“A Safer Way to Smoke?”

John (Gold)
Joined: 18 Dec 2008, 23:57

13 May 2005, 17:50 #21

Canada
No safety in light cigarettes, study finds

CP
The London Free Press
May 12, 2005
TORONTO -- Light and mild cigarettes are just as harmful as regular brands, a new study suggests.
The report by University of Montreal professors Paul Gendreau and Frank Vitaro looked at six varieties of light cigarettes from the most popular Canadian brands, Du Maurier and Players.
The researchers found nicotine levels in all six varieties were an average of five per cent higher than in regular cigarettes and out of the 44 toxins studied, only four were systematically reduced in all mild varieties.
In 2002, more than half of Canadian smokers puffed on light brands, many erroneously believing they were the healthier alternative, the paper reports.
The research is reported in the latest issue of the Canadian Journal of Public Health.
Part of the blame is assigned to the current method of testing for mild cigarettes.
Since 1991, Canada has used the International Organization for Standardization, or ISO, method of measuring tar, nicotine and other toxins in cigarettes that was developed in part by tobacco companies.
A vacuum-like machine puffs a cigarette every 60 seconds, and doesn't block perforations in the filter, which allows air to dilute the smoke by up to 83 per cent. But people don't smoke the way the machine does, the researchers said.
"Unfortunately when people smoke, they are not machines, so they block the holes with their fingers, their lips, their saliva. So at the end, they might get more smoke intake than the machine," Gendreau said yesterday.
The authors are calling for improvements to the ISO method of testing cigarettes for results more realistic to the habits and behaviours of smokers. They also want tobacco companies to list the ingredients and levels of toxins in a product, like food.

Online story source link:
Copyright © The London Free Press
Reply

Joel
Joined: 18 Dec 2008, 23:57

27 May 2005, 18:27 #22

For people who think additive free cigarettes must be a safer alternative.

Here is an blurb from a site that sells cigarettes describing the brand American Spirit Cigarettes:

American Spirit
Additive Free Tobacco. The Tobacco used in Natural American Spirit Cigarettes is 100% free of additives, containing only whole leaf natural tobacco... no preservatives, no reconstituted sheet tobacco, no processed stems and no expanded tobacco. Light 5 mg Tar 0.6 mg Nicotine. Regular 12 mg Tar 1.6 mg Nicotine TOBACCO SERIOUSLY DAMAGES HEALTH

Following are two articles talking about the safety and addictive quality of this very same brand:

The Tobacco Additives that Keep You Hooked by Rosie Waterhouse

Additives in cigarettes may make some brands far more addictive than others, according to research. For the first time, scientists have measured the amount of super-addictive "freebase" nicotine cigarettes deliver to the smoker. Like crack cocaine, freebase nicotine vaporises and passes rapidly through the lungs into the bloodstream. Because it reaches the brain so quickly it is thought to be more addictive than normal nicotine. The research, by a team at Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, could lead to ways of rating the addictiveness of different brands.

Scientists compared 11 brands available in America. They found that some contained 10 to 20 times higher percentages of freebase nicotine than experts had previously believed. Brands were compared with a laboratory "reference" cigarette containing 1% freebase nicotine. They varied greatly, ranging from 1% or 2% to 36% for a specialty US brand called American Spirit. Marlboro contained up to 9.6% freebase nicotine. Other well known brands included Camel (2.7%), Winston (5% to 6.2%) and Gauloises Blondes (5.7% to 7.5%).

Professor James Pankow, who led the study, reported in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology, said: "During smoking, only the freebase form can volatise from a particle into the air in the respiratory tract. Since scientists have shown that a drug becomes more addictive when it is delivered to the brain more rapidly, freebase nicotine levels in cigarette smoke thus are at the heart of the controversy regarding the tobacco industry's use of additives like ammonia and urea, as well as blending choices in cigarette design."

A 1997 study led by Prof Pankow linked ammonia additives with increased freebase nicotine levels in cigarettes. He found that on its own, nicotine would not be very potent in the body but ammonia strips away protons from surrounding molecules including nicotine, making it more rapidly absorbed. The 1997 research confirmed assertions made by the American Food and Drug Administration that widespread use of ammonia compounds in cigarettes manufacturing was evidence that the industry manipulated the delivery of nicotine in tobacco products.

Professor Jack Henningfield, from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, said: "It appears likely that ingredients used in modern cigarette manufacture, such as ammonia and urea, account for this addiction-enhancing effect."

