European union regulating e-cigarettes based on ideology and theories, but not science
September 1st, 2014
Guest post by Dr Farsalinos
It is unfortunate for a scientist to see how politics work and how decisions are made. For public health issues, especially for the very sensitive issue of smoking, one would expect that common sense and scientific facts would prevail. Instead, we are seeing decisions made on the basis of theoretical concerns, fear mongering tactics and intimidation.
The pending regulation for electronic cigarettes seems to be a characteristic example of applying theory on top of real evidence. There has been an astonishing effort to mis present science, misinform regulators and the society by distorting the results of scientific studies and eventually kill a product which will probably revolutionize tobacco harm reduction. Recently, we are overwhelmed by stories demonizing nicotine. Suddenly, after so many years of research and hard evidence coming from population studies, we are seeing the news media discussing about nicotine causing cancer and heart disease. We are seeing journalists trying to interpret cell studies, while in reality I doubt if they understand a single word of what they read. Obviously, they should not be the only ones blamed it is scientists who give the information to the news media and they push for publicity. The result is a complete distortion of truth. It is shocking to see someone support that a cell study is good enough to discard all hard evidence from population studies showing that nicotine does not cause heart disease or cancer.
However, there are other questions raised by such tactics. First of all, why is every study on nicotine targeting e cigarettes? Don t NRTs also have nicotine? Why don t we hear anyone discussing about nicotine in NRTs? Well, probably because e cigarettes are a hot topic. However, few years ago, studies showing nicotine to be harmful were strongly opposed by scientific groups (such as Cancer Research UK), stating that The interpretation is highly speculative and contradicted by evidence that many millions of people have been using nicotine replacement therapy with no increased risk of oral or any other cancer. If reports like this stop people using what for many would be a life saving medication it would be very unfortunate. They are absolutely correct, but the same statement should be done today for e cigarettes.
All this intimidating publicity has only one result it harms the health of smokers by discouraging them from using a less harmful alternative like e cigarettes and it harms the health of vapers some of whom have relapsed to smoking after hearing all this misinformation.
Coming back to regulatory decisions, it is unprecedented that a product is regulated based on theoretical concerns, especially when such concerns are completely contrary to any available evidence. It is a big victory of the antismoking advocates (who in fact have become anti smokers) that the agenda is not evidence but theories theories about normalization, theories about use by youngsters, theories about health effects. Every scientific study shows the exact opposite from what they support, but none cares. Theory is more important that evidence. We have come up to a point when a professor is supporting that We are witnessing the beginning of a new phase of the nicotine epidemic and a new route to nicotine addiction for kids while at the same time his own study mentions that Students who had smoked every day in the past 30 days had the highest rate of current e cigarette use (50.8%), compared with .6% among those who not currently smoking cigarettes (p < .001). (emphasis added).
How should this be called? Science? It is really sad that scientists are so disrespectful of smokers and their need to find a getaway from smoking. They believe they should be punished for initiating smoking and for medicine s inability to develop an effective smoking cessation medication. It is a dangerous path that should be condemned.
Regulators should stay away from propaganda tactics. They should be properly informed and base their decisions on facts, not on theories. Regulating based on anything besides evidence is like opening the floodgates it will have severe consequences and will definitely harm public health.
Euobserver / eu to ban menthol cigarettes, impose scary pictures
Dalli’s successor, Tonio Borg, noted that smoking kills 700,000 people a year in Europe. “This means that a city the size of Palermo is wiped off the map every single year,” he said.
He added the law is aimed at preventing young people from getting into the habit.
A former smoker himself, he said “It’s not because we treat people as if they were stupid, but we want to help EU citizens come to the right decision … Smokers should not be treated like the lepers of modern times, but at the same time we should protect citizens who do not want to smoke.”
He also said he did not water down Dalli’s earlier draft of the bill in any way, a claim backed up by Dalli.
“I have seen a version of what has been proposed. I cannot see any relevant changes from my earlier proposal,” Dalli told EUobserver by email.
Wednesday’s bill sets the scene for fresh lobbying and politicking in the European Parliament and in EU countries’ embassies in Brussels, which can still amend the law.
The centre right EPP group in parliament immediately welcomed Borg’s “balanced” text. But the centre left S&D faction said it should force cigarettes to be sold in plain packs with the brand indicated only by a line of text, as in Australia.
For its part, cigarette maker Philip Morris, which made a profit of almost € 7 billion last year, said the directive’s “numerous flaws need to be addressed.”
British American Tobacco (also € 7 billion) said the bill is “not proportionate” and promised “to make our voice heard over the course of the next year” in the EU institutions.
In a sign of the tobacco lobby’s power, Borg noted that he met on two occasions with Swedish ministers who urged him to lift the snus ban.
Tobacco lobbyists also get frequent meetings with top advisors to Borg’s boss, commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso.
But for Epha, a Brussels based anti smoking NGO, Borg’s bill indicates that big tobacco’s message is falling on deaf ears.
“I hope this is a watershed moment for the relationship between the commission and the tobacco industry,” its director, Monika Kosinska, said. “The directive proves that the commission did not listen to the lobbyists,” Epha’s Javier Delgado Rivera added.
Zooming in on snus, users insert pellets of the stuff against their gums, where tiny crystals on the surface of the product lacerate the skin to get nicotine into their bloodstream.
It is loved by Swedish right wingers who see it as part of Swedish national identity.
It is also popular with children because they can use it, for instance, during class in school without the teacher being able to see.
“There is evidence to show that if you were to introduce snus into the European market, it would be a great success,” Borg said.
