Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

USA

Tobacco companies tighten hold on Washington under Trump

Jul 13th, 2017
by Editor.
No comments yet

Top White House figures – including the vice-president and health secretary – have deep ties to an industry whose donations began pouring in on day one

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/13/tobacco-industry-trump-administration-ties

Tobacco companies have moved swiftly to strengthen their grip on Washington politics, ramping up lobbying efforts and securing significant regulatory wins in the first six months of the Trump era.

Day one of Donald Trump’s presidency started with tobacco donations, senior figures have been put in place within the Trump administration who have deep ties to tobacco, and lobbying activity has increased significantly.

“As in so many areas, the promise to drain the swamp has been an extraordinary hypocrisy,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal, who supported anti-tobacco legislation and was one of the US attorneys general to broker a hundred-billion-dollar settlement with tobacco companies in the 1990s. “Many of his appointees have deep commitments to the tobacco industry,” he said.

“Tobacco industry influence in Washington is pervasive, in many different ways,” Blumenthal said. “They have an active presence on the Hill, they meet frequently with administrative agencies, on hugely significant issues such as regulation of e-cigarettes, tobacco packaging and warnings.”

America’s largest cigarette manufacturers, Reynolds American and Altria Group, donated $1.5m to help the new president celebrate his inauguration. The donations allowed executives to dine and mingle with top administration officials and their families.

Not long after Trump promised to transfer power from Washington to the American people, a wave of spending in pursuit of influence was unleashed. In the first quarter of 2017, tobacco companies and trade associations spent $4.7m lobbying federal officials. Altria, the company behind Marlboro, hired 17 lobbying firms. Reynolds, makers of the Camel brand, hired 13, according to the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids.

Since then, tobacco companies have been putting points on the scoreboard. Politicians and officials with deep ties to the tobacco industry now head the US health department, the top attorney’s office and the Senate, even as tobacco use remains the leading preventable cause of death.

Agencies in charge of reviewing large mergers let a window slip by in which they might have requested information about a $49bn merger between Reynolds and British American Tobacco (BAT). That merger, expected to be voted through by shareholders next week, will make BAT the biggest listed tobacco company in the world, and puts proceeds from eight out of 10 cigarettes sold in the US into the pockets of two companies: Altria and BAT.

Advocates and opposition politicians fear public health wins in curbing smoking could be vulnerable to a more emboldened industry.

There are also concerns that most at risk are poorer and more vulnerable citizens whose health insurance coverage could be weakened by Republican reforms.

“With the new Trump administration and Congress trying to roll back health and safety regulations, generally the tobacco industry is seizing the opportunity to mount its own assault on the programs and policies that have reduced smoking in this country,” said Vince Willmore, a spokesperson for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

The Food and Drug Administration has twice delayed legal briefs to defend regulations of e-cigarettes, products cigarette makers say are the future. Summer deadlines for cigar and e-cigarette makers to file applications with the FDA, which regulates the products, have all been delayed by the Trump administration.

And the high-profile attorney Noel Francisco, who once argued for Reynolds that including a quit-line phone number on cigarette packs amounted to government advocacy against smoking, has been nominated for the post of solicitor general, the government’s top attorney.

In the past two decades, the tobacco industry has increasingly steered donations to Republicans. The past two election cycles, 2014 and 2016, were the most partisan ever. Tobacco companies made 84% of their donations each cycle to Republican candidates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Since 1990, $57m has been donated exclusively to Republicans, 74% of the industry’s total donations.

Proposals from Republican lawmakers for health reform, which the president has attempted to broker, have threatened to cut $126m that the Centers for Disease Control uses to educate Americans about the harms of tobacco use. Cuts Republicans proposed to Medicaid, a public health program for the poor, could imperil smoking cessation coverage for people already far more likely to smoke than middle- and upper-class Americans.

Trump himself, notoriously secretive about his personal wealth, has revealed that he had investments in tobacco companies, including Philip Morris International, its American spinoff Altria Group, and Reynolds American Inc.

In the past three years, Trump’s financial disclosures show he earned up to $2.1m from tobacco holdings in diversified portfolios. Trump said he sold his stocks this spring (although he did not provide proof).

For Trump’s inaugural celebration, Reynolds American gave $1m. Altria Group gave $500,000. The US Chamber of Commerce, which has been fiercely pro-tobacco in recent years, gave $25,000.

