Tobacco Center Faculty Blog

September 30, 2013

Stanton A. Glantz, PhD

Last January we submitted a public comment to FDA containing extensive documentation that ecig companies were making therapeutic claims by promoting ecigs for smoking cessation.

This is important because the court decision on FDA regulation of ecigs said that the agency could regulate them as medical devices if the companies made therapeutuc claims.  This means that the FDA can act now on this issue as an enforcement action rather than through the years-long (and getting ever longer) rulemaking process.

Last Friday (Sept 27, 2013) KRMG radio in Tulsa, OK, san a story, "Tulsa doctor touts e-cigarettes, invests in company:His company, Palm Beach Vapors, offers a special deal for smokers who want to quit," which said in part:

September 30, 2013

Stanton A. Glantz, PhD

Last week the African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council wrote to California Attorney General Kamala Harris urging her to join the effort to ban menthol in cigarettes by, at a very minimum to "submit comments through the Docket asking the FDA to protect our children by banning the use of menthol in tobacco products."

Harris, who purports to care about health and children -- as well as being a high ranking African American political leader -- has been remarkably silent on the issue of menthol and tobacco control in general.

In addition to the importance of her providing general support on the menthol issue, as Attorney General of California she is well-positioned to address industry claims that a menthol ban would generate a black market in cigarettes.  California has strong policies designed to limit smuggling that she could describe as well as use to provide guidance on steps that the FDA could require to require tracking of tobacco products from the point on manufacture on as a way to block the alleged smuggling (which, after all, could only happen with the companies' tacit cooperation).

She could also make the point that an outright ban would be easier to enforce since any menthol cigarettes would be illegal.

September 30, 2013

Stanton A. Glantz, PhD

Silvy Peeters and Anna Gilmore just published another fine paper, "Transnational Tobacco Company Interests in Smokeless Tobacco in Europe: Analysis of Internal Industry Documents and Contemporary Industry Materials," in PLoS Medicine.  The analysis shows that, in contrast to the optimistic views of some harm enthusiasts (particularly in Europe), the tobacco companies are not trying to promote smokeless tobacco as a "harm reduction" strategy, but rather to protect cigarette sales for as long as possible.

The last paragraph (which I have broken into pieces for easier reading) of the paper sums things up:

... legalising snus sales in Europe may have considerably less benefit than envisaged and could have a number of harmful consequences. Perhaps of greater concern, however, .. are the recent industry  investments in pure nicotine products. These raise two concerns.

September 28, 2013

Stanton A. Glantz, PhD

The Live Webcast:  E-Cigarettes:  The Vapor This Time? is rapidly approaching.  Already over 1000 people have registered, many from around the world.  Please note that Dr. Natalie Walker, a colleague of Dr. Bullen from Auckland University National Institute for Health Innovation will be replacing him on the webcast panel due to a scheduling conflict.  Dr. Walker is co-author on their recent article:  Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation:  a randomised controlled trial. 

To register for this event, please go to:  The Vapor This Time?  CME credit will also be available for this webcast; details of which will be available later this month.

Thursday October 3, 2013 1:00pm – 4:00pm PDT
Health Sciences West Building (HSW), 301 Auditorium
University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) Parnassus Campus

Thursday October 3rd, 2013
1:00pm – 4:00pm PDT

E-Cigarettes:  The Vapor This Time?
A Live Webcast

September 24, 2013

Stanton A. Glantz, PhD

The news story is here.

I never heard of a nicotine patch doing that.

Forget the FDA.  Where is the Consumer Product Safety Commission?

Pages