Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

May 22nd, 2017:

Cigarette plain packaging is here – but a tobacco-free society looks a long way off

The UK has, almost, led the world when it comes to tackling one of the tobacco industry’s leading promotional tools.

https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/health/cigarette-plain-packaging-tobacco-rules-introduced/

 

Australia was the first country to require cigarettes to be sold in plain, standardised packaging in December 2012. The United Kingdom became the second to pass similar legislation, on 20 May last year, with Ireland and France following suit.

Companies had a year’s grace period where they could get rid of old stock that no longer complied with the rules. The new legislation means all wording on cigarette packs must be confined to a uniform size and designed on a muddy green background. There is to be no misleading information such as “low tar” or “organic”, and a ban on flavoured cigarettes and flavoured rolling tobacco

In the UK, standardised packaging was introduced in addition to implementation of the revised EU Tobacco Products Directive (TPD). The UK’s legislation goes further than the EU requires on tobacco taxes, on advertising and on packaging and labelling – a case of the UK leading the continent rather than the other way around. This is one area of public health, at least, that Brexit will not effect.

“This is a measure the UK led Europe in introducing and the legislation was passed with strong cross party political support,” Deborah Arnott, chief executive of health charity Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), told i: “It therefore seems highly improbable if not impossible that any incoming government would see fit to reintroduce brightly coloured and glitzy branding on cigarette packs.”

As far as what impact the measures will have, Ms Arnott says it is “too soon to tell” for the UK. “The impact was always expected to be longer-term as young people today have grown up with the glitzy packaging, but the evidence from Australia is that we can expect to see an increase in attempts to quit and decrease in smoking prevalence before too long.”

£2,000 a year

Cancer Research UK (CRUK) estimates that the average smoker will still spend more than £2,000 each year on tobacco, enough to fill a family’s food trolley for six months, buy a pair of Premier League season tickets, or even take the kids to Disneyland, the charity says. It believes price – new ‘minimum duty’ means cigarettes can not be sold for less than £8.82 – is one of the biggest deterrents to smoking and that the higher the price of a pack, the more people will quit.

Alison Cox, CRUK’s director of prevention, said: “Smoking is still the single largest preventable cause of death in the UK and kills around 96,000 people every year – this cannot continue. For decades the tobacco industry has got away with promoting their products in slickly designed packaging, which distracts from the true lethal and addictive nature of the contents.”

She said the full introduction of the new rules over the weekend “marks a momentous victory in the battle for a tobacco free future”.

She added: “Standardised packs will help protect the next generation from an addiction that kills around half of all regular smokers. But there’s still a lot more to do – there is a real opportunity for the next government to help the UK’s 9 million smokers quit for good.”

Big tobacco has already tried to get around the rules. The maker of Marlboro cigarettes had been by selling branded durable tins that look just like ordinary cigarette packets – taking advantage of the grace period. in the run-up to the change, Philip Morris distributed tin containers, the same size as a 10-pack of cigarettes, to shops around the country, including big chains such as Sainsbury’s, Londis and Budgens, with the apparent aim to allow consumers to use the tins as refills.

Plain packaging campaigner Alex Cunningham, the Labour MP for Stockton North said that the move was an “immature trick” and an attempt by the company to “retain” its branding. “I hope people will soon put them into their bins and they’ll find their way to the recycling centre,” he said.

‘This will save lives’

Smoking remains a leading cause of preventable death in the UK, accounting for around 80,000 deaths a year in England alone. The British Medical Association (BMA), which has lobbied in favour of standardised packaging for many years, said the new regulations are “a significant step forward and will save lives.”.

Professor Parveen Kumar, BMA board of science chair, said: “We know that children who recognise brand images including packaging, are far more likely to start smoking. Standardised packaging will help to eradicate this marketing power for tobacco companies, and will increase the impact of health warnings.