Vice-President Mike Pence was already well acquainted with the tobacco lobby. In 2001, Pence argued that “smoking doesn’t kill”. Two months later, Pence met with tobacco lobbyists who steered donations his way.

Tobacco lobbyists discussed donating to Mike Pence in a 2001 email. Photograph: University of California San Francisco Truth Tobacco Industry Documents

Tobacco lobbyists discussed donating to Mike Pence in a 2001 email. Photograph: University of California San Francisco Truth Tobacco Industry Documents

Over his career, Pence received $39,000 in donations from RJ Reynolds, a Reynolds American subsidiary, and more than $60,000 from the tobacco company-aligned National Association of Convenience Stores, both among his top donors. Pence owned up to $250,000 in stock in a family business, a chain of 210 convenience stores doing business as Tobacco Road. The company later went bankrupt.

The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, who has had a high-profile role in developing health reform proposals, has long cast votes that favor tobacco interests. McConnell once threatened to derail negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal in support of tobacco. McConnell is from Kentucky, one of the top tobacco-growing states in the country. In January, his former chief of staff was hired by Altria.

Trump’s health appointments also have deep links to tobacco companies. The health secretary, Tom Price, in 2009 voted against a 62-cent cigarette tax hike that would have helped pay for public health insurance for poor children. He called the law a blow to “hard-working Americans” meant “to feed [Obama’s] reckless agenda”. Until 2012, Price owned at least $37,000 in shares in Philip Morris International and Altria, Mother Jones reported, and during his career as a state legislator and Georgia congressman he received more than $37,000 in donations from tobacco companies and related political action committees. In March, Price’s former deputy chief of staff was hired as a lobbyist for Reynolds.

In addition to his vote against the cigarette tax, Price also voted against allowing the FDA to regulate tobacco, a vote that would have a large impact on e-cigarettes. Price now leads the department in charge of enforcing those regulations.

Reporting to Price, as the head of the FDA, is Scott Gottlieb. Before he headed the FDA, Gottlieb worked primarily for the investment bank Winston & Company, which helped raise $4.7m for the e-cigarette company Kure in 2016, according to Bloomberg News.

Gottlieb then became a director at Kure the same year. Writing about the FDA, he argued in Forbes that anti-tobacco “activists have managed to infiltrate the middle ranks of the agency’s center”, and suggested e-cigarettes could be an alternative for smokers.

Attorneys appointed to defend the FDA’s authority to regulate tobacco products have, in some cases, come directly from the law firm that once fought them – Jones Day. The firm’s attorneys represented Trump during the campaign as well as RJ Reynolds in suits against the US government. Now, 11 lawyers from the firm have been appointed to various government agencies, American Lawyer reported.

Until Francisco’s nomination for solicitor general, he represented both RJ Reynolds and its parent company, Reynolds American Inc. The companies were two of just 16 sources of income, including his law firm Jones Day, from whom Francisco reported earning more than $5,000 a year.

Francisco has had “a profoundly important involvement with the tobacco industry”, said Blumenthal.

Francisco argued on behalf of Reynolds in a continuing case. In one instance, he successfully argued against a graphic warning design on cigarette packs, which are common in other developed nations, because the warnings included a phone number where people could seek help to quit.

Francisco argued the message veered into advocacy because it told people to “live a certain way”, according to the Seattle Times.

“The government is trying to send a powerful message: quit smoking now,” Francisco reportedly said.

Even the dark “American carnage” speech Trump gave at his inauguration was written by a one-time tobacco advocate: his speechwriter Stephen Miller argued against a cigarette sales ban while he attended Duke University in 2007.

“Smoking, while risky and potentially lethal, is not nearly as dangerous as special interest groups and their cohorts in government have made it out to be,” Miller wrote. “The real risks are the fascistic tendencies that prohibit smoking in even private establishments.”

San Francisco Menthol Ban Puts Millions in Tobacco Sales in Jeopardy

Jun 28th, 2017
by Editor.
No comments yet

New law may cut tobacco category by 35%, city research says

http://www.cspdailynews.com/category-news/tobacco/articles/san-francisco-menthol-ban-puts-millions-tobacco-sales-jeopardy

Although California may be known for earthquakes, San Francisco could rock the c-store channel to its core, with its board of supervisors banning the sale of menthol cigarettes—a move that could slash the tobacco category in the city as much as 35% when the law goes into effect next year, according to one state estimate.

