MINNPOST: Proposed Minneapolis tobacco licensing changes will help curb youth smoking

By Jan Malcolm | 06/19/15

Imagine a future when tobacco is no longer the leading cause of preventable death and disease. To make this vision a reality, we must prevent more young people from getting hooked by deadly tobacco products. The Minneapolis City Council is poised to do just that by considering changes to the licensing ordinance to restrict the sale of all flavored tobacco (other than menthol) to adult-only tobacco stores and set minimum price limits for cigars. These measures strike at the heart of the tobacco industry’s strategy to sell their products to kids: flavoring and price.

While Big Tobacco is supposed to be prohibited from marketing to kids, it finds many ways around that ban. Tobacco executives know that unless they get to kids before they reach their 20s they’ve lost a customer. Documents released during the tobacco trials of the 1990s reveal how deliberately tobacco companies target young people. On the witness stand, the chairman of the Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. said, “If you are really and truly not going to sell to children, you are going to be out of business in 30 years.” A Lorillard executive wrote that he wanted to exchange research data with Life Savers to figure out what tastes kids want. And a marketing plan from U.S. Smokeless Tobacco showed a deliberate strategy to start users on sweet flavors, then “graduate” them to plain tobacco.

Candy and fruit flavors

The appeal of flavoring to young people is the reason the FDA banned cigarettes in flavors other than menthol in 2009. Unfortunately, products such as little cigars, cigarillos, chew, e-cigarettes and others are still widely available in candy and fruit flavors such as bubble gum, grape and gummy bear – flavors that clearly appeal to youth. These flavored products are for sale in more than 250 stores throughout Minneapolis alone, and they are easy for children to purchase. One-third of Minneapolis boys under 18 report buying tobacco from a convenience store or gas station.

Research shows that young people mistakenly believe that flavored tobacco products are less dangerous than other tobacco products. In fact, they are just as dangerous, with the same health risks of cancer, heart disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Candy and fruit flavored tobacco products just mask the harsh taste and feel of tobacco.

Nearly 20 percent of Minnesota high school students have tried a water pipe or hookah, and almost all shisha (hookah tobacco) is flavored. More than 25 percent of Minnesota high school students have used an e-cigarette, and most e-cigarette liquid is flavored. More than 35 percent of Minnesota high school students report that they have tried flavored cigars, cigarillos or little cigars at some point in their lives. In fact, kids are now twice as likely as older people to be cigar smokers. Almost 20 percent of Minneapolis 12th-graders say they smoke cigar products like cigarillos regularly.

Young people known to be price sensitive

Nearly 75 percent of Minneapolis tobacco retailers currently sell cigars and cigarillos, many for less than a dollar. The proposed changes to our city’s tobacco licensing ordinance would set a minimum price of $2.60 for each cigar. Research shows that young people are very sensitive to price increases and are more likely to just quit using a product they can’t afford than adults are.

Flavored tobacco restrictions and price minimum requirements have been successfully implemented in other communities around the country – and right here in Minnesota. No one wants our young people to face a lifetime of addiction and other health problems. We know that policies that restrict access to flavored tobacco and raise tobacco prices keep kids from starting to smoke and help them to quit.

Support the proposed changes to the Minneapolis tobacco licensing ordinance. Stand up for our kids against Big Tobacco.

Jan Malcolm is the vice president of public affairs for Allina Health. She served as Minnesota state health commissioner from 1999 to 2003. Malcolm lives in Minneapolis.


Forum editorial: ND law is clear on e-cigs

It’s been stressed before, but in light of the growing use of e-cigarettes by youth and adults, it should be stressed again: All the prohibitions, bans and restrictions on the use of tobacco in North Dakota apply to e-cigarettes and related electronic devices used for “vaping.” The law, which won voter approval in every county in the state less than three years ago, is clear.

Steve Stark, Fargo Forum

Steve Stark, Fargo Forum

There seems to be either a misunderstand-ing or a purposeful manipulation of North Dakota law among fans of e-cigs and vaping. Aided and abetted by a sophisticated industry, the peddlers and promoters of electronic smoking are trying to characterize their habit as nonsmoking, nonaddicting and an effective means to get off tobacco. But the stealth agenda seems to be more about convincing the public that electronic nicotine delivery systems are harmless, indeed beneficial.

