Smokeless Tobacco
Smokeless Tobacco
Google Group: Smokeless Tobacco / Risk Reduction.
Blow for Swedish tobacco producers.
The EU Court will form its final verdict later this year or early in 2005.
Give Facts A Chance
By Brad Rodu. A growing body of scientific evidence shows that smokeless tobacco products are significantly safer than smoking. But the anti-tobacco movement does not want the public to know about this safer tobacco alternative.
Shoots from the Grassroot Institute
By Stephanie Ghilarducci. Not allowing factual medical research to be advertised to the American people is a slap at the freedoms we cherish. Consumers must be allowed to have all the data available to make informed choices for themselves regardless of the current politically correct view.
National Institute on Aging
Forced to Re-Examine Policy on Smokeless Tobacco Products. Research by Britain's Royal College of Physicians indicates that smokeless tobacco products are 10 to 1,000 times less hazardous than smoking, depending on the exact products compared.
Weighted Scales
By Ken Boehm
Published June 29, 2004
There's an old saying that "politics makes strange bedfellows." Just about anybody who knows politics will tell you there is much truth to be found in this phrase.
Perhaps no stranger combination of bedfellows in political discourse has ever come together than one now at work in Washington. To the surprise of many observers, the nation's largest tobacco company, Philip Morris, has joined forces with a number of anti-tobacco groups to push for regulation of tobacco.
Yes, you read that correctly. The company that makes more cigarettes than any other in America is working closely with organizations such as the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society and others to advance legislation in Congress that would direct the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate all tobacco products.
Such a combination of long-time foes should give us pause. And it should make us wonder what is afoot. The anti-tobacco forces seem to want regulation at any cost. And Philip Morris seems to have found a silver lining in regulation. It is instructive to note that Philip Morris is the only tobacco company that supports this legislation. It is also worth noting that Philip Morris dominates the tobacco market in the United States and has roughly half the total market for tobacco products, while the other half is divided by a number of other companies.
The proposed legislation would create numerous restrictions on tobacco advertising, leading many to conclude that one of the goals of Altria Group, Inc., parent company of Philip Morris, is to lock-in and protect its market share. If other companies can't advertise, then they will have a harder time against the giant of the industry. No doubt, Philip Morris would like that.
Beyond the issue of preserving market share -- which is reason enough to question the logic and wisdom of this legislation -- the tobacco regulation bill as currently written is flawed in a number of ways.
Key provisions of the bill authorize the FDA to take or refuse action based on whether the decision is "appropriate for the public health." These provisions include restrictions on tobacco-product sales and marketing, tobacco-product standards, pre-market approval of new tobacco products and claims of reduced exposure to tobacco-product constituents. The standard provides no legislative guidance to the FDA and no judicially enforceable limits on the agency's discretion. And that spells trouble.
Another section of the legislation imposes the burden on tobacco companies to prove that any tobacco-product standard devised by the FDA will not work. Although the FDA is required to justify a proposed standard in theory, anyone who opposes it must "prove" that it "will not reduce or eliminate the risk of illness or injury." No other provision of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act imposes this kind of evidentiary burden on those subject to FDA regulation. Tobacco should not have to face standards that other substances regulated by the FDA do not.
Under another section of the bill, a tobacco-product standard devised by the FDA, or a refusal on the part of FDA to approve a new tobacco product, is subject to judicial review, but the agency must show only that its action was not "arbitrary or capricious." This weak judicial-review mechanism, combined with the nebulous "appropriate for protection of the public health" criterion and the burden on tobacco companies to prove that an FDA standard won't work, undermines administrative due process rights in connection with the most significant actions to be taken by the agency. By comparison, judicial review of FDA standards for medical devices and decisions on approval of new drugs and medical devices require the agency to demonstrate that its actions are based on "substantial evidence." Again, tobacco is singled out for differing standards of regulation.
In an era when more and more people are coming to see that government regulation -- no matter what the industry -- is no panacea, we have to look behind the curtain when a company steps up and says to the government, "Please regulate me."
In this case, such a look reveals that FDA regulation of tobacco is something that we should not rush into. Not now, perhaps never. And certainly not via the very flawed pending legislation. Greater thought is called for.
Ken Boehm is chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center.
Let smokers know they have more options than 'quit or die'By JOSEPH L. BAST
Published on: 06/04/04
On May 27, Surgeon General Richard Carmona released a report on the health effects of cigarette smoking. As has been true of every surgeon general's report in recent memory, Carmona's claims smoking is "even worse" for smokers than previously thought.
