EurActiv Logo
EU news & policy debates
- across languages -
Click here for EU news »
EurActiv.com Network

BROWSE ALL SECTIONS

Draft tobacco directive won't save lives

Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Published 09 January 2013

If the draft EU Tobacco Products Directive is approved, it will allow the continued sale of pharmaceutical products sold as aids to smoking cessation, which have been shown over and over again to be largely ineffective, says Gilbert Ross.

Gilbert Ross is medical director at the American Council on Science and Health.

"The EU’s new tobacco policy statement, ostensibly designed to promote public health, will have the opposite effect: Far from reducing the toll of “tobacco,” millions will be condemned to ongoing addiction to smoking, half of whom will die as a direct result.

The World Health Organization predicts that if current trends continue, the likely toll of “tobacco” will amount to one billion lives cut short worldwide.

By tobacco, however, anyone with knowledge of the spectrum of tobacco-related disease knows it’s the inhalation of cigarette smoke hundreds of thousands of times over decades that would be responsible if that catastrophic prediction comes to pass - the relative harm of non-combustible tobacco and nicotine-delivery products is in the order of one percent that of smoking.

Yet the new policy guidelines barely tinker with lethal, addictive cigarettes while effectively banning products that have been shown to help smokers quit.

The European Commission has released the draft of its latest Tobacco Products Directive, expressing the overall approach to regulation of tobacco and nicotine products planned for the 500 million residents of the 27 countries of the EU.

While some parts of it may have a beneficial impact on smoking rates, albeit minor, the net effect will be, paradoxically but inevitably, damaging to Europeans’ health. The directive proposes to continue (indeed strengthen) the prior ban on Swedish smokeless tobacco, known as snus.

Worse, restrictions and regulations dealing with the relatively new devices known as e-cigarettes will effectively ban them.                

In the EU, where fully one-third of the adult population still smokes, there are almost 700,000 smoking-related deaths each year. The region is number one worldwide in the devastating effects of smoking — with this exception: In Sweden, the only EU country where snus is not banned, only 16% smoke.

This fact has been validated since those statistics began to be accumulated after World War II. The Swedish male population consumes more nicotine in the form of snus than from cigarettes - and they have the lowest rate of smoking-related disease and death in Europe to show for it.

Yet when Sweden was admitted into the EU in 1995, the continental ban on snus was in effect, and the country had to get an exemption to continue to manufacture and sell snus.

Enlightened public health experts in the region, and elsewhere, had hoped that the new directive would ease these restrictions, given the clear evidence of its efficacy in reducing the harm of tobacco, while the approved products for helping smokers quit fail over 90% of the time.

Electronic cigarettes, first sold outside China only over the past seven years or so, have few solid studies attesting to their benefits for helping smokers quit. But millions of smokers have offered case studies in networks and chat rooms of “vapers,” their own term for e-cigarette use, offering testimony to their efficacy in helping them quit and pleading for authorities to allow them continued access.

The product, in various forms, essentially supplies the drug smokers crave - nicotine - without the toxic, deadly smoke. The vaporised nicotine is inhaled with flavourings and substances such as propylene glycol, all completely harmless based on years of safe use.

So why would any official directive aimed at improving health advocate banning, in effect, effective and relatively harmless nicotine-delivery methods that help smokers quit, while allowing the most harmful consumer product - cigarettes - to keep on killing?

No valid explanation comes to mind. Some say that all tobacco is dangerous, so why allow snus? Others allege that the cigarette look-alike, e-cigarettes, impede the policy of “de-normalisation” of smoking, since users of e-cigarettes may appear to be smoking.

And others say they believe that smokeless tobacco or e-cigarettes may entice youngsters into a nicotine-dependent lifestyle, and eventually into smoking - although there is no evidence supporting that “gateway” effect and plenty against it.

Continuing the ban on smokeless tobacco in the EU is antithetical to public health for many reasons. Adding what amounts to a ban on e-cigarettes will tie the hands of millions of EU smokers desperate to quit, and force a like amount of successful quitters back on to lethal addictive cigarettes.

The bottom line is that the current draft directive, if approved by the nations of the EU, will allow the continued sale of pharmaceutical products sold as aids to smoking cessation, which have been shown over and over again to be largely ineffective.

Cigarettes will remain available on every street corner, and lack of effective cessation aids will help the cigarette industry maintain its hugely profitable European markets. Big Pharma and Big Tobacco will be the winners, while condemning millions of smokers to cruel death or disability.

