Monthly Archives: July 2015

WHO disregards vital evidence and protects cigarettes, why?

Le Penseur

Statement from specialists in nicotine science and public health policy

Dr Margaret Chan
Director General
World Health Organisation Geneva

CC: FCTC Secretariat, Parties to the FCTC, WHO Regional Offices

Dear Dr Chan

26 May 2014

Reducing the toll of death and disease from tobacco – tobacco harm reduction and the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC)

We are writing in advance of important negotiations on tobacco policy later in the year at the FCTC Sixth Conference of the Parties. The work of WHO and the FCTC remains vital in reducing the intolerable toll of cancer, cardiovascular disease and respiratory illnesses caused by tobacco use. As WHO has stated, up to one billion preventable tobacco-­‐related premature deaths are possible in the 21st Century. Such a toll of death, disease and misery demands that we are relentless in our search for all possible practical, ethical and lawful ways to reduce this burden.

It is with concern therefore that a critical strategy appears to have been overlooked or even purposefully marginalised in preparations for FCTC COP-­‐6. We refer to ‘tobacco harm reduction’ -­‐ the idea that the 1.3 billion people who currently smoke could do much less harm to their health if they consumed nicotine in low-­‐risk, non-­‐combustible form.

We have known for years that people ‘smoke for the nicotine, but die from the smoke’: the vast majority of the death and disease attributable to tobacco arises from inhalation of tar particles and toxic gases drawn into the lungs. There are now rapid developments in nicotine-­‐based products that can effectively substitute for cigarettes but with very low risks. These include for example, e-­‐cigarettes and other vapour products, low-­‐nitrosamine smokeless tobacco such as snus, and other low-­‐risk non-­‐combustible nicotine or tobacco products that may become viable alternatives to smoking in the future. Taken together, these tobacco harm reduction products could play a significant role in meeting the 2025 UN non-­‐ communicable disease (NCD) objectives by driving down smoking prevalence and cigarette consumption. Indeed, it is hard to imagine major reductions in tobacco-­‐related NCDs without the contribution of tobacco harm reduction. Even though most of us would prefer people to quit smoking and using nicotine altogether, experience suggests that many smokers cannot or choose not to give up nicotine and will continue to smoke if there is no safer alternative available that is acceptable to them.

We respectfully suggest that the following principles should underpin the public health approach to tobacco harm reduction, with global leadership from WHO:

