Smokefree Pennsylvania comments to FDA TPSAC on Dissolvables

Discussion in 'Legislation News' started by Bill Godshall, Jul 5, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Image has been removed.
URL has been removed.
Email address has been removed.
Media has been removed.
  1. Bill Godshall

    Bill Godshall Executive Director
    Smokefree Pennsylvania
    ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    The following comments by William T. Godshall, MPH, and Smokefree Pennsylvania are submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Tobacco Product Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC) for its July 21/22, 2011 meeting and its forthcoming study and report on dissolvable tobacco products. July 1, 2011.

    Legal and Regulatory Scope of Dissolvable Tobacco Products

    Pursuant to Judge Richard Leon’s ruling in the Sottera, Inc v FDA at https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2009cv0771-54 and the FDA’s April, 25, 2011 statement agreeing to comply with Judge Leon’s ruling at
    http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm252360.htm any product containing nicotine that is intended for human consumption can be marketed as a tobacco product as long as the manufacturer or importer makes no therapeutic claim.

    Therefore, the TPSAC should consider ALL dissolvable tobacco and nicotine products, including Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) products, in its forthcoming study and report on dissolvable tobacco products.

    Since the FDA notified Star Scientific, Inc. in March, 2011 that Chapter IX of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (FSPTCA) http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ031.111.pdf doesn’t apply to two of the company’s dissolvable tobacco products [Ariva-BDL and Stonewall-BDL] (presumably because they don’t meet the definition of a smokeless tobacco product)
    http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2011/mar/24/wsbiz01-two-tobacco-products-free-of-fda-oversight-ar-886868/, since dissolvable nicotine products also probably don’t meet the definition of a smokeless tobacco product, and because other dissolvable tobacco products may not meet the definition of a smokeless tobacco product, it would be wise for the TPSAC to realize that Chapter IX of the FSPTCA may not apply to some/many/most/all dissolvable tobacco products.

    Dissolvable Tobacco Products are Similar to Dissolvable NRT Products

    At the FDA’s 2010 workshop entitled: Risks and Benefits of Long-Term Use of Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) Products; Public Workshop Regulations.gov many presenters and commenters (including two TPSAC members) cited the similarities between Swedish snus and NRT products in suggesting that Swedish snus studies be considered for evaluating the long term risks and benefits of NRT usage (since longterm studies on NRT aren’t available because the products have only been on the market for several decades).

    Since dissolvable tobacco products have been on the market for the past decade, and since these products also closely resemble Swedish snus, the TPSAC should also consider research on Swedish snus in evaluating dissolvable tobacco products.

    A study evaluating plasma nicotine levels, heart rates, and reduction in cigarette cravings following use of Star’s Ariva dissolvable tobacco product were very similar to those following use of GlaxoSmithKline’s Commit dissolvable nicotine product. Meanwhile, participants reported that Star’s Ariva tasted better than GSK’s Commit.
    Evaluating the Acute Effects of Oral, Non-combustible Potential Reduced Exposure Products Marketed to Smokers, Caroline O Cobb, Michael F Weaver, Thomas Eissenberg, Tob Control doi:10.1136/tc.2008.028993
    http://static.mgnetwork.com/rtd/pdfs/20090712_toba.pdf

    Another study found that Star’s Ariva and Stonewall dissolvable tobacco products contained far lower levels of tobacco specific nitrosamines than various American moist snuff products and several Swedish snus products, and that nitrosamine levels in Star’s Ariva and Stonewall were just slightly higher than nitrosamine levels in GlaxoSmithKline’s Nicorette gum and Nicoderm CQ skin patch.
    Tobacco-specific nitrosamines in new tobacco products, Irina Stepanov, Joni Jensen, Dorothy Hatsukami, Stepehen S. Hecht, Nicotine and Tobacco Research Volume 8, Number 2 (April 2006) 309-313.
    http://www.starscientific.com/404/stepanov%20tsna%20in.pdf

    Dissolvable tobacco products appear to be even more similar to dissolvable NRT lozenges than they are to Swedish Snus. In their 2001 Citizen Petition urging the FDA declare and regulate Star’s Ariva as a drug (instead of as a tobacco product), the National Center for Tobacco Free Kids (CTFK), American Cancer Society (ACS), American Heart Association (AHA), American Legacy Foundation (ALF) and others argued that Star’s Ariva was strikingly similar to NRT products that are approved by the FDA to be marketed as smoking cessation aids.

    ALL smokefree tobacco products marketed in the U.S. and Sweden are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes

    While cigarettes and smokefree tobacco products are similarly addictive (i.e. creating daily dependence), published epidemiology research finds that daily cigarette smoking imposes about 100 times greater mortality risks than does daily use of smokefree tobacco products marketed in the U.S. and Sweden. On a continuum of tobacco mortality risk from 1 to 100 (whereby NRT products are 1 and cigarettes are 100), smokefree tobacco products are below 2.