Through a press contact at the board of supervisors, CSP Daily News confirmed that the board’s unanimous approval of the menthol ban June 20 has led to its passage into law, with an implementation date set for April 2018.

The measure’s passing comes soon after Ted Egan, chief economist for San Francisco’s controller’s office, issued a report detailing the ban’s potential economic effects. In the report dated June 13, Egan said the ban—which affects all tobacco flavors, including menthol—could cost the city $50.5 million in annual sales, with an average smoker consuming 212 packs annually at a cost of $8.50 per pack.

While the ban’s goal of reducing tobacco use may be the result, the report also suggests that smokers may simply switch to other types of tobacco or buy flavored products in other cities or online.

Based on city records, the ban would affect 726 retailers.

“Most of these retailers are small convenience stores or gasoline stations that sell fewer than 20 packs of cigarettes per day,” the report said. “We have no information on how many sell flavored cigarettes that would be subject to the ban.”

The report, however, cited the California Department of Public Health as estimating 35% of cigarettes sold are menthol-flavored.

The legislation itself amends San Francisco health codes to prohibit local tobacco retailers from selling flavored tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes, flavored chewing tobacco and flavored liquids containing nicotine designed to be used with electronic cigarettes. It does not criminalize the possession or use of flavored tobacco, only its sale by retailers within the city.

In its original form, the law was supposed to take effect in January 2018, but according to the San Francisco Examiner, Supervisor Malia Cohen, who introduced the bill, pushed enforcement back by four months to April 2018 to address business concerns. According to the Examiner, Cohen said she would support increases in funding for small stores so they could transition their business models to reflect the city’s Healthy Food Retail program.

Since the measure’s initial proposal in April, San Francisco-area retailers and tobacco association representatives have expressed vigorous opposition to the measure, saying it would endanger the viability of their businesses.

Here’s a quick update on California counties and cities that have banned or are considering bans on menthol as part of a larger pushback on flavored-tobacco products:

  • Menthol Bans. Municipalities with some form of flavor ban that includes menthol cigarettes: Yolo and Santa Clara counties in California, and Los Gatos, Calif., according to the Antioch Herald. San Francisco’s flavor ban, which includes menthol-flavored tobacco products, will take effect in April 2018.
  • Flavor Bans. Several cities have some form of flavored-tobacco ban involving menthol. For instance, the city of El Cerrito, Calif., banned the sale of flavored tobacco to youth under 21, according to the Antioch Herald. Other cities with various types of restrictions of menthol include Berkley, Hayward and Sonoma, Calif., said the East Bay Times.
  • Considering Flavor Bans. Contra Costa County in California will consider outlawing the sale of flavored tobacco to youth at either its July 11 or July 18 meeting, according to the Antioch Herald. Meanwhile, the city of San Leandro postponed a decision until September on a more encompassing tobacco ordinance that included a flavor ban, the East Bay Times said.

At a public rally in April, Orlando lawmakers stood in solidarity with legislators in San Francisco to ban menthol cigarettes, but according to the San Francisco Examiner, Orlando is still considering its own proposal on the matter.

One of the latest cities to consider an ordinance is Minneapolis, with councilmen introducing legislation June 16 that would include menthol in its current tobacco-flavor ban.

Is Vaping As Harmful As Smoking Cigarettes? Here’s What You Need To Know

Jun 27th, 2017
by Editor.
No comments yet

Vaping seems to have taken the mantle of becoming the healthier alternative to smoking, along with the fact that they were designed with the motive to help smokers eventually quit.

http://www.indiatimes.com/health/healthyliving/is-vaping-as-harmful-as-smoking-cigarettes-here-s-what-you-need-to-know-324703.html

In fact, the trend has caught on so rampantly that it’s set to outsell traditional cigarettes by the end of 2023!

With the FDA regulating these products since 2016, it comes as no surprise that vaping is due to become the norm, surpassing traditional smoking in time to come.

In a report on the use of e-cigarettes in Canada, a report previously stated that “Among those whose primary reason for use is to help to quit tobacco, a similar proportion no longer smoke (24%), and this may be considered the success rate for this method of smoking cessation.”

How is vaping different from smoking?