“We must not stop there though. Doctors want to see a tobacco-free society by 2035, and the BMA is calling on the next government to introduce a new ‘Tobacco Control Plan’, replacing the current, outdated strategy on smoking, and a ‘polluter pays’ levy on tobacco companies. This would generate funding to support smoking cessation programmes, and would see many more smokers kicking the habit.”

Heat-Not-Burn Tobacco Cigarettes: Smoke by Any Other Name

Download (PDF, 146KB)

World No Tobacco Day: Smoking robs your wallet, health – Cansa

On May 31 the world celebrates #WorldNoTobaccoDay.

Smoking-Infographic-2

Tobacco use is a threat to any person, regardless of gender, age, and race, cultural or educational background that causes over 18 types of cancer, and accounts for over 20 per cent of cancer deaths worldwide.

This is according to the Cancer Association of South Africa (Cansa) which advocates stopping the use of any and all tobacco products.

According to Cansa, tobacco can be found in many forms, and all tobacco use is harmful.

“People only think of cigarette smoking when you talk about tobacco, but it goes beyond that. They need to be aware that hubbly bubbly and e-cigarettes are just as harmful to your health and the health of those around you.

“It’s not just the smoker who has increased risk of disease, but also people exposed to second-hand smoke,” says Cansa health specialist, Prof Michael Herbst.

According to Dr Oleg Chestnov, World Health Organisation’s (WHO) Assistant Director-General for Non-communicable Diseases (NCDs) and Mental Health, on top of the health implications, tobacco products are getting more expensive and are creating a huge negative impact on the economy.

“The tobacco industry produces and markets products that kill millions of people prematurely, rob households of finances that could have been used for food and education, and impose immense healthcare costs on families, communities and countries,” said Chestnov.

Herbst said: “There is so much more you can do with an average R30 a day, instead of buying a pack of cigarettes.

“Have you thought about that? Giving up smoking one pack a day, will free up close to R1000 a month, which can be used in better ways than harming your health, and the health of those around you. The financial impact is huge.”

He said hookah, or hubbly bubbly use is especially concerning among the youth.

“The tobacco is no less toxic in a hookah pipe and the water in the hookah does not filter out the toxic ingredients in the tobacco smoke. Hookah smokers may actually inhale more tobacco smoke than cigarette smokers do, because of the large volume of smoke they inhale in one smoking session.

“In South Africa, hubbly and their related tobacco products, fall under the definition of ‘tobacco product’ as indicated in the Tobacco Products Control Amendment Act (2007). This means that its use and sale have to comply with the regulations that apply to a tobacco product in the country.

“This includes the prohibition of the sale of hookahs and their products to anyone under the age of eighteen.

“Electronic cigarettes and similar devices are frequently marketed as aids to quit smoking, or as healthier alternatives to tobacco. This has not been proven, and e-cigarettes are not a better alternative to cigarettes.

“They still contain harmful chemicals, and it’s rather recommended to quit smoking by proven treatments. CANSA has a e-Kick Butt programme, which assists with quitting smoking (www.ekickbutt.org.za),” continued Herbst.

Cansa in a statement said it has played a significant role in contributing to tobacco control legislation in South Africa.

The organisation insist every one should be able to breathe tobacco-smoke-free air.

Offenses can be reported here: http://www.cansa.org.za/take-action-against-those-who-break-the-law/

According to Cansa:

Legislation is very clear about where people may smoke and where smoking is prohibited
It’s your right to complain when someone smokes in your presence
It’s also your right to take remedial steps if someone smokes in any area where smoking is prohibited
Adults may not smoke in a car when a passenger under 12 years is present
Smoking is not allowed in premises (including private homes) used for commercial childcare activities, such as crèches, or for schooling or tutoring
No person under 18 may be allowed into a designated smoking area
No smoking in partially enclosed public places such as balconies, covered patios, verandas, walkways, parking areas, etc.
The fine for the owner of a restaurant, pub, bar and workplace that breaks the smoking law is a maximum of R50 000 and for the individual smoker R500
The tobacco industry can no longer use ‘viral’ marketing like parties to target young people
The sale of tobacco products to and by persons under the age of 18 years is prohibited
Cigarette vending machines that sell tobacco products cannot be used to sell other products like crisps, chocolates etc.
For more info visit www.cansa.org.za or contact Cansa toll-free 0800226622 or at info@cansa.org.za as email address. Follow CANSA on Twitter: @CANSA (http://www.twitter.com/@CANSA) and join CANSA on Facebook: CANSAThe Cancer Association of South Africa and follow CANSA on Instagram: @cancerassociationofsouthafrica

