Very good in depth article on the anti-harm reduction bias of the FDA
People Who Get Paid By Big Tobacco Should Be Able To Advise The FDA - Forbes
"Advocates of harm reduction advance a pragmatic stance that tolerates the use of nicotine in the form of smokeless tobacco or electronic cigarettes because doing so greatly minimizes the harm of smoking.
Its worth special mention here that the investigators who pioneered the study of tobacco harm reduction, such as those working on smokeless tobacco, were consistently refused research support from government agencies. Thus, they were compelled to ask the industry for funding. Investigating innovative methods to reduce the toll of smoking has thus far mainly relied on industry funding.
Anti-harm reductionists, also called tobacco prohibitionists, see no virtue in making nicotine use less harmful; only complete abstinence is acceptable to them. Given the long history of tobacco industry deception, such advocates assert that there can be no room for compromise when it comes to a product in which Big Tobacco has any interest, wrote Amy Friedman and Ronald Bayer, both of Columbia Universitys School of Public Health, in Science last January. A strong anti-harm reduction mind-set could easily sway members assessment of the risk of smokeless tobacco and e-cigarettes."
People Who Get Paid By Big Tobacco Should Be Able To Advise The FDA - Forbes
"Advocates of harm reduction advance a pragmatic stance that tolerates the use of nicotine in the form of smokeless tobacco or electronic cigarettes because doing so greatly minimizes the harm of smoking.
Its worth special mention here that the investigators who pioneered the study of tobacco harm reduction, such as those working on smokeless tobacco, were consistently refused research support from government agencies. Thus, they were compelled to ask the industry for funding. Investigating innovative methods to reduce the toll of smoking has thus far mainly relied on industry funding.
Anti-harm reductionists, also called tobacco prohibitionists, see no virtue in making nicotine use less harmful; only complete abstinence is acceptable to them. Given the long history of tobacco industry deception, such advocates assert that there can be no room for compromise when it comes to a product in which Big Tobacco has any interest, wrote Amy Friedman and Ronald Bayer, both of Columbia Universitys School of Public Health, in Science last January. A strong anti-harm reduction mind-set could easily sway members assessment of the risk of smokeless tobacco and e-cigarettes."