  1. Tobacco harm reduction is part of the solution, not part of the problem. It could make a significant contribution to reducing the global burden of non-­‐communicable diseases caused by smoking, and do so much faster than conventional strategies. If regulators treat low-­‐risk nicotine products as traditional tobacco products and seek to reduce their use without recognising their potential as low-­‐risk alternatives to smoking, they are improperly defining them as part of the problem.
  2. Tobacco harm reduction policies should be evidence-­‐based and proportionate to risk, and give due weight to the significant reductions in risk that are achieved when a smoker switches to a low risk nicotine product. Regulation should be proportionate and balanced to exploit the considerable health opportunities, while managing residual risks. The architecture of the FCTC is not currently well suited to this purpose.
  3. On a precautionary basis, regulators should avoid support for measures that could have the perverse effect of prolonging cigarette consumption. Policies that are excessively restrictive or burdensome on lower risk products can have the unintended consequence of protecting cigarettes from competition from less hazardous alternatives, and cause harm as a result. Every policy related to low risk, non-­‐combustible nicotine products should be assessed for this risk.
  4. Targets and indicators for reduction of tobacco consumption should be aligned with the ultimate goal of reducing disease and premature death, not nicotine use per se, and therefore focus primarily on reducing smoking. In designing targets for the non-­‐ communicable disease (NCD) framework or emerging Sustainable Development Goals it would be counterproductive and potentially harmful to include reduction of low-­‐risk nicotine products, such as e-­‐cigarettes, within these targets: instead these products should have an important role in meeting the targets.
  5. Tobacco harm reduction is strongly consistent with good public health policy and practice and it would be unethical and harmful to inhibit the option to switch to tobacco harm reduction products. As the WHO’s Ottawa Charter states: “Health promotion is the process of enabling people to increase control over, and to improve, their health”. Tobacco harm reduction allows people to control the risk associated with taking nicotine and to reduce it down to very low or negligible levels.
  6. It is counterproductive to ban the advertising of e-­‐cigarettes and other low risk alternatives to smoking. The case for banning tobacco advertising rests on the great harm that smoking causes, but no such argument applies to e-­‐cigarettes, for example, which are far more likely to reduce harm by reducing smoking. Controls on advertising to non-­‐ smokers, and particularly to young people are certainly justified, but a total ban would have many negative effects, including protection of the cigarette market and implicit support for tobacco companies. It is possible to target advertising at existing smokers where the benefits are potentially huge and the risks minimal. It is inappropriate to apply Article 13 of the FCTC (Tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship) to these products.
  1. It is inappropriate to apply legislation designed to protect bystanders or workers from tobacco smoke to vapour products. There is no evidence at present of material risk to health from vapour emitted from e-­‐cigarettes. Decisions on whether it is permitted or banned in a particular space should rest with the owners or operators of public spaces, who can take a wide range of factors into account. Article 8 of the FCTC (Protection from exposure to tobacco smoke) should not be applied to these products at this time.
  2. The tax regime for nicotine products should reflect risk and be organised to create incentives for users to switch from smoking to low risk harm reduction products. Excessive taxation of low risk products relative to combustible tobacco deters smokers from switching and will cause more smoking and harm than there otherwise would be.
  3. WHO and national governments should take a dispassionate view of scientific arguments, and not accept or promote flawed media or activist misinterpretations of data. For example, much has been made of ‘gateway effects’, in which use of low-­‐risk products would, it is claimed, lead to use of high-­‐risk smoked products. We are unaware of any credible evidence that supports this conjecture. Indeed, similar arguments have been made about the use of smokeless tobacco in Scandinavia but the evidence is now clear that this product has made a significant contribution to reducing both smoking rates and tobacco-­‐related disease, particularly among males.
  4. WHO and parties to the FCTC need credible objective scientific and policy assessments with an international perspective. The WHO Study Group on Tobacco Product Regulation (TobReg) produced a series of high quality expert reports between 2005 and 2010. This committee should be constituted with world-­‐class experts and tasked to provide further high-­‐grade independent advice to the WHO and Parties on the issues raised above.

The potential for tobacco harm reduction products to reduce the burden of smoking related disease is very large, and these products could be among the most significant health innovations of the 21st Century – perhaps saving hundreds of millions of lives. The urge to control and suppress them as tobacco products should be resisted and instead regulation that is fit for purpose and designed to realise the potential should be championed by WHO. We are deeply concerned that the classification of these products as tobacco and their inclusion in the FCTC will do more harm than good, and obstruct efforts to meet the targets to reduce non-­‐communicable disease we are all committed to. We hope that under your leadership, the WHO and FCTC will be in the vanguard of science-­‐based, effective and ethical tobacco policy, embracing tobacco harm reduction.

We would be grateful for your considered reaction to these proposals, and we would like to request a meeting with you and relevant staff and a small delegation of signatories to this letter. This statement and any related information will be available on the Nicotine Science and Policy web site ( from 29 May 2014.

Yours sincerely,

Professor David Abrams

Professor of Health Behavior and Society. The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Maryland. USA.
Professor of Oncology (adjunct). Georgetown University Medical Center, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center. Washington DC.

United States of America

Professor Tony Axéll

Emeritus Professor Geriatric Dentistry Consultant in Oral Medicine

Professor Pierre Bartsch

Respiratory physician, Faculty of Medicine University of Liège Belgium

Professor Linda Bauld

Professor of Health Policy
Director of the Institute for Social Marketing Deputy Director, UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies
University of Stirling
United Kingdom

Professor Ron Borland

Nigel Gray Distinguished Fellow in Cancer Prevention at Cancer Council Victoria Professorial Fellow School of Population Health and Department of Information Systems

University of Melbourne, Australia

Professor John Britton

Professor of Epidemiology;
Director, UK Centre for Tobacco & Alcohol Studies,
Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences University of Nottingham,
United Kingdom

Associate Professor Chris Bullen

Director, National Institute for Health Innovation
School of Population Health, University of Auckland,

New Zealand

Professor Emeritus André Castonguay

Faculty of Pharmacy Université Laval, Quebec,

Dr Lynne Dawkins

Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Co-ordinator: Drugs and Addictive Behaviours Research Group School of Psychology,