Don’t buy it.

It’s no accident e-cigs have gone from nondescript tubes to smartly produced designer accessories, like a watch or a purse or a switchblade. It also should come as no surprise that big tobacco has jumped into the e-cig market with both dirty feet, including airing TV spots designed to convince that use of the nicotine delivery tubes is sexy, fashionable and safe. Nor should anyone be shocked that marketing strategies feature brightly colored e-cigs and appealing vaporized flavors. In advertising at least, the lies that brought us the Marlboro Man are not dead, even if the Marlboro man is.

North Dakota law does not prohibit the sale and use of e-cigarettes by adults. But just like tobacco products, e-cigs are banned in all places where smoking is not allowed under the law. It’s not complicated. E-cig and vaping aficionados who believe smoking ban laws don’t apply to them should be called out and, if necessary, fined.

Forum editorials represent the opinion of Forum management and the newspaper’s Editorial Board.


Opinion: Cigarette smoking’s growing income gap

By: Peter Orszag

The income gap between smokers and nonsmokers has grown. And it’s something companies may need to address directly in their efforts to help employees kick the habit.

Over the past several decades, smoking rates have fallen sharply among high-income, highly educated Americans and not as much for less educated, low-income people. The result is that, in 2013, the smoking rate exceeded 20 percent for people with a high school degree or less while among those with a graduate degree it was just 5.6 percent. Among people living in poverty, smoking was almost twice as common (29 percent) as among those at or above the poverty line (16 percent).

The good news is that the financial incentives many companies are considering, and some are now using, to help people quit smoking can work, as a new study in the New England Journal of Medicine shows. The researchers randomly assigned employees of CVS Caremark and their relatives and friends to different groups, which were given various financial incentives to stop smoking. This study did two fabulous things that are unfortunately quite unusual in the corporate wellness field: It used a randomized controlled trial (to boost confidence in the causality of its results), and it paid careful attention to the teachings of behavioral economics – testing, for example, whether carrots or sticks were more effective.

The results were encouraging. People who were told they would receive an individual bonus of $800 for quitting stopped at almost three times the rate of those not offered any direct financial inventive. Behavioral theory generally suggests, though, that loss aversion would work even better. In other words, if subjects made an initial deposit that they would stand to lose if they failed to quit, that would provide an even stronger incentive. And that was indeed the case, the researchers found, but people had to be willing to make the deposit in the first place. And because many were not willing to do that, the bonus approach was more effective overall. So unless a company finds a way to force its employees to follow the stick approach, the bonus works better.

These findings were widely reported in the news, but one thing went largely if not entirely unnoticed: A table in the appendix to the study showed that, for each of the four kinds of interventions studied, the share of high-income smokers who quit – those earning $60,000 or more – was larger than that of lower-income smokers. The reason, according to the study’s lead author, is that lower-income smokers were less willing to participate under any of the incentive programs offered. That was true despite the bonus or deposit being the same dollar amount for everyone, and therefore a higher share of income for lower-paid workers.

Reducing smoking among any group of employees is a good thing, and companies should act on this new research. At the same time, it is reasonable to be concerned about the gap in smoking rates by socioeconomic status, which is one of the forces widening the gaps in life expectancy by education and income. To reverse this trend, disproportionately larger dollar bonuses may be needed to get lower earners to quit.

Contact Peter Orszag at porszag3@bloomberg.net


Forum editorial: Minnesota tobacco use down

The anti-tobacco work of ClearWay Minnesota in conjunction with other tobacco cessation efforts has had remarkable results in reducing smoking rates among all age groups in Minnesota. It’s a record worthy of high praise. It’s unambiguous evidence that focused, science-based anti-tobacco campaigns can work.

Numbers released last week by ClearWay show only 14.4 percent of Minnesotans smoke cigarettes, down from 22.1 percent in 1999. The decline through the time period has been steady, and corresponds to increased education and imposition of legal restrictions on smoking in public places. Add new medical research about second-hand smoke, and graphic anti-smoking television advertising, and it appears the multi-faceted message is getting through.

But not to every age cohort.