Professor Pankow said that in the United States there were no formal tobacco industry or Food and Drug Administration guidelines on appropriate levels of freebase nicotine in cigarettes. But the message from the industry was that cigarettes contained only small percentages of freebase nicotine. Only additives on a permitted list from the Department of Health are allowed in cigarettes made in Britain. A spokesman for the Tobacco Manufacturers' Association in the UK said: "Cigarettes manufactured here do abide by the permitted list and may be quite different from those in America."

A spokesman for Phillip Morris, the maker of Marlboro, said: "Ammonia is a compound naturally present in tobacco leaf. Quite simply, there is no safe cigarette. No one cigarette is any more or less harmful or addictive than another. All cigarettes and their smoke are harmful and addictive. It is entirely inappropriate to start communicating to consumers that there are distinctions in terms of harm or addictiveness between various brands of cigarettes. If consumers are concerned about the harm or addictiveness of smoking they should quit."

Three men who featured as the most famous character in tobacco advertising - the horse-riding Marlboro Man - have died from smoking-related illnesses: David Millar Jr in 1987 from emphysema, Wayne McLaren in 1992 after lung cancer spread to his brain, and David McLean in 1995 from lung cancer.

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk 28 July 2003

Release Date: Dec. 3, 2002



ADDITIVE-FREE CIGARETTES MAY PACK A MORE TOXIC TOBACCO PUNCH

By Will O'Bryan, Staff Writer
Health Behavior News Service

Despite perceptions that additive-free cigarettes and the hand-rolled cigarettes from India called bidis may provide a less-toxic smoke than conventional cigarettes, new research suggests the opposite may be true.

Study results published in the December issue of Nicotine & Tobacco Research examine several physiological and subjective factors among regular smokers who were asked to smoke both bidis and additive-free American Spirit cigarettes in a controlled test.

"Recently, there has been an increase in the use of alternative cigarettes such as bidis, cloves and additive-free cigarettes by adolescents," said lead researcher Wallace Pickworth of the National Institute of Drug Abuse. "In the Boston area, for example, 40 percent of teenagers had smoked bidis at least once in their lifetime and 16 percent were current bidi smokers. About 13 percent of the sample thought bidis were safer than conventional cigarettes."

Aside from perceptions that they are a lesser health risk than conventional cigarettes, bidis may also be popular with adolescents because they are manufactured in a variety of flavors, such as chocolate or root beer. Bidis are also generally less expensive than cigarettes and easier for youths to purchase, Pickworth said.

For the study, Pickworth and his team asked 10 research volunteers - 24.5 years old on average and considered "healthy smokers" - to smoke an unfiltered, additive-free American Spirit cigarette, a strawberry-flavored bidi, a non-flavored bidi and one of the participants' own preferred brands of conventional cigarette.

During each session, the researchers measured participants' plasma nicotine and exhaled carbon monoxide. Researchers also recorded the length of time participants took to smoke a cigarette or bidi, and the number of puffs. After smoking, participants completed questionnaires about each product.

Results showed that two minutes after smoking the unfiltered, additive-free American Spirit cigarette or either type of bidi, participants' plasma nicotine levels were significantly higher than when they smoked their own cigarettes. The high nicotine levels lasted longest with the American Spirit cigarette.

Measured levels of exhaled carbon monoxide were less consistent. Researchers measured these levels 15 minutes after participants finished smoking each sample. Exhaled carbon monoxide levels dropped below those of the participants' own cigarette brands 15 minutes after smoking the American Spirit cigarette and the unflavored bidi. The strawberry-flavored bidi, however, left participants exhaling higher amounts of carbon monoxide than with their preferred brands.

"Data from this study were collected in a single exposure to alternative cigarettes in a laboratory environment," Pickworth granted. "The sample size was small, predominantly male and restricted to those over 18 years of age, and included only occasional bidi smokers. These characteristics may have influenced smoking patterns and subjective estimates and may limit the generalizability of the results.

"Nevertheless," he adds, "the results indicate that, contrary to the belief of many consumers, bidi and additive-free cigarettes deliver substantial amounts of nicotine and other toxic components of tobacco smoke."

