American Cancer Society changes position on vaping

[Coastal Cowboy]

I can't believe this hasn't yet gotten a thread here on ECF's Action Alley. It's a significant change in tone from an organization that used to be one of our biggest obstacles to truth-telling.

American Cancer Society officially endorses vaping – finally!

They had some stern language for the Stanleys:

“Many consumers are misinformed about the harms of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). (In this document, the term ENDS refers to the variety of products that heat, but do not burn, liquids that contain nicotine, water, and other constituents, such as propylene glycol and flavorants.) Many adults believe, erroneously, that ENDS are as harmful as combustible tobacco products, and the level of public understanding has deteriorated over time. In 2012, only 11.5% of respondents to a national survey held this view. By 2015, 35.7% of respondents mistakenly believed that the harm associated with electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) was “about the same” as that of smoking conventional cigarettes. At the same time, the Monitoring the Future study reports that, as of 2017, “e-cigarettes have one of the lowest levels of perceived risk for regular use of all drugs, including alcohol” among adolescents.”​

 

[hell_storm2004]

Finally some common sense. Looks like the cold air from Canada has finally trickled down!

 

[jim_87]

This is a huge step in helping spread the good vape word. Good job ACS!

 

[Nate5700]

That's cool.

I think groups like this play a big role in the public perception of vaping and if more of them begin to support it (or at least not actively oppose it) as an alternative to smoking then we'll be better off. I don't know if this will do much to slow down those who would harshly regulate vaping but public perception changing is the first step to making a difference in that arena.

 

[puffon]

Wonder why this isn't reported in the main stream media?
I guess it doesn't fit their agenda.

 

[Anise]

Wonder why this isn't reported in the main stream media?
I guess it doesn't fit their agenda.

I was just going to ask the same thing. If the news organizations would pick this up it would go a long way towards vaping being acceptable to others.

 

[zoiDman]

Be Very Careful when putting someone in the "Friend of Yours" Column. Because sometimes they can be Holding Bread in One Hand and a Stone in the Other.

From the ACS February 15th 2018 Statement...

Policy Recommendations: The American Cancer Society recommends implementing polices and public health measures known to prevent the initiation and use of all tobacco products, including appropriate taxation, retail policies (e.g., raising the minimum age of purchase to 21), tobacco and e-cigarette aerosol-free policies and funding of evidence-based prevention and cessation programs. The ACS strongly recommends that every effort be made to prevent the initiation of e-cigarettes by youth. The use of products containing nicotine in any form among youth is unsafe and can harm brain development. Furthermore, evidence indicates that young e-cigarette users are at increased risk for both starting to smoke and becoming long-term users of combustible tobacco products.

The ACS encourages the FDA to regulate all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, to the full extent of its authority, and to determine the absolute and relative harms of each product. The FDA should assess whether e-cigarettes help to reduce tobacco-related morbidity and mortality, and the impact of marketing of e-cigarettes on consumer perceptions and behavior. Any related regulatory regime should include post-marketing surveillance to monitor the long-term effects of these products and ensure the FDA’s actions have the intended health outcome of significantly reducing disease and death. Furthermore, the FDA should use its authorities to reduce the toxicity, addictiveness and appeal of tobacco products currently on the market. The ACS also applauds the FDA for recognizing its significant role as a science-based agency in helping to address the addictiveness of nicotine in cigarettes. Reducing nicotine in all combustible tobacco products to below addictive levels holds the potential to significantly accelerate reductions in the use of combustible tobacco products, which remain by far the leading preventable cause of cancer and preventable death in the United States.

American Cancer Society Position Statement on Electronic Cigarettes

So I think it is Great that the ACS is No Longer completely Ignoring the growing amount of Study Evidence supporting that e-Cigarette use is Viable Harm Reduction over Smoking.

But calling for Raising the Legal Age to 21 at the Federal Level to buy any Tobacco Product, being in favor of Significant New Taxation of Tobacco Products, and supporting the need for a FDA Flavor Ban on e-Liquids to "Save the Children" tends to give me pause before putting them in my Friend of Vaping Column.

 

[jim_87]

Wonder why this isn't reported in the main stream media?
I guess it doesn't fit their agenda.

It seems media needs to fit into one of three categories to be mainstream news worthy:

1. Did the story have death and destruction in it?
2. Did the story involve negative politics of any kind?
3. Did the story have anything to do with the Kardashians?

 

[Rossum]

If you read the entire statement from the ACS, I'm not sure it's entirely fair to call it an "endorsement", but it certainly is far more positive than what we've seen out of such entities previously.

I think it might just be indicative of an inflection point...

 

[Nate5700]

Wonder why this isn't reported in the main stream media?
I guess it doesn't fit their agenda.

