Clive Bates

0
0
0
s2smodern

Clive Bates | 29 December 2016

Sometimes we find ourselves talking at cross-purposes about vaping. Why? Consider three perspectives.

First, a health professional asks: “how should vaping be understood and used (or not) to reduce the adverse health effects of smoking?”

0
0
0
s2smodern

Clive Bates | 14 September 2014

A new paper is published today: WHO position on ENDS: a critique of the use of science and communication of risk (PDF) written and researched by Clive Bates at Counterfactual
 
We have grown accustomed to WHO and the FCTC Secretariat taking a negative approach to tobacco harm reduction - seeing only risks and threats, and little of the real world potential, while covertly planning an offensive against e-cigarettes through the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Yet the evidence is steadily moving against that position, leaving WHO looking more extreme, unscientific and ideologically motivated as the data accumulates.
 

0
0
0
s2smodern

Clive Bates | 20 December 2013

As the final negotiation over e-cigarettes in the tobacco products directive drew to a close. a nameless ‘senior diplomat involved in the negotiations’ was quoted in The Guardian. They were talking about e-cigarettes:It’s inhaled. It’s direct inhalation of nicotine into the lungs. That creates an addiction very fast… I t encourages a switch to real cigarettes.”

0
0
0
s2smodern

Clive Bates | 17 November 2013

The investment analysts are always interesting on tobacco and e-cigs, and in a usefully dispassionate ‘follow-the-money’ kind of way.

Here’s a small collection of quotes I’ve seen in recent analyst reports mainly as they relate to regulation of e-cigarettes. I don’t see all reports of course so this is necessarily selective.

0
0
0
s2smodern

Clive Bates | 16 October 2013

On 8th October in Strasbourg, the European Parliament voted on a raft of measures to regulate tobacco and nicotine products. The headlines were the following [also see Telegraph summary]:

  • a ban on menthol and other flavoured cigarettes from 2022
  • warnings covering 65% of packs (30% now – campaigners are pushing for 75% and the right to go further)
  • a ban on selling cigarettes in packs of less than 20
  • no ban on ‘slim’ cigarettes
  • a ban on most additives in tobacco products
  • a continuation of the ban on snus outside Sweden in the face of all evidence.

0
0
0
s2smodern

Clive Bates | 03 October 2013

The amendment number 170 on e-cigarettes [ here] is now published and ready for consideration by the European Parliament on 8 October. As this was circulating on Monday 30th Sept, I wrote with comments and advice to the MEPs negotiating the amendment. Given they ignored most of it (!) that, these comments and the advice can now be read as concerns and criticisms. 

0
0
0
s2smodern

Clive Bates | 5 September 2013

Today 5th September, the leaders of the main political group in the European Parliament, (a group known as the Conference of Presidents) will meet to decide on the timing of debate and vote on the tobacco products directive. The proposed text for debate, amendment and vote was only published on Friday 30 Aug and not in most languages. The deadline for amendments was on Wednesday 4th Sept.

0
0
0
s2smodern

 Clive Bates | 31 August 2013

We are approaching make or break time of the revision of the Tobacco Products Directive – the ‘first reading’ of the proposal is coming up. Here’s my take on the process.

What is the overall process? The TPD is following the ‘ Ordinary Legislative Procedure‘.

0
0
0
s2smodern

 Clive Bates | 26 August 2013

Not content with one humiliating climbdown this year (see its apology) , the Mail seems determined to press on for another with the ludicrous article above on 26 August. I complained to the Press Complaints Commission about the one in January (see full details here) and have just complained about this one.

0
0
0
s2smodern

 Clive Bates | 12 August 2013

I have written to the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee to follow up on the appearance of the Minister for Public Health (see: Write to Anna Soubry about e-cigarettes for my take on this). The aim of this is not to press the procedural points (they’re onto that!), but to argue that in this case scrutiny must be more than a formality. The directive is so poor (see ‘gargantuan dog’s breakfast‘ and ‘ negligent tobacco policy‘) that it is essential that the government’s uncritical support for it is properly challenged in Westminster, with a view to significantly improving it or starting again in 2014.