The Hole Story: Ventilated Filters Make Smoking More Deadly

The ventilation systems built into cigarette filters in the mid-1960s to reduce tar and make smoking ‘smoother’ and ‘safer’ were responsible for the paradoxical rise in rates of lung adenocarcinoma — even as rates of other lung cancer subtypes dropped along with the number of smokers. These conclusions were in the 2014 US Surgeon General’s report on the health consequences of smoking.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/880383

Now, two new weight-of-evidence reviews have pinpointed 25 “causation analysis evidence blocks” that could support an outright ban of filter ventilation, according to lead author, Peter G. Shields, MD, deputy director of the Comprehensive Cancer Center, the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, in Columbus, and colleagues.

The review found that between the 1960s and the 1980s, the health risks associated with smoking jumped almost 2-fold in men and increased 10-fold in female smokers. At the same time, the relative risks for adenocarcinomas rocketed from 4.6 to 19.0 in men and from 1.5 to 8.1 in women — even though the risks for other lung cancer subtypes didn’t increase. “Thus, there was a paradoxical increase for lung adenocarcinomas while squamous cell cancers decreased with decreased smoking rates,” the review authors write.

“The analysis strongly suggests that filter ventilation has contributed to the rise in lung adenocarcinomas among smokers,” they say in a report published online May 22 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“Based on these weight-of-evidence reviews, the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] should embark on a regulatory process of data evaluation and consider regulation(s) for the use of ventilation in filters, up to and including a ban on their use,” the authors conclude.

“The prime point is to rally the troops to get the FDA to focus on this,” Dr Shields told Medscape Medical News. “To me, this is a policy paper. Physicians can’t be silent.”

This is a policy paper. Physicians can’t be silent. Peter D. Shields

Ventilation holes in filters are now found in nearly every brand of cigarettes, and they make smoking even more deadly, Dr Shields elaborated in an interview.

The tiny filter holes slow down tobacco combustion, giving smokers more puffs per cigarette but also allowing more toxic constituents to form, increasing the mutagenicity of the smoke, the review authors explain. To get the requisite nicotine hit from a cigarette with a ventilated filter, a smoker must also inhale more deeply, drawing smoke farther into the lungs and exposing cells vulnerable to adenocarcinoma.

Increasing amounts of tobacco-specific nitrosamines can also be found in new blended tobaccos that provide a “smoother” smoking experience, albeit with more carcinogens, Dr Shields commented. This makes smoking more dangerous than ever before, and patients need to know this, he emphasized.

“As part of your risk counseling, tell patients who smoke that the cigarettes today are more deadly than the cigarettes from 30 or 40 years ago. We need to take away smokers’ perception that any cigarette is safe. It’s like putting your head in a chimney,” Dr Shields said.

Increased Risk for Adenocarcinoma

In an accompanying editorial, Jonathan M. Samet, MD, and Lilit Aladadyan, MS, MPH, say that ending filter ventilation “could be a ‘no regrets’ action that would benefit public health.”

Dr Samet is professor and Flora L. Thornton Chair for the Department of Preventive Medicine at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California (USC) in Los Angeles, and Aladadyan is center director for the USC Tobacco Center of Regulatory Science.

The editorialists note the review looked at a “large and somewhat poorly circumscribed body of literature” and that the evidentiary threshold required for the FDA to take action is not supported by any record of precedents.

However, they also say that the review’s conclusion about the contribution of filter ventilation to rising rates of lung adenocarcinoma in smokers “is well justified” and supports “the indictment of filter ventilation as increasing risk for adenocarcinoma.”

