- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
I presented the following testimony at a public hearing on Monday in Pittsburgh.
April 25, 2011
Testimony to PA Auditor General Jack Wagner on Pennsylvanias tobacco Settlement Funds
by
William T. Godshall, MPH
Executive Director
Smokefree Pennsylvania
1926 Monongahela Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15218
412-351-5880
FAX 351-5881
smokefree@compuserve.com
Im Bill Godshall, founder and executive director of Smokefree Pennsylvania, that since 1990 has advocated local, state and federal policies to reduce indoor tobacco smoke pollution, prohibit tobacco marketing to youth, hold cigarette companies accountable for their egregious past actions, increase cigarette tax rates, fund tobacco education and smoking cessation services, and inform smokers that all smokefree tobacco/nicotine products are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes.
From 1994 to 1996, Smokefree Pennsylvania urged State Attorneys General Ernie Preate and Tom Corbett to sue the cigarette companies, and we made the lawsuit a campaign issue in the 1996 election. Trailing in the polls with just one week before the election, Mike Fisher promised that if elected, he'd sue the cigarettes companies, which he did in 1997 after barely winning the election.
In 1998/99, Smokefree Pennsylvania Petitioned to Intervene in the lawsuit with the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas due to concerns about the proposed settlement, which prompted then Governor Tom Ridge and AG Fisher to propose that all MSA funds would be spent to reduce smoking and otherwise improve health.
From 1999 to 2002, Smokefree Pennsylvania successfully campaigned to urge the General Assembly to appropriate all MSA funds for health programs, including a significant amount for tobacco education, smoking cessation and tobacco control programs.
For disclosure, neither I nor Smokefree Pennsylvania have received any funding from the PA Tobacco Settlement or from any company that markets tobacco or nicotine products.
I thank Auditor General Wagner for exposing the massive transfer of PA tobacco settlement funds from the originally intended health programs and endowment, and for holding this series of public hearings. Smokefree Pennsylvania supports General Wagners call to once again spend all settlement dollars for health programs.
However, since 2002, the PA DOH and its tobacco control contractors have spent tens of millions of settlement dollars promoting drug industry products and counseling as the only effective ways to quit smoking.
But in fact, the overwhelming majority of exsmokers have quit by cold turkey, while 95% of NRT gum, lozenge and patch users have switched back to cigarettes, and very few smokers have quit by using counseling services.
Unfortunately for public health, the PA DOH policy requires all of its smoking cessation contractors to promote drug industry products and counseling as the only effective ways to quit smoking.
The PA DOH and its tobacco control contractors have also grossly exaggerated the health risks of smokeless tobacco products, including claims that smokeless tobacco products are as hazardous as cigarette smoking.
But according to CDC data, more than 99% of tobacco attributable morbidity and mortality (and more than 99% of tobacco healthcare costs) is caused by the repeated inhalation of tobacco smoke.
According to the empirical evidence, all smokefree (or noncombustible) tobacco/nicotine products marketed in the US (including smokeless tobacco, electronic cigarettes, gums lozenges and patches) pose 99% fewer morbidity and mortality risks than cigarettes. While they are similar addictive, cigarettes are 100 times more hazardous than smokefree tobacco/nicotine products.
The PA DOH also opposes tobacco harm reduction, whereby smokers can sharply reducing their health risks by switching to or substituting smokefree tobacco products as alternatives for cigarettes. And yet, switching to smokeless tobacco products reduces a smoker's health risks nearly as much as quitting all tobacco/nicotine usage, and smokers can significantly reduce their health risks by substituting smokefree alternatives for many/most cigarettes they would otherwise consume.
Several million smokers in the US have already quit smoking by switching to smokeless tobacco products, as have hundreds of thousands in Sweden and Norway.
In Sweden and Norway, more male smokers have quit smoking by switching to smokeless tobacco than have quit by using drug company smoking cessation products. The empirical evidence similarly indicates that more male smokers in the US have quit smoking by switching to smokeless tobacco than have quit by using NRT or by counseling.
The PA DOH and some its tobacco control contractors also have alleged that smokeless tobacco products (especially new and flavored products) are target marketed to youth, and have recently called the products candy in an attempt to deceive and scare the public.
But there is no evidence that these or other tobacco products are being target marketed to youth, as the 1998 MSA and PA state law already prohibit marketing tobacco to youth, and any violations should be reported to the AG or DOH for remedial adjudication and/or enforcement.
Tobacco products should never be called "candy", and the only people who have called them "candy" are those who oppose adult smokers reducing their health risks by switching to these far less hazardous alternatives. Referring to tobacco products as candy also encourages youth to use tobacco products, which was never the intent of the MSA.
Knowingly and intentionally misleading the public about health risks of tobacco products was a key reason why State Attorneys General sued, and subsequently settled with, the cigarette companies more than a decade ago.
Just as it was wrong for tobacco companies to mislead the public about the health risks of cigarettes, it is similarly wrong for the PA DOH to mislead the public about the health risks of smokeless tobacco products, or to mislead the public about the health benefits of NRT products, which are nearly identical to many smokeless tobacco products.
So while Smokefree Pennsylvania strongly supports appropriating 12% of PA settlement funds for tobacco education and smoking cessation programs, which is the amount originally promised and appropriated in 2002, we staunchly oppose the PA DOH or anyone else spending settlement funds to deceive the public about the health risks or benefits of tobacco or nicotine products.
