Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

September 1st, 2011:

Plain Cigarette Packaging and the Law – Will it Work? – Analyst Insight from Euromonitor International

http://blog.euromonitor.com/2011/08/plain-cigarette-packaging-and-the-law-will-it-work.html#more

On the other hand, a year after the introduction of graphic health warnings, smoking prevalence in New Zealand has fallen from 25% to 20%. Although the warnings are not regarded as the only factor impacting sales they are regarded as significant and evidence that smokers are asking for packs with less disturbing warning pictures on them is taken as supporting this.

The Euromonitor International view is that plain packaging would be a massive blow to the tobacco companies and would also have an effect on prevalence (because tobacco brands are so iconic and traditional), albeit not a very significant one. Plain packaging could have a much greater effect on major cigarette brands and the inclination of smokers to buy them, thus its widespread adoption would probably mean we would see the proportion of international brands in the product mix

Decrease in smoking reduces death rates within months

http://www.healthcanal.com/substance-abuse/20262-Decrease-smoking-reduces-death-rates-within-months.html

1 Sept. 2011

A study by the University of Liverpool has found that a decrease in smoking rapidly reduces mortality rates in individuals and entire populations within six months.

Cigarettes

Research by Professor Simon Capewell and Dr Martin O’Flaherty at the Institute of Psychology, Health and Wellbeing, examined evidence from clinical trials and natural experiments. They found that a reduction in smoking has a positive impact on mortality rates in both individuals and populations within six months. Likewise, dietary improvements get very positive results within one to three years.

Professor Capewell said: “Our research found that smoking bans and diet improvements powerfully and rapidly reduce chronic disease in both individuals and in the wider population. This actually happens quickly, within a far shorter timescale than had previously been assumed; within months and years rather than decades. This discovery means that policies such as smoking bans or reducing saturated fats are effective at improving health and would save the NHS millions very rapidly.”

The study found that policies that reduce smoking consistently have a rapidly positive effect on mortality rates and hospital admissions in countries and communities around the world. After smoke-free legislation was introduced in Scotland in 2006, hospital admissions for acute coronary syndrome decreased by 17% with a 6% decrease in out-of-hospital cardiac deaths.

Similarly, when smoke-free legislation was introduced in Helena, an isolated community in the US, it resulted in a 40% drop in admission rates for acute coronary syndrome within six months in one hospital. When the law was repealed the coronary admissions returned to previous levels within six months.

Changes to diet also have a rapid and positive impact on the reduction of mortality rates for coronaryheart disease. Coronary death rates rose steadily during the 20th century, peaking in the 1970s in the UK, US and Western Europe. However, closer scrutiny of national trends revealed a notch in the early 1940s. This has been attributed to sudden decreases in dietary meat and animal fats due to food rationing during the Second World War.

More recently, a study of coronary disease in Poland found that death rates from heart disease had been rising steadily. From 1990, however, they quickly dropped by 25% after meat and animal fat subsidies from the communist countries ceased and cheap vegetable oils and fruit flooded the market. A study of other central European countries confirmed very similar trends.

The research was published in The Lancet.

The Cigarette Tax Increase to Finance SCHIP

Abstract. On January 15, the House passed H.R. 2, a bill which included increased tobacco taxes to finance
State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). This legislation was similar to that passed in the In the
110th Congress (H.R. 976 and H.R. 3162) although the initial House proposal had smaller tax increases.. H.R.
2 increases cigarette taxes, the primary source of tobacco tax revenues from 39 cents to $1.00. According to the
Joint Committee on Taxation, the cigarette tax will raise $6.4 billion in federal revenues in FY 2010 with all
federal tobacco taxes increases raising $7.1 billion. A similar tax increase is contained in the Senate Finance
Committee mark. The analysis suggests that state and local governments will lose about $1 billion in cigarette
tax revenues and up to $0.5 billion in lost revenues from the tobacco settlement payments. The legislation is
now being considered in the Senate. A justification is to discourage teenage smoking, but this effect is probably
small; a reservation is that the burden falls heavily on low-income individuals. Taxes on other tobacco products
are also increased, although cigarette taxes account for most tobacco revenues. In the 110th Congress, the
President vetoed the 110th Congress SCHIP proposal on October 3, 2008, the House failed to override the veto
and a new bill, H.R. 3963 passed the House and Senate, with no changes in the cigarette tax, but changes in
spending rules, and the President vetoed that version on December 12, 2008.