Filter ventilation was originally designed to lower smoking machine tar yields in so-called light cigarettes marketed primarily to women as a “healthier” alternative to regular cigarettes. “This was done to fool smokers and the public health community into thinking that they actually were safer,” Dr Shields said in a statement.

In 2009, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act gave the FDA authority to ban tobacco companies from labeling and marketing cigarettes as “low tar” or “light.”

Dr Shields has served as an expert in class action suits against tobacco companies marketing light cigarettes as a healthier alternative. He’s also heard lawyers for Big Tobacco say peer-reviewed evidence was needed. “From our perspective, there is more than enough data to start the process and it’s time for regulation,” he said. “We believe that such an action would drive down the use and toxicity of conventional cigarettes and drive smokers to either quit or use less harmful products. There are some open questions about unintended consequences for enacting a ban, which provides for an important research agenda.”

Future clinical trials could assess smokers switching to filtered cigarettes without ventilation, using a panel of biomarkers to measure exposure to carcinogens and lung toxicants, markers of oxidative damage and inflammation in lung, blood, or/and urine, the review authors suggest. At present, human exposure biomarker studies do not appear to support a causal relationship, they didn’t measure exposure in the lung or “utilize known biomarkers of harm,” they note.

Smokers’ perceptions, and transition to alternate products, should also be assessed, looking at differences by race and ethnicity, sex, age, and vulnerable populations. The effect of filter ventilation on the risk for other diseases, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, could also be studied, they say.

This study was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health and the FDA Center for Tobacco Products. Dr Shields and coauthors Neal L. Benowitz, MD, and Theodore M. Brasky, PhD, disclose they have served as consultants and expert witnesses in litigation against tobacco companies. Coauthor K. Michael Cummings, PhD, MPH, declares a relationship with Pfizer Inc. The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Cigarette Filter Ventilation and its Relationship to Increasing Rates of Lung Adenocarcinoma

https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article-abstract/109/12/djx075/3836090/Cigarette-Filter-Ventilation-and-its-Relationship?redirectedFrom=fulltext

The 2014 Surgeon General’s Report on smoking and health concluded that changing cigarette designs have caused an increase in lung adenocarcinomas, implicating cigarette filter ventilation that lowers smoking machine tar yields. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) now has the authority to regulate cigarette design if doing so would improve public health. To support a potential regulatory action, two weight-of-evidence reviews were applied for causally relating filter ventilation to lung adenocarcinoma. Published scientific literature (3284 citations) and internal tobacco company documents contributed to causation analysis evidence blocks and the identification of research gaps. Filter ventilation was adopted in the mid-1960s and was initially equated with making a cigarette safer. Since then, lung adenocarcinoma rates paradoxically increased relative to other lung cancer subtypes. Filter ventilation 1) alters tobacco combustion, increasing smoke toxicants; 2) allows for elasticity of use so that smokers inhale more smoke to maintain their nicotine intake; and 3) causes a false perception of lower health risk from “lighter” smoke. Seemingly not supportive of a causal relationship is that human exposure biomarker studies indicate no reduction in exposure, but these do not measure exposure in the lung or utilize known biomarkers of harm. Altered puffing and inhalation may make smoke available to lung cells prone to adenocarcinomas. The analysis strongly suggests that filter ventilation has contributed to the rise in lung adenocarcinomas among smokers. Thus, the FDA should consider regulating its use, up to and including a ban. Herein, we propose a research agenda to support such an effort.

Brands Test Limits as UK Introduces Plain Tobacco Packaging

The UK is now the second country in the world and the first in Europe to require cigarettes to be sold in plain, standardized packaging, following the lead of Australia, which implemented the first such measure in December 2012.

http://brandchannel.com/2017/05/22/uk-tobacco-plain-packaging-052217/

In May 2016, new EU legislation dictated how tobacco products are manufactured, produced and sold across Europe. The revised rules, called the Tobacco Products Directive, banned certain products from sale such as flavored cigarettes (except menthol). Retailers were given 12 months, until May 20th, to sell old products and comply with the new laws, or face stiff fines or criminal prosecution.