This research was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

source: http://www.hbns.org/news/bidis12-03-02.cfm
Reply

Starshinegrl Gold
Joined: 19 Dec 2008, 00:00

16 Jan 2006, 19:43 #23

for Stephen - keep breathing easier!! Image
Reply

John (Gold)
Joined: 18 Dec 2008, 23:57

02 Jul 2006, 19:36 #24

Note how journalists continue to insist on teaching both children and nicotine addicts that smoking is nothing more than a nasty little habit. One of the surest ways to live a life of perpetual relapse is to treat any true chemical dependency as a habit. Thanks for forwarding the below story Sallie. Still just one rule, no nicotine today, Never Take Another Puff, Dip or Chew! John (Gold x7)

Fewer kick light cigarette habit
BBC News
People who smoke so-called light cigarettes are half as likely to quit than other smokers, research suggests.
A false perception of reduced health risks with low-tar and low-nicotine brands could be a factor, the US authors believe.

A third of those smoking lights said they had chosen this type of cigarette to reduce their health risks.

Yet by doing so they may be increasing their health risks, say the authors in the American Journal of Public Health.

The study of more than 12,000 smokers revealed those who used light cigarettes were about 50% less likely to quit than other cigarette smokers.

Misnomer

Although light cigarettes contain less tar and nicotine, they are still linked to smoking-related diseases such as cancer.

People who smoke light cigarettes are likely to inhale the same amount of hazardous chemicals because they inhale deeper to get enough smoke for a satisfactory nicotine 'hit', according to the National Cancer Institute.

Therefore, they remain at high risk for developing smoking-related cancers and other diseases.

"All cigarettes are deadly"
Amanda Sandford of Action on Smoking and Health
The only way to reduce the health risks is to quit altogether, say health experts.

Most of the light smokers in the study were women.

The University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine team say its findings apply to some 30 million US adult smokers who smoke light cigarettes.

Author Dr Hilary Tindle said: "Even though smokers may hope to reduce their health risks by smoking lights, the results suggest they are doing just the opposite because they are significantly reducing their chances of quitting.

"Moreover, as they get older their chances of quitting become more and more diminished."

She said it was vital smokers were given accurate information on associated health risks.

European law bans misleading descriptions such as "light" and "mild" on all cigarettes sold in the European Union. In the US, however, no such laws exist.

Amanda Sandford, of Action on Smoking and Health, said earlier research in the UK backed the US study's findings.

"It's not surprising that even though logically people know that all smoking is harmful, the power of marketing is such that many people would be conned into thinking the so-called lower tar or light brands are less dangerous. All cigarettes are deadly."

Published: 2006/06/29 23:01:54 GMT

© BBC MMVI
Reply

JoeJFree Gold
Joined: 18 Dec 2008, 23:57

15 Jul 2007, 02:53 #25

Last edited by JoeJFree Gold on 20 Mar 2009, 01:07, edited 1 time in total.
Reply

John (Gold)
Joined: 18 Dec 2008, 23:57

30 Nov 2007, 21:02 #26

Physical design analysis and mainstream smoke constituent yields of the new potential reduced exposure product, Marlboro UltraSmooth
Nicotine & Tobacco Research, Volume 9, Issue 11 November 2007 , pages 1197 - 1206

Authors: Vaughan W. Rees a; Geoffrey Ferris Wayne a; Brian F. Thomas b; Gregory N. Connolly a
Affiliations: a Division of Public Health Practice, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA
b Center for Chemistry Services, Health Sciences Unit, RTI International, NC
Abstract

Potential reduced exposure products (PREPs) purport to lower toxicant emissions, but without clinical and long-term health outcome data, claims for reduced harm status of PREPs depend heavily on standard machine yield smoke constituent data. Two prototypes of the new carbon-filtered PREP Marlboro UltraSmooth (MUS) were investigated using both standard (FTC/ISO) and intensive (Health Canada) machine methods to measure gas/vapor- and particulate-phase smoke constituents.

Basic physical design characteristics that may influence smoke constituent yields, such as ventilation, pressure drop (resistance to draw), quantity of tobacco, and quantity and type of carbon, were measured. The possible presence of added chemical flavorant compounds was investigated using gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy. MUS prototypes were found to have several key differences in physical design compared with a conventional cigarette, including higher ventilation, lower draw resistance, and in the case of the Salt Lake City prototype, the use of vitreous carbon beads and the presence of chemical flavorants on both the beads and an embedded filter fiber.

When tested under the standard regimen, gas-phase constituents of MUS prototypes were reduced compared with a conventional low-yield cigarette. However, far smaller reductions in gas-phase constituents were observed under the intensive regimen, suggesting that the carbon technology used in MUS is less effective when smoked under more intensive conditions. Particulate-phase constituents were not reduced by the carbon filter under either machine-smoking regimen.