University of East London, United Kingdom

Professor Ernest Drucker

Professor Emeritus
Department of Family and Social Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Mailman School of Public Health
Columbia University
United States of America

Professor Jean François Etter

Associate Professor Institut de santé globale, Faculté de médecine, Université de Genève, Switzerland

Dr Karl Fagerström

President, Fagerström Consulting AB, Vaxholm,

Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos

Researcher, Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center, Athens, Greece
Researcher, University Hospital Gathuisberg, Leuven,


Professor Antoine Flahault

Directeur de l’Institut de Santé Globale Faculté de Médecine, Université de Genève, Suisse/ Institute of Global Health, University of Geneva, Switzerland Professor of Public Health at the Faculté de Médecine, Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité,


Dr Coral Gartner

Senior Research Fellow
University of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research
The University of Queensland, Australia

Dr Guillermo González

Comisión de Rehabilitación en Enfermedad Mental Grave
Clínica San Miguel

Dr Nigel Gray

Member of Special Advisory Committee on Tobacco Regulation of the World Health Organization
Honorary Senior Associate

Cancer Council Victoria Australia

Professor Peter Hajek

Professor of Clinical Psychology and Director, Health and Lifestyle Research Unit
UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies

Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry Queen Mary University of London,

United Kingdom

Professor Wayne Hall

Director and Inaugural Chair, Centre for Youth Substance Abuse Research University of Queensland

Professor John Hughes

Professor of Psychology, Psychiatry and Family Practice
University of Vermont
United States of America

Professor Martin Jarvis

Emeritus Professor of Health Psychology Department of Epidemiology & Public Health
University College London,

United Kingdom

Professor Didier Jayle

Professeur d’addictologie
Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers Paris,

Dr Martin Juneau

Directeur, Direction de la Prévention Institut de Cardiologie de Montréal Professeur Titulaire de Clinique Faculté de Médecine,

Université de Montréal, Canada

Dr Michel Kazatchkine

Member of the Global Commission on Drug Policy
Senior fellow, Global Health Program, Graduate institute, Geneva,


Professor Demetrios Kouretas

School of Health Sciences and Vice Rector University of Thessaly,

Professor Lynn Kozlowski

Dean, School of Public Health and Health Professions,
Professor of Community Health and Health Behavior,

University at Buffalo,
State University of New York, United States of America

Professor Eva Králíková

Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology Centre for Tobacco-Dependence
First Faculty of Medicine
Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague,

Czech Republic

Professor Michael Kunze

Head of the Institute for Social Medicine Medical University of Vienna,

Dr Murray Laugesen

Health New Zealand, Lyttelton, Christchurch,
New Zealand

Dr Jacques Le Houezec

Consultant in Public Health, Tobacco dependence, Rennes,
Honorary Lecturer, UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies,

University of Nottingham, United Kingdom

Dr Kgosi Letlape

President of the Africa Medical Association Former President of the World Medical Association
Former Chairman of Council of the South African Medical Association

South Africa

Dr Karl Erik Lund

Research director
Norwegian Institute for Alcohol and Drug Research,

Dr Gérard Mathern

Président de l’Institut Rhône-Alpes de Tabacologie

Professor Richard Mattick

NHMRC Principal Research Fellow Immediate Past Director NDARC (2001- 2009)
National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC)

Faculty of Medicine
The University of New South Wales, Australia

Professor Ann McNeill

Professor of Tobacco Addiction
Deputy Director, UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies
National Addiction Centre
Institute of Psychiatry
King’s College London,
United Kingdom

Dr Hayden McRobbie

Reader in Public Health Interventions, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom

Dr Anders Milton

Former President of the Swedish Red Cross
Former President and Secretary of the Swedish Medical Association

Former Chairman of the World Medical Association
Owner & Principal Milton Consulting, Sweden

Professor Marcus Munafò

Professor of Biological Psychology
MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol
UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies
School of Experimental Psychology University of Bristol,
United Kingdom

Professor David Nutt

Chair of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs (UK) Edmund J Safra Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology

Head of the Department of Neuropsychopharmacology and Molecular Imaging
Imperial College London,
United Kingdom

Dr Gaston Ostiguy

Professeur agrégé
Directeur de la Clinique de cessation tabagique
Centre universitaire de santé McGill (CUSM)
Institut thoracique de Montréal, Canada

Professor Riccardo Polosa

Director of the Institute for Internal Medicine and Clinical Immunology, University of Catania, Italy.