To differentiate itself from tobacco products, vaping is the process of smoking nicotine without inhaling the other harmful substances in tobacco—out of which there 70 known carcinogens. Some products contain little to no nicotine in them. Canada for instance still does not approve of nicotine-containing e-cigarettes.

These battery-powered devices heat the liquid that contains nicotine and/or other flavours, which in turn is inhaled as the vapour.

There is no smoke without fire, however

Since the key objective of switching to e-cigarettes is to cut down the number of cigarettes you smoke, researchers have been assessing the ‘relative harm’ vaping can cause to your tissues.

A study conducted by Jessica Wang-Rodriguez, a head and neck cancer specialist at the University of California at San Diego and her team found that cells lining human organs sustained up to twice the DNA damage seen in unexposed cells. They were also five to 10 times more likely to wither and die than unexposed cells even if the vapour contained no nicotine, the addictive ingredient in conventional and most electronic cigarettes, as reported in New Scientist.

“Without the nicotine, the damage is slightly less, but still statistically significant compared with control cells,” says Wang-Rodriguez, who led the research.

The toxins from the flavouring are another cause of concern

“E-cigarette vapour is known to contain a range of toxins which include impurities in the e-cigarette liquids and toxins generated when solutions are heated to generate vapour,” says John Britton, a toxicologist at the University of Nottingham, UK. “Some are carcinogenic, so it’s likely some long-term users of e-cigarettes will experience adverse effects on their health, and the authors fo the study conducted by Rodriguez and company are correct to point out that these products should not be considered risk-free,” he says. But if smokers can’t give up completely, e-cigarettes are safer than smoking, he says, as reported in New Scientist.

They caused considerable damage to your key blood vessels; similar to normal cigarettes

A study conducted by researchers at the European Society of Cardiology Congress in Rome states that vaping has an impact similar to the what normal cigarettes have on the stiffening of you heart’s aorta, as reported the Independent, UK.

The lead researcher, Professor Charalambos Viachopoulos of the University of Athens said, “We measured aortic stiffness. If the aorta is stiff you multiply your risk of dying, either from heart diseases or from other causes. “There could be long-term heart dangers. They are far more dangerous than people realise.”

The problem lies with the rising number of teens taking to smoking E-cigarettes

A 2014 high school survey conducted in the US found that 17 percent of 12th graders reported the use of e-cigarettes compared to 14 percent who smoked traditional cigarettes. The lower price points at which they are promoted, their perception of being safer than traditional cigarettes, the various flavours they come in and the fact they’re in trend make it a very attractive option for the youth.

Adolescents and young adults who try e-cigarettes are more than three times as likely to take up smoking traditional cigarettes as their peers who haven’t tried the devices, states a recent research review published in Reuters Health.

E-cigarette use, or vaping, was as least as strong a risk factor for smoking traditional cigarettes as having a parent or sibling who smokes or having a risk-taking and thrill-seeking personality, the researchers found.

“E-cigarette use among teens and young adults could increase the future burden of tobacco by creating a new generation of adult smokers who might have otherwise not begun smoking,” said lead study author Samir Soneji of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice in New Hampshire.

“To the extent that e-cigarette use mimics the behaviour of smoking a cigarette—handling the e-cigarette, the action of puffing, and the inhalation of smoke—it sets the adolescent up for easily transitioning to smoking,” added Soneji. “Like transitioning from driving a Tesla to driving a Chevy.”

Dr Brian Primack, a researcher at the University of Pittsburgh stated that “Young people report that there is a lot of pressure among e-cigarette only users to smoke a ‘real’ cigarette,” Primack said by email. “It may be somewhat analogous to the fact that teens who use flavoured alcohol are often pressured socially to step up their game to harder forms of alcohol.”

Although e-cigarettes claim to be less harmful than conventional cigarettes it could make sense to pay heed to the lack of conclusive long-term evidence

Cigarette smokers are well aware of the perils of smoking normal cigarettes. The New England Journal of Medicine states that smoking tobacco reduces your life span by at least 10 years. But studies on smoking e-cigarettes remain largely inconclusive.

A review of studies published in the journal Tobacco Control reveals that the long-term effects of the vaporised form are not known yet. For instance, it is not known if the chemical propylene glycol, which is mixed with the other chemicals in e-cigarettes known to irritate the respiratory tract, could result in lung problems after decades of vaping, says Dr Michael Siegel, a tobacco researcher and professor of community health sciences at the Boston University School of Public Health in Live Science.