In ClearWay statistics from 2010 to 2014, smoking hardly dipped at all (1 percent) in the 25-44 year-old group, from 19.7 percent to 18.7 percent. A similar slight improvement was measured in the 45-64 year-old cohort, compared with a huge drop (from 21.8 percent to 15.3 percent) in Minnesotans age 18-24. Which could lead to the conclusion that some Minnesotans don’t get smarter as they age. But whatever the reason, the overall percentages of all Minnesotans who smoke is down over the longer study period, and that’s good news for smokers who quit, non-smokers and reduced impacts on health costs associated with tobacco use. The trends are good.

ClearWay is not resting on its excellent record. In the eight years it has left in its mandate (funded by the national tobacco settlement of a few years back), the agency’s agenda includes raising cigarette taxes, which all studies show discourage young people from purchasing tobacco, and raising the age for tobacco purchases from 18 to 21. Again, research finds that raising the age to beyond high school age contributes to fewer high school students trying tobacco. New York City and Hawaii have already taken that step.

There is still much to be accomplished to achieve as smoke-free a society as possible. A lot has been done, often led by private sector companies that banned smoking from the workplace before cities and states enacted overall smoking bans in buildings and, in many instances, outdoor public spaces. Decades of research into smoking-related illness and death, and the proven health hazards of secondhand smoke, have been the underpinnings of changing public policy. ClearWay’s work and similar complementary efforts have been pivotal in changing the way enlightened Americans view tobacco use.

Forum editorials represent the opinion of Forum management and the newspaper’s Editorial Board.


Opinion: E-cigarettes: Doctors' View: E-cigarette, tobacco smoke enough alike to warrant regulation

By Terry Clark, Mary J. Boylan and Joseph Bianco

What are e-cigarettes? Have you ever seen one? Do you know how they work? Are they as bad for your health as traditional cigarettes?

It is fair to say that three or four years ago these were new questions and we did not know the answers. But now we do, and it is certainly time for you to know — and for our St. Louis County Board of Commissioners to know as they consider a vote to help protect citizens of our county from the “invisible” harm caused by these gadgets if being used indoors.

Details about e-cigarettes and their health effects are well-described in a recent report from the California Department of Health, and even more recent good information on e-cigarettes can be found in the News Tribune’s “Our View” editorial on Friday, headlined, “County up next in quest for clear air.”

E-cigarettes is a good news/bad news story. Are they less toxic than traditional cigarettes? Likely. Are they really safe to use? Not likely.

First, how do they work? With no tobacco or cigarette paper to burn, there’s no smoke. They really are electronic gadgets with several sections, one with a small battery, one with a small amount of fluid usually containing some nicotine as well as flavoring and other chemicals, and a high-temperature chamber that converts the liquid into an aerosol or fog to be inhaled by the user (an action called vaping) and then exhaled where it is readily inhaled by those around the user.

What is in this aerosol emitted by the e-cigarette? At least 10 chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm, including nicotine, formaldehyde, heavy metals and volatile organic compounds, according to the report. It’s not what you or your favorite teenager should be exposed to.

Nicotine, a key ingredient in the aerosol, is highly addictive. Of course, that is why so many users of traditional cigarettes said for years that they could quit whenever they wanted but usually never could.

We should all wonder why the three major tobacco companies purchased start-up e-cigarette companies. What do they know that we do not? One thing is this: Kids who start using purportedly safer e-cigarettes often switch and become traditional smokers or, even worse, dual smokers who use both e-cigs and traditional tobacco cigarettes. They are then addicted to nicotine for decades. Is that what the big tobacco companies are banking on?

Our elected county leaders soon will vote on this simple question: Should e-cigarette use indoors be regulated as a public health hazard just like traditional tobacco smoke? That is, no smoking in indoor places such as worksites, bars, restaurants, stores, arenas, etc.

The city of Duluth and many other communities in Minnesota already have answered this question in the affirmative: Yes, e-cigarette aerosol and tobacco smoke have enough in common to warrant being regulated in the same way under the Minnesota Clean Air Act.

In short, keep them outside.

Terry Clark and Mary J. Boylan are doctors from Duluth. Joseph Bianco is a doctor from Ely.


