream on which you’ve come to depend?

This was seen in Canada some years ago when the provincial governments of Ontario and Quebec actually reduced taxes to preserve revenue, discouraging contraband in the process.

As taxes rise significantly in the US – with the large Federal tax increases on April 1 and a slew of pending State tax increases – what will be the unintended consequences?

Will Federal and State coffers become dependent? Are they already dependent?

Is this a form of addiction?

Will contraband increase?

What is the impact on gross tax revenues in the long term?

Isn’t it all about the money?

The recent e-cigarette controversy is another example of the poor smoker’s voice getting lost in the smoke – sorry noise!

Primarily smokers want to be left alone – but if that’s not going to happen – and they’re not; then they want options.

Choices so far revolve largely around “quit or die” and that’s not helpful.

The e-cigarette represents a choice and as such – assuming it is less harmful than cigarettes – it should not be banned.

Smokers want harm reduction. They want cigarattes that are less harmful, taste right and are at least moving in the direction of harm reduction.

Can this be done? Yes. Is it? No.

Why not?

The FDA appears to be trying to halt distribution of so called e-cigarettes by curbing imports.

The makers of the cigarettes, which are white with a brown filter and tip that glows red, say the cigarettes are safe because they don’t contain tar or other chemicals. They do, however, contain liquid nicotine.

A major distributor of electronic cigarettes compared the cigarettes to a nicotine patch. “There are no ingredients in our e-cigs that can cause cancer. However, it is a pretty new product, so we are not 100 percent sure of the side effects at this point,”

The World Health Organization has called for clinical studies and toxicity analysis to determine the safety of the cigarettes.

Although they may look similar to conventional cigarettes, e-cigarettes are not lit, neither do they contain tobacco. They are battery-powered electronic devices, originating initially from China that, when the user sucks on the mouthpiece, produce a microprocessor-controlled puff of vapour containing nicotine and propylene glycol.  As such, they reproduce the ‘hand-to-mouth’ action of smoking cigarettes but do not, of course, expose the user to the harmful effects of inhaling tobacco smoke. The apparently growing world-wide popularity of e-cigarettes has drawn attention from numerous health agencies and advocacy groups. Intuitively, one might have thought in a positive sense –after all these devices are almost certainly a lot less risky than regular cigarettes and probably less risky even than smokeless tobacco products. But the prevailing attitude has so far been quite the reverse – some regulatory authorities, such as those in Australia have already banned, others such as those in Canada are in the process of restricting their sale, and in the US the FDA are reportedly planning a crackdown against them (http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_11873938?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.)

 So what exactly is all the fuss about? Surely offering smokers another, much less risky, alternative to cigarettes to choose from isn’t a bad thing, even if only a small minority switch? But no, all kinds of objections have been raised to try and either get the products taken off the market or dissuade smokers from using them. These include: have not been proven safe; have not been proven to be an effective smoking cessation aid; might attract kids; children might be poisoned by eating the nicotine-containing cartridges that the devices use; they allow smokers to get round smoking bans.  Taking these objections in order: few, if any, things are completely safe and tests so far, albeit on  only one e-cigarette brand, have found no cause of serious concern; they are mostly marketed as cigarette alternatives rather than quitting aids (but if they help people to quit, surely that is an added benefit); the upfront cost of the device plus charger is relatively high (typically US$100 and up) so they would seem unlikely to attract kids – having said that, they certainly should not be marketed to them; whilst the cartridges should be kept out of the reach and sight of children, the same could be said of many products found in the house; the same criticism could be levelled at pharmaceutical NRT products in terms of them being marketed to reduce cravings during temporary abstinence from smoking. And I’m not the only one to question the evidence that e-cigarettes are a hazard (see for example http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/ecigarettes-under-attack-by-fda-and-who-are-they-really-unsafe-91658.php) Is it simply the case that some hard-liners in tobacco control don’t like e-cigarettes because in the hands of the user they look like conventional cigarettes?  But what do others think about these products and how they should be regulated? Has anyone tried them?

US Senators from North Carolina Richard Burr (R) and Kay Hagan (D) introduced on March 11th the Federal Tobacco Act of 2009, which would establish a separate entity called the Federal Tobacco Regulatory Agency to regulate the manufacture, marketing, sale and use of tobacco products, as opposed to US Rep. Henry Waxman’s (D-California) HR 1256, which seeks to give the Food and Drug Administration regulatory control over tobacco products.  Under the Burr-Hagan proposal, the new Federal agency would enforce existing as well as new statutes and regulations governing tobacco products. The measure would prohibit the advertising of tobacco products in newspapers and magazines as well as ban the use of descriptors such as ‘light,’ ‘mild,’ ‘ultra-light,’ ‘medium,’ and ‘low.’ In a press release, Hagan said the “FDA is overburdened already, and lacks the capacity or the expertise to take on a large, complicated new industry. Rather than merely oppose FDA regulation, Senator Burr and I have offered an alternative proposal that protects the tobacco industry while also imposing stringent new restrictions that will prevent children from smoking. I will not stand idly by while the FDA is put in charge of such a critical industry to North Carolina.” Hagan said she will seek support for the measure from her colleagues in the Senate

Good idea or not? What do you think?

Swiss banking giant UBS (well, until recently a giant!) looked at the tobacco industry and believes Lorillard is a possible merger or acquisition target. They came up with three possibilites……………

Their first – and favorite – involved Reynolds American and Lorillard. This is old news and speculation – all of it unsubstantiated – has been rife for months (some would say years.) They’re wrong and here’s why………… Reynolds has enough issues right now trying to stop market share bleeding and right-sizing its business to be distracted with a major acquisition. While the acquisition of Lorillard looks initially attractive for RAI it ignores the dilemma of what to do with Salem and Kool. And would the FTC approve? This is likely but not a given, as RAI would own the top three US menthol brands?

Second option was Imperial (Tobacco UK) acquiring Lorillard. An intriguing possibility but does Imperial have the money to pull off such a deal right now? Swallowing Altadis and Commonwealth must have used (most of) their acquisition war chest. 

Their third option, and in UBS’ view least likely, is Lorillard acquiring Swedish Match. What about the other way round or much more likely a true merger of equals? Swedish match gains a big market hold in the US with Newport. Lorillard gains acess to international markets, snus / smokeless technology and a big cigar business. 

What do you think?? Which option makes sense?