October 17, 2019
I was just putting something together on this, but Ronin Koval from Truth said it all (below). The one thing I would add is that when other flavors were pulled, many kids just went to menthol.
Statement from Truth Initiative CEO & President Robin Koval on JUUL announcement to pull all non-menthol flavors
JUUL deserves no congratulations for its announcement today that it will cease to sell flavored e-cigarettes other than mint and menthol. We, and JUUL, know that mint and menthol are among the most popular flavors for youth, with 64% of high school e-cigarette users using those flavors. We also know, as does the tobacco industry, that menthol has been and continues to be the starter flavor of choice for young cigarette users. Without question, this is a calculated move by JUUL's new tobacco industry leadership to forestall the Trump administration’s promise to remove all flavored e-cigarettes from the market. The administration should not be influenced and should immediately put its plan in place to remove all flavored e-cigarettes, including mint and menthol, from the market and put an end to the youth e-cigarette epidemic and this giant chemistry on our kids that has put the health of America's young people at great risk.
October 17, 2019
In a pre-emptive move serving the commercial interests of Hollywood studios already heavily subsidized by Toronto, Ontario’s government has killed off its decades-old provincial film rating service.
October 14, 2019
Jeff Gotts, Sven-Eric Jordt, Rob McConnell, and Robert Tarran recently published “What are the respiratory effects of e-cigarettes?” in BMJ. This article provides an extensive (and readable) comprehensive assessment of the evidence on the pulmonary effects of e-cigarettes, covering the population, clinical, animal, and cellular evidence on the effects of e-cigarettes. (The paper has 193 citations.) While dealing with technical matters, the authors do a remarkably good job of explaining their findings in a way that normal people can understand.
Everyone one following the e-cigarette debate should read this paper, especially the FDA and other regulatory authorities because it shows that the situation is a lot more complex than the idea that getting rid of combustion is all that is needed to make a product that is substantially safer than a cigarette.
Another favor that the authors do for readers (and regulators) is to include the tobacco industry-funded studies and make the point that most of the industry studies – unlike the rest of the literature – do not find lung problems with e-cigs.
Here is the abstract:
October 14, 2019
As cannabis use has increasingly become legalized, commercialized and normalized understanding the health effects (both positive and negative) and what the appropriate public health responses and policies should be has become increasingly important. In addition to its direct importance, there are important interactions between cannabis and tobacco, both biologically and at a policy level. In recognition of these changes, the UCSF Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education has added a cannabis research focus group with 20 faculty. Some have been working on tobacco for years, others are new. Check out the people and range of research here: https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/research-topics/556 .
October 12, 2019
My colleagues at UCSF, Stanford, and Georgia State submitted this public comment to FDA on its proposed graphic warnings. A PDF is available here. The tracking number on Regulations.gov is 1k3-9cp7-u6bc.
FDA’s proposed required textual warning label statements and accompanying color images will promote greater public understanding of the negative health consequences of smoking and should be implemented with some improvements
Lauren K. Lempert, JD, MPH; Benjamin Chaffee, DDS, MPH, PhD; Lucy Popova, PhD*; Minji Kim, PhD; Wendy Max, PhD; Bonnie Halpern-Felsher, PhD; Stanton A. Glantz, PhD
UCSF TCORS
* Georgia State University
Docket No. FDA-2019-N-3065
October 12, 2019