October 3, 2015
Yesterday (October 2, 2015) the New York Times reported that the Obama Administration has proposed language for the Tran Pacific Partnership designed to make it harder for tobacco companies to use trade agreements to sue countries that enact sensible public health regulations (like plain packaging). While this is a step in the right direction, it leaves a huge loophole open by continuing to allow tobacco farmers to sue.
The multinational tobacco companies have already created an organization that supposedly represents farmer interests, the International Tobacco Growers Association (ITGA) which it used to oppose development of the FCTC and oppose limitations on use of child labor in tobacco farming. The tobacco companies could easily use this, or some other custom-created farm group to sue countries over tobacco control laws and regulations, just as they bought off or created phony hospitality associations to fight smokefree restaurants and bars.
September 30, 2015
Add Norway to the list of countries where there is strong, consistent evidence that onscreen smoking in movies causes young people to smoke.
Gunnar Sæbo and Ingeborg Lund from the Norwegian Institute for Alcohol and Drug Research, just published their paper, “Exposure to smoking in films and smoking behavior among Norwegian 15- to 20-year olds: A cross-sectional study,” which shows that, similar to other countries all over the world, Norwegian youth who see a lot of smoking in movies are about twice as likely to smoke.
It also shows that even among youth who are not yet smoking, seeing a lot of onscreen smoking increases their susceptibility to smoking, i.e., makes it more likely that they will start smoking in the future.
In addition to generally adding to the global case that smoking in movies causes youth to smoke, it shows that this effect is independent of local culture.
They also show that, like most other countries, virtually all movies with smoking are rated for youth. They also call for an “18” rating (equivalent to a US R) for movies with smoking to reduce their effect as advertisements for smoking. (Tobacco advertising has been illegal in Norway for decades.)
September 30, 2015
Nicotine is the addictive chemical in cigarettes and the FDA has the authority to require that the nicotine levels in cigarettes to be reduced (although not eliminated).
The suggestion has been made for some time that the FDA should cut the level of nicotine in cigarettes (and other tobacco products) to such a low level that the cigarettes would no longer be addictive. The biggest concern with this suggestion is that, because smokers smoke to deliver nicotine to their brains, cutting the nicotine content in cigarettes would lead to so-called smoker compensation, where smokers smoke more cigarettes or inhale more deeply in order to get their usual level of nicotine and increase the damage to their health by effectively smoking more.
Indeed, this is exactly what happened with people who smoke the industry’s “light” cigarettes, which are designed to encourage this (unconscious) behavior. (The FDA and a federal court now prohibit the companies from using terms like “light” and “mild” to trick smokers, but the companies simply dropped the words and color-coded the packs, something both the FDA and Department of Justice have let them get away with for years.)
Save the date for 2016 UCSF It's About a Billion Lives Symposium: January 22, 2016. All are welcome.
September 28, 2015
It’s About a Billion Lives
Celebrating Tobacco Research and Education at UCSF
What will It Take to Transform the Prediction of a
Billion Deaths into a Billion Lives Saved
Matthew Myers
President, Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids
You Are How You Smoke: Implications of Different Patterns of
Adolescent and Young Adult Smoking Behavior
Lauren McCarl Dutra, ScD
Postdoctoral Fellow, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education
Thirdhand Cigarette Smoke, a Persistent Environmental Contaminant
Suzaynn F. Schick, PhD
Assistant Professor of Medicine, Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
Electronic Cigarette Use by Individuals in Treatment for Substance Abuse
Noah Gubner, PhD
Postdoctoral Fellow, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education
Implementing the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control:
Challenges and Opportunities
Stella Aguinaga Bialous, RN, DrPH, FAAN
September 15, 2015
As someone who has been critical of the FDA for not making any meaningful decisions that actually affect the cigarette market, I have to applaud their decision to block Reynolds from marketing four products with menthol "flavor capsules" in the filter.
They did so by issuing a "not substantially equivalent" (NSE) order that concludes that these products are "not substantially equivalent" to products that were grandfathered into the market in the 2009 FDA law. The companies have been using the "substantially equivalent" loophole to market thousands of new products, so this is an important step forward for the FDA.
While the NSE order covers a wide range of issues, the FDA concluded that the addition of "a capsule containing menthol in the filter of the new tobacco product" which "allows users to choose whether to smoke the new tobacco product with or without menthol, effectively creating an adjustable menthol/non-menthol cigarette. In addition, non-menthol and menthol-smokers can share cigarette packs of the new tobacco product. As a result, this difference in flavor delivery system between the new and predicate tobcco products may influence consumer perception and use by providing users with a novel, versatile flavor delivery system."