    Nearly five years, two comprehensive evaluations of epidemiology research have confirmed that smokeless tobacco products are exponentially less hazardous than cigarette smoking, and recommended that smokers be provided with truthful information about the comparable health risks of different tobacco products and encouraged to switch to smokefree tobacco alternatives if they cannot or don’t want to quit using tobacco.
    Tobacco harm reduction: an alternative cessation strategy for inveterate smokers, Brad Rodu and William T Godshall, Harm Reduction Journal 2006, 3:37doi:10.1186/1477-7517-3-37.
    http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/3/1/37
    Harm reduction in nicotine addiction; Helping people who can't quit, Royal College of Physicians, 2007.
    http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/pubs/contents/e226ee0c-ccef-4dba-b62f-86f046371dfb.pdf

    Authors of a recent comprehensive meta analysis of North American and European epidemiological cohort and case-control studies relating any form of cancer to smokeless tobacco use (i.e. 62 US and 18 Scandinavian studies) reported the following results:

    “Random-effects meta-analysis estimates for most sites showed little association. Smoking-adjusted estimates were only significant for oropharyngeal cancer (1.36, CI 1.04–1.77, n = 19) and prostate cancer (1.29, 1.07–1.55, n = 4). The oropharyngeal association disappeared for estimates published since 1990 (1.00, 0.83–1.20, n = 14), for Scandinavia (0.97, 0.68–1.37, n = 7), and for alcohol-adjusted estimates (1.07, 0.84–1.37, n = 10). Any effect of current US products or Scandinavian snuff seems very limited. The prostate cancer data are inadequate for a clear conclusion.”

    “Some meta-analyses suggest a possible effect for oesophagus, pancreas, larynx and kidney cancer, but other cancers show no effect of smokeless tobacco. Any possible effects are not evident in Scandinavia. Of 142,205 smoking-related male US cancer deaths in 2005, 104,737 are smoking-attributable. Smokeless tobacco-attributable deaths would be 1,102 (1.1%) if as many used smokeless tobacco as had smoked, and 2,081 (2.0%) if everyone used smokeless tobacco.”
    Systematic review of the relation between smokeless tobacco and cancer in Europe and North America, Peter N Lee and Jan Hamling, BMC Medicine 2009, 7:36doi:10.1186/1741-7015-7-36
    http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/36

    A previous meta analysis of smokeless tobacco, which has been widely publicized and cited by abstinence-only advocates who oppose tobacco harm reduction, claimed that snus use was associated with pancreatic cancer.
    Smokeless tobacco and cancer, Boffetta P, Hecht S, Gray N, Gupta P, Straif K, Lancet Oncol, 2008 Jul;9(7):667-75.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18598931?ordinalpos=27&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

    Another recently published comprehensive meta analyses of 150 studies on various diseases found no association with snus use and cancer of the oropharynx (meta-analysis RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.68-1.37), oesophagus (1.10, 0.92-1.33), stomach (0.98, 0.82-1.17), pancreas (1.20, 0.66-2.20), lung (0.71, 0.66-0.76) or other sites, or with heart disease (1.01, 0.91-1.12) or stroke (1.05, 0.95-1.15). The author concluded: “Using snus is clearly much safer than smoking. While smoking substantially increases the risk of cancer and cardiovascular diseases, any increase from snus use is undemonstrated, and if it exists is probably about 1% of that from smoking.”
    Summary of the epidemiological evidence relating snus to health, Peter N Lee, Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2011, Mar, 59(2):197-214
    Summary of the epidemiological evidence relating s... [Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2011] - PubMed result

    In contrast, a previously published meta analysis of 11 studies found that snus use was associated with slightly elevated risk of fatal myocardial infarction and fatal stroke, but wasn’t associated with all myocardial infarctions or strokes, casting doubt on its findings about fatal heart attacks and strokes.
    Use of smokeless tobacco and risk of myocardial infarction and stroke: systematic review with meta-analysis, Paulo Boffetta, Kurt Straif, BMJ 2009; 339:b3060 Use of smokeless tobacco and risk of myocardial infarction and stroke: systematic review with meta-analysis -- Boffetta and Straif 339 -- bmj.com


    Millions of smokers have already switched to smokefree tobacco products
    Switching from cigarettes to smokefree tobacco products has been occurring in the U.S. and in Sweden for many decades, and isn’t an unproven theory (as some harm reduction denialists claim).

    The 1986 nationwide Adult Use of Tobacco Survey (AUTS), conducted by the CDC Office on Smoking and Health, found that 7% (i.e., 1.67 million) of male ex-smokers indicated they had used smokeless tobacco (ST) products to help them quit smoking cigarettes, and 6.4% (i.e., 1.63 million) of males who currently smoked indicated using ST to help them quit smoking. In comparison, just 1.7% of male ex-smokers (i.e., 404,600) and 2.4% of males who currently smoked (i.e., 609,000) indicated using organized programs to help them quit smoking cigarettes.
    Smokeless Tobacco Use in the United States: The Adult Use of Tobacco Surveys, Novotny, Pierce, Fiore & Davis, NCI Monograph 8, 25-29, NIH, U.S. DHHS, 1989.

    A 1984 Philip Morris market research survey of 489 adult male ST product users in Houston, Atlanta, and Florida (who were interviewed outside retail stores after purchasing ST) found that 37% of ST users stated they were former cigarette smokers (including 22% of those under age 35 and 50% of those 35 years or older). The survey also found that, in response to the question, “Did you start using smokeless/chewing tobacco as a replacement for cigarettes, that is, when you stopped smoking cigarettes, or not?” 20% of ST users saidYES (including 11% of those under age 35 and 27% of those 35 years or older). These findings were consistent in the three different survey locations. Interestingly, 62% of respondents who used both ST and cigarettes reported that ST was more enjoyable than cigarettes.
    Smokeless Tobacco Study – Atlanta/Florida, Philip Morris USA Marketing Research Department Report, Miller K, Marketing Research Department Report Smokeless Tobacco Study - Atlanta / Florida


    The 1991 NHIS found that 33.3% (i.e., 1.75 million) of U.S. adult ST users reported being former cigarette smokers, and the 1998 NHIS found that 31.1% of ST users reported being former cigarette smokers. The 1998 NHIS found that 5.8% of daily snuff users reported quitting smoking cigarettes within the past year, that daily snuff users were 3.2 times more likely to report being former cigarette smokers than were never snuff users who had smoked, and that daily snuff users were 4.2 times more likely to have quit smoking in the past year than were never snuff users who had smoked.
    Use of Smokeless Tobacco Among Adults – United States, 1991, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol 42, No 14, 263-266, April 16, 1993, CDC, U.S. DHHS. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00020232.htm
    Tomar S, Snuff Use and Smoking in US Men: Implications for Harm Reduction, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2002, Vol. 23, No. 3, 143-149.