Everyone knows smoking is bad for you. Billions of dollars are spent each year — paid by smokers through cigarette taxes and the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement — to tell us how bad smoking is. Far from ignoring these warnings, studies have shown that smokers actually overestimate the odds that smoking will harm their health.
"The dose makes the poison" is the first law of toxicology, so instead of telling people they either have to quit or die, the surgeon general should be telling smokers to smoke less, switch to lower-tar products or consider smokeless tobacco products.
The current issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute reports on a University of Minnesota study of reduced-harm cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. The study documents how these products reduce exposure to harmful carcinogens.
Instead of calling attention to these products, which could actually save the lives of smokers, the anti-tobacco lobby calls for higher taxes and more smoking bans. Taxes on cigarettes are already excessive and grossly unjust.
Smoking bans are also not the answer. Governments don't own private bars and restaurants, and neither do nonsmokers or their lobbying groups.
Carmona's report is just another shot at smokers taken by an anti-smoking movement enriched with billions of dollars from liberal foundations, taxpayers and the MSA.
Enough is enough. Let's show a little tolerance and respect for others.
Joseph L. Bast is president of The Heartland Institute, a nonprofit research organization based in Chicago that receives tobacco company donations.
Evaluation of Carcinogen Exposure in People Who Used "Reduced Exposure" Tobacco Products.
Will Europe lift the ban on oral snuff?
Oral snuff, a form of smokeless tobacco, has been banned in all EU countries except Sweden since 1992. Swedish Match has challenged the ban and the case comes to court on June 8, 2004.
Smokeless tobacco companies are marketing their products, such as Skoal and Copenhagen, to young adults “at fraternity parties, bars, and nightclubs near college campuses,” reports KPIX-TV in San Francisco. In response, the California health nannies are having a veritable cow.
Colleen Stevens, apparatchik for the California Department of Health Services, stamps her feet, holds her breath and then blows a gasket: “The idea of companies specifically going after 18 to 24 year olds when they're vulnerable, when they're into the years of experimentation and encouraging them to use a product that is a clear health risk and a danger to them is simply unacceptable.”
Steve Jensen of the Yolo County (CA) Tobacco Education Program complains and makes himself look like a complete bonehead in the California Aggie with this little bit of marketing advice for the smokeless tobacco companies: "It's just the fact that people are being targeted with free promotions at an event where they make tobacco use look acceptable and look cool. They don't ever say, ‘Hey, if you use our product, you'll most likely become addicted. These are all the bad things that will happen to you.' If they started doing that, then we would feel a little better about it."
Is that marketing genius, or what? Are you listening Madison Avenue? Stop giving away free samples, go out of your way to highlight the negative about your product even though everyone already knows the risks, and whatever you do, don’t make it “look cool” to use your product. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
A little perspective here: (1) Using smokeless tobacco has been proven to be far safer than smoking cigarettes - not “safe”...safer, (2) there is no so-called “second-hand smoke” coming from smokeless tobacco products, (3) smokeless tobacco is a legal product, (4) businesses have a right to market their legal products in a free society, and (5) the smokeless tobacco companies are marketing to ADULTS!
If health nannies are so concerned about the dangers of tobacco products, maybe they should try selling THEIR competitive message on campuses and in bars instead of trying to censor the free market speech rights of legal businesses.
Chuck Muth
By Robert B. Ekelund, Jr. Half a century of tobacco regulation has had dramatic effects on smoking behavior in the United States. But at the beginning of the twenty-first century, according to the Center for Disease Control, a definable "hard core" of cigarette smokers persists in the addiction. Approximately twenty-five percent of Americans, about 47 million people, remain smokers and that percentage changed little over the past thirteen years. Despite massive and expensive admonitions on the part of public and private agencies, so-called "quit rates" remain all but impervious (at only a three percent success rate in most studies) to "cold turkey" solutions and recalcitrant to many of the standard aids to cessation. ...
Comments on this article.
By Dr. Brad Rodu. Swedish tobacco traditions are strong and very well documented because the country has the oldest continuous national records of tobacco manufacturing and consumption, dating back to 1780. I will describe the historical evolution of Swedish tobacco use, set in the broader context of global trends. This story is virtually unknown outside Scandinavia and not fully appreciated or understood even within Sweden, but it has special relevance to millions of smokers throughout the European Union and in other countries. ...
