Tobacco Center Faculty Blog

August 31, 2018

Stanton A. Glantz, PhD

The European Public Health Association just released an excellent summary of the evidence on e-cigarettes, which is reproduced in full below.  They have a slightly different view than many of our friends in England.  A PDF of the statement is available here.

 

August 30, 2018

Stanton A. Glantz, PhD

Karma KcKelvey and colleagues’ paper “IQOS labelling will mislead consumers” presents the results of a close analysis of the information on consumer perceptions of IQOS that PMI presents in its modified risk tobacco product (MRTP) application to the FDA to market IQOS as a reduced risk and reduced exposure product.  They conclude that PMI’s studies did not provide sufficient evidence that IQOS users will completely switch from cigarettes to IOQS (the assumed behavior that the whole application hinges on) or that consumers will understand PMI’s proposed claims regarding exposure, harm and “switching completely.”  They go on to conclude that PMI’s MRTP application does not satisfy FDA requirements that consumers will not be misled by PMI’s proposed marketing; therefore, HTP should not be allowed to be marketed with reduced risk claims.

August 30, 2018

Stanton A. Glantz, PhD

Tobacco Control just published “IQOS: examination of Philip Morris International’s claim of reduced exposure” and “Assessment of industry data on pulmonary and immunosuppressive effects of IQOS” that provide insights based on the information PMI provided to FDA as part of its Modified Risk Tobacco Product IQOS.

PMI is making a big deal about the fact that IQOS delivers lower levels of many toxins than conventional cigarettes.  They ignore the fact that their own data show higher levels – sometimes much higher levels – of others.

Other information shows that IQOS generates significant pulmonary harm, including adverse effects on the immune system in the lung that compromise lungs’ ability to resist infection.  These effects do not appear to significantly different from conventional cigarettes.

These results are consistent with the other papers that concluded that the adverse health effects of IQOS are not all that different from cigarettes.

August 24, 2018

Stanton A. Glantz, PhD

Tobacco Control just published two peer reviewed papers based on close reads of the raw data buried in Philip Morris International's application to FDA to sell IQOS as a reduced risk product.

As the title " PMI’s own in vivo clinical data on biomarkers of potential harm in Americans show that IQOS is not detectably different from conventional cigarettes" indicates, PMI's own data shows that the measures of health impact that IQOS has are not statistically different from conventional cigarettes.  (I wrote a piece on The Conversation summarizing these results in simple English a few months ago.)

August 24, 2018

Stanton A. Glantz, PhD

This letter to TPSAC summarizes the UCSF TCORS' public comments to FDA on the RJR application to FDA to be allowed to market Camel Snus as less dangerous.  The tracking number in regulations.gov is 1k2-9510-dtqo.  A PDF of the letter (including all the individual comments) is available here

August 23, 2018

Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee

Pages