Relaxing, not tightening, strictures against harm-reduction products should be implemented in the EU, and as soon as possible, as thousands die needlessly each day from inhaling smoke."

COMMENTS

  • According to Source Watch:
    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Gilbert_Ross

    Dr. Gilbert Ross is the Medical/Executive Director for the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH).

    "When American corporations come up against inconvenient science," writes Bill Hogan, "they call in the American Council on Science and Health." The group's medical / executive director, Dr. Gilbert Ross, has "defended the Wood Preservative Science Council, saying ... the arsenic in pressure-treated wood poses 'no risk to human health,'" and has written "on behalf of the farmed-salmon industry that the PCBs in fish 'are not a cause of any health risk, including cancer.'" [1]

    And Ross' background is as spotty as his junk science-for-hire. For "his participation in a scheme that ultimately defrauded New York's Medicaid program of approximately $8 million," Ross had his medical license revoked, spent a year at a federal prison camp, and was barred from the Medicare and Medicaid programs for 10 years, after a judge found him to be "a highly untrustworthy individual."

    According to ACSH's 2009 IRS Form 990, Ross was paid a base compensation of $179,853 with $19, 199 in "retirement and other deferred compensation," and 10,058 in "non-taxable benefits."[1]

    By :
    robin aldin
    - Posted on :
    09/01/2013
  • While the fact of my conviction in 1993 is not up for debate, I have always maintained my innocence — I was duped into working on an absentee basis for a phony clinic for 7 weeks in 1991, and quit when I learned the truth. The New York State Dept. of Health, and the Dept. of Education, restored my suspended license in 2001. Even so, my financial responsibility was deemed to be $80,000 — an inexcusable sum if I were truly complicit, but still a far cry from the "millions" referred to here. How my salary is related to promoting cigarettes and death for smokers eludes me.

    By :
    Gil Ross
    - Posted on :
    09/01/2013
  • Aside from your most informative ad hom about me, can we therefore assume you agree with the facts I presented in the op-ed, detailing the destructive impact of the TPD on Europe's smokers?

    By :
    Gil Ross
    - Posted on :
    09/01/2013
  • Wow. The man was convicted, lost his medical license, went to federal prison for medicare fraud, perjury, and -if that is really him commenting here- still maintains his innocence. These are the types that worry me in society.

    How much of his salary comes from tobacco companies he is trying to help? Does he list that on his webpage?

    Wikipedia says no:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Council_on_Science_and_Health

    Funding
    ACSH stopped reporting its funding in the early 1990s.[4] Their 1991 report shows that many corporations contributed funds.

    By :
    Ken Danielson
    - Posted on :
    09/01/2013
  • The salary information was outdated.

    Even the far right wing Fox News smells trouble:

    It’s the science of getting rich.

    A Manhattan-based nonprofit sucked in nearly $1.3 million from donors last year — even though critics charge it pays its employees high salaries to do little work and touts advisers who are deceased.

    The American Council on Science and Health is shelling out a $323,000 salary to its president and founder, Elizabeth Whelan, and $225,270 to medical director Gilbert Ross, tax filings show.

    “They were once defenders of sound science,” one former board member told The Post. “Now you’d be foolish to give them money.”

    The group spent $1.03 million of its $1.35 million in revenue from July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2011, on employee compensation and benefits but failed to list specific projects in its tax forms.

    Tax forms list just four paid employees. Two staffers were given $40,000 bonuses “based on revenue and performance,” although the nonprofit earned $1 million less than the previous year in 2009.

    Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/american-council-science-and-health/2012/12/23/critics-say-high-salaries-little-work-nyc-non-profit#ixzz2HUuO5CaP

    By :
    robin aldin
    - Posted on :
    09/01/2013
  • Dear Ken: Do you know Robin, by the way? Perhaps you are the same person! Because what Robin said above you was not clear in some way, provoking your repetition?
    Let's say my org., ACSH, was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Big Tobacco. Would that make anything I said in the op-ed (you apparently neglected to read) incorrect? I am trying to save smokers from their lethal addiction--how would that work to "help" tobacco companies? Have someone read my essay to you, slowly, and try to understand.