As legislators consider making Michigan's cigarette tax the nation's second highest, proponents argue that higher taxes for smokes would improve health by discouraging tobacco use. But evidence also suggests that cutting taxes on smokeless tobacco could achieve health gains.
By Gregory Parker. There is an alternative, but those claiming they want to stop smoking are an impediment.
Your turn: Tax tobacco based on risk levelBy Brad Rodu
Once again Minnesota finances are in trouble. And once again the tendency is to force tobacco users, in the form of excise taxes, to help balance the budget.
To the casual observer, this appears to be a no-brainer. Legislators face only minimal constituent pressure to oppose new taxes because only 20 percent of Minnesotans smoke.
In fiscal 2004, smokers generate $188 million in revenue for Minnesota from the indirect "tax" disguised as the national master tobacco settlement agreement and $184 million more from state excise taxes. That's $372 million! Now lawmakers want more, and they will rely on the usual health arguments from the usual anti-tobacco crusaders to justify it.
But public health is exactly why lawmakers should reduce the tax on smokeless tobacco products to the lowest possible rate.
Excise taxes on tobacco products may be inevitable, but they don't have to be illogical. A common sense approach is to tax tobacco products according to risk.
Cigarettes, widely acknowledged as the most dangerous products, are already taxed at high levels by most states, ostensibly to discourage consumption. But the health impact of smokeless tobacco use is much lower. Scientific and medical research has confirmed smokeless tobacco use carries only about 2 percent of the risk of smoking.
A rational tobacco tax policy would set taxes on smokeless products at 2 percent that of cigarettes. In Minnesota the excise tax on a package of smokeless tobacco is 98 cents, more than double the tax on cigarettes. What lawmakers should do is lower the tax on smokeless tobacco to one penny, based on the current cigarette excise tax of 48 cents.
Instead, Senate bill 2401 would triple the tax on cigarettes and on smokeless products in a simple grab for cash.
Taxing tobacco products according to well-established risks will serve the public health goal of reducing the death toll from cigarettes. Economic research shows that a large price differential encourages cigarette smokers to switch to smokeless tobacco.
A growing number of public health experts, including the prestigious Royal College of Physicians in Britain, recognize that smokeless tobacco may be an acceptable substitute for smokers who have been unable or unwilling to quit. They point to evidence from Sweden where, during the past century, men have smoked less and used more smokeless tobacco than in any other Western country. The result: Swedish men have the lowest rates of lung cancer ‹ indeed, of all smoking-related deaths ‹ in the developed world.
How have the Swedes achieved this?
First, placing tobacco discreetly inside the mouth is far safer than smoking.
Second, smokeless tobacco satisfies, because it delivers nicotine almost as efficiently as a cigarette. Nicotine is addictive, but it causes none of the diseases associated with smoking.
Third, modern products, available in Sweden and the United States, can be used invisibly and as easily as breath mints, with no spitting.
Finally, in Sweden the price of smokeless tobacco is less than half that of cigarettes. Switching from cigarettes to smokeless tobacco, called "harm reduction," has worked convincingly in Sweden, and it can work in Minnesota.
Brad Rodu is an established University researcher in the filed of tobacco use.
By Waldemar Ingdahl. The sale of moist oral snuff, or "snus", is banned in all of the EU except Sweden, but on June 8 this prohibition will be reviewed, and possibly even lifted.
A Smokeless Alternative to QuittingApril 6, 2004
COMMENTARY
By SALLY SATEL, M.D.
For decades, public health advocates have championed harm reduction for people who cannot stop taking health risks or do not want to. Needle exchange is a classic example. Intravenous drug users get clean needles because, the reasoning goes, contracting and spreading AIDS is worse than making heroin use a little easier.
But harm reduction for hard-core smokers is another matter.
At issue is a form of smokeless tobacco, a popular Swedish product called snus (rhymes with loose) that satisfies smokers' nicotine addiction with negligible health risks of its own. But to many foes of smoking, it is not a lifesaver, but the devil's instrument.
Snus, moist oral tobacco, comes in a tiny tea bag. It sits discreetly between lip and gum. Because it does not stimulate saliva production, there is no spitting. Even better, there is no smoke.
"It is the tobacco smoke, with its thousands of toxic agents, that leads to cancer, heart disease and emphysema," said Dr. Brad Rodu, a pathologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Eliminate the smoke, and you significantly reduce the risk.
