Put this near the top of the list of new products the world can do without, thank you: flavored tobacco pellets that can easily be mistaken for breath mints, deliver a nicotine kick and are way too likely to appeal to kids.
The dissolvable pellets are called Camel Orbs, and they're rightly drawing the round condemnation of some of the nation's leading public health voices, including Pediatrics, the journal of the American Pediatrics Association; the Harvard School of Public Health; and the federal Food and Drug Administration.
They're finely ground tobacco mixed in with mint or cinnamon flavoring, and critics say they look too much like the popular breath mints called Tic Tacs for comfort, a claim R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. disputes.
The smokeless tobacco pellets, which dissolve in the mouth, are being marketed by Reynolds to counter increasing societal restrictions on traditional tobacco delivery devices such as cigarettes. Several smokeless tobacco products are being similarly marketed.
Camel Orbs are the subject of a study and critical editorial in Pediatrics, published last week. The lead researcher on the study, Gregory N. Connolly, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, doesn't pull any punches: “Nicotine is a highly addictive drug, and to make it look like a piece of candy is recklessly playing with the health of children,” he told The New York Times.
One of the things that makes such products cause for alarm among public health professionals is the well-documented path that leads people to become habitual smokers. Statistically, those who take up the habit in their teen years are far more likely to turn into habitual smokers as adults. Typically, this group also has a more difficult time kicking the habit later in life.
Critics fear these products could one day achieve a niche among young people similar to the one enjoyed by smokeless tobacco products known as snuff or chew, which are typically tucked into the cheek and deliver a powerful jolt of nicotine to the user.
We share that fear. So we won't pull our punches, either. We think this product is built to put young people on the road to smoking. It's insidious and serves no useful purpose. It doesn't deserve a place on store shelves.
Apr 19, 2010
Philip Morris Funds Tobacco Tax Ad Campaign
Philip Morris has launched an advertising campaign asking New York to collect cigarette taxes from Native American stores, Indian Country Today reports. The tobacco company took out full-page ads in newspapers in Albany, Buffalo, Syracuse and other north central New York cities during the first part of April.
The ads, which state “Albany Lets Billions Slip through Its Fingers. Tax Dollars We Need for Vital Services Go Uncollected,” are designed to pressure the state to start collecting cigarette taxes from Indian reservation tobacco sales. “The state loses revenue. Retailers lose sales. Their employees could even lose jobs. And it adds to the burden on hardworking taxpayers,” the ad reads.
However, Native American officials and business leaders believe the ads are part of an effort to make the tribes collect state taxes. “There is nothing altruistic about Philip Morris,” said James Ransom, one of the chiefs of the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe. “Their primary mission is to sell cigarettes and eliminate the competition. They will do whatever they have to do to do that and they know that tribes are the competition. They have little respect for the sovereignty of tribes because we represent a threat to their bottom line.”
Along with the ad is a Web site, which is run by Altria Client Services and the New York Association of Convenience Stores.
The ads and Web site are part of a long-running battle with Indian nations over cigarette taxes. New York state claims millions of dollars has been lost because tribes do not collect cigarette taxes, while the nations dispute that they should even collect such taxes.
The ads, which state “Albany Lets Billions Slip through Its Fingers. Tax Dollars We Need for Vital Services Go Uncollected,” are designed to pressure the state to start collecting cigarette taxes from Indian reservation tobacco sales. “The state loses revenue. Retailers lose sales. Their employees could even lose jobs. And it adds to the burden on hardworking taxpayers,” the ad reads.
However, Native American officials and business leaders believe the ads are part of an effort to make the tribes collect state taxes. “There is nothing altruistic about Philip Morris,” said James Ransom, one of the chiefs of the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe. “Their primary mission is to sell cigarettes and eliminate the competition. They will do whatever they have to do to do that and they know that tribes are the competition. They have little respect for the sovereignty of tribes because we represent a threat to their bottom line.”
Along with the ad is a Web site, which is run by Altria Client Services and the New York Association of Convenience Stores.
The ads and Web site are part of a long-running battle with Indian nations over cigarette taxes. New York state claims millions of dollars has been lost because tribes do not collect cigarette taxes, while the nations dispute that they should even collect such taxes.
Apr 15, 2010
Smoking ban in public places reduces smoke exposure and heart attacks
A new study indicates that policies that ban or restrict smoking in public reduce exposure to secondhand smoke and reduces heart attacks. Restriction of smoking area helps non smokers to avoid being exposed to tobacco smoke and the health consequences
Illinois banned smoking in the workplace two years ago, making it one of the states where people can go out into public without having to breathe second hand tobacco smokes, which has health risks.
A review published in the April, 2010 issue of The Cochrane Library states that countries and states that have polices restricting public smoking have less exposure to secondhand smoke. These areas also have a reduction in the number of people who have heart attacks and an improvement in other health indicators.
"Taken together, the benefits for workers and the reduction of hospital-related morbidity are impressive," says Professor Cecily Kelleher, School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Population Science at University College Dublin, Ireland.
Countries around the world are introducing polices that restrict where people can some. Policies were implemented largely because of findings that tobacco smoke is the second major cause of death in the world. Smoking is currently responsible for the death of about one in ten adults, according the the World Health Organization (WHO).
The state of Illinois banned smoking in the workplace, including restaurants and bars, effective in 2008, to protect people from the health hazards of second hand smoke.
Smoking is a complex personal and social activity, so researchers stated that there is an ongoing need to monitor the effect of non-smoking legislation to see if it is benefiting people. The recent research indicates that banning smoking does help to prevent health problems, including heart attacks.
"The balance of evidence suggests that legislative smoking bans have achieved their primary objective of reducing exposure to secondhand smoke. The impact on active smoking is not yet conclusively demonstrated," says Professor Kelleher in a press release dated April 13, 2010.
A team of researchers used data from 50 different studies that followed 50 different situations where smoking bans had been implemented. People often react negatively to any restrictive rules, but researchers found that once the smoking bans were in place people approved of them.
Illinois banned smoking in the workplace two years ago, making it one of the states where people can go out into public without having to breathe second hand tobacco smokes, which has health risks.
A review published in the April, 2010 issue of The Cochrane Library states that countries and states that have polices restricting public smoking have less exposure to secondhand smoke. These areas also have a reduction in the number of people who have heart attacks and an improvement in other health indicators.
"Taken together, the benefits for workers and the reduction of hospital-related morbidity are impressive," says Professor Cecily Kelleher, School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Population Science at University College Dublin, Ireland.
Countries around the world are introducing polices that restrict where people can some. Policies were implemented largely because of findings that tobacco smoke is the second major cause of death in the world. Smoking is currently responsible for the death of about one in ten adults, according the the World Health Organization (WHO).
The state of Illinois banned smoking in the workplace, including restaurants and bars, effective in 2008, to protect people from the health hazards of second hand smoke.
Smoking is a complex personal and social activity, so researchers stated that there is an ongoing need to monitor the effect of non-smoking legislation to see if it is benefiting people. The recent research indicates that banning smoking does help to prevent health problems, including heart attacks.
"The balance of evidence suggests that legislative smoking bans have achieved their primary objective of reducing exposure to secondhand smoke. The impact on active smoking is not yet conclusively demonstrated," says Professor Kelleher in a press release dated April 13, 2010.
A team of researchers used data from 50 different studies that followed 50 different situations where smoking bans had been implemented. People often react negatively to any restrictive rules, but researchers found that once the smoking bans were in place people approved of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