Dr Lars Ramström

Institute for Tobacco Studies Täby,

Dr Martin Raw

Special Lecturer
UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies
Division of Epidemiology and Public Health University of Nottingham,
United Kingdom

Professor Andrzej Sobczak

Department of General and Inorganic Chemistry,
Faculty of Pharmacy and Laboratory Medicine,

Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland
Institute of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health

Sosnowiec, Poland

Professor Gerry Stimson

Emeritus Professor, Imperial College London;
Visiting Professor, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine United Kingdom

Professor Tim Stockwell

Director, Centre for Addictions Research of BC
Professor, Department of Psychology University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Professor David Sweanor

Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa
Special Lecturer, Division of Epidemiology and Public Health,

University of Nottingham, United Kingdom

Professor Umberto Tirelli

Director Department of Medical Oncology National Cancer Institute of Aviano

Professor Umberto Veronesi

Scientific Director
IEO Istituto Europeo di Oncologia Former Minister of Health,

Professor Kenneth Warner

Avedis Donabedian Distinguished University Professor of Public Health Professor, Health Management & Policy School of Public Health

University of Michigan United States of America

Professor Robert West

Professor of Health Psychology and Director of Tobacco Studies
Health Behaviour Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology & Public Health,

University College London United Kingdom

Professor Dan Xiao

Director of Department Epidemiology WHO Collaborating Center for Tobacco or Health
Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital,

Dr Derek Yach

Former Executive Director, Non- Communicable Diseases
Former Head of Tobacco Free Initiative, World Health Organisation (1995-2004) Senior Vice President Vitality Group plc Director, Vitality Institute for Health Promotion

United States of America

Sweden has helped throw millions of Indians under bus

Le Penseur

Jul 16, 2015

Actually the situation is far worse than the picture painted below by Dr Farsalinos. Pray, carry on dear reader, and I will explain:

Health NGO’s and the WHO lobbied heavily in India, citing terribly erroneous and completely unfounded “claims” from Sweden on “snus” to get all historical, current and future types of smokeless tobacco blanket banned across India. This also includes banning even the theoretical possibility of Indian Smokeless users switching to a product like Swedish “snus” for nicotine, with virtually no health risk at all.

Of course no one in Swedish “Tobacco Control” disagreed as banning smokeless is very high on the Swedish agenda for the international community, and to hell with the consequences! We generally avoid mentioning that half of all tobacco used in Sweden is “snus” and statistically causes precisely 0% of tobacco related disease in Sweden. This is due to the very simple and demonstrable fact that “Snus” has health risks so low that any residual risk simply cannot be differentiated from not using tobacco/nicotine at all.

This was very bad news for Indian consumers of smokeless formulations of course, but it also was very bad news for smokers and for tax revenue. 155 million or so smokers in India are now barred from choosing virtually harmless smokeless tobacco (not gutka/paan/masala and others, they are quite dangerous) like snus to replace their lethal smoking habit, if they can’t or won’t quit entirely. The last option is of course always the best by light-years, but is only an attractive option for a minority.

This trend has been incredibly successful and over 200 million Indians are now faced with three choices for their nicotine: Quit, start smoking, or buy from the black market. Electronic cigarettes (vaping) is only a viable option for the middle class and up, who can afford them, but India is doing the best she can to ban this also as you can read below.

That will leave only cigarettes and bidis as commercially available nicotine products in a country with well over 300 million tobacco users. Lovely!

The action with smokeless blanket bans in India has been hugely successful! Unparalleled even! It has been so incredibly successful that local governments are now being forced to drastically lower sales taxes on cigarettes to increase sales and replace the tax revenue lost from banning smokeless products.

Is that not wonderfully fantastic? Thank you Sweden for helping India solve her tobacco problem in such a decisive, goal oriented and rational way.