Snus, a Swedish version of snuff, is especially attractive to smokers because it produces nicotine levels comparable to smoking. Gum and the patch administer too little nicotine to reliably prevent craving and withdrawal symptoms.
The health benefits are impressive. Forty percent of Swedish men use tobacco products. Yet Sweden has the lowest rate of lung cancer by far. Why? Largely because of snus, which represents half of all the tobacco that Swedish men use. (The other half smoke.) Snus has not caught on with women.
Smoking opponents should herald snus. But instead, the very notion of harm reduction inflames them.
"It's like trying to play God trading oral cancer for lung cancer," said Dr. Gregory Connolly of the Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program.
Over 20 epidemiological studies show that smokeless tobacco is far safer for mouth cancer than cigarettes. Even traditional smokeless products bring one-third to one-half the risk. Users of snus, which contains low levels of tobacco-specific nitrosamines, a carcinogen, incur a risk of developing oral cancer no greater than nonsmokers, the journal Tobacco Control reported last year.
What about gateway effects? Clearly, if using smokeless tobacco turns people on to nicotine and they "graduate" to smoking, it fails as a public health strategy. But Sweden has the best record of smoking reduction in Europe. Moreover, the proportion of current smokers who are former snus users is far less than the proportion of snus users who once smoked.
In short, snus has largely been a pathway away from smoking, not vice versa. Dr. Lynn T. Kozlowski of the biobehavioral health department at Penn State, found that more than three-fourths of men from 18 to 34 who used smokeless tobacco never went beyond it to cigarettes or had used cigarettes before using smokeless products.
Swedish snus and brands of compressed tobacco like Ariva, Exalt and Revel are available in this country but are hard to find. Most smokers have never heard of them, and many doctors are unfamiliar with the products.
The government, rather than clearing the air, is muddying it. Last year, the surgeon general, Dr. Richard H. Carmona, told Congress, "There is no significant scientific evidence that suggests smokeless tobacco is a safer alternative to cigarettes." This is simply wrong in the case of smokeless tobacco in general, and snus in particular.
"Tips for Teens" from the Department of Health and Human Services answers the question, "Isn't smokeless tobacco safer to use than cigarettes?" with an emphatic and erroneous "no."
"I suppose you could argue that shooting yourself in the leg poses less of a health risk than shooting yourself in the head," a former president of the American Dental Association, Dr. D. Gregory Chadwick, said. "But do we really need to have that discussion?"
Yes, we do. Experts have for years endorsed harm reduction as a pragmatic last resort for addicts, because they are convinced of the relative safety that accrues to the user and society.
No one disputes that quitting is optimal. But that is not practical in every case. Snus in particular, and smokeless tobacco in general, provide clear, lifesaving advantages over smoking that antitobacco activists refuse to acknowledge.
Sally Satel is a psychiatrist and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
National Legal and Policy Center Challenges National Institute on Aging ReportWASHINGTON, March 16 /PRNewswire/ -- The National Institute on Aging's (NIA) dissemination of erroneous information about the relative risks of smokeless tobacco contributes to widespread public misperceptions about the health risks.
"The National Institute on Aging should not be allowed to propagate false or misleading information to the public," said Kenneth Boehm, Chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC).
In the publication "Smoking: It's Never Too Late to Stop," which can be found online (http://www.niapublications.org/engagepages/smoking.asp), the NIA states under the headline, "Cigars, Chewing Tobacco, and Snuff Are Not Safer" and that, "Some people think smokeless tobacco (chewing tobacco and snuff), pipes, and cigars are safer than cigarettes. They are not." The heading and text are blatantly erroneous, at least with respect to smokeless tobacco. There is a substantial body of scientific evidence that shows that the use of smokeless tobacco involves significantly less risk of adverse health effects than cigarette smoking.
"The NIA's distribution of incorrect information adversely affects efforts (a) to ensure that the public receives common sense views on smokeless tobacco, based on reliable scientific evidence, and (b) to encourage debate in the public health community on the use of smokeless tobacco as a harm reduction alternative to smoking cigarettes," stated Boehm, adding that, "NLPC has long demonstrated a commitment to promoting open, accountable and ethical practices related to health care policy and we cannot in good conscience ignore the NIA's blatant disregard of factual information."