Jim Whitehead: The evidence is in: Ban tobacco use in GF parks

By Jim Whitehead

GRAND FORKS—It seems that the proposed Park Board tobacco policy has some folks blowing more than smoke.
Among the assertions are the following:
▇ The policy is not based on good science.
▇ Youth are not influenced by the behavior of others.
▇ It will be unpopular in Grand Forks.
▇ It is paternalistic and a misuse of power.
▇ Golf and softball are adult activities and should be exempt from a chewing tobacco ban.
Let’s start by stating what is well known: First, tobacco products are harmful when used as intended; second, nicotine is highly addictive; third, most tobacco users start before the age of 18; and fourth, North Dakota has a major problem with youth smoking and chewing tobacco use.
Thus, it behooves local public health professionals and civic leaders to take reasonable action to address the issue—which, of course, begs the question of what is “reasonable.”
Well, is it reasonable to assume that the Grand Forks Park District should be interested in regulating unhealthy behaviors? Given that the district’s mission is “to provide the best parks, programs, facilities, forestry services and other services possible to promote a healthy and enjoyable lifestyle for all citizens of Grand Forks,” I would submit that it is quite reasonable to adopt policies that promote fidelity to its mission.
Is the proposed policy based on good science? Note that the risks of secondhand smoke have not been advocated as the basis for the proposed policy. In contrast, the rationale is far more about social norm issues such as the effects of role modeling and peer influence.
Of course, not all scientists agree, and I could certainly cherry-pick research papers that challenge their effects; but the weight of evidence seems to have impressed the scientists and public health professionals at the Centers for Disease Control and local public health departments.
Moreover, the science has been deemed good enough to underpin similar policies that have already been adopted by other local agencies and institutions that claim health-related missions, including Altru, UND and Grand Forks schools.
This is not “paternalism” in action. It is an objective and evidence-based attempt to address a serious public health concern.
The “good science” issue also is pertinent to the notion that the proposed policy “will be unpopular.” Those who have made that criticism may not be aware of the solid research design behind the two recent studies conducted on Grand Forks residents and on softball-team managers and golf-course users. The data shows that 78 percent of residents support the comprehensive tobacco-free policy (90 percent of frequent park users), and 84 percent of softball and golf participants are in favor. This is hardly an unpopular policy.
Moreover, when asked whether the proposed policy would “discourage youth from starting to use tobacco products, promote positive role-modeling” or “create an environment that promotes a healthy and enjoyable lifestyle,” well over 90 percent of respondents agreed.
Again, these data (obtained using good scientific methodology) overwhelmingly refute the notion that the policy will be “unpopular.”
Will this policy, if adopted, cause some people to bypass the city for destinations further south? Given that Manitoba intends to fine smokers $300 if they are caught puffing in provincial parks, beaches or playgrounds, it could be that hardened tobacco-using golfers might pass us by. But I doubt that will constitute enough of a revenue loss to Grand Forks to outweigh the health and health care cost-savings that will accrue from what is demonstrably a popular and science-based policy.
Thus, I hope that the Park District board will ignore these “smoke screens” and adopt the proposed tobacco policy at its meeting on Monday (May 4).
But I also hope that the board will recognize that golf and softball are not exclusively the domain of adults, and consequently, will be amenable to revisiting the chewing tobacco exemption sometime in the near future.
Given the alarming data on all forms of tobacco use by North Dakota’s youth, plus the near-overwhelming support for an all-inclusive comprehensive policy by Grand Forks’ residents and the city’s golfers and softball-team managers, I suggest that this is not an issue that can be “chewed over” and delayed too much longer.

