Language policing in 'public health'

Much of academia is focused on policing the English language these days so it is not surprise to see the 'public health' lobby joining in. In the video below, Joanna Cohen, a wild-eyed woman from one of Mike Bloomberg's front groups, wants people to focus on "accuracy and consistency" when they talk about tobacco harm reduction.

She doesn't like people calling new products 'novel'. She doesn't like them being described as 'alternative' either, because it makes people think of 1990s rock bands, apparently. She doesn't like the term 'heat not burn' because "it suggests the product is safe", which is news to me. I expect she disapproves of the term 'tobacco harm reduction' too.

She especially doesn't like words that imply reduced harm because people might get the impression that they are safer than smoking and that would never do. 'Smokeless tobacco' is unacceptable for this reason, she reckons, and she doesn't like 'modified risk tobacco product' even though that is the FDA's legal term.

Ms Cohen, who has also written a piss poor article on the subject, wants people to simply use the words 'e-cigarettes' and 'heated tobacco products'. That's alright by me, but it would be nice if she and her pals in the American anti-smoking industry would meet us halfway and stop referring to e-cigarettes as "tobacco products". While they're at it, they could stop referring to an illness that has nothing to do with e-cigarettes as 'E-cigarette or Vaping use-Associated Lung Injury'.

Deal? 

 

PS. A messages at the end of the video notifies viewers that the tobacco control lobby reserves the right to change their terminology at any time.