The conventions are over and the nominees have accepted - Tuesday November 4th will be upon us before we know it.

From an industry perpsective - the tobacco industry will be asking who will be the better candidate for them?

In the US both Schip legislation and FDA regulation are on the agenda. Both will have an enormous impact on the future of tobacco in the US.

John McCain on the Republican ticket - and normally the party more supportive of the industry - is campaigning as taking on big tobacco.

Democrat Barack Obama is a recent ex-smoker.

If you have an opinion vote here in our tobacco survey and check back to see how your colleagues think.

 Loading ...

Earlier postings on Tobacco Today - some months ago predicted PM USA would acquire either Swedish Match or USST to gain a significant entry into the smokelsss market. Evidently they’ve made their move - and we think its a smart move for PM USA.

They gain immediate participation in large portions of the smokeless category with big market shares. PM also gains significant product development access further enabling it to gain future synergies.

So who will acquire Swedish Match?

PMI already owned over 40% of RBH anyway but this is an interesting move for PMI - what’s next?

More acquisitions in Canada?

Does this signal an interest in Virginia markets?

Should menthol be banned as a flavor under proposed FDA regulations?

How does this affect consumers?

Is it really just another flavor like strawberry or peach?

Does this start kids smoking or is this a myth?

This week, The house passed by a large bipartisan majority, the Bill regulating tobacco under the control of the FDA.

What are your thoughts - will it pass, and if so when?

If you don’t think it will pass - do you think this is good?

These days you almost can’t talk about lower tar cigarettes without the ensuing argument of compensatory smoking and the misleading intent of the cigarette manufacturers deliberately producing lower tar products and misleading the public.

But the debate raises a fundamental flaw in the public health community’s argument for low tar cigarettes.

Why is it that the original surgeon general’s findings in the US and UK both concluded there were health risks with smoking and that the evidence was the more you smoked the higher the risk?

Assuming this is correct - and if you want further evidence read my post on menthol cigarettes - then smoking lower tar cigarettes or fewer must have advantages. Right?

Some governments appear to agree. The EU, Canada, Brazil and Saudi Arabia all have tar ceilings.

Elements of the WHO and CDC and many public health advocates choose mostly to ignore this key point.

Again it is the consumer who bears the brunt of this  - surely they should benefit (albeit not as much as using other tobacco products) from lower tar or less harmful cigarette developments?

Where is the constructive debate on lower tar products and reduced risk in cigarette smoking? Would FDA regulation help drive this?

As it currently stands menthol cigarettes will be exempted as a flavor additive in proposed FDA regulation.

If you are a supporter of menthol cigarettes, and about 28% of the US smoking population is; this is good news.

If you are against menthol cigarettes or smoking in general - this is not good news. But what’s the big deal?

Demographics and harm reduction  - that’s the big deal.

Let’s start by clarifying a couple of points. It is a food-safe natural product (although there are synthetic menthols too) which is pervasive - toothpaste and candy are two examples. Menthol is not inherently harmful and there is no evidence that it creates any problems when added to cigarettes. Generally quite the contrary - 28% of US smokers really like it and a disproportionate percentage of them are African Americans.

This is the demographic part where things become a little more sensitive. There is some epidemiological evidence that African American smokers appear to have higher incidences of health risks. Is it the menthol many are asking?

The truth is most menthol cigarettes are higher in tar than their peers - and this is most likely the cause - not the menthol.

Interestingly hardly anybody is bringing this up. It would be relatively easy to reduce the tar in menthol products to match non-menthol brands.

A step program to reduce tar levels over time with menthol products would allow smokers to migrate to a lower tar product without noticing a step change. Admittedly a small benefit - but an important benefit nontheless.

Tommieboy, you raise a good point and one which goes to the heart of this issue.

How do you produce a less harmful cigarette and who stands in the way?

The answer; almost everybody. The lawyers will have a field day and the cigarette companies know it. The Federal government has no clue how to go about this and the public health community derides anything to do with cigarettes.

Not particularly helpful to our cigarette smokers, who would benefit from having a choice.

The technology exists today to produce a less harmful cigarette. Let’s be clear - I didn’t say safe - I said, less harmful.

This is the very essence of PREPs (Potentailly Reduced Exposure Products.)

Whether you agree with government intervention or not - the Federal government is the only one capable of establishing the framework.

Perhaps this could be done under FDA.

Logically if FDA requires benchmarking of tar, nicotine, CO and other smoke constituents then the next future step could be reductions in specified smokes contituents. Unless the FDA (or similar) mandates it then the arguments for not doing it will continue.

In this context the public health community should do the public health of smokers a favor and back off - permitting development and sale of PREP-like products. Would cigarettes be instantly safer? No! Would it be the first step - absolutely. Is this worth doing? Yes.