The video of the recent IEA panel discussion on e-cigarettes, snus, harm reduction and the Tobacco Products Directive is now online. Featuring Clive Bates, Rebecca Taylor MEP, Axel Klein, Katherine Devlin, Mark Littlewood and myself.
Watch it here.
This discussion came about as a result of a paper I wrote about e-cigarettes, snus and the alternative nicotine industry. It's full of little known facts and it's free to download, so please do so by clicking here.
As I understand it, you say it that video "the industry has failed to create a safer cigarette".
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think of these:
"Favor" Smoke Free Cigarettes (1986)
* http://archive.org/details/tobacco_itn23e00
* http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lsl80a99/pdf?search=%22nicotine%20vaping%22
* http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/guildford/pdf/059/00006023.pdf
"Premier" (1988)
* http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/yle27a00/pdf?search=%22cleaner%20but%20is%20it%20any%20safer%22
* http://archive.org/details/tobacco_ohq03d00
* http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/pnb44d00/pdf?search=%22ohne%20brandgefahr%22
Eclipse ("Hi.Q" in Germany)(1996)
* http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hrq00j00/pdf?search=%22eclipse%20fda%22
* http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/cbe01j00
* http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/yqi01j00/pdf?search=%22eclipse%20fda%22
* http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gqe01j00
* http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gcg50d00/pdf?search=%22eclipse%20fagerstrom%
* http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zik38c00/pdf?search=%22premier%20germany%20quit%22
* http://tobaccodocuments.org/rjr/517559438-9982.pdf
* http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/beg51f00/pdf?search=%22chemical%20biological%20studies%20on%20new%20cigarette%20prototypes%22
All three were planned as a replacement for tobacco cigarettes - but were not allowed on the market because "they are not safe." (all three had proven to be significantly less pollutants).
Have a closer look at "517559438-9982.pdf" (1988) !
I see your point Rursus. I believe however that Chris was also correct. The Tobacco Industry did fail, because they are the tobacco industry. Chris covers the 'safer cigarette' which was to be released onto the American market by Philip Morris I seem to remember, in his book Velvet Glove Iron Fist. Then of course there are the name brands which contained NSM, New Smoking Material. This was a non toxic replacement of about 50% of the tobacco. These were released onto the British market in 1979. After six months, they disappeared overnight with no concrete explanation.
ReplyDeleteRursus,
ReplyDeleteI'm familiar with the industry's attempts to create a safer cigarette and wrote about them at some length in Velvet Glove, Iron Fist and (at greater length) in Free Market Solutions in Health which you can read for free here.
Ok, I've understood it.
ReplyDeleteYou mean that the industry has failed to bring it to the market and not that they've not tried it. ;)
The anti-smoking lobby is what got in the way of the development and marketing of the (in any form) safer cigarette. For example, when RJR first came out with the Eclipse brand, the anti-smokers did everything within their power to bury it. It does still exist in some retail stores in various markets; it's just that no one knows about it (or about how it differs from other cigarettes), so it just sits there on the shelf next to all of the combustibles. Why no one ever talks about this in the world of THR baffles me.
ReplyDeleteI suppose that the answer, jred, is that the promotion of tobacco is forbidden, so how can the makers of, say,Eclipse, advertise its 'safer' qualities? Even where tobacco advertising is not banned, think about the danger of legal action. How difficult would it be for an epidemiological study to be produced to order showing that Eclipse makes no difference (in the sense that the 'no safe level' toxins are still there.
ReplyDeleteChris,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link to your latest report on THR.
It is interesting that the ACS argued against the Eclipse using the claim that it may be more hazardous than other ultra-low tar cigarettes.
I have come across this claim before and I find it to be quite interesting. If my memory serves me correct, there were/are two brands in existence that they compared the Eclipse to: the Now brand and the Carlton brand.
First of all, hardly anyone smokes these brands (save for a few smokers like myself). Hence, most smokers smoke cigarettes with a higher tar content.
Wouldn't it indeed be safe to assume that-although the Eclipse may be in fact slightly more hazardous than the two brands mentioned above-the Eclipse is less hazardous than the majority of brands that the majority of smokers smoke?
Furthermore, in comparing the Eclipse to the Now and Carlton brands, the ACS is inadvertently admitting that there is a difference with regards to risk amongst the various brands that are already on the market. This, of course, is in direct opposition to what they have been telling us smokers for the last few decades.
Junican,
ReplyDelete"I suppose that the answer, jred, is that the promotion of tobacco is forbidden, so how can the makers of, say,Eclipse, advertise its 'safer' qualities?"
They can't advertise that one tobacco product is riskier-or less-than the next, even if if what they are attempting to state is based on scientific fact(s). People have died as a result. Who's evil now?
Most of the anti tobacco industry are never smokers, they know absolutely nothing about being a consumer of the product. Take hand rolling tobacco for example. Those cigarette smokers who have persevered with this know, as a consumer, that the possible ill effects of a good smoke, eg thick chest and cough, are practically eliminated. However, the anti smoker says that it is all exactly the same.
ReplyDelete