    A study of 1226 male high school baseball players in California found that 33% of the 184 current ST product users were former cigarette smokers.
    Walsh MM, Ellison J, Hilton J, et al, Spit (smokeless) tobacco use by high school baseball athletes in California, Tobacco Control 2000;9(Suppl II):ii32-ii39 (Summer). http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/search?andorexactfulltext=and&resourcetype=1&disp_type=&sortspec=relevance&author1=Walsh&fulltext=smokeless+tobacco&volume=9&firstpage=

    The 1987 NHIS found that, among 23-to-34 year old U.S. males, those who had smoked cigarettes and then subsequently used snuff were 2.1 times more likely to have quit smoking than were cigarette-only users.
    Most smokeless tobacco use is not a causal gateway to cigarettes: using order of product use to evaluate causation in a national US sample, Kozlowski L, O’Connor, Edwards BQ, Flaherty BP, Addiction, 2003, Vol. 98, 1077-1085. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1360-0443.2003.00460.x/abs

    A study of 51 female and 59 male SLT users (in the Northwestern U.S.), in which 98% of females and 90% of males were either current or former cigarette smokers, found that 52% of females and 59% of males responded affirmatively when asked whether they used ST in place of cigarettes while quitting smoking.
    A comparison of male and female smokeless tobacco use, Cohen-Smith D, Severson H, Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 1999, Vol. 1, 211-218.

    Another study found that 72% of an estimated 359,000 U.S. smokers who switched to ST products on their last smoking cessation attempt successfully quit smoking.
    Switching to smokefree tobacco as a smoking cessation method: evidence from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey, Brad Rodu and Carl V Phillips, Harm Reduction Journal 2008, 5:18doi:10.1186/1477-7517-5-18. http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/pdf/1477-7517-5-18.pdf

    In Sweden, moist oral snuff is called snus. Unlike moist oral snuff commonly used in the U.S., snus is pasteurized, not fermented, and stored in refrigerators from the time of manufacture until sold at retail. Also in contrast to most ST products commonly sold in the U.S. (except for dissolvable ST products), snus is spitfree, contains fewer nitrosamines, and has not been found to be associated with mouth cancer.
    Effect of smokeless tobacco (snus) on public health in Sweden, Foulds J, Ramstrom L, Burke M, Fagerstom K, Tobacco Control, 2003, Vol 12, 349-359. http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/12/4/349
    Smokeless tobacco use and increased cardiovascular mortality among Swedish construction workers. Bolinder G, Alfredsson L, Englund A, et al., Am J Public Health 1994, Volume 84, 399-404.
    Smoking tobacco, oral snuff and alcohol in the etiology of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. A population based case-referent study in Sweden. Lewin F, Norell SE, Johansson H, et al, 1998, Cancer, Vol. 82, 1367-1375.
    Oral snuff, smoking habits and alcohol consumption in relation to oral cancer evaluated in a Swedish case-control study, Schildt E-B, Eriksson M, Hardell L, Magnusson A, 1998, International Journal of Cancer, Vol. 77, 341-346.

    When a large national sample of Swedish ex-smokers was asked about how they succeeded in quitting, 50% stated that they had stopped without help, 33% said they used snuff, and 17% said they had used some form of NRT.
    Smokeless Tobacco and Cardiovascular Disease, Asplund, K, Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases, Vol. 45, No 5, (March/April) 2003, 383-394.

    Another survey of more than 6,700 Swedes found that more than 25% of male cigarette smokers indicated they had switched to snus. The survey also found that snus was more effective than NRT products as a smoking cessation aid.
    Role of snus in initiation and cessation of tobacco smoking in Sweden, Ramström and Foulds Tob Control.2006; 15: 210-214. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/15/3/210

    Largely due to smokers switching to snus, the male cigarette smoking rate in Sweden dropped from 40% in 1976 to just 15% in 2002, while snus use among Swedish men increased from 10% to 23%. Due to this decline in smoking, male lung cancer rates in Sweden are the lowest in Europe, while Sweden’s oral cancer rate has fallen during the last 20 years as snus use sharply increased.
    Effect of smokeless tobacco (snus) on public health in Sweden, Foulds J, Ramstrom L, Burke M, Fagerstom K, Tobacco Control, 2003, Vol 12, 349-359. http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/12/4/349

    An international panel of seven experts, using the Delphi approach, estimated that an additional 10% of cigarette smokers would quit over five years if all smokefree tobacco products in the U.S. were required to be low-nitrosamine products and if those products were accompanied by a warning label that stated: “This product is addictive and may increase your risk of disease. This product is substantially less harmful than cigarettes, but abstaining from tobacco use altogether is the safest course of action.”
    The potential impact of a low-nitrosamine smokeless tobacco product on cigarette smoking in the United States: Estimates of a panel of experts, Levy D, Mumford E, Cummings KM, et al. ,Addictive Behaviors, Nov. 2005.
    http://www.ascribe.org/cgi-in/behold.pl?ascribeid=20051114.171444&time=07%2042%20PST&year=2005&public=1

