Menthol Also Global Issue

The status of adding menthol to tobacco is at question for more reasons than the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act’s giving limited authority to regulate tobacco to the FDA. Globally, Article 9 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control proposes regulating the contents of tobacco products to eliminate any additive that is not tobacco.

The Louisville Courier-Journal quotes the President of the Lexington-based Burley Tobacco Growers Cooperative Association, Roger Quarles as saying, “The ingredients themselves (in burley tobacco) are not harmful whatsoever.” Mr. Quarles may well have missed several decades of the science surrounding tobacco and health. The problem here is that the harshness of burley tobacco smoke practically requires some flavoring to make it palatable. At issue is the 200 million pounds of burley is produced in the U.S. each year, 3/4 of which is exported. Kentucky’s 2009 burley crop was worth $274 million.

We’ll see what influences both the FDA and the Senate more, lives saved globally or dollars for a few farmers in Kentucky.

That Minty Fresh Taste in the Bile of Political Manipulation

In 2009 the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act was passed with huge support from status quo public health groups and opposition from tobacco companies, with the exception of Philip Morris, and a minority of tobacco prevention advocates. These minority advocates, before any particulars, knew that historically any collaboration with the tobacco cartel had been in the end only beneficial to the industry. That conclusion is being affirmed daily.

Prohibition of tobacco marketing assertions that claimed FDA approval of tobacco products was quickly struck down by the courts, as were the black and white advertising limitations. Passage of the bill was momentarily held up because while eliminating fruit and candy flavors it did not prohibit menthol flavoring for tobacco. The argument was that after passage there would be the opportunity to eliminate menthol as one of many substances in tobacco that had been proven to be a harm. Well guess what? The guidelines that dictate how and what the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Board can recommend may well preclude the elimination of menthol because menthol, by itself is not harmful. This at least is one of the argument that the industry will take in opposing any change in regards to menthol.

There is little doubt that menthol in tobacco is a key in the initiation of nicotine addiction. It acts as an anesthetic cooling tobacco smoke and making tobacco more palatable. Eliminating menthol in tobacco could prevent many youth from ever starting to use tobacco and make quitting more possible for other untold millions. The enormity of the potential lives saved by restricting this additive is almost incomprehensible.

One of the basic premises this bill’s advocates took was that if we knew what was in tobacco products their harm could be evaluated and the industry forced to remove them. But now it seems this harm could well be evaluated independently of tobacco. Dr. Joel Nitzkin describes the situation in a Globalink post: “In other words -- the problem is not the "science" related to menthol -- but a bureaucratic standard operating procedure adopted by FDA on the basis of an overly constrictive interpretation of the legal authority granted to them under the new FDA tobacco law.”

75% of African American smokers smoke a “menthol” brand but virtually all tobacco has to some degree menthol as an additive. The African American Caucus held up passage of the Family Smoking and Tobacco Prevention Control Act’s limited authority to regulate tobacco over the issue of restricting menthol flavoring just as the bill had eliminated fruit and candy flavors. However, objections from Philip Morris prompted supporters to compromise with the assurance that menthol could be eliminated after the bill’s passage. This may not be the case at all.

The panel has until 2012 to make its recommendations concerning menthol. This issue, if nothing else, displays quite well the irony and inanity of asking the FDA to regulate an inherently unsafe product without the authority to regulate it out of existence.

Dismantling FDA Authority for Tobacco Begins

A Federal court in Kentucky overturned the first advertising regulations of the Philip Morris FDA bill this week. While leaving in aspects for larger health warnings and prohibiting event sponsorships, two key parts of the marketing restrictions were tossed. The bill had stipulated that only black and white advertising in mediums where children were likely to view would be allowed. This was thrown out as overly broad. You think?

Tobacco companies can continue to use their color graphics and imagery in advertising which are integral to branding and normalization of tobacco promotion.

Additionally, restricting tobacco company language claiming that FDA regulation made their product safer was tossed. This was one of the more telling and foolish parts of the bill. Detractors began much of their criticism of this legislation saying that industry marketing would take advantage of giving regulatory authority to the agency that supposedly guaranteed the health and safety of our food and drugs. In response, this ridiculous and obviously unconstitutional restriction was tacked onto the bill. “No you can’t claim that an FDA regulated cigarette is safer!” Apparently, yes you can. So why have we ruined the tenable integrity of the FDA anyway?

