Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

July, 2012:

In China tobacco-linked deaths may peak in 2025-30: official

http://app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=201785&Itemid=2

BEIJING, July 13 (APP): Tobacco-linked deaths have been on the rise over the past decade in China and are expected to reach a peak between 2025 and 2030, a time when China will overtake Japan as the world’s most aged society, said a tobacco control official here. Each year, smoking related sickness kills over one million people in China, where nearly 30 percent of adults, or more than 300 million,smoke.Another 740 million people are exposed to second-hand smoke annually, state media reported.

Three-quarters of Chinese are not fully aware of the harm caused by smoking, while two-thirds do not know about the dangers of second-hand smoke, according to a report released by the Ministry of Health earlier this year.
The rising medical costs linked to tobacco-related sickness and deaths, along with the aging of the Chinese population, may cripple the country’s social security system in just two decades, warned LiangXiaofeng, deputy director of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
The combination of the two will strain the country’s social security system, Liang, who is also director of the center’s tobacco control office, said at a forum in Beijing Thursday.
Healthcare and other smoking-related costs exceeded the tobacco industry’s economic gains by 61.8 billion yuan (9.8 billion U.S. dollars) in 2010, according to research by Hu Angang, director of the Research Center for Contemporary China at Tsinghua University.
Tobacco use is one of the leading preventable causes of death in the world.
It kills nearly six million people worldwide each year, including more than 600,000 who die from exposure to second-hand smoke.
The Ministry of Health report warned that more than three million Chinese will die of smoking-related illnesses annually by 2050 if no measures are taken.

Officials need to enforce smoking ban

SCMP

I refer to the letter by David Tjian (“Officers failing to be proactive”, July 3) about people breaking no-smoking rules.

There are some people who break the law on purpose. I saw a man smoking at a food stall in the government market complex at Sheung Shui. Rather than phoning the Tobacco Control Office, diners just moved away from him. I can understand this. Gangsters can cause problems and the ones who eventually suffer can be stall owners and their families.

I saw a Hospital Authority poster at Fanling Medical Centre in nine languages reminding people that those who violated the no-smoking ban would be fined.

However, I see no similar posters from the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department or Tobacco Control Office in food courts. The authorities are not treating the smoking ban as a priority.

This is in contrast to America, where they take the smoking ban regulations very seriously.

Pang Chi-ming, Fanling

New Study: E-Cigarettes Endanger Bystanders – Bans Growing

New Study: E-Cigarettes Endanger Bystanders – Bans Spreading

“Passive Vaping” Exposed Them to Toxic Cancer-Causing Chemicals

E-cigarettes, also called “electronic cigarettes” or “ecigs,” were recently blamed for a suspected terrorist incident in London and for a fire which burned 350 acres, but, more importantly, a new study confirmed earlier reports that ecigs give off toxic and cancer-causing chemicals which can endanger bystanders through a process similar to “passive smoking” called “passive vaping.”http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/police-shut-part-uk-motorway-bus-incident-article-1.1108204 **http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S2679801.shtml?cat=500

The study showed that ecigs give off a variety of volatile organic compounds, including formaldehyde, a toxic and allergenic irritant listed as “known to be a human carcinogen” by the U.S. National Toxicology Program; acetaldehyde, an irritant of the skin, eyes, mucous membranes, throat and respiratory tract, and classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] as a “probable human carcinogen”; acetone, an industrial solvent; as well as 1,2-propanediol, 1,2,3-propanetriol, diacetine, and a variety of tiny particles which lodge themselves into the lungs of those who inhale them. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0668.2012.00792.x/abstract;jsessionid=33855B65D8E691F5D7D3BE1E9818DFC3.d02t04

The authors also report concerns that the solvents emitted by ecig may remain on surfaces “and be a source of the contamination of residents,” including changes over time which could make them more carcinogenic, and that the liquids used to refill ecig cartridges could spill and create additional health hazards. They conclude, with regard to concerns about “passive vaping” by bystanders, that, “with regard to a health related evaluation of e-cigarette consumption, the impact of vapor inhalation into the human lung should be a primary concern.”

Many earlier reports also warned about the dangers of chemicals found in ecig vapors which are inhaled by bystanders. For example, the Harvard Medical School warned: “electronic cigarettes deliver an array of other chemicals, including diethylene glycol (a highly toxic substance), various nitrosamines (powerful carcinogens found in tobacco), and at least four other chemicals suspected of being harmful to humans. To be sure, the dose of these compounds is generally smaller than found in ‘real’ cigarette smoke. But it isn’t zero.” http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/electronic-cigarettes-help-or-hazard-201109223395

Indeed, although the most recent study also found that the concentrations of dangerous chemicals in ecig vapors were lower than those found in tobacco smoke, in some cases the amounts could still be considerable. For example, the concentration of acetone in ecig vapors is almost 40% of that found in smoke from conventional tobacco cigarettes.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration [FDA] has warned the public that ecigs contain various toxic, mutagenic, carcinogenic, and genotoxic chemicals, and that ecig cartridges containing the nicotine and other toxic chemicals, many of which come from China, are subject to “none of the manufacturing controls required for FDA-approved nicotine-delivery products” [like nicotine gum, patches, inhalers, sprays, etc.].

In addition to nicotine and propylene glycol, the FDA reported that it found in samples of e-cigarettes a variety of “toxic and carcinogenic chemicals” including diethylene glycol, “an ingredient used in antifreeze, [which] is toxic to humans”; “certain tobacco-specific nitrosamines which are human carcinogens”; and that “tobacco-specific impurities suspected of being harmful to humans – anabasine, myosmine, and nicotyrine – were detected in a majority of the samples tested.”

