February 4, 2013
Many people have responded to my posting of Ruth Malone’s letter on the FDA’s decision to have a “facilitated dialog” between public health and the tobacco industry. I have also received several direct emails on the subject of harm reduction in general, including one from Joel Nitzkin, a vigorous proponent of “reduced risk” tobacco products, with a request that I post it.
In response, I asked the following question: “I have been told that the Heritage Foundation (or other similar group(s)) have been supporting Joel's work. Is that correct? If so, that fact should probably be disclosed.” The Heritage Foundation has a long history of being part of the tobacco companies’ network of quietly funded “third parties” the industry uses to support its position.
In response, Dr. Nitzkin responded:
January 30, 2013
The American Journal of Public Health just published an excellent paper, "Public Health, Academic Medicine, and the Alcohol Industry’s Corporate Social Responsibility Activities," by Thomas Babor and Katherine Robaina that is well worth reading.
Here is the abstract:
We explored the emerging relationships among the alcohol industry, academic medicine, and the public health community in the context of public health theory dealing with corporate social responsibility. We reviewed sponsorship of scientific research, efforts to influence public perceptions of research, dissemination of scientific information, and industry-funded policy initiatives.
To the extent that the scientific evidence supports the reduction of alcohol consumption through regulatory and legal measures, the academic community has come into increasing conflict with the views of the alcohol industry.
We concluded that the alcohol industry has intensified its scientific and policy-related activities under the general framework of corporate social responsibility initiatives, most of which can be described as instrumental to the industry’s economic interests.
The paper is available at http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300847
January 30, 2013
The Food and Drug Administration is planning to hold a "facilitated dialog" between health researchers and the tobacco companies on the issue of industry-funded research. Ruth Malone, my colleague at UCSF and editor of the journal Tobacco Control, has written an eloquent letter to the FDA explaining why she is declining this invitation and calling on others to do the same.
I applaud Ruth for writing this letter and urge all scientists and public health professionals to do the same.
The FDA needs to cancel this misconceived enterprise and devote its energy to promoting public health by doing things like banning menthol.
Here is Ruth's letter:
Center for Tobacco Products
Food and Drug Administration
January 30, 2013
Dear colleagues:
January 21, 2013
Chris Millett and other colleagues at Imperial College London and I just published a paper in Pediatrics, "Hospital Admissions for Childhood Asthma After Smoke-Free Legislation in England," that shows that childhood asthma admissions, which had been rising 2% a year before England put a strong smokefree law in place, dropped by 8.9% immediately after the law and continued to fall after that.
This is a particularly important paper because during the long debate before the law tobacco industry allies (including the Minister of Health for some of the time) claimed that if workplaces, including pubs, were made smokefree smokers would smoke more at home, thereby harming their children. (The same claim pops up from time to time around the world.) Earlier work by my group showed in the US that smokefree laws are associated with more voluntary smokefree home policies, especially when there are smokers in the house. This new paper shows there are substantial health benefits for kids.
January 17, 2013
Several of my colleagues and I submitted a public comment to the FDA docket regarding a “Report to Congress on Innovative Products and Treatments for Tobacco Dependence.”
We commented on the fact that at least two e-cigarette companies, Sottera, Inc., which promotes the e-cigarette brand NJOY, and VMR Products LLC, which promotes the e-cigarette brand V2Cigs, along with the e-cigarette industry’s trade association, Smokefree Alternatives Trade Association (SFATA), directed their consumers to provide public comment to this docket on “treatments for nicotine dependence” in direct e-mails to consumers and on their websites. The companies’ action was important because Sottera, Inc. had successfully sued the FDA to stop the agency from regulating e-cigarettes on the grounds that they were not therapeutic drugs and/or devices.