Besides, “because e-cigarettes have been on the market for only about 10 years, there have been no long-term studies of people who have used them for 30 to 40 years. Therefore, the full extent of e-cigs’ effects on heart and lung health, as well as their cancer-causing potential, over time is not known,” says Stanton Glantz a professor of medicine and the director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California, San Francisco to Live Science.

 

How e-cigarette ads might sway teens to try tobacco products

May 22nd, 2017
by Editor.
No comments yet

When non-smoking teens see ads for e-cigarettes, and are curious about the products advertised, perhaps even identifying with a favorite brand, they might also be more susceptible to taking up cigarettes, a new study finds.

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-how-e-cigarette-ads-might-sway-teens-to-try-tobacco-products-2017-5?IR=T

For the study, researchers showed a nationally representative sample of 10,751 U.S. teens advertisements for a wide variety of tobacco products including traditional cigarettes, cigars, chewing tobacco and e-cigarettes. Overall, the teens were more receptive to ads for e-cigarettes than other products and television ads were most likely to prompt brand recall.

“The imagery used by tobacco companies focuses on the aspirations of young people including having fun, being independent, sophisticated, socially accepted, popular, etc.,” said lead study author John Pierce of the University of California, San Diego.

“Those who have an emotive response to these aspirational images are more likely to see use of the product as a way to achieve their aspirations,” Pierce said by email. “It is hypothesized that in adolescents who are committed never smokers, recall of tobacco product advertising will be associated with first movement toward product use within a one-year time frame.”

Big U.S. tobacco companies are all developing e-cigarettes, battery-powered gadgets with a heating element that turns liquid nicotine and flavorings into a cloud of vapor that users inhale.

For the past decade, public health experts have debated whether the devices might help with smoking cessation or at least be a safer alternative to smoking traditional combustible cigarettes, or whether they might lure a new generation into nicotine addiction.

Fewer teens smoke today than a generation ago, but declines in traditional cigarette use have stalled and e-cigarettes have become increasingly popular in recent years. As of 2015, an estimated 16 percent of U.S. high school students used e-cigarettes, compared with about 9 percent for traditional cigarettes, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

While television ads for traditional cigarettes have been illegal in the U.S. for decades, e-cigarette ads are currently allowed on TV, researchers note in Pediatrics.

In the study, Pierce and his colleagues examined how receptive or curious non-smoking teens were about different tobacco products and whether they had a favorite image or advertisement. They also looked at how susceptible the adolescents might be to trying tobacco products based on their ability to recall specific brands they saw in the ads.

The researchers showed each study participant a random selection of five ads each for cigarettes, e-cigarettes smokeless tobacco and cigars based on 959 different promotions that had recently been used to advertise these products.

Overall, 41 percent of the younger teens in the study and half of older adolescents were receptive to at least one tobacco advertisement, the study found.

Across each age group, teens were most receptive to ads for e-cigarettes, followed by traditional cigarettes and smokeless tobacco.

E-cigarette ads shown on television had the highest recall.

Compared to teens in the study who were not at all receptive to the ads, youth who had the highest level of engagement with the promotions were more than six times more likely to be susceptible to trying tobacco products, the study found.

The study isn’t a controlled experiment designed to prove whether or how ads may directly influence tobacco use.

Another limitation is that researchers didn’t have data to show whether or not teens actually used tobacco products after viewing these ads, the authors note.

Even so, the findings suggest that non-cigarette ads for tobacco-related products may be damaging for adolescent health, Rebecca Collins of Rand Corporation in Santa Monica, California, writes in an accompanying editorial.

“This study provides some very provocative data suggesting that the marketing of e-cigarettes, which is not regulated, might be leading to cigarette smoking among teens,” Collins said by email.

Appeals Court Deals Blow To Tobacco Companies

May 21st, 2017
by Editor.
No comments yet

More than a decade after the Florida Supreme Court opened the floodgates for lawsuits against tobacco companies, an Atlanta-based appeals court this week rejected arguments that could have helped shield cigarette makers in legal battles about smoking-related illnesses and deaths.

http://wlrn.org/post/appeals-court-deals-blow-tobacco-companies-0

The full 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Philip Morris USA, Inc., which contended that federal law trumps certain claims. The appeals court also rejected the companies’ arguments of due-process violations.