Bill Palmiscno: Tobacco limits in parks will make Grand Forks a better place

By Bill Palmiscno
GRAND FORKS—At the April 6 meeting of the Grand Forks Park Board, the Park Board commissioners passed the first reading of the Park District Tobacco Usage Policy.
It reads as follows:
“No person shall use, chew, smoke, inhale e-cigarettes, or otherwise engage in the usage of tobacco or tobacco products within or on any playground, fitness center, arena, pool, Park District parks, baseball diamonds and outdoor tennis courts. Except for chewing tobacco products at Lincoln Golf Course, King Walk Golf Course and Ulland Park, all tobacco products and all tobacco usage is banned on all property owned, leased or managed by the Park District.”
The decision to implement the Tobacco Usage Ban Policy was not taken lightly. For the past two years, multiple concerned groups, including the Grand Forks Public Health Department, have been requesting a tobacco-free parks ordinance. The issue has been carefully reviewed and analyzed by the Park Board for years.
Here are three major factors that lead to the passing of the first reading of the Park District Tobacco Usage Policy.
▇ Grand Forks City Council ruling on Ordinance 4393
On Dec. 3, 2012, the city of Grand Forks passed the Smoke Free Workplace Ordinance 4393; the ordinance went into effect a few days later. This Grand Forks ordinance and the state of North Dakota’s ruling prohibits smoking on golf courses and softball fields.
Ordinance 4393 also includes “public places,” which made reference to public parks but not playgrounds.
▇ Overwhelming community support for tobacco-free parks
In April 2014, the Park Board was presented with a third-party, scientific survey showing community attitudes and perceptions towards a Comprehensive Tobacco-Free Parks Policy. Key findings can be found in the appendix or online at tobaccobytes.com, the website of the Grand Forks Tobacco Free Coalition.
▇ Commitment to being community leaders in health and wellness
The mission of the Grand Forks Park District is to provide the best parks, programs, facilities, forestry services and other services possible to promote a healthy and enjoyable lifestyle for all citizens of Grand Forks. The Park Board is committed to keeping our mission at the heart of every decision made.
The goal of implementing the Tobacco Usage Policy is to prevent our children from being exposed to addictive behavior in public areas where families frequent, such as parks, playgrounds and youth fields. The Park Board does not want to restrict the rights of adults, hence the decision to allow chewing tobacco products in our adult-focused activity areas such as Lincoln Golf Course, King’s Walk Golf Course and Ulland Park.
We truly believe the decision to implement the Tobacco Usage Policy is in the best interest of Grand Forks residents.

Forum editorial: Don’t be fooled by e-cig hype

The North Dakota Legislature is buying into Big Tobacco’s clever but dishonest narrative about e-cigarettes. Lawmakers would be better served by paying attention to Dr. Terry Dwelle, the state’s chief health officer.
In comments published a few days ago, Dwelle said without equivocation that, given current research and information, the “cons” of e-cigs outweigh the “pros.” He said more work is needed to further define the risks and any potential benefits of the nicotine-delivery devices. He said the assumption that vapors produced by e-cigs are less risky than smoke from traditional tobacco products is not backed up by sound research.
Lawmakers likely will ban e-cig sales to minors, as several North Dakota cities have done already. But there is wrong-headed sentiment among some lawmakers that the devices should not be taxed and otherwise treated the same way tobacco is. Under the state’s smoking ban law, e-cigs are treated like cigarettes and other tobacco products. The e-cig provision was part of a voter-approved smoking and secondhand smoke measure. The measure passed with 66 percent approval.
Yet, lawmakers have smoke in their eyes when it comes to the clear message North Dakotans sent about tobacco use – and the stealth campaign to paint vaping with e-cigs as an innocent tobacco-free option.
There is nothing innocent about it. Big Tobacco has become Big Vaping. The companies have jumped into the e-cig market with slick advertising campaigns and legitimate-sounding claims about the safety and efficacy of e-cigarettes. The push has all the elements that peddlers of tobacco used a generation ago to convince the gullible that cigarettes did not cause cancer. The lie then has morphed into the lie now.
There is less-than-definitive indication that e-cigs help smokers quit. If it’s true, it’s a good thing. But that unproved aspect of e-cigs has nothing to do with taxing a nicotine-delivery device that by some studies can be a gateway for young people to tobacco use. It is counterintuitive to grant a tax break to devices and substances that use candy flavors and faux fashion to attract users of all ages to a nicotine-delivery tube. It’s also stupid policy. It’s playing into the dirty hands of the folks who for years peddled the fiction that tobacco was good for us.
Forum editorials represent the opinion of Forum management and the newspaper’s Editorial Board.