    By :
    Gil Ross
    - Posted on :
    09/01/2013
  • I believe Robin and Ken are both a former ACSH employee who was summarily fired for reasons I am barred from repeating here, but pretty seedy. It appears he is trying to make good on his threat to "bring ACSH down" when he was escorted out the door in 2010. He also planted that NYPost hatchet "news" piece referred to. Maybe J you should try to get a life of your own now. Good luck with that.

    By :
    Gil Ross
    - Posted on :
    09/01/2013
  • I wonder if Ross thinks all of the commenters at the New York Post are also hatchets.

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/weird_cience_MvU2DfU8W7KD0xuyJOwXXI

    The more I google, the creepier this guy gets.

    By :
    robin aldin
    - Posted on :
    09/01/2013
  • Maybe they are, or they're all variants of you and/or the above-mentioned discharged employee. Anyway, a few more adherents to your ad hom campaign and you have started a Movement! I am grateful that no one has entered the discussion to counter or dispute any of ACTUAL FACTS I presented in the op-ed — I believe that absence supports my POV and will help to move the debate on reduced-harm nicotine delivery methods (Oh, right-- I remember now, the subject of the item..)

    By :
    Gil Ross
    - Posted on :
    09/01/2013
  • I read this article and the comments with interest. We have the same problems in the UK with the pharmaceutical companies paying doctors not just to back their own doubtful science but to rubbish any science that harms drug company profits. We in the National Smoking Cessation Institute have been using a tobacco neutrogen since 1991 showing excellent empirical evidence of efficacy but have been targeted by the Department of Health / drug company combine to get us to stop using it, although they have no legal basis for this action, which is clearly contrary to the interests of the health of the nation. By the way, we do have doubts about smokeless tobacco. What research has been done into cancers of the oral cavity with prolonged use?

    By :
    Robert Brynin
    - Posted on :
    10/01/2013
  • It is unfortunate that the majority of comments to this excellent and accurate article have nothing to do with the subject matter. In the UK we are denied access to Swedish snus [fact]. The only way we can address nicotine dependency is, basically, quit or die. This is a sad reflection on a European Union that trumpets its public health policies as having the benefit of the population at heart - clearly it is only those members of the population who are in the pay of big-pharma and big-tobacco whose benefit is of any consequence. Leave Mr Ross alone, and concentrate on what he is saying, because he is correct.

    By :
    Mark Brougham
    - Posted on :
    10/01/2013
  • Mr. Brougham and Mr. Brynin: Many thanks.

    Mr. Brougham, we of course have the same problem in the US. It's like "through the looking glass"--wherein back in the bad old 20th century, you had the Evil tobacco industry intimidating and corrupting scientists and the media, nowadays it's the "anti-tobacco" groups who do so, with obvious success: witness the TPD and our own FSPTCA/FDA/CDC/CTFK/AHA et al.

    Mr. Brynin: modern smokeless products such as snus have between nil and minuscule risks of oral/pharyngeal cancers, although there is some increase in leukoplakia. See Rodu, "The scientific foundation for tobacco harm reduction, 2006-2011" [http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/8/1/19]. GR

    By :
    Gil Ross
    - Posted on :
    10/01/2013
  • I agree with everything Mr Ross has written. There is no evidence that modern Swedish snus causes any cancers. Why do we we need to "prove" ecigs are harmless. Firstly, it's impossible and, secondly, that's not the way other products are dealt with. Has anyone ever proved Red Bull is harmless? Has anyone ever proved coffee is harmless? Because mobile phones occasionally explode, we don't ban them. Because schoolchildren occasionally get sick from chewing a whole pack of nicotine gum in one go, we don't ban it. Ecigs are being unfairly targeted and it is the drug companies who are behind it. Look at the 2010 UK Government consultation and see that it was the major drug companies and ASH Scotland who wanted ecigs taken off the market immediately.

    By :
    Jonathan Bagley
    - Posted on :
    11/01/2013
  • I'll also add, I can now choose to have the occasional cigarette if I want to, because last July I bought an ecig. Hopefully I'll be enjoying it for the next 25 years (I'm 56). The drug companies have lost their NRT business and, in future, a lot of their chemotherapy business. They are understandably desperate. I have tried snus. Despite the ironic efforts of a Finnish cancer organisation and some anti tobacco "researchers" from Bath University, it is still possible to order it online from the UK.

    By :
    Jonathan Bagley
    - Posted on :
    11/01/2013

Advertising

Sponsors

Videos

Video General News

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Health Promoted Videos

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Advertising

Advertising