The case largely stems from a 2006 Florida Supreme Court ruling that established findings about a series of issues including the dangers of smoking and misrepresentation by cigarette makers. The ruling helped spawn thousands of lawsuits in state and federal courts, with plaintiffs able to use the findings against tobacco companies — lawsuits that have become known as “Engle progeny” cases.

The appeals-court decision Thursday came in an Engle progeny case tried in federal court in Jacksonville. The case was filed by the family of Faye Graham, who died after smoking for 41 years and developing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung cancer, according to a brief in the case.

A jury ruled against R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris on issues of strict liability and negligence. It also found Graham partially at fault, with a judge ultimately deciding that R.J. Reynolds should pay $550,000 in damages and Philip Morris should pay $275,000.

In the appeal, the tobacco companies argued, in part, that federal laws regulate cigarettes and, as a result, should prevent claims of strict liability and negligence based on the Engle findings — a legal concept known as federal preemption.

“The strict-liability and negligence claims in this case do not rest on any alleged defect specific to the cigarettes smoked by Mrs. Graham. Instead … they rest on the inherent riskiness of all cigarettes,” attorneys for the tobacco companies argued in a 2014 brief. “The claims here thus seek to enforce a legal duty, grounded in Florida tort law, to refrain from selling ordinary cigarettes. Because such a duty squarely conflicts with federal law, the claims here are preempted.”

But Thursday’s majority ruling, written by appeals-court Judge William Pryor, rejected such contentions, writing that “federal tobacco laws do not preempt state tort claims based on the dangerousness of all the cigarettes manufactured by the tobacco companies.”

“Florida may employ its police power to regulate cigarette sales and to impose tort liability on cigarette manufacturers,” Pryor wrote in the 43-page opinion.

The majority also rejected to the tobacco companies’ arguments that due-process rights had been violated in using the Engle findings in the Graham case.

But appeals-court Judge Gerald Tjoflat wrote an encyclopedic 226-page dissent on the preemption and due-process issues. As an example, in addressing the preemption issue, he wrote that judges “cannot give effect to the Florida Supreme Court’s decisions in a manner that operates as a ban on the sale of cigarettes without elevating state law over federal law.”

“I merely conclude that, having surveyed both federal and state law, it is clear that Congress would have intended to preempt Graham’s strict-liability and negligence claims, rooted as they are in a broadly applicable state law set forth by the Florida Supreme Court that deems all cigarettes defective, unreasonably dangerous, and negligently produced,” Tjoflat wrote.

Effect of message congruency on attention and recall in pictorial health warning labels

May 16th, 2017
by Editor.
No comments yet

Abstract

Objective

The nine pictorial health warning labels (PWLs) proposed by the US Food and Drug Administration vary in format and feature of visual and textual information. Congruency is the degree to which visual and textual features reflect a common theme. This characteristic can affect attention and recall of label content. This study investigates the effect of congruency in PWLs on smoker’s attention and recall of label content.

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2017/05/16/tobaccocontrol-2016-053615

Methods

120 daily smokers were randomly assigned to view either congruent or incongruent PWLs, while having their eye movements recorded. Participants were asked to recall label content immediately after exposure and 5 days later.

Results

Overall, the image was viewed more and recalled better than the text. Smokers in the incongruent condition spent more time focusing on the text than smokers in the congruent condition (p=0.03), but dwell time of the image did not differ. Despite lower dwell time on the text, smokers in the congruent condition were more likely to correctly recall it on day 1 (p=0.02) and the risk message of the PWLs on both day 1 (p=0.01) and day 5 (p=0.006) than smokers in the incongruent condition.

Conclusions

This study identifies an important design feature of PWLs and demonstrates objective differences in how smokers process PWLs. Our results suggest that message congruency between visual and textual information is beneficial to recall of label content. Moreover, images captured and held smokers’ attention better than the text.