Abstract. On January 15, the House passed H.R. 2, a bill which included increased tobacco taxes to financeState Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). This legislation was similar to that passed in the In the110th Congress (H.R. 976 and H.R. 3162) although the initial House proposal had smaller tax increases.. H.R.2 increases cigarette taxes, the primary source of tobacco tax revenues from 39 cents to $1.00. According to theJoint Committee on Taxation, the cigarette tax will raise $6.4 billion in federal revenues in FY 2010 with allfederal tobacco taxes increases raising $7.1 billion. A similar tax increase is contained in the Senate FinanceCommittee mark. The analysis suggests that state and local governments will lose about $1 billion in cigarettetax revenues and up to $0.5 billion in lost revenues from the tobacco settlement payments. The legislation isnow being considered in the Senate. A justification is to discourage teenage smoking, but this effect is probablysmall; a reservation is that the burden falls heavily on low-income individuals. Taxes on other tobacco productsare also increased, although cigarette taxes account for most tobacco revenues. In the 110th Congress, thePresident vetoed the 110th Congress SCHIP proposal on October 3, 2008, the House failed to override the vetoand a new bill, H.R. 3963 passed the House and Senate, with no changes in the cigarette tax, but changes inspending rules, and the President vetoed that version on December 12, 2008.

Wikileaks – download PDF : RS22681_20090116

Exclusive: Smoked out: tobacco giant’s war on science

Independent.co.uk

Philip Morris seeks to force university to hand over confidential health research into teenage smokers

By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Thursday, 1 September 2011

The world’s largest tobacco company is attempting to gain access to confidential information about British teenagers’ smoking habits.

Philip Morris International, the maker of Marlboro cigarettes, is seeking to force a British university to reveal full details of its research involving confidential interviews with thousands of children aged between 11 and 16 about their attitudes towards smoking and cigarette packaging.

The demands from the tobacco company, made using the UK’s Freedom of Information law, have coincided with an internet hate campaign targeted at university researchers involved in smoking studies.

One of the academics has received anonymous abusive phone calls at her home at night. She believes they are prompted by an organised campaign by the tobacco industry to discredit her work, although there is no evidence that the cigarette companies are directly responsible. Philip Morris says it has a “legitimate interest” in the information, but researchers at Stirling University say that handing over highly sensitive data would be a gross breach of confidence that could jeopardise future studies.

The researchers also believe that the requests are having a chilling effect on co-operation with other academics who fear that sharing their own unpublished data with Stirling will lead to it being handed over to the tobacco industry.

Philip Morris International made its first Freedom of Information (FOI) request anonymously through a London law firm in September 2009. However, the Information Commissioner rejected the request on the grounds that that law firm, Clifford Chance, had to name its client.

Philip Morris then put in two further FOI requests under its own name seeking all of the raw data on which Stirling’s Institute for Social Marketing has based its many studies on smoking knowledge, attitudes and behaviour in children and adults.

“They wanted everything we had ever done on this,” said Professor Gerard Hastings, the institute’s director.

“These are confidential comments about how youngsters feel about tobacco marketing. This is the sort of research that would get a tobacco company into trouble if it did it itself.” Professor Hastings added: “What is more, these kids have been reassured that only bona fide researchers will have access to their data. No way can Philip Morris fit into that definition.”

The information is anonymised and cannot be traced back to the interviewees. Philip Morris told The Independent that it is not seeking private information on named individuals.

“As provided by the FOI Act, confidential and private information concerning individuals should not be disclosed,” said Anne Edwards, director of external communications at Philip Morris. “We made the request in order to understand more about a research project conducted by the University of Stirling on plain packaging for cigarettes.”

Stirling University is part of the UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies, a network of nine universities, and is considered one of the premier research institutes for investigating smoking behaviour. Its Institute for Social Marketing receives funding from the Department of Health as well as leading charities and its research findings have been used as evidence to support anti-smoking legislation.