In tandem with the new EU rules taking effect, the UK government’s plain packaging legislation came into force, introducing standardized packaging of tobacco products to limit the impact of logos, colors, brand images or promotional information on packaging other than brand names and product names that are displayed in a standard colour and typeface.

Standardised packaging design, including; shape, size, material and opening mechanisms. The UK’s Standardised Packaging Regulations aim to unify (and not make stand out) the material, size, shape and opening mechanisms of tobacco packaging; create a drab, off-putting color (a sickly brownish green) of tobacco packaging, as well as standarized font, size and positioning of text.

No glossy finishes to catch the light now; the tobacco packs come with a matt finish. Prices aren’t printed on the packaging, but health care warnings have increased in size with graphic images depicting the adverse health impact of smoking. Text is only in Helvetica font, with no logo or typeface of a brand name or variety name permitted.

Failure to comply with retailer guidelines for selling e-cigarettes and tobacco products may result in a three month custodial sentence, a fine, or both, following a summary conviction.

Health groups have welcomed the measure and are hopeful as new smoker numbers continue to decline in the UK with about 17% of the UK adult population currently smokers. Smoking advocates decry the move as an anti-choice effort by a nanny state that “infantilise” consumers and will make no difference to public health. Smokers’ rights group Forest also told the BBC that the new rules “treat adults like naughty children.”

No matter: they’re stuck with the compulsory standardised packaging with larger, health warnings on two-thirds of the front and back of any packet is “the ugliest colour in the world.”

Hazel Cheeseman, a member of ASH (Action on Smoking and Health), told the BBC that the packaging itself has been shown to be a “form of advertising” that cigarette companies call “their silent salesman. Branding and advertising is one of the things that helps to recruit young people into smoking. So removing the branding features, making the health warnings bigger and more prominent, is intended to protect young people from taking up smoking in the future.”

Two-thirds of smokers start before age 18, according to Cancer Research UK, so the organization supports removing branding from cigarette packs in order to reduce their attractiveness to children. Research has shown that young people are attracted to the color and design of cigarette packs.

Scotland was the first country in the UK to support plain packaging for tobacco products in a change that could lead to 300,000 fewer smokers in the UK over the next year.

Testing the legislation, Marlboro-maker Philip Morris introduced durable tins that look like ordinary cigarette packets. The tins, available at chains including Sainsbury’s, Londis and Budgens, sport Marlboro’s logo and distinctive branding, the required deterrent photos and the warning message, “Smoking kills.” No chance they’d get away with that, the Guardian reports.

“Research shows that packs of 10 appeal to young people and the price conscious,” said Karen Reeves-Evans, of the Tobacco Control Research Group at the University of Bath. “By offering packs of 10 in reusable tins, Philip Morris International is knowingly increasing the lifespan of packs of 10 and promoting its brand, if smokers decant their cigarettes into these small branded tins. The fact that these tins appeared almost immediately prior to the branding and size restrictions coming into force is suspicious.”

Alex Cunningham, Labour MP for Stockton North added, “It’s against the whole spirit of what’s intended with the plain packaging legislation. The tobacco companies will stop at nothing in order to retain their branding and sell a product that everyone knows has such tremendous health risks. It’s an immature trick and I hope people will soon put them into their bins and they’ll find their way to the recycling centre.”

Philip Morris rival JTI Gallaher also issued aluminum tins for its Benson & Hedges, Mayfair and Camel brands in the run-up to the plain packaging laws, described by Ireland’s former health minister James Reilly as “extremely cynical.”

As tobacco brands and activists balk at the changes, Alison Cox, Cancer Research UK’s director of prevention, told the Guardian that “Today marks a momentous victory in the battle for a tobacco free future. Standardised packs will help protect the next generation from an addiction that kills around half of all regular smokers.”

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

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.