    Authors of a recent survey of Norwegian men who were either former or current smokers reported: “In a regression model in which education, number of previous attempts to quit smoking, perception of risk, and age were controlled for, the odds ratio (OR) for reporting total abstinence at the time of the survey was significantly higher for those who had used varenicline (OR = 4.95, p < .006) and snus (OR = 2.68, p < .001) compared with those who had used nicotine chewing gum (reference OR = 1).” and “Compared with medicinal nicotine products, snus and varenicline increased the probability of quitting smoking completely”.
    The use of snus for quitting smoking compared with medicinal products, Karl Erik Lund, Ann McNeill, Janne Scheffels, Nicotine Tob Res (2010) doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntq105
    http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/07/09/ntr.ntq105.full.pdf+html

    Safety of Dissolvable Tobacco Products

    A recently published article, which has been widely publicized by abstinence-only advocates who oppose tobacco harm reduction, alleged that dissolvable tobacco products (which the author’s repeatedly referred to as candy-like) are potentially toxic to children and that thousands of cases of ingestion of tobacco products has been reported.
    Unintentional Child Poisonings Through Ingestion of Conventional and Novel Tobacco Products, Gregory N Connolly, Patricia Richter, Alfred Aleguas Jr, Terry Pechacek, Stephen Stanfill, Hilbert Albert, Pediatrics 2009-2835.
    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2010/04/19/peds.2009-2835.abstract

    In rebutting the alarmist claims made in the Connolly et al article, Brad Rodu revealed that, according to the 2008 report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers, all types of tobacco products only accounted for 1% of all reported exposures to non-pharmaceutical agents of all kinds in children less than 6 years of age, and that smokeless tobacco products accounted for just 15% of the reported tobacco exposures.
    Poisoning Public Health Issues, Brad Rodu, Tobacco Truth, April 19, 2010
    http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2010/04/poisoning-public-health-issues.html

    Since all tobacco products (including dissolvables and NRT) pose potential risks, all tobacco products (and NRT products) should be kept away from children.

    Most smokers incorrectly believe ST is as hazardous as cigarettes

    While ST products are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes, a recent survey of more than 13,000 cigarette smokers in the US, Canada, UK and Australia found that only 13% correctly believed that ST products are less hazardous than cigarettes.
    Smokers' beliefs about the relative safety of other tobacco products: Findings from the ITC Collaboration, Richard J. O'Connor; Ann McNeill; Ron Borland; David Hammond; Bill King; Christian Boudreau; K. Michael Cummings, Nicotine & Tobacco Research, Volume 9, Issue 10 October 2007, pages 1033-1042.
    http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a783052257~db=all~order=page

    A 2000 survey of 36,012 young adults entering the U.S. Air Force found that 75% of males and 81% of females incorrectly believed that switching from cigarettes to ST products would not result in any risk reduction, while another 16% of males and 13% of females incorrectly believed that only a small risk reduction would occur. Only 2% of males and 1% of females correctly thought that a large risk reduction would occur by switching from cigarettes to ST.
    Modified Tobacco Use and Lifestyle Change in Risk-Reducing Beliefs About Smoking, Haddock CK, Lando H, Klesges RC, et al, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2004 Vol. 27, No. 1, 35-41.

    Another survey found that 89% of college freshmen incorrectly believe that ST is just as or more harmful than cigarettes.
    Harm perception of nicotine products in college freshmen, Smith SY, Curbow B, Stillman FA, Nicotine Tob Res. 2007 Sep;9(9):977-82.
    http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a781712955~db=all~tab=content~order=page

    A survey of more than 2,000 adult U.S. smokers found that only 10.7% correctly agreed that ST products are less hazardous than cigarettes, while 82.9% incorrectly disagreed.
    Smoker Awareness of and Beliefs About Supposedly Less-Harmful Tobacco Products, O’Conner RJ, Hyland A, Giovino G, et al, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2005, Vol. 29, No. 2, 85-90.

    In yet another survey, when asked if they believed that chewing tobacco is just as likely to cause cancer as smoking cigarettes, 82% of U.S. smokers incorrectly agreed.
    Informing Consumers about the Relative Health Risks of Different Nicotine Delivery Products, presentation by K. Michael Cummings at the National Conference on Tobacco or Health, New Orleans, LA, November 2001.

    The reason for this lack of knowledge is largely due to the 1986 Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Education Act, which required three rotating warnings on all smokeless tobacco products (i.e. This product is not a safe alternative to cigarettes. This product may can mouth cancer. This product may cause gum disease and tooth loss.) The FSPTCA requires even large warnings on smokeless tobacco products and advertisements.

    Since there is no evidence that dissolvable tobacco products (or snus) cause mouth cancer, gum disease or tooth loss, those two warnings should NOT be required on dissolvable tobacco products. And since the effect of the “not a safe alternative” warning has only served to mislead smokers to believe that smokeless tobacco products are as hazardous as cigarettes, that warning also should also not be required on any dissolvable smokefree tobacco product.

