FCTC: Constructing a new assault on smokeless tobacco and electronic cigarettes: Part 2: more misinformation

This the second of a series on this latest development at the FCTC. See Part1: Background.

In a thoughtful overview of smokeless tobacco and its application to harm reduction, Snus Use in the U.S.: Reducing Harm or Creating It? (from the most recent edition of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute) Renee Twombly writes:

“But a 2008 literature review commissioned by the European Union study found that use of smokeless tobacco almost eliminated respiratory disease and substantially cuts the hazard of other health effects, such as cardiovascular disease and oral and gastrointestinal cancers. The exception, they and other experts say, is highly carcinogenic smokeless tobacco produced and consumed in India, Southeast Asia, and northern Africa, which increases oral cancer risk.”

This passage from this relatively modest though learned journal manages to convey that smokeless tobacco is a category shared by products that have very different health risks. However, for some reason, the Convention Secretariat report, supposedly representing an analysis of the most current and in depth information on the subject, (as we would hope since it is intended to influence global policy and millions of lives) is a grade school level essay in comparison in which all manifestations of smokeless tobacco around the world are characterized as one basic undifferentiated product. The different ones are listed off but there is no attempt to distinguish among the wildly varying risk levels of these very different substances. Its as if, and I suppose we may one day have that unhappy day as well, alcohol was the target and all beer (including light beer), wine, spirits, moonshine and every exotic unusual liquor, were treated as one substance.

Another inappropriate generalization is made in the following on page 1:

“Until recently it was erroneously believed that smokeless tobacco was a less harmful alternative to smoking tobacco as it did not contain PAH. This assumption was proved to be wrong by recent research that has established that moist snuff becomes contaminated with PAH during the curing of tobacco leaves required for its preparation.”

Though PAH levels are worth studying, they are not the reason smokeless tobacco is a less harmful alternative; it is less harmful because, when compared with smokers, people who use it live longer and have lower levels of disease. (And while there are many stated disease associations and other health statements in this report that are quibble-worthy, this ground has been covered enough times already that these insufficiencies will be ignored in the interests of a not too long post).

But now that it has been established that all smokeless tobacco is pernicious, it needs to be emphasized that there is no possibility of a rational increase in demand for smokeless tobacco (whether motivated by health concerns or simply by preferring it to smoking) but only an increase in response to untoward machinations on the part of Big Tobacco. On page 3:

“The tobacco industry, however, is expanding its operations in developing countries and increasingly places an emphasis on smokeless tobacco products. The tobacco industry regards smokeless tobacco as a low-cost and highly profitable vehicle for creating dual users (those who use smokeless products along with cigarettes), whose addiction to more than one product makes cessation very difficult. The tobacco industry is also promoting the use of smokeless tobacco as an alternative in countries that have made good progress in ensuring smokefree environments.”

It turns out that smokeless tobacco and its marketing is actually evil in intent. Persistently nudged by tobacco companies, users will add this to their current smoking, and thus make cessation even less likely (see this previous post for a discussion of this nonsense or Brad Rodu’s take on it) . Not only that, and that last sentence has a wondrous lack of any logic, this will also happen in countries with good smoke-free environments. If one were to attempt any logical construction with the elements of that sentence it would be something along the lines of smokeless tobacco helping to maintain smoke-free environments.

And because electronic cigarettes are the great new epidemic (how they love that word) they have to act before even more people use them to quit smoking (at least stop them before too many people use them to quit smoking before they are proven in randomized controlled trials that they can help people quit smoking). On page 5:

“[Electronic cigarettes] should be regulated as nicotine delivery devices, and where this regulation is not possible under tobacco control laws, should be subject to regulation of contents and labelling, prohibitions against use in public places, and restrictions on advertising, promotion, and sponsorship.”

If I read this correctly, they are suggesting that if local tobacco laws do not cover these new devices, go ahead and prohibit them anyway like any tobacco product. Oddly enough, and though there are reasonable arguments to treat them as tobacco products, they do not produce tobacco smoke which is the basis for many of those existing regulations. But of course, as they love to repeat, and I will repeat it here as well: “Nicotine is a highly toxic and addictive substance that poses a serious risk to health. Nicotine and nicotine products for human use should be regulated.” (Page 6). This leads off the arguments against electronic cigarettes and given the prominence you wonder how they could ever use this demon substance in Nicorette or other pharmaceutical cessation aids.

