Comments on: Experts in Government, Public Health, Public Policy and Science Outline Blueprint for Reducing Death and Disease from Tobacco in the United States

By: Adrian

Adrian — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:24:24 +0000

Thanks everyone for the comments on this posting! As we seem (not surprisingly) to have ended up in the regulatory policy box, it would therefore seem to make sense to continue the conversation under the more recent post on an alternative to FDA regulation-hence please feel free to do so there: here is the link
http://www.tobaccotoday.info/2009/03/12/an-alternative-to-fda-regulation-of-tobacco/#comments

By: Troubadour

Troubadour — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 16:19:45 +0000

I’d love to see this policy get traction!

By: Bertram52

Bertram52 — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 15:16:13 +0000

Adrian, this is a brilliant summary of where policy should go….. We can only hope that is resonates.

By: Adrian

Adrian — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 12:49:11 +0000

I agree that for the forseeable future the majority of tobacco consumption (in the western world anyway) is likely to be in the form of cigarettes. That’s why it’s important that research into ’safer cigarettes’ should continue. However the barriers to demonstrating that a new combustible product is ’safer’ than regular cigarettes should not be underestimated. In the absence of validated biomarkers of harm it could take years to do the necessary epidemiological studies. In the case of smokeless products we already have the epidemiology to demonstrate that, while not being entirely safe (few things in life are) overall they are much less risky than cigarettes. Does that mean smokers will switch to these products in droves overnight? No – of course they won’t, it’s a completely different experience. But more might switch if they were provided with accurate and consistent information about the difference in risk. Even if just a small percentage of inveterate smokers switched it could have a significant public health impact. So I guess what I am suggesting is that we should look at harm reduction in a holistic way that factors all possibilities into the mix. This includes a framework for product regulation that a) takes on board the continuum of risk; b) supports the right of consumers to know where the products (including NRT products) that they purchase, or are thinking about purchasing, lie on that continuum; and c) provides incentives to manufacturers to do the R&D on potentially ’safer’ products, including cigarettes. This incentive should encompass a mechanism whereby any such products would be evaluted objectively rather than either emotionally or politically.

By: jredheadgirl

jredheadgirl — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 20:56:16 +0000

People are always going to smoke cigarettes. I, for one, will never switch to a smokeless nicotine product. The only real solution is to put research funds into developing a safer cigarette, rather than wasting money on trying to prohibit it. Snus is NOT the answer. Smokeless products are NOT the answer. The longer that we ignore this, the longer we wait for real harm reduction for the billion + people in the world who smoke and will continue to smoke. Remember when we tried to get people to quit drinking alcohol?

By: Adrian

Adrian — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:18:17 +0000

Just learned that another alternative to the Waxman Bill has been introduced (see below). Not mentioned in the press release is the fact that, among other things, this bill proposes to set up a mechanism to evaluate reduced exposure/reduced risk claims and would also require that product categories (e.g. cigarettes, cigars, smokeless) be ranked on the basis of relative risk. Furthermore, this ranking would be promulgated to the general public. This could all get very interesting!

Press Release of Senator Hagan http://hagan.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=309405&

SENATORS BURR, HAGAN OFFER ALTERNATIVE TO FDA REGULATING TOBACCO
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Recognizing that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is ill equipped and unsuited to regulate tobacco and tobacco products and concerned about the impact federal tobacco regulation could have on a key industry in North Carolina, U.S. Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) joined U.S. Senator Kay R. Hagan (D-NC) in offering a reasonable, bipartisan alternative to the proposed FDA tobacco regulation. Events such as the recent peanut recall demonstrate that the FDA is overburdened and ill-equipped to handle a large, new mandate.

“I am pleased to introduce this important piece of legislation, along with Senator Hagan, which will provide appropriate federal regulation of tobacco products,” Senator Burr said.

“I am opposed to giving the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco. 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,” said Hagan. “I am offering this alternative and will work with my colleagues to garner additional support.”

The Federal Tobacco Act of 2009, introduced today, would establish a federal agency – separate from the FDA – dedicated to regulating the manufacture, marketing and use of tobacco products. The FDA’s mission is to ensure the safety of the food, drugs, and medical devices, not products that everyone knows to be unsafe. If tobacco regulation must take place, this proposal is a more viable and reasonable alternative.