    Authors of a study that evaluated 316 English language websites (none of which were tobacco companies) that contained health risk information about cigarettes and smokeless tobacco use concluded: “The risk from ST is widely conflated with the risk from cigarettes on websites that provide health advice and information. Almost every website had statements that played up the health risks from ST without caveat, making it difficult for consumers to recognize the huge contrast with cigarettes. The quantitative claims of health risks from ST were very often beyond a worst-case-scenario interpretation of the scientific literature. A large portion of websites directly stated or implied that the risks from ST and cigarettes are similar.”
    You might as well smoke; the misleading and harmful public message about smokeless tobacco, Carl V Phillips, Constance Wang, Brian Guenzel, BMC Public Health 2005, 5:31doi:10.1186/1471-2458-5-31 BioMed Central | Full text | You might as well smoke; the misleading and harmful public message about smokeless tobacco


    Smokers have a human right to be truthful health risks information and access to less hazardous alternatives

    Government health agencies (including the FDA) have an ethical duty to truthfully inform smokers that smokefree tobacco products are less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes. Similarly, smokers have a human right to be truthfully informed that smokefree tobacco products are far less hazardous alternatives than cigarettes, and legal and affordable access to these products.
    Harm reduction, public health, and human rights: Smokers have a right to be informed of significant harm reduction options, Kozlowski L, Nicotine & Tobacco Research, S55-S60, 2002. http://ash.org.uk/html/regulation/pdfs/hr_kozlowski.pdf
    First Tell The Truth, A Dialogue on Human Rights, Deception, and the Use of Smokeless Tobacco as a Substitute for Cigarettes, Kozlowski L, Tob Control,12:34-36, 2003. http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/search?andorexactfulltext=and&resourcetype=1&disp_type=&sortspec=relevance&author1=&fulltext=&volume=12&firstpage=34


    No evidence smokeless tobacco products are gateway to cigarette smoking

    Authors of a recently published analysis of NSDUH data concluded that: “Smokeless Tobacco (ST) use has played virtually no role in smoking initiation among White men and boys, the demographic groups among which ST use is most prevalent. There is evidence that, compared with cigarette initiators, ST initiators are significantly less likely to smoke.”
    Evidence against a gateway from smokeless tobacco use to smoking, Brad Rodu and Philip Cole, Nicotine Tob Res (2010) 12 (5): 530-534. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntq033
    Evidence against a gateway from smokeless tobacco use to smoking

    Using most of the same data, a 2009 SAMHSA report found that, among US residents who had used both cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products in their lifetime, 65.5% used cigarettes prior to smokeless tobacco use, and 31.8% used smokeless tobacco prior to cigarette usage.
    Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies. (February 19, 2009). The NSDUH Report: Smokeless Tobacco Use, Initiation, and Relationship to Cigarette Smoking: 2002 to 2007. Rockville, MD.
    http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k9/smokelesstobacco/smokelesstobacco.htm

    Smokers need additional smokefree tobacco alternatives because the vast majority of NRT users switch back to smoking cigarettes

    A meta-analysis found that an average of just 7% of those using over-the-counter NRT products remained cigarette free after six months, a 93% relapse rate.
    A meta-analysis of the efficacy of over-the-counter nicotine replacement, Hughes JR, Shiffman S, Callas P, Zhang Z, Tobacco Control, 2003, Vol. 12, 21-27. http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/12/1/21?ijkey=5.ko5/Oz4yutl

    Another recent meta-analysis also found that 7% of NRT remain cigarette free after six months, and that just 2% remain cigarette free after 20 months (a 98% relapse rate).
    Effectiveness and safety of nicotine replacement therapy assisted reduction to stop smoking: systematic review and meta-analysis, David Moore, Paul Aveyard, Martin Connock, Dechao Wang, Anne Fry-Smith, Pelham Barton, BMJ 2009;338:b1024
    http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/338/apr02_3/b1024


    A meta analysis of seven placebo controlled randomised controlled trials involving different NRT products found that just 6.75% of those receiving NRT had quit smoking after six months. While this may have been twice the quit rate compared to placebo, it represents a 93.25% failure rate for smoking cessation, and clearly indicates that smokers need additional and alternative methods of reducing the health risk of cigarette smoking.
    Effectiveness and safety of nicotine replacement therapy assisted reduction to stop smoking: systematic review and meta-analysis, David Moore, Paul Aveyard, Martin Connock, Dechao Wang, Ann Fry-Smith, Pelham Burton, BMJ 2009; 338:b1024
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306460311001572

    While supposedly double-blind clinical trials have found that NRT products double the chances of quitting when compared to using a placebo, skepticism has been raised about the accuracy and reliability of these studies, since it is likely that many participants who were assigned to placebos realized they were not getting nicotine.
    The blind spot in the nicotine replacement therapy literature: Assessment of the double-blind in clinical trials, Mooney M, White T, Hatsukami D, Addictive Behaviors, 2004 Vol. 29, 673-684. http://whyquit.com/studies/NRT_Blinding_Failures.pdf
    Precessation treatment with nicotine patch significantly increases abstinence rates relative to conventional treatment, Jed E. Rose, Joseph E. Herskovic, Frederique M. Behm and Eric C. Westman, Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2009 11(9):1067-1075; doi:10.1093/ntr/ntp103.
    http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/ntp103


    Skin patches appear to be ineffective smoking cessation aids for those who fail to quit smoking during their first use of NRT, as two published studies on the use of NRT skin patches to quit smoking after an initial failure with NRT found six-month smoking cessation rates of 0% and 1.4%, respectively.
    Recycling with nicotine patches in smoking cessation. Tonnesen P, Norregaard J, Sawe U, Simonsen K, Addiction. 1993 Apr;88(4):533-9. Recycling with nicotine patches in smoking cessati... [Addiction. 1993] - PubMed result
    Double blind trial of repeated treatment with transdermal nicotine for relapsed smokers. Gourlay SG, Forbes Q, Marriner T, et al. British Medical Journal, 1995, Vol. 311, No 7001 363-366.