Today, NLPC filed a formal request with the National Institute on Aging asking that the faulty data be corrected in all publications immediately. "This erroneous information violates the Data Quality Act (DQA), and the implementing guidelines issued by the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB Guidelines"), the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS Guidelines") and the National Institutes of Health ("NIH Guidelines")," concluded Boehm.
"The American public deserves better than to have flawed information about health risks distributed to them as fact by government agencies like the National Institute on Aging," Boehm stressed. "We must hold these agencies to a high-level of accuracy on their dissemination of reports, particularly regarding health care issues."
The National Legal and Policy Center seeks to add reason and balance to debates about public health issues and to bring common sense views on these issues to the public. NLPC was one of the groups instrumental in successfully challenging the illegal secrecy of President Clinton's Health Care Task Force in federal court in 1993. In 1996, NLPC filed more than 650 Freedom of Information Act requests with the Food and Drug Administration. The information obtained regarding improprieties at the FDA was covered in a nationwide Associated Press article and the FDA Commissioner announced his intended resignation shortly after the AP story ran.
By Jonathan H. Adler. What if smokers who are unable to give up nicotine switched to smokeless tobacco? There would be far fewer deaths from cancer and heart disease. While smokeless tobacco has risks of its own, health experts should regard it as a less risky alternative, argues Dr. Sally Satel in today's NYT. "No one disputes that quitting is optimal," she writes. "But that is not practical in every case." Smokeless tobacco products "provide clear, lifesaving advantages over smoking that antitobacco activists refuse to acknowledge."
By Andrew Stuttaford.
Jonathan, considering its source, that's a surprisingly sensible article on snus (the Swedish form of snuff). I've been thinking of doing an article (any interest, Kathryn?) on this substance (which tastes horrible, in my view) for some time, not least because of profoundly ignorant comments such as those attributed by the New York Times to the doctor who works for the "Massachussetts Tobacco Control Program". Snus is associated with some health risks (cardiovascular, principally, but far less so than in the case of cigarettes), but if, in his reference to oral cancer, that doctor is talking about snus, he is, quite simply, wrong. Snus is not allowed in the EU, except in Sweden, but even the notoriously persnickety bureaucrats in Brussels agreed that the warning that snus was carcinogenic could be dropped from its packaging.
The risk of oral cancer that comes with American forms of chewing tobacco seems to associated with the presence of tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs). For two decades now, Swedish snus has been required to have very low TSNA content, perhaps a twentieth of the level found in an American brand like Copenhagen. This probably explains why a long-term study of 135,000 Swedish men (published in the American Journal of Public Health back in 1994) found no increase in cancer risk. It looks as if the folks at the Massachussetts Tobacco Control Program need to do a little more homework.
The EU ban will be litigated before the EU Court of Justice starting in June, but overall the hitherto hostile attitude of health authorities towards chewing tobacco, Swedish or American, is yet another reminder that the anti-tobacco crusade is not about health, or money (except for the trial lawyers and their accomplices in state and federal government), but control.
EU Ban Case to be Heard In JunePosted 03/29/2004
Swedish Match: European Court of Justice to Hear Snus Ban Case in June 2004
Business Wire
STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Mar 29, 2004 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- The European Court of Justice has confirmed the date for two hearings related to the ban of certain oral tobacco products (i.e. snus) within the European Union. The Court will hear the cases together on June 8th, 2004.
The two cases originated separately before the High Court in the UK and the Landrat of the Herford Local Authority (a regional administrative court) in Germany, but were each referred to the ECJ to decide whether national laws enacting Article 8 of the Directive, banning the sale of snus (oral moist snuff), are invalid. Due to the similarities in the cases, they will be heard together at the ECJ.
Bo Aulin, Senior Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel of Swedish Match, stated that "We believe that the current ban on snus is inconsistent with several of the basic principles of EU law, concerning but not limited to the free movement of goods between member states. Also, given the scientific support for harm reduced products, like Swedish snus, as a preferred alternative to cigarettes, we believe that this ban should be removed. However, a court procedure always carries some uncertainty. But even if the ECJ would not find the ban illegal, we are convinced that it will be removed within a few years anyway, since it is so obviously does not serve any public health or other societal purpose."