In regards to smokeless tobacco, the Secretariat writes of control and prevention but there is no hesitation in considering banning when discussing e-cigarettes –banning and the protection of public health (on page 5). And this relates to what we’ve written about before here and there about anti-tobacco activism in general in that one of the key problems is that this product is not being placed in the context of a population that for better or worse likes to and continues to smoke but rather in some fantasy of a nicotine free world. Protecting public health is as much about providing safer alternatives for desired yet risky practices as it is about making sure products are safe. It is all about that balance, and the FCTC is sitting firmly and heavily on one end of the nicotine teeter totter watching as users are flying into the air and risking possible injury.

The next and perhaps last post in this series will discuss the confusing arguments around the pricing of smokeless tobacco products (for instance why they should never be cheap but why it is criminal that they strain subsistence household budgets, and more).

-Paul L. Bergen

7 thoughts on “FCTC: Constructing a new assault on smokeless tobacco and electronic cigarettes: Part 2: more misinformation

  1. Paul, an excellent series so far. I look forward to Part 3.

    Your comment about PAH levels and the comparison to alcohol inspired me to do a bit of research. Perhaps the next alcohol Prohibition will follow in the tracks of the Tobacco Prohibitionists and include orange juice! Are you aware that ordinary orange juice generally contains a significant amount of ethyl alcohol, a deadly organic poison that has taken many innocent lives?

    It’s true. The amount can vary, but 500mg/liter is not unusual. This may not sound like much offhand (Although it is billions of times larger than the nicotine we are now being warned about in smokers’ clothing! See Siegel’s blog today for more on that.) but it translates into the equivalent of almost an ounce of beer!

    If you poured your 1st grader a shot glass of beer everyday when he got home from school as a reward for his hard day’s work at the chalk dust factory you’d probably find him whisked away by child protection services faster than a waiter could pick up a hot tip, but pour a quart of orange juice down his throat and you’d generally find yourself the focus of admiration!

    I’m not currently up on the average PAH burden of smokeless rather than Marlboro, but am I correct in guessing that it might be a ratio in the same ballpark? And if it is, then would it be correct to say, “Until recently it was erroneously believed that orange juice was a less harmful alternative to Ronnie’s Rotgut Whiskey as it did not contain alcohol. This assumption was proved to be wrong by recent research…”

    Will those orange juice pushing soccer-moms soon find themselves under attack for enabling their cute little alcoholics? After all, that would be far less crazy than being worried about smokers holding their babies!

    Michael J. McFadden
    Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”

  2. Michael,

    I have a feeling your orange juice/ alcohol idea is going to end up in a future post here (and attributed to you of course).

    And re the PAHs, Brad has a good post on interpreting one of those scare studies: http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2009/12/polycyclic-aromatic-hydrocarbons-in.html.

    Excerpt: “One final comment: the EPA has estimated that on average, a person in the U.S. is exposed to about 3 milligrams of all PAHs every day. That’s 3 million nanograms. A person consuming a can of moist snuff per day is exposed to 174,000 nanograms, which is less than 6% of normal daily exposure.”

  3. Pingback: Tweets that mention FCTC: Constructing a new assault on smokeless tobacco and electronic cigarettes: Part 2 « Tobacco Harm Reduction: News & Opinions -- Topsy.com

  4. Paul,

    Great series. (Note to others reading this who might be confused: Paul and I work largely independently, so I did not talk to him about this or work with him on it. Thus my comment is that of a third-party.)

    One thing to keep in mind, though: Criticizing the claims/views/actions of anti-tobacco extremists based on them not being good for public health is reasonable, since we want to support public health. But in some sense it is like criticizing them for having policies that do nothing to help endangered pandas; public health is just not their goal, so it should not be surprising that they are not effectively advancing it.


    • Carl,

      Point taken but then these groups should be straightforward about their motivations and cease invoking the health costs of smoking. Every time they do that they imply that they then care about those costs and would like to see them decrease. Yet by their actions…

      And thanks for the kind word on the series…


  5. Pingback: FCTC: Constructing a new assault on smokeless tobacco and electronic cigarettes: Part 3 « Tobacco Harm Reduction: News & Opinions

  6. Pingback: FCTC: Constructing a new assault on smokeless tobacco and electronic cigarettes: Part 4: or taxing the way to prohibition « Tobacco Harm Reduction: News & Opinions

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s