Big Tobacco Attacks Sensible F.D.A. Rules on Vaping

Apr 19th, 2017
by Editor.
No comments yet

As smokers turned to electronic cigarettes to reduce the health risks of smoking, big tobacco companies started buying e-cigarette makers and producing and selling their own. Now those companies are lobbying Congress to prevent the Food and Drug Administration from regulating electronic cigarettes and cigars, as it does conventional cigarettes. If they succeed, they will be able to sell and market addictive nicotine products to young people with few restrictions.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/19/opinion/big-tobacco-attacks-sensible-fda-rules-on-vaping.html?_r=1

While promoters of e-cigarettes and e-cigars, which provide nicotine in vapor form, say they can help people quit conventional tobacco products containing harmful tar, there is not a lot of evidence for that claim. In addition, the devices are dangerous to young people because the nicotine they provide “can cause addiction and can harm the developing adolescent brain,” according to a 2016 report by the surgeon general, Vivek Murthy. Health experts also say that the vapor those devices produce can contain carcinogens and metal particles.

Another government report found that 16 percent of high-school students said they had used e-cigarettes in 2015, up from just 1.5 percent in 2011. The industry sells these products in a broad array of flavors, like gummy bear and cotton candy, designed to appeal to young people when they are more susceptible to becoming dependent or addicted to nicotine.

After years of deliberation, the F.D.A. said last May that it would begin regulating the manufacturing, sale, packaging and advertising of e-cigarettes, and all tobacco products, under a 2009 federal law that authorized it to do so. Specifically, the agency said it would begin reviewing the health risks of e-cigarettes introduced since early 2007, and potentially ban specific flavors and products that it deemed harmful. The tobacco lobby wants Republicans to amend a vital appropriations bill to exempt products that were introduced before May 2016 from F.D.A. review.

The push to undermine the F.D.A.’s authority began even before the agency had finished its rule. One Republican lawmaker, Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma, introduced a bill in 2015 that was identical to a draft circulated by the Altria Group, the country’s biggest tobacco company and a marketer of vaping products. In addition to its legislative effort, the industry has also filed several lawsuits in federal courts challenging the rule.

Tobacco companies complain that the F.D.A.’s rule amounts to “retroactive” regulation because many of the e-cigarettes and e-cigars it will regulate have been on the market for years. But the industry has known for years that government officials were developing this rule. Large bipartisan majorities in Congress voted in 2009 to hand the agency the authority to evaluate and approve new tobacco products introduced on or after Feb. 15, 2007. The F.D.A. is simply doing its job by protecting public health.

Vaping Caused So Many Accidents the Navy Decided to Ban It

Apr 15th, 2017
by Editor.
No comments yet

The men and women serving in the military have stressful jobs, and they all need to find ways to decompress. But if you’re a member of the Navy it looks like one of your recreational activities is off-limits, at least temporarily.

http://www.complex.com/life/2017/04/united-states-navy-bans-vaping

Bad news smokers: the Navy has banned vaping. Vaping on United States military ships and equipment has been problematic enough for concerns to make their way to the top of the naval totem pole. As of May 14, sailors will be banned from vaping on ships, subs, planes, boats, and all other official naval equipment.

The commanders of the U.S. Fleet Forces and U.S. Pacific Fleet provided a statement detailing the justification for the decision, saying, “The Fleet commanders implemented this policy to protect the safety and welfare of Sailors and to protect the ships, submarines, aircraft and equipment.”

If you’re immersed in Navy culture, this has been a topic of great debate for some time. The Naval Safety Center called e-cigarettes a “significant and unacceptable risk” in 2016, following a series of accidents involving the devices, and a memo from the Navy revealed at least 15 incidents —referred to officially as “mishaps”— in a span of eight months. In comparison to other lithium-ion devices, the Naval Safety Center pegged e-cigarettes in a class of their own because of their propensity to explode when dropped.

Some of the incidents are almost too crazy to be believed. In one issue of the Naval magazine Sea Compass, a story was shared of an incident with an e-cigarette that caused the total destruction of a car and first-degree burns on one of the passengers. It concluded with this passage:

This dramatically increases the risk of an explosion and a fire with disastrous consequences. All it takes is for one careless Sailor to mishandle a lithium ion battery, or to buy a cheap battery for their vape, and a statistically rare event can become a reality.

The higher-ups in the Navy looked at incidents like these and decided it was time to take the decision out of the hands of their sailors. They claim the ban will “remain in effect until a final determination can be made following a thorough analysis.”

Sailors will still be allowed to smoke real cigarettes in the designated smoke deck area, so smoking hasn’t been totally eliminated. But if vaping is near and dear to your heart, don’t enlist in the Navy any time soon.