    A survey of 500 U.S. smokers found only 16% agreed that NRT helps people quit smoking.
    Attitudes toward nicotine replacement therapy in smokers and ex-smokers in the general public. Etter JF, Perneger TV, Clinical Pharmocol Therapy 2001 Volume 69, 175-83.

    An estimated 36.6% of current nicotine gum users have consumed the product for longer than six months, indicating that long-term nicotine maintenance can occur with NRT gum, just as can occur with smokefree tobacco products.
    Persistent use of nicotine replacement therapy: analysis of actual purchase patterns in a population based sample, Shiffman S, Hughes JR, Pillitteri JL, Burton SL, Tobacco Control, Vol. 12, 310-316, 2003. Sign In

    Flavored dissolvable tobacco products are similar to flavored NRT

    Sugars and other flavorings have been used the manufacture of cigars and smokefree tobacco products for hundreds of years, and there is no credible evidence indicating that youth are more likely to begin using these products compared to other tobacco products.

    Dissolvable nicotine lozenges marketed by GlaxoSmithKline as smoking cessation aids (formerly called Commit and now called Nicorette) have been available in different flavorings, including cherry, mint and formerly cappuccino.
    http://www.nicorette.com/quit-smoking-products/nicorette-nicotine-lozenge.aspx?showsplash=true
    http://www.nicorette.com/quit-smoking-products/nicorette-mini.aspx
    Ironically (or not), critics of flavored tobacco products that receive funding from drug companies have remained silent about strikingly similar flavored NRT products.

    Marketing of tobacco to minors violates the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement, laws in all 50 states, and the FSPTCA

    Although some anti-tobacco activists continue to publicly accuse tobacco companies of target marketing tobacco products to youth (including dissolvable tobacco products), it is critically important to note that marketing tobacco products to minors violates the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement, statutes in all 50 states, and the FSPTCA.

    During the Senate HELP Committee markup of the FSPTCA in 2009, Senators Sherrod Brown and Jeff Merkley (when proposing the amendment to require the FDA to study dissolvable tobacco products) repeatedly accused RJ Reynolds of target marketing the company’s new dissolvable tobacco products (i.e. Camel Orbs, Strips and Sticks) to minors. But no evidence was provided indicating that Reynolds (or any other tobacco company) was marketing their tobacco products to minors.

    Similar unsubstantiated allegations were made against Star back in 2001/2002 when Citizens Petitions urged the FDA to ban Star’s Ariva and Stonewall dissolvable tobacco products. In the past decade, no evidence has been provided indicating that youth use Ariva or Stonewall, or that Star markets its products to minors.

    All three of the 2001/2002 Citizen Petitions urging the FDA to ban Star’s Ariva and Stonewall also repeatedly referred to the products as “candy like” in an attempt to deceive the agency and the public to believe that Star was marketing to youth. A decade later, and the same false “candy like” references to dissolvable tobacco products has been repeated by those who accuse tobacco companies of marketing the products to minors.

    Instead of repeating unsubstantiated accusations to the media, anyone who has any evidence that any tobacco products are being illegally marketed to youth should notify the State AG, State Health Department and/or FDA for enforcement or other remedial action.

    Referring to any tobacco product as “candy” or “candy-like” can only encourage youth to use these products, which raises serious concerns about the true motives of those who call tobacco products “candy” or “candy-like’.

    Also, since Section 906(d)(3)(A)(ii) of the FDA tobacco laws prohibits the FDA from banning tobacco sales to 18 year olds (the vast majority of whom are 12th grade high school students), it is doubtful that any amount or type of FDA tobacco regulation can substantially reduce tobacco use among 12th graders (or underclass peers/siblings who obtain tobacco from 18 year olds).

    Although youth usage of smokeless tobacco products has increased slightly during the past several years, it is likely that many of the new smokeless users are cigarette smokers just as most new adult smokeless tobacco users are cigarette smokers. Dual usage of smokefree tobacco products is a prerequisite for switching to them, which sharply reduces tobacco attributable disease and death risks.

    A newly published survey of 14-18 year old adolescents in Finland found that 10% had used NRT products, and that most users were daily smokers. The reasons for NRT use were just try (56%), to quit (33%) and smoking not possible (24%). Adolescents’ self-reported reasons for using nicotine replacement therapy products: A population-based study, Susanna Raisamo, David Doku, Arja Rimpela, Addictive Behaviors Volume 36, Issue 9, September 2011, 945-947.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306460311001572

    But anti-tobacco activists who demonize dissolvable tobacco products and/or advocate banning them aren’t demonizing NRT products or advocating banning NRT products, probably because many of them are receiving drug industry funding to demonize and advocate bans on tobacco very similar tobacco products.

