Commentary

0
0
0
s2smodern

Mirosław Dworniczak | 17 November 2013

From time to time e-cigarettes appear in the media. Unfortunately, they are usually still presented in a bad light. The usual arguments are as follows: we do not know exactly what's inside an e-cigarette, they are as poisonous as „the real ones”, there's no research concerning e-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

Marcel Göertz | 10 November 2013

A couple of months ago, e-cigarette users from the Dutch speaking part of Belgium and the Netherlands joined hands and formed a group of activist vapers. Acvoda - Actie Comité voor Dampers (Action Committee for Vapers) - was born. While this seems a logical unison, the fact is that the current situation for Dutch e-cigarette users is completely different than the situation for the Belgian users.

0
0
0
s2smodern

Suzi Gage | 02 November 2013

The tobacco industry has been shown to mislead with its research, but is forcing it to become more hidden a better option? Last week, the BMJ announced that it was finally implementing a practice that it had been discussing since the mid 1990s. Research partly or fully funded by the tobacco industry will no longer be published in BMJ, BMJ Open, Thorax and Heart. 

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

Gerry Stimson | 13 October 2013

As the Telegraph put it, ‘The decision by MEPs to reject a European Commission proposal to treat electronic cigarettes as medicinal products was as sensible as it was unexpected’.

 

0
0
0
s2smodern

Konstantinos Farsalinos | 04 October 2013

I am sure everyone has heard the “magic number”: 60mg is the nicotine lethal dose in adults. Τhis is a very low level, which would categorize nicotine as one of the most toxic substances available. It is a very common and strong argument of the regulatory authorities and of several anti-smokers activists who support very strict regulation on e-cigarettes and criticize the high levels of nicotine present mostly in refillable liquid bottles.

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

Gerry Stimson | 29 September 2013

What were they thinking of at the European Commission when they proposed continuing with the ban on snus? The ban, and the proposal to control e-cigarettes as medicines, ranks as public health folly of the highest order.

 

0
0
0
s2smodern

Karl Lund | 24 September 2013

The extent and nature of the impact on public health of making snus available in new markets will depend on the relative risk of snus and smoking, and the relative uptake and use by smokers and non-smokers. Given a medical consensus that snus is approximately 90-99% less harmful than smoking, the overall effect from snus on public health will come down to the balance between its beneficial effect on smoking prevalence and its adverse effects on overall prevalence of tobacco use.