September 9, 2013
I was just on a conference call with the US Trade Representative as part of their effort for "public engagement."
After sitting on hold for about 10 minutes, we were treated to a statement from the US Trade Representative Ambassdor Froman, about how important they thought public engagement was and congratulating their staff for the great job they were doing
They then had about 10 or 15 minutes for a few questions. (I pushed the button to get in the que almost immediately after they invited people to do so and never got called on.)
The last person they did call on was Greg Haifley from American Cancer Society, who asked a pointed question about whether or not the US would support Malaysia's carve out for tobacco. Needless to say Froman gave him a run around about "balancing" issues. Needless to say there was no time for a followup question from Greg or anyone else.
September 8, 2013
Christopher Bullen and colleagues from the University of Auckland just published a nicely done randomized clinical trial in Lancet that compared ecigs, the nicotine patch and nicotine-free ecigs as cessation aids. They found no difference in 6 month quit rates among the three groups.
Hopefully this study will get ecig promoters to stop claiming that ecigs are better than NRT for quitting.
The trial also encouraged people to use the local Quit line. Few people did and at about the same rates for all three groups.
These results are about what I would have expected, since ecigs are a way to deliver nicotine just as NRT. Because NRT, however, does so with much lower levels of accompanying toxins than ecigs deliver, clinicians should refrain from recommeding ecigs for quitting.
September 7, 2013
I just learned from one of the Attorneys General that three tobacco companies have requested that the FDA extend the public comment period on menthol, currently scheduled to close September 23, for 60 more days on the grounds that they need more time to respond.
This is ridiculous. The FDA has been dragging its decision on menthol on for years since the TPSAC report was issued in March 2011, giving the tobacco companies have had plenty of time to think about it and muster their arguments.
This is a delaying tactic, pure and simple.
The FDA needs to deny this request and keep the process moving forward, then act on the science and ban menthol and menthol analogs.
September 5, 2013
As one would expect given the heavy marketing of ecigs to kids, today the CDC reported that ecig use among youth doubled last year.
This effect on kids is something that has been almost completely absent from the "ecigs as harm reduction" debate within the health community. The fact that some kids are initiating their nicotine addiction with ecigs and that, like with adults, there is very high dual use with cigarettes, increases the liklihood that, in the end, ecigs will enhance harm by increasing smoking.
Needless to say, the ecig companies, like the cigarette companies that own many of them, will be "horrified" that kids are using them and loudly claim that those cherry flavored ecigs are really meant to help 50 year old smokers quit.
The ecig companies will also likely capitalize on public concern about kids using them to push for passage of more bad bills establishing preferential treatment for ecigs under the guide of youth access, much as the tobacco companies co-opted the Synar Amendment to pass bad youth access legislation decades ago. (The American Cancer Society has been taking the lead in fighting these bad bills.)
September 1, 2013
Of all countries grappling with e-cigarettes, health advocates in the UK have been the most optimistic that they would actually reduce harm. ASH UK has even said that it"does not consider it appropriate to include e-cigarettes under smokefree regulations," opening the door for normalization of e-cigarette use everywhere.
The hope is, as John Britton recently wrote, that smokers will switch the less dangerous e-cigarettes or use them to quit nicotine use altogether. No one seems to be considering the possibility that the aggressiive marketing of e-cigarettes will increase youth initiation or deter quitting enough to offset any drop in individual harm from switching from conventional cigarettes to e-cigarettes. (Dual users, who simultaneously use both products, are unlikely to see much, in any, health benefit because of the continued cigarette use, even if daily consumption drops.)