Letter to the Editor: Letter: Big tobacco companies still trying to hook kids

I  applaud the new TV ad airing locally that highlights Big Tobacco’s continued targeting of children. You may have seen this ad featuring an ice cream truck driving through a kid-filled neighborhood drawing lots of pint-sized customers to its menu of “31 flavors.” Only it turns out a tobacco executive is behind the wheel and the flavors disguise deadly products.
Tobacco companies have clearly come up with ways to get to kids around the 2009 ban on flavored cigarettes by pushing flavored cigars, cigarillos, smokeless tobacco and e-cigarettes.
When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration banned the sale of flavored cigarettes, it did so to reduce smoking, a leading preventable cause of death and disease in our country.
In particular, the FDA wanted to reduce the number of children who start to smoke. Almost 90 percent of adult smokers start smoking as teenagers. And nicotine, which is in all tobacco products, is shown to be not only highly addictive and carcinogenic but also detrimental to adolescent brain development.
Flavorings including menthol, which is still available in cigarettes, mask the harsh taste of tobacco and are shown to be attractive to young people. Research shows that young people believe flavored tobacco products are less dangerous than nonflavored tobacco. As of last year, 44 percent of Minnesota high school smokers used menthol, according to the Minnesota Department of Health. That’s double the percentage in 2000. The same study by MDH also found that 35 percent of Minnesota students have tried flavored cigars and 13 percent of Minnesota kids use flavored e-cigarettes.
Do we really need more evidence that kids are attracted to flavored tobacco products, including menthol? Do we have any reason to believe that tobacco companies aren’t exploiting this attraction to hook more kids on their deadly products? The answer to both questions is a resounding “no.”
It’s time we say “no” to Big Tobacco’s continued marketing to our kids! Ask your lawmakers what they plan to do to stop young people from getting their hands on these tempting threats to their health.
McCoy, Moorhead, is tobacco coordinator for Clay County Public Health.

Op Ed: How to lower Grand Forks’ high tobacco-use rates

By: Theresa Knox

On Feb. 23, the Herald ran a story about the dismal rates among adults of chewing tobacco use (“N.D. ranks highly in smokeless tobacco use,” Page A1).

As the story reported, North Dakota was ranked 49th out of 50 states and District of Columbia, with 7.6 percent of its adults using smokeless tobacco.

The story went on to interview several people with personal stories about the toll of tobacco in their lives. It ended with the quote, “They all know someone who’s died from tobacco-related cancer.”

These statistics are terrible. And they are not just statistics. As the article referenced, each number represents a person. These are people we know and love — people we work with, and people whom we don’t want to see sick and dying from the No. 1 cause of preventable death: tobacco use.

Nearly one quarter of high school boys in North Dakota use smokeless tobacco (22 percent). That is higher than the adult use rate and the fifth worst in the country.

We know that most smokers begin their addictive habit before the age of 18, and nearly 4,000 kids try their first cigarette every day. That’s almost 1.5 million young people per year.

The tobacco industry pours billions into advertising to create a perception that tobacco use is fun and glamorous.

But, guess what? We don’t have billions to counteract that type of messaging — and we don’t need it.

There is a solution that is nearly free of charge; and it works. Research bears out this claim.

I will tell you what that solution is, but first, ask yourself this question: Is it easier to quit using tobacco or to avoid ever taking up the habit?

It is easier (and cheaper) to avoid taking up this addictive habit.

Second, I ask you to rethink your attitudes about tobacco use and why it is not acceptable in indoor and outdoor public places. There is no denying that second-hand smoke and toxic litter from cigarette butts and spitting on the ground are bad for people and animals. But there is an even more important reason to prohibit tobacco use in indoor and outdoor public places: Public policy that keeps kids from seeing tobacco use as a normal activity will decrease youth initiation of tobacco use.

Remember, most people don’t chew or smoke tobacco.

An effective way to keep our next generation of North Dakotans from ever taking up using tobacco is to pass laws that keep tobacco use –including e-cigarettes, cigarettes and smokeless tobacco — out of our parks.

We can pass public policy that creates tobacco free environments. These policies don’t tell people they can’t use tobacco, if they choose to use. People are still free to smoke or chew. These policies prevent the use of products in otherwise safe and healthy places.

Grand Forks Park Board commissioners have the chance to take a deliberate and determined step to protect the health and safety of Grand Forks youth by adopting a comprehensive tobacco-free parks policy. They can take the lead to separate the connection between sports and chew, parks and tobacco.

And the result?

We know the result. A comprehensive tobacco-free parks policy, prohibiting use of all tobacco products in all Park District parks, grounds and facilities will result in cleaner parks and less secondhand smoke exposure.

And the most celebrated result?

Fewer Grand Forks youth will start using tobacco, and fewer among the next generation of North Dakotans will struggle with tobacco addiction and the toll of the illness and death that result from tobacco.

That is the solution. And it costs next to nothing.