    Financial Conflict of Interest of TPSAC member Jack Henningfield

    Although TPSAC member Jack Henningfield has extensive knowledge and expertise on tobacco and nicotine products, he should be recused from serving on TPSAC as it considers Dissolvable Tobacco Products due to financial conflicts of interest since he has repeatedly criticized and opposed the use of smokeless tobacco products while promoting NRT products during the past decade with funding from GSK and other drug companies (that correctly perceive dissolvable tobacco products as competitors of their NRT products) and since dissolvable nicotine products can now be marketed as dissolvable tobacco products. GSK also submitted a Citizen Petition to the FDA in 2002 that unsuccessfully urged the FDA to remove Star’s Ariva from the market.

    National Center for Public Policy Research

    Jeff Stier, Director of the Risk Analysis Division of the National Center for Public Policy Research, has asked me to cite his organization’s endorsement (in this submission) urging the FDA TPSAC to support smokefree tobacco harm reduction products and policies in its forthcoming report on dissolvable tobacco products and other activities.

    Disclosure

    Since 1990, Smokefree Pennsylvania has advocated policies to reduce tobacco smoke pollution indoors, increase cigarette taxes, reduce tobacco marketing to youth, preserve civil justice remedies for those injured by cigarettes, expand smoking cessation services, and inform smokers that smokefree tobacco/nicotine products are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes. Neither William Godshall nor Smokefree Pennsylvania have ever received any funding from a tobacco, drug, e-cigarette or any other company that markets tobacco or nicotine products.


    William T. Godshall, MPH
    Executive Director
    Smokefree Pennsylvania
    1926 Monongahela Avenue
    Pittsburgh, PA 15218
    412-351-5880
    FAX 351-5881
    smokefree@compuserve.com
     
  2. Bill Godshall

    Bill Godshall Executive Director
    Smokefree Pennsylvania
    ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
  3. Placebo Effect

    Placebo Effect Ultra Member ECF Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Great work Bill.
     
  4. sqirl1

    sqirl1 Super Member ECF Veteran

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    hate to sound like a pessimist, but don't you think the FDA is well aware of all of this and is receiving just as much, if not more funding from the pharma industry as the antis? either way, I guess this is the best way to tell the FDA "hey .......s, we know what you're doing" without directly saying that, so props to you, and thanks for all the time and effort put into that.
     
  5. Hiryu

    Hiryu Senior Member ECF Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    USA
    Agreed. They have to be aware of all of it. It will be interesting to see how far can they take the protection for their BT benefactors/lobbyists as the market continues to shift in favor of e-cigs, and the evidence on their safety and success rates on kicking analogs continues to pile up.
     
  6. Szn122

    Szn122 Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Location:
    Michigan
    Thanks, Placebo...just joined
     
  7. Lydia

    Lydia Senior Member ECF Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    My first quick impression: A big exercise, with a long overview of past research for getting a (more) complete picture in this field and also thoughtful and well expressed argumentations for getting things further on. A great piece of work for the field of the dissolvables you can’t easily put aside or ignore.
     
  8. Bill Godshall

    Bill Godshall Executive Director
    Smokefree Pennsylvania
    ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    sqirl1 inquired

    Many of the recently hired staff at FDA's Tobacco Center (which is funded solely by tobacco companies, not drug companies) aren't aware of most/all of this information, and most TPSAC members are not aware of most of this information.

    If folks at the FDA and TPSAC conducted their work objectively and competently, they would conduct searches and obtain this and other pertinent information about dissolvable tobacco products. But the FDA and TPSAC have repeatedly demonstrated that objectivity and competence aren't necessarily among their priorities.

    It will be more difficult for the FDA and TPSAC to ignore the research findings that are submitted to them, although they may prove me wrong. That's why I also widely circulated my submission to thousands of others.
     
  9. Vap0rJay

    Vap0rJay Super Member ECF Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Location:
    Maryland
    "Thousands" .... :laugh::laugh::laugh:
     
  10. Ande

    Ande Super Member ECF Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2011
    Location:
    Korea
    Thanks Bill.

    Many already know this, and oppose anyway. But...the more we shout it from the rooftops, the harder it is to feign ignorance, or to promote ignorance in others.

    Keep it up,
    Ande
     
  11. rolygate

    rolygate Forum Manager Admin Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Location:
    ECF Towers
    Excellent work, Bill.

    I am especially impressed by the accumulation of the many references, and their analyses, as I am fully aware of the time this takes. Some links are now dead, unfortunately (docs removed).
     
  12. Bill Godshall

    Bill Godshall Executive Director
    Smokefree Pennsylvania
    ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    A major challenge has been carefully reviewing each study and data provided, as many of the documents (cited in my submission to TPSAC) were written by tobacco harm reduction opponents who failed to recognize/acknowledge and/or misrepresented/contradicted key findings of their own research.
     
  13. Hiryu

    Hiryu Senior Member ECF Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    USA
    This is my biggest problem with the antis, present company excluded. It's all about the posturing, the politics of it and their perceived status quo. It never really is about health, it's about segregating a group they perceive as inferior.
     
  14. rolygate

    rolygate Forum Manager Admin Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Location:
    ECF Towers
    @Hiryu

    From: Tobacco Harm Reduction
    © ECCA UK

    ______________________________________

    The Tobacco Control movement

    One of the most worrying factors regarding the free availability of e-cigarettes is the huge Tobacco Control movement and how it will naturally act to protect its interests.

    For example, see this PDF of the 12th SRNT meeting at Bath, UK, in September 2010 [12]. The contents of this brochure clearly indicate that Tobacco Control itself is now a large industry, with what appears to be thousands of academics employed all over the world.

    Now imagine a scenario where the demand for their services is reduced by 90%. This would be the practical result of the widespread uptake of freely available and well-promoted alternative tobacco products such as e-cigarettes and Snus. If the death rate dropped to half its current level (as in Sweden) and continued to drop like a stone, where would that leave the Tobacco Control movement? Answer: unemployed.