A recent study published in the European Journal of Epidemiology, found that some 200,000 of the 500,000 smoking-attributable deaths each year in the EU would be avoided if Europeans adapted a Swedish tobacco consumption pattern. The study states that the lower smoking-related mortality among Swedish men is linked to their use of snus. (source: "The burden of mortality from smoking: Comparing Sweden with other countries in the European Union", Brad Rodu and Phil Cole)
Case references
Case C-210/03: R v. Secretary of State for Health ex parte 1) Swedish Match AB 2) Swedish Match UK Ltd
Case C-434/02: Arnold Andre GmbH & Co. KG v. Landrat of the Herford Local Authority
European Court of Justice website: http://curia.eu.int/
Swedish Match is a unique company with its range of market-leading brands in the product areas of snuff and chewing tobacco, cigars and pipe tobacco - tobacco's niche products - as well as matches and lighters. The Group's global operations generated sales of 13,036 MSEK in 140 countries for the twelve month period ending December 31, 2003. Swedish Match shares are listed on Stockholmsborsen (SWMA) and Nasdaq (SWMAY).
Swedish Match Ab (Publ), Se-118 85 Stockholm
Visiting Address: Rosenlundsgatan 36, Telephone: + 46 8 658 02 00
Corporate Identity Number: 556015-0756
www.Swedishmatch.Com
European Union policy on smokeless tobaccoA statement in favour of evidence-based regulation for public health.
Western Kentucky State Senator to Fight Governor's Tobacco Tax Proposal Feb 19, 2004 - The Paducah Sun, Ky.
Sen. Bob Jackson vowed Wednesday to fight a proposed tax on smokeless tobacco, which is produced from millions of pounds of dark-fired and dark air-cured tobacco grown in far western Kentucky.
Gov. Ernie Fletcher wants a tax of up to 10 percent on smokeless products, which would add about 30 cents to a tin of chewing tobacco. The state does not tax the products, and Fletcher wants the revenue as part of his tax reform plan.
"For many people, including the governor and his staff, taxing smokeless tobacco is a social issue," said Jackson, D-Murray. "For me and the people of western Kentucky, it is an economic issue. Dark tobacco provides hundreds of families with income to send their kids to college, buy new cars and buy homes. It is a multimillion-dollar industry that is specific to our region."
Of the 22 million pounds of dark-fired tobacco produced in Kentucky, half is grown in Graves and Calloway counties and another 10 percent in Trigg County. The remainder is grown in 27 other western Kentucky counties, Jackson said.
Farmers in Calloway and Graves counties earned $20 million last year from dark-fired tobacco, according to figures Jackson provided.
Jackson's promise to fight the tax delighted Will Edd Clark, general manager of the Western Dark-Fired Tobacco Growers Association in Murray.
"Dark-fired tobacco is a mainstay in Calloway County, Graves County, the Jackson Purchase, as well as an important crop ... to growers in this part of the state and in western Tennessee," Clark said. "We are going to be very disappointed if this tax goes on. Any tax will result in a reduction in the amount of tobacco grown. That is not going to be good for producers.
"I've heard the governor's tax plan called revenue neutral. Well, it's not revenue neutral for the people who use the product and when it comes down the pike and affects the growers."
Jackson also said 12 million pounds of dark air-cured tobacco are produced in Kentucky, with two-thirds of the production from farmers in Calloway, Graves, Logan, Daviess, Simpson and Todd counties.
"If the production of the dark tobacco industry was looked on as a traditional manufacturing industry, the state would be doing everything it could to make sure we protect it, preserve it and help grow more of it," Jackson said. "We've already lost too many jobs in our region, and we don't need to be losing any jobs related to dark tobacco."
Among neighboring states, Virginia also does not tax smokeless tobacco. Tennessee's tax is 6.6 percent, West Virginia's is 7 percent, and the average in states on the northern border is 16 percent.
Taxing smokeless tobacco would send a bad message to the industry and other states, Jackson said.
"It should remain untaxed. Kentucky must keep a favorable climate, and if we decided to tax it, it would open the door wide for other states to charge higher taxes. That would hurt the industry ... most of the nation's dark tobacco is produced in western Kentucky and in Tennessee."
A tax could eliminate the use of smokeless tobacco as an alternative to smoking, Clark said. He pointed out that the smokeless industry has received the blessing from federal health officials in recent years on claims that smokeless products have fewer health risks than cigarettes and other tobacco products.
Declining Smoking In Sweden:Is Swedish Match getting the credit for Swedish tobacco control's efforts?
Replies to Effects of smokeless tobacco in Sweden.
… smokers who quit by switching to Swedish smokeless tobacco (called snus, pronounced "snoos") put on half the weight gained by those who quit tobacco altogether. In fact, switchers gained weight at the same rate as men who never smoked.