Under the proposal, a new agency – the Federal Tobacco Regulatory Agency – would be established to enforce new and existing federal statutes and regulations governing tobacco products. All tobacco manufacturers doing businesses domestically would be required to register with the Federal Tobacco Regulatory Agency, and significant user fees would fund the agency.

Additionally, the proposal would virtually eliminate the advertising and marketing of tobacco products and the use of terms such as “light,” “mild,” “ultra-light,” “medium,” and “low,” as product descriptors. Companies would not be permitted to use their brand to sponsor events or conduct consumer sweepstakes or contests. Cigarettes would not be permitted to be sold in packs of less than 20, and the backs of tobacco packages would be reserved for mandated disclosure requirements, including surgeon general’s warnings and ingredient disclosures.

North Carolina employs 65,000 people in tobacco industry – from large tobacco companies, distributors, to tobacco farmers in eastern North Carolina.

By: Adrian

Adrian — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:40:29 +0000

In reply to Cig Guy – nice thought! I think that Bill has tried valiantly to bring attention to what is a pragmatic alternative to the outmoded ‘abstinence-only’ mindset of tobacco control othodoxy and he deserves all the support he can get in doing this. In my own way I have tried to do the same with my contacts. But what I think is a fundamental issue here is political correctness. I know from my own experience of talking to politicians on an individual basis that they get the concept of tobacco harm reduction. Indeed, who would not? It’s just common sense and it is applied in many other areas where risk is involved. Unfortunately in the great scheme of things it is a brave politician that makes a stand against the massed ranks of NGOs and public health charities whose well-funded business model depends on being seen to be hard line anti-tobacco, even if this disenfranchises consumers from having either the information or the choice on safer alternatives to cigarettes if (for whatever reason) they don’t quit tobacco use entirely. I for one hope that the mere fact that an alternative proposal has been put forward will stimulate discussion in the run-up to consideration of the bill by the Senate. At the moment the consumer is caught in the crossfire between the massed ranks of the tobacco control community and the tobacco manufacturers. This can’t be right – smokers may be smokers, but first and foremost they are people, and it’s a sad reflection on the times we live in that some (indeed, many) politicians seem to conveniently forget this.

By: Cig Guy

Cig Guy — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 04:20:05 +0000

Well said Adrian however I’m not sure if the last part of your statement regarding “consumers being able to choose between different formats of tobacco products based on truthful and accurate information on where they lie on the continuum of risk” is something that our legislature is capable of doing. Can they understand this? Can they think outside of the Waxman Marlboro Protection Plan called HR 1108? This will be the true test! How can we get to them and guide them past their blindness? Maybe you an Bill Godshall should post an article that tells folks what to do that works? Or is it futile! I’ve called the 1-800-govt cares line which seem to be really a 1-800-your a fool line if you think we care what you think lines! Pretty frustrating!

By: Adrian

Adrian — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 17:41:16 +0000

Although the committee voted as it did, the mere fact that an alternative to the Waxman bill was discussed is, I think, a major step forward and can only spur further debate in the Senate. I for one hope that the ensuing discussions lead to a more pragmatic approach to the issue of tobacco regulation that focuses on reducing the health impact of tobacco use across the board rather than being targeted primarily to preventing youth access, which although important, does necessarily not help adult consumers. All tobacco products are not created equal, either in terms of health risks or consumer acceptability. But the consumer acceptability of some less risky products might well increase if accurate information was provided as to the risks of these products relative to cigarettes. In almost every other walk of life, consumers are credited with the ability to make informed decisions. I can see no reason why this should not also be the case in terms of consumers being able to choose between different formats of tobacco products based on truthful and accurate information on where they lie on the continuum of risk.

By: TAZ

TAZ — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 00:24:06 +0000

In a 39-13 vote, the US House Committee on Energy and Commerce chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-California) on March 4th passed H.R.1256 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which is sponsored by Mr. Waxman and would authorize the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco products. The committee rejected Rep. Steve Buyers (R-Indiana) substitute that proposed an alternative Tobacco Harm Reduction Center within the US Department of Health and Human Services to encourage ways to reduce harm from cigarette smoking, including a shift toward smokeless products. (Bloomberg News 03/04)