The data suggest that MUS has been designed to reduce toxic yields while preserving consumer appeal. However, MUS is less effective in reducing toxic smoke constituents when smoked under intensive conditions.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/conten ... order=page
Reply

JohnPolito
Joined: 11 Nov 2008, 19:22

10 Jul 2009, 10:59 #27

Image

Factory ciggies better than rollies - study
NZPA
Last updated 17:28 05/07/2009

A new study has shown that factory-rolled cigarettes maybe the lesser of two evils.

The Christchurch-based study compared people smoking factory-rolled cigarettes to those smoking roll-your-owns and found that smokers tended to **** rollies more intensively, more often and more efficiently, making them at least as deadly as factory-rolled cigarettes.

The study, led by public health specialist Dr Murray Laugesen , is the first to use people rather than smoking machines to compare the two types of cigarettes.

It compared 26 men who smoked rollies with 22 who smoked factory-rolled. Each smoked a filtered cigarette every half hour over two hours, according to usual habit.

Cravings and exhaled carbon monoxide were measured before and after each cigarette smoked.

It found that participants smoking rollies took 25 percent more puffs per cigarette and generally puffed for six seconds longer per cigarette.

Both types of cigarette boosted the level of carbon monoxide, measured in exhaled breath, by the same amount.

The study found that while the amount of tobacco used in rollies was less, the pattern of smoking - particularly for cigarettes later in the day - resulted in increased inhalation of tobacco smoke.

"Roll-your-own smokers inhale more to get the most value from their cigarettes and don't let so much be wasted, Imagewhile smokers of factory-made cigarettes let a lot of their smoke drift into the air," Dr Laugesen said.

Dr Laugesen said the research dispelled the belief some smokers had in thinking rollies were safer because they used less tobacco, or had less additives, or because they used a filter.

"Instead, we find that using less tobacco actually means more smoke inhaled. Roll-your-owns contain more additives than factory-made cigarettes, not less, and using less tobacco in the roll-your-own cigarette means more smoke is inhaled, not less."

Dr Laugesen believed New Zealand's tobacco excise tax approach, levied by tobacco content rather than per cigarette, encouraged smokers to hand-roll thin cigarettes and pay less tax, making them the cheaper option.
"The tax rate per smoke should be equalised. Equal harm deserves equal tax."
Copyright © 2009 Fairfax New Zealand Limited
Source Link

Thanks Helen for bringing this article to our attention!
Reply

JohnPolito
Joined: 11 Nov 2008, 19:22

07 Jun 2010, 17:42 #28

Last year the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act was signed into law here in the U.S., effectively charging the FDA to find a way to make what the act itself calls an "inherently dangerous" product less dangerous.  What most folks don't realize is that America's largest cigarette maker, Philip Morris, actually helped write the law.  Below,  Professor Michael Siegel, MD with the Boston University School of Public Health takes serious issue with public health groups that are suggesting that the FDA is about to make cigarettes safer.  By the way, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free-Kids worked with Philip Morris in drafting the new legislation.  

I post this here at Freedom not to stir debate but to prepare you for coming news headlines suggesting that smoking tobacco will someday soon be safer.   I assure you, if the tobacco companies knew how makie cigarettes safer they would have already done so.   Still one guiding principle toward each of us spending the balance of life living here on the free side of the bars ... no nicotine today!

Breathe deep, hug hard, live long,

John (Gold x11)







Why FDA Regulation of Tobacco Constituents Makes No Sense, and Will Transfer Fraudulent Deception of Consumers from Tobacco Industry to Government

ImageA number of health groups - such as the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids - contend that the new FDA tobacco law will save lives by allowing the FDA to mandate reductions in certain constituents of tobacco smoke. In fact, the basic regulatory structure of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act is the task - given to the FDA - of requiring safer cigarettes by mandating the reduction or elimination of certain chemicals in cigarette smoke.

While that might sound beneficial for the public's health on first glance, a more careful analysis of the science reveals that the idea is actually an absurd one that makes no sense and will - rather than protect public health - simply transfer the fraudulent deception of American consumers from the tobacco industry over to the federal government.

The Rest of the Story

The FDA's regulatory approach to tobacco products is hampered by four critical, but often unrecognized facts:

1. We currently have no idea what constituents in cigarette smoke, at what levels and combinations, result in the observed health effects of smoking.

Without knowing the specific constituents that are responsible for the harmful effects of smoking, there is simply no way that the FDA can produce a cigarette that it knows will be safer.

2. We have only identified 4,000 of what may be as many as 100,000 chemicals in cigarette smoke. Thus, there are as many as 96,000 unknown chemicals.

