WHO (TobReg) Technical Report and Recommendations: ‘ENDS’
- Thread starter Tom09
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
.1 Preface - tarheeldan's version
This Scientific Recommendation addresses electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) designed for nicotine delivery to the respiratory system. [...]
This recommendation is being made because ENDS pose significant public health issues far less worrisome than tobacco cigarette consumption and raise questions for tobacco taxation and price elasticity of demand given an increased degree of substitutability. Manufacturers have not fully disclosed the chemicals used in ENDS, whereas an approximation of 4,000 chemicals are well documented in cigarettes; there are few data on their emissions or actual human exposure besides 5 years of consumer experience without incidence; their health effects have not been studied in a manner which promotes the financial interests of internationally important fiscal entities i.e. pharmaceutical and tobacco interests; and their marketing and use could undermine public smoking bans (albeit ENDS do not produce products of combustion per se), which are important tobacco control interventions. The products could also undermine smoking cessation efforts by proposing unproven devices for smoking cessation in the place of products of proven efficacy in revenue stream generation. ENDS might also undermine the prevention of tobacco use because of their appearance and marketing as safe alternatives to tobacco products for nontobacco users, including children who would otherwise have opted for traditional, harmful tobacco delivery by commandeering said products from their progenitors. Budget constraints, lack of availability, and non-existence of marketing toward said groups should be assumed non-binding constraints as pertains to this issue [...]
4.1.1 Main recommendations - tarheeldan's version
ENDS designed for direct nicotine delivery to the respiratory system fall into a regulatory gap in most countries, escaping regulation and monopolistic competition as drugs and avoiding the controls and taxes on tobacco products. There is currently insufficient evidence to assess whether ENDS products could be used to aid cessation (aside from a rapidly increasing successful consumer base), create or sustain addiction, or deliver constituents other than nicotine (and known additives and suspension fluids) to smokers. Clinical trials, behavioural and psychological studies and post-marketing studies at individual and population levels are needed to answer these and more questions, such as price elasticity for optimal consumer surplus extraction. Claims imputing health benefits, reduced harm or use in smoking cessation should be prohibited until they are scientifically dis-proven. ENDS products should be regulated as nicotine delivery devices in order for stringent barriers to user access as well as barriers to entry and continued operation for small enterprises who are not constituents of pharmaceutical cartels; when such regulation is not possible, they should be subjected under tobacco control laws, to regulation of contents and labelling, prohibitions against public use and restrictions on advertising, promotion and sponsorship. The promotion of a product likely to pose a health benefit to a substantial sub-group of the global population must not continue, and is certainly not endorsed by the World Health Organization[...]
EDIT: Not trying to bash the WHO here, just having some fun with the text. I don't like the alarmist language, however, nor the lack of proper framing - "ENDS" as opposed to tobacco, nor the "save the children" argument as marketing and the reality of the product certainly aren't geared toward them. In conclusion: *sigh*
This Scientific Recommendation addresses electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) designed for nicotine delivery to the respiratory system. [...]
This recommendation is being made because ENDS pose significant public health issues far less worrisome than tobacco cigarette consumption and raise questions for tobacco taxation and price elasticity of demand given an increased degree of substitutability. Manufacturers have not fully disclosed the chemicals used in ENDS, whereas an approximation of 4,000 chemicals are well documented in cigarettes; there are few data on their emissions or actual human exposure besides 5 years of consumer experience without incidence; their health effects have not been studied in a manner which promotes the financial interests of internationally important fiscal entities i.e. pharmaceutical and tobacco interests; and their marketing and use could undermine public smoking bans (albeit ENDS do not produce products of combustion per se), which are important tobacco control interventions. The products could also undermine smoking cessation efforts by proposing unproven devices for smoking cessation in the place of products of proven efficacy in revenue stream generation. ENDS might also undermine the prevention of tobacco use because of their appearance and marketing as safe alternatives to tobacco products for nontobacco users, including children who would otherwise have opted for traditional, harmful tobacco delivery by commandeering said products from their progenitors. Budget constraints, lack of availability, and non-existence of marketing toward said groups should be assumed non-binding constraints as pertains to this issue [...]
4.1.1 Main recommendations - tarheeldan's version
ENDS designed for direct nicotine delivery to the respiratory system fall into a regulatory gap in most countries, escaping regulation and monopolistic competition as drugs and avoiding the controls and taxes on tobacco products. There is currently insufficient evidence to assess whether ENDS products could be used to aid cessation (aside from a rapidly increasing successful consumer base), create or sustain addiction, or deliver constituents other than nicotine (and known additives and suspension fluids) to smokers. Clinical trials, behavioural and psychological studies and post-marketing studies at individual and population levels are needed to answer these and more questions, such as price elasticity for optimal consumer surplus extraction. Claims imputing health benefits, reduced harm or use in smoking cessation should be prohibited until they are scientifically dis-proven. ENDS products should be regulated as nicotine delivery devices in order for stringent barriers to user access as well as barriers to entry and continued operation for small enterprises who are not constituents of pharmaceutical cartels; when such regulation is not possible, they should be subjected under tobacco control laws, to regulation of contents and labelling, prohibitions against public use and restrictions on advertising, promotion and sponsorship. The promotion of a product likely to pose a health benefit to a substantial sub-group of the global population must not continue, and is certainly not endorsed by the World Health Organization[...]