The European Union has been urged to revamp its current partial ban on the sale of smokeless tobacco products.
Smokeless tobacco snuffed out?By Dominic Standish
It is known as Spit, plug, dip and chew. But what is smokeless tobacco and why are types of it banned in most European countries?
The most popular kinds of smokeless tobacco are chewing tobacco and oral snuff. Nasal snuff was widely ditched for smoking during the twentieth century and is now rare. These days snuff is usually placed under the lip or in the cheek. Nicotine is absorbed into the blood through the mouth.
Smokeless tobacco is used by more than five percent of American males and one percent of females, according to the University of Minnesota. Snuff is especially popular among men in Sweden, where it is called Snus.
Smokeless tobacco was discussed at the fifth European conference of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT), held in Padua, Italy, from 20–22 November. The conference examined various suggestions for nicotine replacement therapy, such as the use of nicotine patches and chewing gum.
Dr. P. Tonnesen, from Denmark, advocated the use of snuff for smoking reduction by hard core smokers with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease when safer methods of treatment fail. Snuff increases the heart rate, blood pressure and is addictive. But this is also true of caffeine. Many other health risks from smokeless tobacco have been debated, including gum disease, dental problems, leukoplakia mouth lesions and oral cancers.
The chances of mouth cancer from smokeless tobacco are less than half those from smoking, according to Dr. B. Rodu, Professor of Pathology with the University of Alabama at Birmingham (USA). He co-authored an article in the Journal of Internal Medicine in 2002. It stated that the use of Snus was the major factor in smoking cessation among men in a study in northern Sweden between 1986 and 1999. Swedish males experience much lower rates of lung cancer than in other European Union countries. Swedish females have lung cancer rates comparable to other females from the same region and rarely use Snus.
More research on smokeless tobacco is clearly needed. In response to a question at the SRNT conference, Dr. W. McNee, from the United Kingdom, indicated that there is a lack of research into the impact of snuff on oxidative stress. Indeed, too little research on smokeless tobacco has been used as a reason for restricting it in Europe.
In particular, many European politicians have argued that the precautionary principle should be applied to Snus due to the lack of research into its affects. The precautionary principle of ‘better safe than sorry’ has been invoked to ban the sale of Snus in EU countries, with the exception of Sweden.
This ban on Snus has been challenged by its main producer, Swedish Match. Whatever the health risks of Snus, people should have the right to choose whether they use it. Banning Snus according to the precautionary principle is irrational. It is also ironic when types of Indian chewing tobacco that are widely acknowledged, as more damaging for health are legal in the EU.
Ending the EU ban on Snus does not mean it will become widely used. Cultural factors have evidently been influential with many types of smokeless tobacco. Dr. R. Jain spoke at the SRNT conference about the extensive use of smokeless tobacco in India. She quoted figures estimating that there are 112 million smokers and 96 million users of smokeless tobacco in India. In Sweden, miners and fishermen have historically used Snus, whereas in the USA baseball players have traditionally chewed tobacco. Chewing tobacco and spitting has understandably been perceived as unsociable by many societies.
Yet the US Smokeless Tobacco manufacturer has recently produced a more socially acceptable smokeless tobacco, Revel, that does not stimulate frequent spitting. It comes in packets that look like tea bags and is available in non-tobacco flavours, such as mint and cherry.
There are other forms of nicotine that are healthier than smokeless tobacco. Dr. J. Le Houezec, from France, suggested at the SRNT conference that the development of inhaled nicotine using sprays has been too slow to compete with tobacco. But that may change with new technologies emerging.
Consumers should be free to choose nicotine alternatives to smoking and smokeless tobacco should not be snuffed out in Europe by the precautionary principle.
Dominic Standish is a freelance journalist investigating the impact of the precautionary principle.
Don't Sniff at This Snuff, It's Spitless!Swedish Match Aims Its Tobacco Product At U.S. Users -- It Even Appeals to Women
By ROBB M. STEWART
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
STOCKHOLM – For Mattias Strauss, a Swede living in Washington, D.C., the irregular shipments are a little bit of home. And they keep him from smoking.
"In the first year, I just suffered and tried to get rid of the habit. Instead, I started smoking again," the 40-year-old says. "Now I use the Web, click in my Visa and four or five days later FedEx brings me some boxes."