I would guess a few different reasons, really. One is that every statement made by any organization isn't going to be considered newsworthy. There's a lot going on in the world and vaping isn't as high in most people's consciousness as it is ours.

I also don't buy all the talk about news organizations having a coordinated political agenda. They're businesses and their agenda is to make money for their shareholders. What that means is that they're going to report things that stand out and get people's attention so that they sell more papers and get more ad buys on their websites. Is a policy change on the part of the ACS really going to be that interesting to most people?

 

[Topwater Elvis]

Wolf in sheeps clothing...

 

[Coastal Cowboy]

@zoiDman, to me, this is more like putting ACS in the Switzerland column. Or at least considering it. I like @Rossum's point too: this is no paradigm shift but it does appear to be progress.

 

[zoiDman]

@zoiDman, to me, this is more like putting ACS in the Switzerland column. Or at least considering it. I like @Rossum's point too: this is no paradigm shift but it does appear to be progress.

Like I said, it is Nice to see that the ACS has softened their position on e-Cigarette use. Something that they had Always planned to do once e-Cigarettes were Fully Regulated and under FDA Control. So it was a Step in the Right Direction for them to do this even though the Deeming of e-Cigarettes hasn't gone as they Planed.

But they are Still a Powerful Voice that does carry sway. And it is the Other Things that this Voice is saying that most Vaper's should find Alarming.

 

[zoiDman]

I would guess a few different reasons, really. One is that every statement made by any organization isn't going to be considered newsworthy. There's a lot going on in the world and vaping isn't as high in most people's consciousness as it is ours.

...

I could Almost go with this if it Wasn't for the fact that Every Time the ACS or the AHA or the (insert your Favorite 3 Letters here =>) ___ has come out with anything Negative about e-Cigarettes, it has been Front Page News.

 

[Nate5700]

I could Almost go with this if it Wasn't for the fact that Every Time the ACS or the AHA or the (insert your Favorite 3 Letters here =>) ___ has come out with anything Negative about e-Cigarettes, it has been Front Page News.

Negativity sells. I still don't think that's indicative of an agenda on the part of the media. At least not a conscious agenda. Doesn't mean reporters and editors don't have their biases of course. We all wear our own lenses.

 

[zoiDman]

Negativity sells. I still don't think that's indicative of an agenda on the part of the media. At least not a conscious agenda. Doesn't mean reporters and editors don't have their biases of course. We all wear our own lenses.

No Arguments here about Negativity selling more copy.

As to the Agenda Based reporting? I think there is No Question that Many/Most US Media Outlets pump agenda via the Context that they present.

And that Isn't Limited, of course, to just e-Cigarettes.

 

[Nate5700]

As to the Agenda Based reporting? I think there is No Question that Many/Most US Media Outlets pump agenda via the Context that they present.

And that Isn't Limited, of course, to just e-Cigarettes.

You certainly aren't the only one who feels that way. Nobody can be everywhere at once so the vast majority of all of our information is passed to us from other sources. Knowing who to trust is probably the biggest challenge of learning and knowledge.

 

[zoiDman]

You certainly aren't the only one who feels that way. Nobody can be everywhere at once so the vast majority of all of our information is passed to us from other sources. Knowing who to trust is probably the biggest challenge of learning and knowledge.

I just think that when something is as Important as this, with 400K+ Dying every year because of Smoking, that the Average Media Outlet could take a more Balanced Approach when it comes to presenting Information about e-Cigarettes.

ETA: That Balanced Approach should also apply to Entities like the FDA, CDC, NIH and State and Local Health Agencies.

 

[Nate5700]

I just think that when something is as Important as this, with 400K+ Dying every year because of Smoking, that the Average Media Outlet could take a more Balanced Approach when it comes to presenting Information about e-Cigarettes.

ETA: That Balanced Approach should also apply to Entities like the FDA, CDC, NIH and State and Local Health Agencies.

That's why I put in that blurb about conscious bias vs. unconscious bias a couple of posts ago. People rightly believe that smoking is bad but it's been so pounded into our heads culturally that people have a hard time disassociating any tobacco use from habitual cigarette smoking. Plus vaping kinda looks like smoking. So that colors the way people see vaping, including reporters and editors. It becomes a chicken-and-egg situation after that. Someone made an editorial decision at some point to show e-cigarettes in a negative light, reinforcing people's perceptions, and it snowballs from there.

Kinda like the discussion about lawyers in the other thread. I tend to believe most professionals, reporters, lawyers, doctors, engineers, whoever, try to do their jobs with integrity. But when it comes to knowing things you have to consider what is influencing the source. I don't think it means there's an overarching agenda, but I can't say there's no such thing as media bias either.