Entries Tagged 'Snus, Snuff & Alternative Products in US Markets' ↓

In an historic first for public health, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) of the UK’s National Health Service overwhelming approved tobacco harm reduction as a key component in England’s ten year plan to reduce cigarette smoking by half.  The US FDA should follow the UK’s lead.  The announcement and a news excerpt are below, the press release is attached, and the full report “A Smokefree Future” is at http://www.dh.gov.uk/dr_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/@ps/documents/digitalasset/dh_111748.pdf

Interesting development in the UK.

What are your thoughts?

Do you see the FDA following suit?

In a recent interview with ECigaretteDirect.co.uk Carl Phillips, Associate Professor at the University of Alberta in Canada, told us that the electronic cigarette was an order of magnitude safer than regular cigarettes and that an FDA study into the electronic cigarette was “pure propoganda”.

The electronic cigarette carried, he estimated, around one percent of the risk of regular cigarettes.

While he acknowledged that the electronic cigarette carried traces of carcinogens, he pointed out that banning the electronic cigarette based on the very low levels of carcinogens contained within would also mean “banning half the foods available.”

Given that, he argued, the FDA’s stance on the electronic cigarette was motivated by propoganda and not by science.

You can read the full interview here: Electronic Cigarette Interview with Carl Phillips.

Prof. Michael Siegel of Boston University School of Public Health welcomed Action on Smoking and Health UK’s statement (http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_715.pdf) supporting the use of e-cigarettes by smokers who are otherwise unable to quit smoking, as it represents one of the first major anti-smoking groups that is in favor of allowing the product on the market.  ASH UK’s statement says it supports a “harm reduction approach to tobacco,” and for those who do not wish to stop smoking or find it difficult to quit, products that deliver nicotine in a safe way should be made available. Since most of the smoking-related diseases are caused by inhaling smoke, the e-cigarettes, which deliver nicotine without the harmful toxins in cigarette smoke, are “likely to be a safer alternative to smoking,” ASH UK said. ASH’s US counterpart has called for a ban on e-cigarettes. Siegel said anti-smoking groups in the US support a policy of banning e-cigarettes, though such an approach would result in ex-smokers returning to cigarette smoking (tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com 10/15).

The e-cigarette was almost unknown a little over a year ago – not so today. It is the hottest and most controversial product to hit the tobacco industry in recent history – and it’s kicking up a storm!

It is a game changer on several front and sits squarely in the front line (read firing line) of tobacco harm reduction.

Congress wants to ban it. FDA may do so – on the basis it is a drug-delivery device (nicotine) not a tobacco product.

The traditional tobacco industry sees competition as does big pharma which sees it as a threat to its highly profitable  NRT (Nicotine Replacement Therapy) products – which are considerably more expensive.

Public Health officials cite untested and unproven technology and efficacy. True; in the strictest sense, while completely ignoring the greater issue of protecting public health in self-protecting its own fiefdom. Even the most preliminary research shows it is likely to be considerably safer than cigarette smoking.

Most importantly comsumers want it.

Now you can have your say. Use this forum to make your case.

Use the link to particapte in this survey. Help at least keep the arena competitive, lively and provide consumers with choice.

http://www.ecigarettedirect.co.uk/research/survey.html 

Good luck and have fun.

In a letter to ECigarette Direct, Brad Radu, a professor of medicine and holder of an endowed chair in tobacco harm reduction research at the University of Louisville, criticizes Tobacco Free Kids for opposing safe alternatives to smoking and for supporting the Kennedy tobacco bill due to enter the senate next week.

According to the Professor, the stance taken by the organization was not a rational position but a moralistic one:

“There is no public health justification for denying smokers information about and access to safer sources of tobacco and nicotine. But the war against tobacco, conducted by Tobacco Free Kids and their allies, is not about public health. It has become the latest in a long line of misguided American moral crusades.”

The letter was itself a comment upon an open letter to Tobacco Free Kids, which the Professor predicted there would be no reply to. He was also gloomy on the prospects of the Kennedy tobacco bill being defeated, remarking:

“The American legislative process is closed to all but a few powerful interests, who will soon be gloating over their “success” in passing FDA regulation of tobacco.”

Ultimately, the professor thought, the actions of groups like Tobacco Free Kids and similar groups would costs lives.

“I am convinced that these anti-tobacco extremists will eventually be held partially responsible for the deaths of millions of uninformed smokers.”

We forwarded both the open letter and Brad Radu’s reply to Tobacco Free Kids, but have yet to receive a comment.

What do you think? Is the position of the bodies like Tobacco Free Kids a blind crusade against tobacco, or a practical stance taken to protect the young against the dangers of nicotine addiction?

Sen.Ted Kennedy has introduced his FDA tobacco bill (S. 982) and scheduled a Senate HELP Committee mark-up session on the bill beginning Tuesday, May 12. It’s very interesting to me that the following article was written for publication this month for C-Store Decisions. I urge you if you believe that Harm Reduction should be advanced in this legislation that you call, fax or email the members of the committee and let them know that the Voice of Reason needs to be included. I’m sure you may sense a bit of sarcasm in this writing but I do believe that the Voice of Reason needs to be heard! What are your thoughts? Do you think the the Committee will make the changes? What are your concerns? Or will they just not listen?

