FDA's Approach to Public Health

[Vocalek]

This is from an article authored by FDA personnel, Lawrence Deyton,
Joshua Sharfstein, and Margaret Hamburg.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/NEJMp1004152.pdf?ssource=hcrc

The FDA’s public health approach to tobacco regulation has four key elements: reducing the rate of initiation of tobacco use, educating the public, applying regulatory science to the control of tobacco products, and engaging actively with public health partners and industry.

I don't see any element in there about reducing the smoking-related disease burden that is borne by current smokers.

In the long term, the most effective way to reduce the harm from tobacco products is to prevent people from becoming addicted, and many of the FDA’s first efforts at implementing the Tobacco Control Act involved restricting the marketing and illegal sales of tobacco products to young people and implementing a ban on fruit- and candy-flavored cigarettes.

No, FDA, the most effective way to reduce the harm is to take steps that lower the disease rates. Your flavor ban didn't even make a tiny dent in the initiation rate of smoking among young people. That would be like trying to reduce obesity by banning okra.
​

Although most Americans know that tobacco is harmful, few know specifically how damaging it is to the health of both smokers and nonsmokers. In the Tobacco Control Act, Congress gave the FDA some important tools to educate consumers about the constituents of tobacco products and the profound consequences of exposure to them. One such tool is the authority to ensure that advertising is truthful and not misleading.

Gee, do you suppose that FDA will allow the smokeless tobacco industry to truthfully advertise that of 419,000 estimated deaths from "tobacco", that only 6,000 (1.4%) are from smokeless tobacco and all the rest are from smoking? Point | Counterpoint: Would a Switch from Cigarettes to Smokeless Tobacco Benefit Public Health? > Health Issues > ACSH

Those 6000 are all from oral cancer -- zero for heart disease, respiratory disease, and other cancers. And they need to be compared with the oral cancer deaths from smoking: 11,500.

Do you suppose that FDA would consider it important for the agency to provide this truthful information to consumers?

 

[chrisl317]

This is from an article authored by FDA personnel, Lawrence Deyton,
Joshua Sharfstein, and Margaret Hamburg.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/NEJMp1004152.pdf?ssource=hcrc

I don't see any element in there about reducing the smoking-related disease burden that is borne by current smokers. ​

No, FDA, the most effective way to reduce the harm is to take steps that lower the disease rates. Your flavor ban didn't even make a tiny dent in the initiation rate of smoking among young people. That would be like trying to reduce obesity by banning okra.​

Gee, do you suppose that FDA will allow the smokeless tobacco industry to truthfully advertise that of 419,000 estimated deaths from "tobacco", that only 6,000 (1.4%) are from smokeless tobacco and all the rest are from smoking? Point | Counterpoint: Would a Switch from Cigarettes to Smokeless Tobacco Benefit Public Health? > Health Issues > ACSH

Those 6000 are all from oral cancer -- zero for heart disease, respiratory disease, and other cancers. And they need to be compared with the oral cancer deaths from smoking: 11,500.

Do you suppose that FDA would consider it important for the agency to provide this truthful information to consumers?

no

Why is it the gov't's business in an "almost" free society to force people into being healthy?

 

[D103]

They are so incredibly full of it. Their statement - "In the long term the most effective way to reduce the harm from tobacco products is to prevent people from becoming addicted....." BULL The most effective way actually, is to BAN all tobacco products but they won't do that. In essence what they are saying, by not saying it, is this...we believe in Abstinence Only - but we can't legally ban all tobacco products, so essentially we are going to focus on the future generations and try like hell to keep them away from cigarettes and other tobacco products (despite how miserably they've failed at doing so) and for those folks already smoking -we're basically kicking you to the curb, sorry for your luck-of course we're going to continue to tax the hell out of you and keep effective and safer alternatives (that are not in our financial interests) away from you and condemn you to our Revolving Door Solution: FDA approved smoking cessation products(expensive and largely ineffective) return to smoking (very expensive, helps us line our pockets and helps fiscally irresponsible local and federal governments to make up for shortfalls) back to FDA approved smoking cessation products, failure, then back to smoking etc. - That's a 'Public Health Approach'.....no, that's a racket and a con. And when they say that "...most Americans know that tobacco is harmful but 'few' know how damaging it is to the health of both smokers and nonsmokers." What?!?!? I'll bet the 400,000 plus persons who have died annually from tobacco related diseases have 'some idea' of how damaging it is, not to mention their loved ones, neighbors, coworkers etc. the doctors and nurses who cared for them until they died etc. Give me a break!!!! And by the way, cigarettes were officially manufactured in the U.S. beginning in 1860!!! And now the FDA states that this recent Tobacco Act legislation has given them "important tools" to educate consumers about the constituents of tobacco products and the 'profound consequences of exposure to them." What have you been doing for the last 150 years for c****t sakes?!?!?! The truth is the FDA has been pounding their anti-tobacco drums for a very long time and have not been able to 'totally eradicate' smoking - and I submit, nor will they Ever. The only Public Health Strategy that is honest and makes any sense is one of Harm Reduction.