The boxes contain tins of "snus," a moist smokeless tobacco. Roughly a million Swedes are users, taking a pinch of the tobacco, or more commonly a tiny pre-portioned tea bag-like pouch, and fitting it under their upper lip against the gums. Swedish Match AB says a little more than 200 million tins of moist snuff are sold per year in the Nordic region, where it is the market leader. But it has its eyes on the biggest prize in smokeless tobacco: The U.S., where nearly four times as many tins are sold and where this form of tobacco is called snuff. (The form is illegal to sell in all European Union countries except Sweden.) U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Co., a unit of UST Inc. of Greenwich, Connecticut, is the leading producer of moist snuff in the U.S. Swedish Match, though it says it is No. 1 in the low-priced end of the market with a 34.7% share, has only a 9.1% market share overall. But it has an idea.
U.S. snuff users generally use loose rather than pouched snuff, says Lennart Sunden, chief executive of Swedish Match, and they put it against their lower lip, where it produces a salivary reaction. That is, they spit. "If Americans would use it on the upper lip, then it becomes an interesting opportunity," says Mr. Sunden. Used against the upper lip, Swedish-style, snuff becomes a spit-free product -- much more discreet and suitable for use indoors, where smoking is prohibited. One of Swedish Match's newer U.S. brands, Exalt, highlights this angle. "Exalt is so discreet," the tins say, "nobody will know it's in but you -- and it's spitless."
U.S. Smokeless Tobacco is trying out the discretion theme as well. Spokesman Mike Bazinet says the company began limited test marketing last year of a new brand of packaged snuff, Revel, that like Swedish snus is meant to go anywhere in the mouth. The company plans to expand the test marketing during the fourth quarter.
"We've had a very positive response ... it's appealing to a lot of people, including women because of the no-spit characteristic," Mr. Bazinet says.
Snus began as the poor farmer's homemade alternative to the cigars and dry, nasal snuff used by the wealthier classes. By the 19th century, though, factories began manufacturing snus with various aromas under local brand names. (Snuff continues to be available in a range of flavors, from mint and licorice to fruit, eucalyptus and whiskey -- Bourbon or Scotch. Mr. Strauss says the varieties sold in the U.S. don't taste the same as his familiar Swedish brand, which is why he imports his own.)
In the U.S., snuff is associated with outdoor activities, for easier spitting, and is mainly used by men. It also carries something of a downmarket image, as Mr. Strauss can testify.
"I try to be discreet, but when [Americans] catch me using it they assume it's some form of chewing tobacco and put me down as a low-life redneck," he says.
Sweden's snuff users used to fit a similar profile. Now, they tend to be white-collar workers -- educated former smokers. And as many as one in five, according to the Swedish polling firm TEMO, are female.
"The first time I tried it I got, well, dizzy, and I was driving at the time so that probably wasn't so good," says Camilla Tveit, a Swedish veterinary surgeon who has been living just outside Stansted, England, for nine months. She has been using snus for more than eight years -- occasionally at first, then more heavily as she was quitting cigarettes. Today she consumes as many as 10 little pouches a day, including at work. She fits them in the upper gum, off to the side where they can't be seen.
The EU ban on snus, which dates to 1992 -- Sweden managed to win exemption -- is now in the courts. The Administrative Court of Minden, Germany, in November 2002 referred it to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. And in April this year, the High Court in the U.K. decided to refer the question -- in an action brought by Swedish Match -- to the same court, which now will deal with two referrals on the same issue. The process in the European court is expected to take two years.
Swedish Match says it isn't claiming snus has no possible negative effects, but it does note that the risk of dying from a tobacco-related disease is lower for Swedish men than for men in any other European country. Swedes don't smoke much -- in 1999, smoking prevalence dropped below 20% -- and some credit the use of snus. But the National Cancer Institute in the U.S. notes snuff is addictive and says it can cause gum recession, heart diseases, sores and mouth cancer. Other reports point to potential cardiovascular problems. It is a matter of dispute in Sweden, where several studies have found no association between use of the local snus -- as opposed to snuff in general, which may have different ingredients -- and neck and esophageal cancer or gastric cancer, and no rise in mortality rates among Swedish snus users.
Write to Robb M. Stewart at mailto:robb.stewart@dowjones.com
@@START_COMMENTpagebreak@@END_COMMENT
[ Go Back ]
Information Copyright © by The Smokers Club, Inc. - (5744 reads) |