With 96,000 unknown chemicals in tobacco smoke, it is clear that we cannot determine the risk of cigarettes simply by knowing the levels of the 4,000 known chemicals.

3. Research has demonstrated that risk analysis of the known constituents in cigarette smoke explains less than 4% of observed lung cancer risk. In other words, even if all identified carcinogens were removed from cigarettes, there is no evidence that the incidence of lung cancer among smokers would be reduced.

An article published in the March 2007 issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention concludes that even if all currently known and measured carcinogens in tobacco smoke were completely removed, there would be little reason to believe that there would be any observable reduction in smoking-related cancers (see: Pankow JF, Watanabe KH, Toccalino PL, Luo W, Austin DF. Calculated cancer risks for conventional and 'potentially reduced exposure product' cigarettes. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 2007; 16:584-592).

Using data on per-cigarette smoke yields of a large number of known carcinogens and the known cancer risks posed by those carcinogens, the researchers assessed the lung cancer risk posed by regular, light, ultralight, and a number of PREP (potentially reduced exposure product) cigarettes using a mathematical model. They found that neither light, ultralight, or any available PREP was predicted to offer any substantial reduction in cancer.

Moreover, the researchers found that knowledge of the yields of all currently known lung carcinogens in cigarettes was able to account for less than 4% of the observed lung cancer risk of cigarette smoking. This inability to account for observed cancer risk means, they conclude, that even if all currently known and measured carcinogens were completely removed from cigarette smoke, there would be no reason to believe that actual human cancer risk would be decreased.

The authors conclude: "The current inability to account for the observed health risks of smoking based on existing data indicates that current expressed/implied marketing promises of reduced harm from PREPs are unverified: there is little reason to be confident that total removal of the currently measured human lung carcinogens would reduce the incidence of lung cancer among smokers by any noticeable amount."

"Expressed another way, even if a PREP design were to succeed in removing all currently measured known human lung carcinogens from cigarette smoke (and even perhaps all other currently measured carcinogens), there would be little reason to be confident that such removal would by itself lead to any observable reduction in smoking related lung cancer."

In perhaps easier to understand terms, Dr. Pankow summarized his key conclusion as follows: "Since we can't account for the risks from smoking conventional cigarettes, it does not accomplish much to just remove a few of the known toxins. An analogy might be someone who abuses alcohol by drinking 10 beers a day, but says they are going to cut down to 9."

And Dr. Pamela Clark, a senior research scientist at the Battelle Centers for Public Health Research and Evaluation, explained that "Dr. Pankow's study shows that simply lowering the levels of a few known harmful compounds from tobacco smoke may not significantly reduce the risks of smoking."

This is a critically important study and it has vital implications for the consideration of the FDA tobacco law. Specifically, the study demonstrates the complete folly of the regulatory approach and the ridiculous nature of the claims being made by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, American Medical Association, and other organizations that the legislation is going to "save countless lives."

Quite the opposite. This research demonstrates that a regulatory approach based on asking the FDA to require the reduction or elimination of various constituents of cigarette smoke is an absurd approach that offers no known or expected health benefits. Any claim that this legislation is going to save lives by requiring safer cigarettes is completely undocumented and unsupported.

As the research shows, there is no reason to believe that requiring the reduction or elimination of even a large number of the known harmful and carcinogenic constituents in tobacco smoke would result in any reduction in the risks of smoking.

In some ways, I find that the health groups are making claims that are more baseless and deceptive than anything the tobacco companies have stated about the risks of low-yield cigarette products. The cigarette companies have certainly deceived the public by implying that low-yield products offer a health advantage over conventional products. But they have never gone so far as to claim that they would save countless lives - a claim being made about the FDA legislation by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. Nor have they pinned a specific number on the lives saved, something the American Medical Association has done by suggesting that the FDA legislation will save millions of lives.

I don't really understand why it is that if the tobacco companies make such baseless, undocumented, and deceptive claims, it represents fraud and engenders attacks on the companies for their unscrupulous actions, but when anti-smoking groups make even more baseless, undocumented, and deceptive claims, it is now magically acceptable because we are working towards an allegedly noble cause.

The FDA tobacco legislation is really a mechanism to transfer the deception about low-yield cigarettes from the tobacco companies to the government. It takes the tobacco companies off the hook, allowing them to smile all the way to the bank as the very low-yield health claims they have been found guilty of making are now made by the federal government. And to boot, the companies no longer will have to face a liability risk for making such undocumented claims. The government is going to be doing all the dirty work for them. What a brilliant scheme!