EDIT: Not trying to bash the WHO here, just having some fun with the text. I don't like the alarmist language, however, nor the lack of proper framing - "ENDS" as opposed to tobacco, nor the "save the children" argument as marketing and the reality of the product certainly aren't geared toward them. In conclusion: *sigh*
Last edited:
Oh noes! heaven forbid ENDS lessening the chance that someone may pass up the chance to get in on that incredibly effective 8% success rate of traditional NRTs!!!
Thanks for saving me from my ignorant laypersoness all you smart people that know how to handle my health decisions better than i do, what would i do without you!!!
Thanks for saving me from my ignorant laypersoness all you smart people that know how to handle my health decisions better than i do, what would i do without you!!!
Translation: "We have no good evidence that these devices are an overall detriment to public health, so instead we will throw out a lot of talk about what might and may be bad about them. And until science proves us wrong, we're right!"
You are a bit confused, you have the wrong WHO. This is Dr Who. The one with the phone booth.
1 Preface
This Scientific Recommendation addresses electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) designed for nicotine delivery to the respiratory system. [...]
This recommendation is being made because ENDS pose significant public health issues far less worrisome than tobacco cigarette consumption and raise questions for tobacco taxation and price elasticity of demand given an increased degree of substitutability. Manufacturers have not fully disclosed the chemicals used in ENDS, whereas an approximation of 4,000 chemicals are well documented in cigarettes; there are few data on their emissions or actual human exposure besides 5 years of consumer experience without incidence; their health effects have not been studied in a manner which promotes the financial interests of internationally important fiscal entities i.e. pharmaceutical and tobacco interests; and their marketing and use could undermine public smoking bans (albeit ENDS do not produce products of combustion per se), which are important tobacco control interventions. The products could also undermine smoking cessation efforts by proposing unproven devices for smoking cessation in the place of products of proven efficacy in revenue stream generation. ENDS might also undermine the prevention of tobacco use because of their appearance and marketing as safe alternatives to tobacco products for nontobacco users, including children who would otherwise have opted for traditional, harmful tobacco delivery by commandeering said products from their progenitors. Budget constraints, lack of availability, and non-existence of marketing toward said groups should be assumed non-binding constraints as pertains to this issue [...]
What the hell??? What are they saying here...that "ENDS" pose a threat to the financial interests of BP and BT?
Right...so not a health hazard, but the financial risk to BP and BT are too great? After all, it's all about corporate health, not public health!
Good gawd!
This Scientific Recommendation addresses electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) designed for nicotine delivery to the respiratory system. [...]
This recommendation is being made because ENDS pose significant public health issues far less worrisome than tobacco cigarette consumption and raise questions for tobacco taxation and price elasticity of demand given an increased degree of substitutability. Manufacturers have not fully disclosed the chemicals used in ENDS, whereas an approximation of 4,000 chemicals are well documented in cigarettes; there are few data on their emissions or actual human exposure besides 5 years of consumer experience without incidence; their health effects have not been studied in a manner which promotes the financial interests of internationally important fiscal entities i.e. pharmaceutical and tobacco interests; and their marketing and use could undermine public smoking bans (albeit ENDS do not produce products of combustion per se), which are important tobacco control interventions. The products could also undermine smoking cessation efforts by proposing unproven devices for smoking cessation in the place of products of proven efficacy in revenue stream generation. ENDS might also undermine the prevention of tobacco use because of their appearance and marketing as safe alternatives to tobacco products for nontobacco users, including children who would otherwise have opted for traditional, harmful tobacco delivery by commandeering said products from their progenitors. Budget constraints, lack of availability, and non-existence of marketing toward said groups should be assumed non-binding constraints as pertains to this issue [...]
What the hell??? What are they saying here...that "ENDS" pose a threat to the financial interests of BP and BT?
Right...so not a health hazard, but the financial risk to BP and BT are too great? After all, it's all about corporate health, not public health!
Good gawd!
I think you read Tarhelldan's edit on the original text....
he was just having some fun with it, but didn't make it exactly clear that it was a joke.
The quotes in the original post are from the original article.
Edited to Add:
Doh! That's what I get for taking too long to write a reply... looks like Tarhelldan beat me to it.
I thought having the original text quoted directly above would do the the trick...just goes to show...I shouldn't have assumed - makes an ... out of me with u having to see it.
Awwww, jeeezzzz....Well, I bet if they thought they could have got away with it, that's what they would have said LOLGood "editing" Dan
The products work so well that they could seriously undermine the profits of the companies that market products with proven failure rates of >90%.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