    This explains why part of the resistance to safer tobacco products comes from the TC movement. Reducing the death rate is unfortunately not the only item on their agenda - they need their jobs, like anybody else. Taking a course of action that ultimately leaves you unemployed is a severe test of moral fibre for anyone, and it seems as if these academics fail the test just as surely as anyone else would.

    You can't blame them, because if saving lives causes them to lose their jobs, they will fight to keep their jobs just the same as everybody else. Of course, it involves a large measure of self-delusion, but that is a natural defence mechanism. It's just another brick in the wall built around e-cigarettes. With luck, they hope, e-cigs will be ignored and it will be back to business as usual.

    It worked with Snus, after all.

    The plain fact is that the tobacco control movement is one of the most important factors keeping the smoking death rate up.


    ____________________________________________________________

    There are a lot of people employed in the junk science field now, two candidates are tobacco control and climate change. Whatever the relative facts may be, those people have to try and keep their jobs. It is highly unlikely that anyone will publish work or enact decisions that cause them to lose their jobs. They may or may not realise the underlying cause of their decisions, but those decisions will never be ones that make them unemployed.
     
  15. rothenbj

    rothenbj Vaping Master Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Location:
    Green Lane, Pa
    I really don't think that the cancer rate would drop off nearly as much as you might expect, at least not in the US. I was looking at figures from the US in 2006. They estimated that there were 158,599 lung cancer deaths that year with 135,000 related to smoking.

    Lung Cancer Deaths - How Many People Die From Lung Cancer Each Year

    Notice the one statement, "That said, 60% of lung cancers diagnosed today occur in those who either have never smoked or quit smoking in the past." Now at that time they were estimating 43m adults smoked and just as many were ex-smokers, leaving 131.2m adult never smokers (those that smoked less than 99 cigarettes and those that denied it). I read a CDC report that stated that about 20% of lung cancer was from smokers, 20% from never smokers and 60% from ex-smokers so the 60% might be a little low.

    If we take those 135k lung cancer deaths divided by the 86m smokers and ex-smokers, you get an annual death rate of .16% among that group. It would take something like 637 years for that group to die of lung cancer. Even if you only used current smokers, the death rate would only be .31%. Only about 10% of lung cancer is diagnosed before 55 with a medium age of 70. How many less cases would we have if nobody smoked?

    I have know way of knowing, but I do know that the anti groups claim the "poor and uneducated" are the majority of cases and that their lack of health care is part of the problem. I think it may be something else. A good number of that population live in urban areas where there are a lot of confounding issues combined with smoking. The there are the jobs that this group is more likely to get- mining, steel workers around coke furnaces, construction where the risk factors also increase.

    I'm not saying that smoking is good for your health, but I do believe that a lot of other factors come into play that are not considered when they state that smoking caused the disease.
     
  16. rolygate

    rolygate Forum Manager Admin Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Location:
    ECF Towers
    Yes, that is probably true. Sweden probably has cleaner air overall. But I think what we are already doing will start to impact the smoking death rate - as more people switch to alternatives, there will be a gradual reduction. Tiny at first, no doubt, but a move in the right direction.

    Imagine what would happen if we could get a pilot scheme set up in one city, where people who want to get off cigarettes can sign up for a mentored program where they are taught how to use e-cigarettes (and Snus if they need them), fitted with the best equipment for their requirements, and monitored over six months, with equipment upgrades as needed.

    You might get a success rate of 80% under those circumstances.
     
  17. Vocalek

    Vocalek CASAA Activist ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Springfield, VA
    Actuallly, I know someone in West Virginia who is doing that very thing, all on her own.
     
  18. ByStander1

    ByStander1 Super Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Location:
    West Virginia

    Really? Them's some pretty low standards.

    A severe moral test is watching your children go to bed hungry and knowing the guy next door has plenty of money and...-doesn't lock his doors, -is ready to hop in the sack with you, -has wanted to buy your great-grandfather's watch for years (moral compasses point to different "Norths")


    Sure I can!


    Absolutely not "everybody else"

    Yup, sure have to agree with that. As ex-smokers, many of us are all too familiar with self-delusion.


    I have found that one common-denominator-type moral is Truth. No one, in any culture, in any era, wants to be labeled a Liar.

    "Want to make an enemy... Prove to a liar that you know they're a liar." --bystander1

    Although I'm often disgusted by the more I learn (particularly "follow the money"), I continue to believe that the majority of the policy/decision makers regarding the facts about e-cigs and safety simply don't have many facts.

    We're still a minority. Too often, we're even a quiet minority.

    Now that we have the lung capacity for it, we need to be shouting from the rooftops about e-cigs!!! :banana::banana::banana:
     
  19. Demarko

    Demarko Super Member ECF Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2010
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    I'd LIKE to think that, but reading some of the FOIA request stuff in another thread, I sometimes wonder.
     
  20. dagnagan

    dagnagan Full Member

    Supporting member
    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Location:
    Southeast U.S.
    There are certainly financial motives behind much of the anti-tobacco activism, but I think there is also a large segment of this movement for which it is a religion. You see the same kind of rigidity, dogmatism, irrationality and righteousness in some environmentalists. Good (them), Evil (Big Tobacco), poor sinners who need to be saved (smokers) - everything you need for a religion. These people are simply impervious to reasoned argument because they are true believers.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page