U.S. Navy Bans E-Cigarettes After Multiple Sailors Suffer Serious Burns From Exploding Batteries

Apr 14th, 2017
by Editor.
No comments yet

The United States Navy has placed an indefinite ban on the use of electronic cigarettes aboard its ships, submarines and aircraft after multiple sailors suffered serious injuries from the device batteries exploding and catching fire.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/u-navy-bans-e-cigarettes-163102315.html

In a statement Friday, the U.S. Fleet Forces Public Affairs said that the policy had been implemented “to protect the safety and welfare of sailors and to protect the ships, submarines, aircraft and equipment.”

The ban, which will go into effect May 14 and “remain in effect until a final determination can be made following a thorough analysis,” will apply to the use of e-cigarettes by any personnel on Navy craft or equipment.

“This new policy is in response to continued reports of explosions of ENDS [Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems] due to the overheating of lithium-ion batteries,” the statement continued. “Multiple Sailors have suffered serious injuries from these devices, to include first- and second-degree burns and facial disfigurement. In these cases, injuries resulted from battery explosions during ENDS use, charging, replacement, or inadvertent contact with a metal object while transporting.”

A memo from the Navy last September outlined the growing problem of vaping onboard Navy vessels and aircraft. The document stated that there had been 15 “mishaps” between October 2015 and June 2016, resulting in injuries to navy personnel or material damage to equipment.

Of the recent incidents, two required firefighting equipment to be used, with one resulting in an aircraft having to return to base due to smoke in the cargo section of the aircraft. Another ten occurred while the e-cigarette was in the pocket of a Navy sailor, which typically led to their clothing catching fire and first and second-degree burns on their legs and torso. Two further battery explosions happened when the e-cigarette was in the individual’s mouth, leading to facial and dental injuries.

After May 15, sailors will only be allowed to vape on shore in designated smoking areas.

The Navy is far from alone in experiencing problems with e-cigarettes. A man who suffered similar burns when an e-cigarette battery caught fire in his pocket at New York City’s Grand Central Terminal filed a lawsuit this week against the manufacturers of the device.

From 2009 to January 2016, the Food and Drug Administration recorded 134 incidents in the U.S. of e-cigarette batteries catching fire, exploding or overheating. The FDA will host a public workshop on safety concerns surrounding the devices next week.

Cancer group renews push to increase tobacco purchase age to 21

Mar 29th, 2017
by Editor.
No comments yet

Cancer prevention advocates are renewing their push to raise the statewide smoking age from 18 to 21.

The issue has been raised before, as a growing number of cities and towns increase the age for purchasing tobacco. A bill to raise the statewide tobacco purchase age to 21 passed the Senate last year on a vote of 32-2. But the bill never made it through the House.

Carol Clark, a volunteer with the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network from Gloucester, survived cancer herself. She has two friends currently battling lung cancer caused by smoking. She lost her grandmother to smoking-related emphysema. She plans to come to the Statehouse to lobby for the bill.

“I think kids have too much access (to tobacco),” Clark said. “They start smoking at a young age. It does major damage.”

Clark said she does not understand why so many teenagers start to smoke given the information available today about its health risks. Clark, 61, said she wishes that information was available when her generation and her parents’ generation were growing up.

“I don’t want to see the next generation go through what mine are going through right now,” she said.

According to the American Cancer Society, 95 percent of smokers start smoking before age 21. Supporters of the bill see it as a way to protect children and teenagers and avoid negative public health impacts, including an increase in cancer rates, later on. It would also create uniform rules across the state, as opposed to a patchwork of local ordinances.

Opponents of the bill have argued that 18-year-olds are adults and should be allowed to make their own decisions. And raising the age could negatively affect businesses that sell tobacco.

The penalties for violating the law would be on retailers, not smokers.

Other sections of the bill would ban the sale of tobacco in pharmacies and ban the smoking of e-cigarettes in schools, restaurants and workplaces.

The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network will be advocating for the bill as part of its annual lobbying day at the Statehouse on Wednesday. The group expects more than 100 people at the event.

The legislation, S.1218/H.2864, is sponsored by Sen. Jason Lewis, D-Winchester, and Rep. Paul McMurtry, D-Dedham. It has approximately 140 co-sponsors.

← Earlier Posts Newer Posts →