The principal components of ecig vapors are nicotine (a dangerous and addictive drug) and propylene glycol (which is used in antifreeze, and may cause respiratory tract irritation), notes public interest law professor John Banzhaf, who brought a law suit which helped establish the FDA’s jurisdiction over nicotine products. Until recently, nicotine was not generally regarded as a chemical capable of causing cancer, but recent research shows that it can be a carcinogen, either by itself or when modified by other chemicals found in the air.

Because of the dangers these many chemicals present to innocent bystanders, more and more jurisdictions are banning the use of ecigs in areas where the use of conventional tobacco cigarettes is prohibited, notes Banzhaf, who was the first to direct attention to the potential health risks to people in the vicinity of ecig users. His scheduled appearance on a major national news program pressured the FDA into releasing a previously-secret report about the dangers of ecigs, and he helped persuade New Jersey and Suffolk County, NY, to ban their use in no-smoking sections.

JOHN F. BANZHAF III, B.S.E.E., J.D., Sc.D.
Professor of Public Interest Law
George Washington University Law School,
FAMRI Dr. William Cahan Distinguished Professor,
Fellow, World Technology Network,
Founder, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
2000 H Street, NW, Suite S402
Washington, DC 20052, USA
(202) 994-7229 //  (703) 527-8418
http://banzhaf.net/ https://twitter.com/#!/profbanzhaf

The Tobacco Industry’s Influences on the Use of Tobacco Among Youth

Download PDF : sgr_2012_chapt5

Influence of Motion Picture Rating on Adolescent Response to Movie Smoking

Download PDF : peds.2011-1787.full

News

Santa Monica moves toward smoking ban in apartments

‎Los Angeles Times – 6 hours ago

Santa Monica smoking ban: The Santa Monica City Council has approved an ordinance that would prohibit smoking for new tenants in 

Local: Santa Monica tightening smoking restrictions‎ San Jose Mercury News

Ineffective action puts people at risk

SCMP Letters 12 July 2012

Allan Dyer (“Punish this aggressive minority”, July 2) provides a concise summary of the woeful gaps in enforcing the protection of both the public and occupational health against passive smoking.

It beggars belief that after more than two decades of providing objective scientific evidence on the serious detriment to health – both that of smokers and non-smokers – from second-hand smoke, we still have business venues able to defy the law and so far little prospect of effective action and compliance.

The combined effects of weak or delayed government action, intense and effective tobacco industry lobbying, opposition from tobacco-friendly legislators, and ambiguous law drafting has ensured that the health of thousands of hospitality workers has been seriously harmed.

In addition to the unresolved problem of lethal outdoor pollution, the new chief executive and director of health must give Hong Kong’s indoor air quality the highest possible priority.

Anthony Hedley, honorary professor, school of public health, University of Hong Kong

Should Movies Be Rated ‘R’ … for Smoking?

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/should-movies-be-rated-r-for-smoking/

By KJ DELL’ANTONIA

In a movie, when a character smokes, is that effectively an advertisement for smoking?

Researchers from the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth have found a strong relationship between movie smoking exposure in films rated PG-13 and adolescent smoking. The relationship between movie smoking and the habit itself isn’t a new one, but in the past, the precise association has been unclear. Was it the visuals of smoking itself, or the exposure to other adult-oriented content in movies depicting smoking, like sex and violence, which promoted the smoking behavior, or were young people who tend to see movies depicting adult behavior that just happens to include smoking are also more likely to smoke?

In a study published in the journal Pediatrics, researchers found that exposure to smoking in movies with a PG-13 rating had essentially the same impact on adolescent smoking as exposure to smoking in movies R-rated movies, suggesting, they say, that it is the smoking itself, rather than the other adult content or an attraction to that content, which causes the association.

The solution offered is simple: “an unambiguous R rating for smoking” — not to increase the number of movies rated R, but to decrease the amount of smoking in movies aimed at the teenaged audience. The Motion Picture Association of America already considers smoking a factor in rating a film, and may include it in the explanatory description. For example, 2011’s “Rango

” was rated PG for “rude humor, language, action and smoking.” But smoking alone is not enough to earn a film an R. If it were, these researchers argue, then filmmakers seeking to reach a wider audience would be less likely to include smoking in their movies.

That simple policy change, writes Dr. James Sargent, who led the research, could reduce adolescent smoking by 18 percent — more than the reduction if all parents could suddenly be made “maximally authoritative” in their parenting.

Meanwhile, parents of younger children should not lose sleep over the depiction of smoking in family-friendly movie classics like “101 Dalmations.” Another study, this one from researchers in the Netherlands working with Dr. Sargent (and published in the same issue of the journal Pediatrics), showed that exposure to smoking in a cartoon or family movie did not alter the generally negative impression that children from 8 to 10 years old had of smoking. The researchers aren’t ruling out a cumulative effect, and also noted that the smoking characters in the films they chose weren’t particularly “cool.” (What, that exploding cigar gag in the Tom and Jerry cartoons didn’t make you want to take up the habit?)

Do you hesitate to take a young teenager to a movie with smoking in the description, or worry that your teenager will choose that particular way to emulate the “Rebel Without a Cause?” Would less smoking onscreen — the goal of these researchers — make you happier to send your child off to the movies?

Australian Quit Smoking Commercial – Separation – YouTube

Australian Quit Smoking Commercial – Separation – YouTube

Graphic Australian Anti-Smoking Ad – YouTube

Graphic Australian Anti-Smoking Ad – YouTube