April 25, 2011
Testimony to PA Auditor General Jack Wagner on Pennsylvanias tobacco Settlement Funds
by
William T. Godshall, MPH
Executive Director
Smokefree Pennsylvania
1926 Monongahela Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15218
412-351-5880
FAX 351-5881
smokefree@compuserve.com
Im Bill Godshall, founder and executive director of Smokefree Pennsylvania, that since 1990 has advocated local, state and federal policies to reduce indoor tobacco smoke pollution, prohibit tobacco marketing to youth, hold cigarette companies accountable for their egregious past actions, increase cigarette tax rates, fund tobacco education and smoking cessation services, and inform smokers that all smokefree tobacco/nicotine products are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes.
From 1994 to 1996, Smokefree Pennsylvania urged State Attorneys General Ernie Preate and Tom Corbett to sue the cigarette companies, and we made the lawsuit a campaign issue in the 1996 election. Trailing in the polls with just one week before the election, Mike Fisher promised that if elected, he'd sue the cigarettes companies, which he did in 1997 after barely winning the election.
In 1998/99, Smokefree Pennsylvania Petitioned to Intervene in the lawsuit with the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas due to concerns about the proposed settlement, which prompted then Governor Tom Ridge and AG Fisher to propose that all MSA funds would be spent to reduce smoking and otherwise improve health.
From 1999 to 2002, Smokefree Pennsylvania successfully campaigned to urge the General Assembly to appropriate all MSA funds for health programs, including a significant amount for tobacco education, smoking cessation and tobacco control programs.
For disclosure, neither I nor Smokefree Pennsylvania have received any funding from the PA Tobacco Settlement or from any company that markets tobacco or nicotine products.
I thank Auditor General Wagner for exposing the massive transfer of PA tobacco settlement funds from the originally intended health programs and endowment, and for holding this series of public hearings. Smokefree Pennsylvania supports General Wagners call to once again spend all settlement dollars for health programs.
However, since 2002, the PA DOH and its tobacco control contractors have spent tens of millions of settlement dollars promoting drug industry products and counseling as the only effective ways to quit smoking.
But in fact, the overwhelming majority of exsmokers have quit by cold turkey, while 95% of NRT gum, lozenge and patch users have switched back to cigarettes, and very few smokers have quit by using counseling services.
Unfortunately for public health, the PA DOH policy requires all of its smoking cessation contractors to promote drug industry products and counseling as the only effective ways to quit smoking.
The PA DOH and its tobacco control contractors have also grossly exaggerated the health risks of smokeless tobacco products, including claims that smokeless tobacco products are as hazardous as cigarette smoking.
But according to CDC data, more than 99% of tobacco attributable morbidity and mortality (and more than 99% of tobacco healthcare costs) is caused by the repeated inhalation of tobacco smoke.
According to the empirical evidence, all smokefree (or noncombustible) tobacco/nicotine products marketed in the US (including smokeless tobacco, electronic cigarettes, gums lozenges and patches) pose 99% fewer morbidity and mortality risks than cigarettes. While they are similar addictive, cigarettes are 100 times more hazardous than smokefree tobacco/nicotine products.
The PA DOH also opposes tobacco harm reduction, whereby smokers can sharply reducing their health risks by switching to or substituting smokefree tobacco products as alternatives for cigarettes. And yet, switching to smokeless tobacco products reduces a smoker's health risks nearly as much as quitting all tobacco/nicotine usage, and smokers can significantly reduce their health risks by substituting smokefree alternatives for many/most cigarettes they would otherwise consume.
Several million smokers in the US have already quit smoking by switching to smokeless tobacco products, as have hundreds of thousands in Sweden and Norway.
In Sweden and Norway, more male smokers have quit smoking by switching to smokeless tobacco than have quit by using drug company smoking cessation products. The empirical evidence similarly indicates that more male smokers in the US have quit smoking by switching to smokeless tobacco than have quit by using NRT or by counseling.
The PA DOH and some its tobacco control contractors also have alleged that smokeless tobacco products (especially new and flavored products) are target marketed to youth, and have recently called the products candy in an attempt to deceive and scare the public.
But there is no evidence that these or other tobacco products are being target marketed to youth, as the 1998 MSA and PA state law already prohibit marketing tobacco to youth, and any violations should be reported to the AG or DOH for remedial adjudication and/or enforcement.
Tobacco products should never be called "candy", and the only people who have called them "candy" are those who oppose adult smokers reducing their health risks by switching to these far less hazardous alternatives. Referring to tobacco products as candy also encourages youth to use tobacco products, which was never the intent of the MSA.
Knowingly and intentionally misleading the public about health risks of tobacco products was a key reason why State Attorneys General sued, and subsequently settled with, the cigarette companies more than a decade ago.
Just as it was wrong for tobacco companies to mislead the public about the health risks of cigarettes, it is similarly wrong for the PA DOH to mislead the public about the health risks of smokeless tobacco products, or to mislead the public about the health benefits of NRT products, which are nearly identical to many smokeless tobacco products.
So while Smokefree Pennsylvania strongly supports appropriating 12% of PA settlement funds for tobacco education and smoking cessation programs, which is the amount originally promised and appropriated in 2002, we staunchly oppose the PA DOH or anyone else spending settlement funds to deceive the public about the health risks or benefits of tobacco or nicotine products.