Cancer Research UK funded the Stirling research into the smoking behaviour of British teenagers in order to answer basic questions about why 85 per cent of adult smokers started smoking when they were children. The researchers at Stirling have built up an extensive database of interviews with 5,500 teenagers to analyse their attitudes to cigarette marketing, packaging and shop displays. “It is a big dataset now because we’ve been in the field several times talking to between 1,000 and 2,000 young people each time – going down to the age of 11 and up to the age of 16,” Professor Hastings said. “These kids are often saying things they don’t want their parents to know. It’s very sensitive.”

Asked what would happen if he lost the fight against Philip Morris, Professor Hastings said: “It would be catastrophic. I don’t think that’s an outcome I would like to contemplate. It is morally repugnant to give data confidentially shared with us by children to an industry that is so rapacious.”

Linda Bauld, professor of socio-management at Stirling, said that other universities in Britain and abroad are following the case with trepidation: “Our colleagues in the community… will not be willing necessarily to hand over information.”

Stirling’s Institute for Social Marketing consists of 15 full-time researchers and operates with an annual staff budget of £650,000. Philip Morris International employs 78,000 people and has an annual turnover of £27.2bn.

Professor Hastings said that Philip Morris’s demands have taken up large amounts of time and resources, diverting his department’s attention from its primary role of investigating smoking behaviour. “We have spent a lot of time on this. A research unit like ours simply can’t afford this,” he said. “But for me the crux is the trust we have with young people. How easy will it be for us to get co-operation from young people in the future?

“Our funders will have to think carefully about the further funding of our research. I don’t think for one moment a cancer charity is going to take kindly to paying us hundreds of thousands of pounds to give aid and succour to a multinational tobacco corporation.”

The researchers: Academics find that research into smoking can seriously damage their peace of mind

Academics studying the smoking behaviour of British teenagers and adults have found themselves to be the targets of vitriolic attacks by the pro-smoking lobby.

University researchers have been sent hate emails and some have even received anonymous phone calls, which usually come after a series of blogs posted on pro-smoking websites, including at least one which is linked to the tobacco industry.

Linda Bauld, professor of socio-management at Stirling University’s Institute for Social Marketing, says she was unprepared for the scale of the personal attacks aimed at discrediting her work on smoking behaviour and anti-smoking legislation.

“I’ve had a series of anonymous calls starting about a year ago,” Professor Bauld said. “These are phone calls in the evening when I’m at home with my children. It’s an unpleasant experience.

“It’s happened six or seven times and it’s always an unknown number. It’s usually after stuff has been posted on one of the main smokers’ websites.

“They don’t leave their name, they just say things like ‘Keep taking the money’, and ‘Who are you to try to intervene in other peoples’ lives’, using a couple of profanities.”

Professor Bauld has not reported the calls to the police but intends to be more discreet about the availability of her number. There is no evidence to suggest that tobacco companies are directly responsible for the anonymous phone calls. However, Professor Bauld has been identified as a legitimate target for criticism by Big Tobacco following her high-profile work on cigarettes and the impact of smoking bans. Her report for the Department of Health last March on the smoking ban in England found that there had been positive benefits to health and no evidence of any obvious negative impact on the hospitality industry, as the tobacco industry has repeatedly claimed.

Imperial Tobacco, the biggest cigarette company in Britain and makers of the best-selling Lambert & Butler brand, responded to Professor Bauld’s report with its own review, called The Bauld Truth. This report, which took just a few weeks to write, claimed that Professor Bauld’s study, conducted over three years, was “lazy and deliberately selective”. It claimed that she used “flawed evidence and failed to validate her findings”.

Professor Bauld said such personalised attacks were nothing new. Big Tobacco has a long history of aggressively dismissing scientific evidence linking smoking to ill health, she said. “These… are heavily peer-reviewed at every stage. Their methods are robust, whereas the evidence [the tobacco companies] draw on are not well-conducted studies,” Professor Bauld said.

Steve Connor, Science Editor

Applications for Premarket Review of New Tobacco Products

Download (PDF, 233KB)