Harm Reduction: The Voice of Reason

My passion for the reduction of harm of tobacco products over the past few years has greatly increased. I have met many folks that have the same passion to develop products that provide great promise to those who choose to use tobacco but with less harm than the traditional cigarette. Great strides have been made within the last year to introduce many new products that would, from my perspective, reduce harm. I must say though I would have never thought that the quest for harm reduction would be besieged with so much controversy and ignorance.

A year ago I wrote an article about the possibility of “tobacco actually being safer one day”. Isn’t it possible that things change or are many sticking to old, outdated paradigms when it comes to the mere reference of the word tobacco? In response to this referenced article, I have had the opportunity to experience many new exciting products. The first would be a smokeless cigarette called, “Aeros”. I must say that when I received this package from its inventor Richard Horian I was absolutely amazed at its ability to deliver satisfaction. In my mind, the absence of smoke and all of the “nasty’s” would seem to imply a reduction in harm.

In my quest over the last year to help retailers properly market to consumers that are looking for options when they either can’t light up or are looking for an alternative I also found a product called, Smoke Scents. I have had many late night conversations with a now good friend, Maurice Goulet, about the marvels of aroma therapy. Another new friend is Stuart Garrett who interestingly enough has reintroduced Nicotine Water (homeopathic). From all of my research smokers tell me it taste just like water and satisfies.

I’m sure you’ve all been called on by David Dean or one of his team from Star Tobacco regarding a new segment in the tobacco offering called dissolvable, featuring Arriva & Stonewall that make the evil nitrosamines disappear. And last year at the NACS conference Reynolds introduced the Camel dissolvable tobacco line. And in case you haven’t noticed the little pouch called Snus is quickly becoming a household name through the efforts of many but specifically Reynolds. I have even seen a Snus that is made out of apple rinds and I’m told it tastes good!

There are many like Brad Rodu, Carl Phillips & Bill Godshall that champion moist smokeless tobacco as a leading product in the relative harm reduction offer. There are those in the industry that advocate that moist smokeless tobacco is 99% safer than lighting up. But yet, we are lead to believe by the labeling on the can that there is no difference. Oh and by the way, there are those that say nicotine is just like caffeine, but we never hear that on the news. And now we have a senator from NJ that seemingly is more interested in protecting nicotine delivery through traditional cigarettes or through nicotine products made by his financially supporting pharmaceutical buddies.

From my perspective, the debate over electronic cigarettes is an interesting one. The debate centers on old school thinking versus new school thinking as the anti-tobacco folks just don’t have the ability to think rationally. If this product or any other product shows promise in the quest to reduce harm, would it not be in the best interest of those who use tobacco products to allow for advancement. Or must we live in a world where folks are not rational and act like the “kid who decides to go home with the football because things aren’t going his way?”

Unfortunately, the voice of reason is being muffled by folks who are being misled by a group with an agenda. Whether that agenda is driven by politics, Big Tobacco, Big Pharma or by irrational “zero tolerance” zealots, people deserve to know the truth. There are many entrepreneurs, small companies and large companies that are either developing or supporting these new innovations that are the voice of reason! Can you imagine, that “our elected officials” through their support of the Waxman FDA tobacco regulation have doomed smokers by not listening to those that are the voice of reason? Pretty disturbing wouldn’t you say?

I’d like to explore what some believe is the truth behind the “anti-smoking” movement. The following thoughts may be controversial to some. So let’s get right to the topic of discussion!

Some in the industry believe Big Pharma in it’s quest to gain control of the nicotine empire has been a great supporter of the anti-smoking movement. Many will tell you that the anti-smoking movement has just been a cover for the anti-tobacco movement. An anti-tobacco movement that bodes well for the pharmaceutical industry.

At stake is the control of the largest market known to humanity, with an estimated 1.2 billion customers on this planet. The projected financial returns to Big pharma from smoking “cessation” (which, in reality, is not cessation, but a different way to assume nicotine) are truly staggering, and beyond the imagination of many including those in the tobacco industry. The battle is well worth the multi-billion dollar investments by Big Pharma as it seeks to control international and national institutions, politicians, and the media.

I admit I have a bias. I have spent my entire life in the tobacco industry. Am I just blinded by my bias or am I on target? I have watched those on the anti side argue the “no smoke deal” only to win that battle but not be satisfied. They then take to what I believe was their true cause an “anti-tobacco” movement. The tobacco industry has been accused of misleading the public. But has Big Pharma taken over that role? Is the government their tool as it seems that harm reduction is a “no-no” unless governed by Big Pharma and in the very near future it’s partner, the FDA?

If you disagree with my thoughts, let me know why. If you agree I’d like to know why. What are your thoughts? What do you think about Big Pharma and Nicotine? Do you agree or disagree about their involvement in the anti-smoking movement? The anti-tobacco movement?