Philip Morris wrote this legislation. Other tobacco company lawyers cued up almost immediately to help dismantle the most potentially effective regulatory authority and thus far are successful. One can only imagine what the current Supreme Court will do for them as the suits creep upstream. What is not left to the imagination is that when all is said and done Philip Morris will have gotten almost everything it wanted without ever filing a brief.

harm reduction or criminal distraction

The recent acquisition of cessation products manufacturer Niconovum by Reynolds American International reveals much in the way prevention advocates should treat a harm reduction perspective and provide greater emphasis on challenging the rogue capitalists that market nicotine. Mr. Ezekwesiri Eluchie has quite astutely pointed out that the industry is once again setting the agenda within which tobacco control advocates find themselves.

The acquisition of Niconovum displays just how much harm reduction is of necessity product centered and by definition unconcerned w the corporations that profit from the spread of nicotine addiction. Harm reduction advocates do little more than collaborate with sophisticated marketing strategies that subtly shift the onus of addiction back to the user. Until advocates can unite in recognition that it is not merely tobacco, but the rogue capitalism practiced by nicotine profiteers we must challenge, they will continue to set the agenda.

As well this casts umbrage on those that profit from NRT and pharmacological solutions to nicotine addiction and unfortunately raises questions about funding from these companies for tobacco control. Given how woefully and comparably underfunded advocates are I have no immediate solution. But Mr. Eluchie’s suggestion that we fully acknowledge the magnitude of death and disease from tobacco as simply criminal seems a very good place to start.

Gambling Addiction

Oregon Lottery addicted to big losses of gambling addicts

"Addictions," says Joseph Frascella, director of the division of clinical neuroscience at the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), "are repetitive behaviors in the face of negative consequences, the desire to continue something you know is bad for you."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1640436,00.html

It is intriguing that researchers have actually found that gambling excites the same dopamine activity that other behaviors, or substances, do in the brain. MRI work at Cal Tech in 2006 surprised a lot of folks and of course the DSM IV has criteria distinguishing gambling addiction. The point is that there are actual physiological differences between an addiction and a habit, like how you like your eggs, etc.

Now what interests me is of course related to nicotine addiction and genetics. Ever wonder why some people find it easy to quit smoking and some go to their grave clutching a fag? Well an important part of that is how the body metabolizes nicotine in the liver and that enzyme is inherited.

I don’t really have a dog in this hunt but, if problem gambling is inherited and the government is exploiting that genetic makeup to fund the bulk of whatever it is they fund w a lottery, an ethical quandary comes into play. It seems analogous to taxing redheads for no other reason than the color of their hair. This is one reason the article interested me.

A fellow at UAMS, Warren Bickel just got a couple of million $ from NIH I believe to study what he’s calling behavioral economics and meth addiction. I heard him speak a few years ago and the short of it is that addicts don’t have the same concept of long term and short term rewards. You and i may contribute to an IRA for long term goals but an addict my think of a long term goals as scoring tomorrow’s fix today. That’s over simplified but not much. ( This comes into play w nicotine addiction and children. Kids just do not recognize long term health benefits. We were all immortal once.)

Anyway, that’s a little bit about the difference and similarity between being unable to stop smoking, or feeding the ponies at the race track, and how you like your eggs.

CTFA thanks benefactors

Handsel Art

28 June 2009

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

contact J.R. Few

handselart@marioncounty.com

or 870-427-1365

Tobacco Prevention Advocates Thanked

Local advocates from around the state joined in attending the first annual Coalition for a Tobacco Free Arkansas’ Benefactors Luncheon at the UAMS Fay Boozman College of Public Health June 26.  Styled as an opportunity to thank individuals who aided CTFA’s mission to promote a tobacco free state, the audience was welcomed by Board Chair Carla Sparks and Executive Director Katherine Donald expressing gratitude for services provided in the past and thanks in advance for the future.

Ms. Idonia Trotter (pictured) made her first appearance as  Executive Director of Arkansas’ Minority Health Commission sharing her experiences working with CTFA and the willingness of the Coalition to place a tobacco free mission ahead of taking credit for success.  Ms. Trotter was the first concurrent Clinton School of Public Service  and Bowen School of Law graduate in May.

Local advocate and CTFA partner J.R. Few spoke about the importance of CTFA’s status as the only coalition in the state that specifically challenges the tobacco industry. 

“Other public health groups may, out of necessity, focus on illness caused by tobacco but they have their own agenda, unfortunately often shaped by their national offices. CTFA’s goals are unique to Arkansas,“ he said.

Individuals interested in tobacco prevention in Arkansas can contact CTFA at 501- 687-0345 or visit www.arfreshair.com.

###