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.

AMA Refuses To Challenge Menthol Exemption In FDA Bill

Some health experts in the US, including seven former Federal health secretaries, have challenged the proposed exemption for menthol from the FDA tobacco legislation’s list of cigarette flavors to be banned, but the American Medical Association (AMA) refused to oppose the exception by voting on June 17th to refer the decision to its board, with AMA President Dr. Ron Davis saying removing the menthol exemption could imperil the bill’s chances of passage. The AMA vote effectively silences members who wanted the organization to challenge the exemption, which reportedly is a compromise with Philip Morris USA, the only industry player backing the legislation and whose Marlboro Menthol is the second largest menthol brand in the country.

The past few weeks have been filled with speculation regarding the fate of H.R. 1108 especially in light of the exemption of menthol in the flavor ban. Philip Morris states, ” Based on our scientific judgment, menthol does not increase the inherent hazards of smoking”. What are your thoughts? Why does the menthol share continue to grow? Why do folks smoke menthol? What affect does this recent development have on the proposed FDA regulation? Do you think tobacco companies use flavors to attract children to smoke? Or is it to offer it’s adult users variety like other consumable industries? If your a retailer do you focus more on the menthol segment today compared to the past? Are you seeing growth in your menthol business?

In a press release issued on Wednesday, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) - a Washington, D.C.-based national anti-smoking group - called banning smoking in homes the next front in the war on smoking and cited a new survey showing that a majority of people in Ireland expressed support for a total ban on smoking in homes and cars.

According to the press release: “A clear majority wants smoking banned in all homes, even if children are not present, and even if the smoke is not drifting into an adjoining dwelling. This could expand the latest front in the war to protect nonsmokers, says the man who started the nonsmokers’ movement by getting smoking first restricted and then banned on airplanes and then in workplaces and public places, and who is racking up victories in the battle to ban smoking in private dwellings and cars.

What are your thoughts? Will this ever materialize? How will this affect the industry? 

Now that Swedish Match joined USSTC in supporting the Philip Morris push for FDA Regulation, followed then by North Atlantic Trading and Dosal, the odds of approval in the Senate, after almost certain approval in the House, appear to have gone up, especially since NACS, with its 50 State set of supporters, has also joined the bandwagon by not opposing the bill. Swedish has argued that an Obama-Clinton-McCain world might even lead to including cigars and other tobacco products so it is better to grab the best that can be had especially given Waxman’s concession on allowing a smokeless sampling amendment.

Yet the harm reduction elements of the bill, making it difficult if not impossible to deliver such products, coupled with compelling smokeless to adopt the same warnings as cigarettes, when everyone now knows that smokeless is less harmful, has caused a rift in the tobacco control community with those seeking less harmful products, less supportive, than those who represent the California extremist wing who support it.

Politics sure does make “strange bedfellows.” On which side of the fence do you stand?

In the future, it may be a harder to purchase cigarettes as more retailers drop them and as officials in a few states look to ban the sale of all tobacco products in drugstores. For instance, the city of San Francisco has a proposal being reviewed by the city board that many believe will be put in place that will ban the sale of all tobacco products in October 2008. There are also bills like this  pending in New Hampshire, Illinois, Tennessee and New York.

What do you think about this?

Is is the beginning of a new movement that will affect the industry?

Do you buy tobacco products at the drug store? Supermarket?

Or is this a good idea that’s time has been long overdue?

How will this affect you?  

Smoking may be declining in the US but there are still around 60 million smokers here and in terms of harm reduction they are increasingly sidelined. This assumes that they choose not to migrate to smokeless - and not everyone will.

That leaves the cigarette business in a bit of a quandry - and the public health community too - strange bed fellows to say the least.

I don’t buy it that smokers will migrate en-masse to smokeless. It may have worked in Sweden but I content it won’t work (completely) here.

This leaves US cigarette smokers without harm reduction choices at present. Is this the way to treat your customers?

By CARLA K. JOHNSON,

CHICAGO (May — The federal government’s new advice to doctors for helping smokers quit recommends the drug Chantix, which has recently been linked with depression and suicidal behavior. The new guidelines mention the psychiatric risks but also say the popular Pfizer Inc. drug is the most effective at helping people get off cigarettes.

The guidelines mention other options, too, and highly recommend combining counseling and medication. But doctors are encouraged to talk to all smokers who want to quit about trying medication.

Consumer advocates cautioned that the safety picture on Chantix is incomplete because it’s a relatively new drug, on the market just since 2006.

“It is somewhat better than other therapies; on the other hand, it appears to have more risk,” said Dr. Sidney Wolfe of the watchdog group Public Citizen. “That part of the risk-benefit equation is missing, and it’s changing rapidly.”

Another issue with the quit-smoking guidelines, released this week by the U.S. Public Health Service, is the lead author’s past connections with Pfizer. Dr. Michael Fiore, an expert on smoking and health issues, was a consultant to the maker of Chantix. But he said he cut those ties in 2005.

Fiore’s views are shaped by his past ties to the drug industry, and those ties still pose a conflict, at least one consumer advocate said. John Polito, a smoking cessation educator who runs the WhyQuit.com site advocating quitting “cold turkey,” called the revised guidelines “a sales pitch” for the drug industry.

The task force overlooked research showing that quitting cold turkey works, Polito said, and studies showing Chantix is superior don’t reflect how it’s used “in the real world.”

“People are quitting smoking to save their lives,” Polito said. If Chantix’s risks outweigh its benefits, “then it’s insane for people to risk their lives” by using it, he said.

So what do you think is the risk worth it?

Do you know of anyone that has either a positive or negative experience with this drug?

Recently at a speaking engagement in Chicago, I met a user that quit smoking using the drug but refused to proceed to the fourth step as he feared the side affects  that he was experiencing.

Whose side are you on that of Fiore? or Polito?

Share your thoughts!

Let others know your opinion!