The rest of the story is that there is absolutely no evidence to support the law supporters' contention that by reducing or eliminating specific constituents of the smoke, we will produce a safer cigarette that will save countless lives, millions of lives, or even any lives. In fact, the science shows that even if every known carcinogen in cigarettes were removed, we'd be in no position to be confident that the actual cancer risk of smoking had been reduced. And you can be sure that the FDA is not going to enact regulations that require the removal of every known carcinogen from cigarettes!

Realistically, the best the FDA could do under the proposed legislation would be to require the reduction or elimination of a number of specific tobacco smoke constituents. This research demonstrates that there is no basis to believe that such an approach would result in a measurable decline in smoking-related mortality.

Moreover, the only way to know whether a reduction in specific constituents would reduce the risks of smoking would be to mandate those changes and then conduct long-term epidemiologic studies. In other words, smokers would have to be used as guinea pigs. The FDA would have to set so-called "safety standards" without knowing whether those standards actually reduce the product's risk. It would take years to find out.

In the mean time, smokers would be misled into believing that by virtue of the FDA's promulgation of a "safety standard," the product has been made safer. This will certainly undermine the public's appreciation of the hazards of smoking and will cause many smokers who would otherwise have quit entirely to instead continue to smoke, thinking that the FDA-mandated changes to cigarettes have made them safer.

The end result will likely be harm to the public's health, due to an increase in smoking caused by deterrence of smoking cessation because of the perception that cigarettes are now safer. In other words, it will be the "low-tar" fiasco all over again, except now it will be the federal government perpetrating this fraud instead of the tobacco companies.

It is critically important to understand that there is no way of determining cigarette risk based solely on studying the product in the laboratory. Epidemiologic studies of the actual use of the product in the population is necessary to determine whether a change in the constituents of cigarettes will lessen their health risks.

To repeat the important conclusion of Pankow et al.: "The current inability to use toxicant-specific methods to account for the observed cancer risks of smoking carries an important implication for PREP cigarettes. Namely, all expressed and implied promises of 'reduced harm' ... of PREPs (including ostensible PREPs) must be viewed as speculative and unverified. Indeed, because does considerations for known tobacco smoke lung carcinogens account for <4% of the lung cancer risk of conventional cigarettes as they are smoked by North American populations, then lowered levels of these toxicants in PREPs still leave PREPs in the possible position of being as harmful as conventional cigarettes."

This means that the FDA has been put in the absurd position of being asked to promulgate "tobacco product safety standards" for which it will have no way of knowing whether they will improve, have no effect on, or harm human health. This is an untenable to position to be in, and it needs to be rejected outright.

The FDA tobacco law has been enacted, but there is no requirement that the FDA adopt any "product safety standards." Instead, I recommend that the FDA take an entirely different approach, and devote all of its time and resources not to regulating the product, but to trying to decrease the demand for the product and actually make a dent in smoking rates by funding anti-smoking education and prevention programs, including media campaigns, throughout the country. Unlike product regulation, which has no science to back it up, the use of media campaigns to reduce smoking is supported by solid scientific evidence.

The rest of the story is that in their zeal to put a feather in their cap by being able to claim that they achieved FDA regulation of tobacco products, the major anti-smoking and health groups actually deceived the public about the potential health benefits of lower-yield cigarettes to a greater degree than anything the tobacco companies have ever done. Frankly, the tobacco companies wouldn't even dream of deceiving the public to this extent. They remained somewhat subtle in their deception, by merely implying that there is some health value to reduced yield cigarettes. I can only imagine the scorn and ridicule the companies would have received had they claimed that their lower-yield cigarettes were going to save countless lives.
Last edited by JohnPolito on 07 Jun 2010, 17:45, edited 1 time in total.
Reply

msanders
Joined: 27 Jan 2011, 18:11

04 Feb 2011, 03:39 #29

"A pitch for True cigarettes used at the time by Loews Corp.'s Lorillard Tobacco unit: "Considering all I'd heard, I decided to either quit or smoke True. I smoke True."

That's just evil.
Reply

alma
Joined: 22 May 2010, 09:53

26 Sep 2011, 14:47 #30

A couple of weeks ago while on holidays in Spain I overheard a man telling his friend how cheap the cigarettes were and his friend said  oh but are  they the "good ones" and with that the man takes out the pack and says" yes they
 are they have the health warning on them ". Been there done that.
Alma Gold x1.
Reply