 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
| Chemical differences between nicotine delivering products |
|
| Session |
Harm Reduction-I: Does smokeless tobacco qualify?
|
| Date |
Monday, 9th March
|
| Author(s) |
Gregory N Connolly
|
Abstract Body |
|
This presentation will review the toxins and addictive properties of SLT products sold throughout the world. Products sold in the U.S. will be reviewed as well as the public health implications of U.S. cigarette industry acquiring the U.S. smokeless market and how products have been changed. More recently, IARC concluded SLT (regardless of type) causes oral and pancreatic cancer and the European SCENIHR Committee drew a similar conclusion and also found insufficient evidence the SLT aided in cessation, is addictive and questioned whether snus had any impact on the decline in male smoking in Sweden.
Based on the large number of SLT users in South Asia, high toxins and the high levels of disease, these products do not qualify as reduced harm agents. Traditional U.S. snuff is also associated with cancer and other oral health problems, has high levels of TSNAs, is highly popular with teens and implicated as a gateway substance to smoking. Based on these factors, it is highly questionable if traditional U.S. snuff qualifies as a reduced harm agent particularly at the population level. Swedish and U.S. snus will reduce individual risk if smokers completely switch from smoking and use the products as cession aids. However, cigarette manufacturers in the U.S. are clearly promoting snus as a temporary substitute for smoking in settings where one cannot smoke possibly contributing to dual use. This marketing message is being repeated in other countries. States in the U.S. with no history of SLT use and comprehensive tobacco control programs (California and Massachusetts) have lower male smoking rates than Sweden, a nation that is often highlighted to support SLT as a reduced harm agent and comprises only .2% of the world’s smokeless users.
SLT should not qualify as a reduced harm agent until epidemiological, clinical and population data show it actually reduces harm. Otherwise, qualifying SLT as reduced harm agent may encourage the cigarette industry to introduce products that increase youth tobacco use, promote dual use, drive the pharmaceutical industry out of the cessation market and send the wrong message to hundreds of millions of SLT users in developing countries. In the current climate, WHO and member states have an obligation to treat all tobacco products similarly under the FCTC.
|
|
| |
|
|
|