Anti-tobacco activists in India supporting a ban on e-cigarettes: a position endangering public health

By Dr Farsalinos

Some surprising statements from Indian anti-tobacco activists were published few days ago in local media. One of them, dean of a local Dental College, called e-cigarettes “the evil twin of cigarettes” and said that “Banning e-cigarettes at this stage is like nipping an evil in the bud”. Another one, director of a Public Health Institute said: “E-cigarettes, despite containing liquid nicotine, were being promoted as harmless and non-addictive. However, laboratory analysis proved all these claims to be wrong. They show that users of e-cigarettes were also exposed to carcinogenic chemicals”.

If this is the stance and position of scientists who are fighting the smoking epidemic, imagine the level of misinformation in the general public. India is a country where smoking and harmful tobacco use is thriving. The WHO GATS study found that 34.6% of adults use some form of tobacco, while about 1 million Indians die annually from smoking-associated disease (2010 data). For countries with high prevalence of smoking and harmful smokeless tobacco use (unfortunately snus is virtually non-existent in India), e-cigarettes should be considered a golden opportunity to reduce harm in a cost-effective manner. Instead of seeing public health authorities and the scientific community welcoming e-cigarettes and encouraging their use by properly educating consumers, we observe a campaign of misinformation and demonization of nicotine, ignoring that the basic purpose of public health is to reduce disease and death. The focus on nicotine is misleading because in reality none has ever died from nicotine dependence; disease and death is associated with the vehicle used to deliver nicotine. E-cigarettes are currently the strongest competitors of tobacco, and it is hard to understand why anti-tobacco activists are supporting a product used to substitute (i.e. reduce) smoking.

Furthermore, such statements represent an indirect endorsement of tobacco cigarettes. In fact, it is a paradox to strongly support bans on e-cigarettes while at the same time tobacco cigarettes are available everywhere. Providing a competitive advantage to tobacco cigarettes in terms of availability and accessibility is in direct opposition to the true purpose and goals of these activists. Perhaps they do not see it, but they end up supporting tobacco cigarettes and other harmful forms of tobacco; this is the definition of public health harm.

I urge public health officials and anti-tobacco activists to become open-minded, be informed on the true aspects of e-cigarette use and potential to serve as a harm reduction product and provide proper and reliable education to the society concerning these products. This is a historic opportunity for countries like India to significantly reduce the burden of smoking-related morbidity and mortality. It would be a fatal mistake (literally) to miss this opportunity.

Note. Prof Michael Siegel has also written an interesting comment about this story in his blog.

An american insurer dares say what the entire country of Sweden has denied for 40 years, on Snus!

Dear All, I hope you are enjoying the summer of 2015,

It is not without a significant amount of pleasure and consternation that I present the below image, taken from a US health insurer with about as many customers as The Kingdom of Sweden has citizens.

Kaiser permanente 10 million people

The Kingdom of Sweden is the home of snus. Snus in Sweden has a 50% market share which in turn generates less than a <1% share of “Tobacco Related Disease” found in Sweden, which amazingly totals about 50% lower than any other country without snus. This number is per capita of tobacco users and means that if you smoke, you get sick; if you use snus, you don’t. This is very simple and straightforward mathematics that most grade school children can perform without a calculator. Still the combined efforts of WHO, CDC, FDA, NIH and the entire EU cannot seem to figure this out, or they just don’t want to.

The USA, with it’s well earned pathological fear of getting sued out of existence, has nurtured a culture not very prone to make unfounded health claims. This is to my thinking therefore pretty unique and also sets an important precedent for the future. Quite possibly this is a result of the company being in a non-profit format, rather than a for profit enterprise, or even worse, a government enterprise that is overly influenced by ideology and policy,

Maybe, just maybe, the company in question is in the unique position to just tell the truth as best as they know how, and in the genuine interest of their customers and themselves.

If so then that is absolutely fantastic, and I take of my hat to them.

Kaiser permanente 10 million people

How then, pray tell, do we globally foster and nurture the spread of this “corporate” culture on the very touchy topics of smoking, tobacco, nicotine, additives, production methods etc. and their respective level of health impact?

Oh, last but definitely not least I cannot enough stress the gravity of the below inconsistenc:

How the HELL is it even possible in 2015, that an entire country denies the benefits of a tobacco product that accounts for 50% of usage in said country with pretty much 0 detectable serious health problems, when a US health insurer is so comfortable with saying precisely that, knowing that they run the very real risk of getting sued if they are wrong? How is that even possible?

Enjoy your Summer!