TIME Health|Research: 4 Weird Health Effects of E-Cigarettes

Justin Worland

Banana pudding-flavored ecigs disturbed the lungs, one study found

E-cigarette research is heating up, and scientists are starting to show that using e-cigarettes can have some surprising health effects, according to new findings presented at the meeting of the American Thoracic Society.

“Millions of people around the world that are puffing e-cigs,” says Peter Dicpinigaitis, professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and one of the authors of new e-cigarette research, “but when you look at the scientific literature about the effects of e-cigs, there’s nothing out there.”

Here are some of the newest findings:

Using e-cigarettes suppresses your ability to cough

Smoking an e-cigarette makes you less likely to cough, even when coughing would benefit your health, according to research by Dicpinigaitis. Researchers asked 30 nonsmokers to puff an e-cigarette 30 times in a 15-minute period. After puffing, people in the study were less sensitive to capsaicin, a component of chili peppers that induces coughing. You might think stopping a cough would be a positive side effect, but coughing keeps you from choking and removes agents that may cause infection, says Dicpinigaitis. He presumes that those the effects would continue throughout the day for someone who uses an e-cigarette frequently.

E-cigarette temperature may affect how many chemicals you’re exposed to

People tend to think about the effects of cigarette smoke or e-cigarette vapor when they consider how the products harm their health. But the mechanics of e-cigarettes may also contribute to how much smoking harms your health, according to new research from University of Alabama School of Medicine professor Daniel Sullivan. His research found a correlation between coil temperature and the creation of harmful chemicals like acrolein, acetaldehyde and formaldehyde in the e-cigarette. There are no configuration standards for e-cigarettes, and Sullivan’s research suggests that the lack of consistency makes it hard to assess uniformly the health effects of smoking e-cigarettes.

E-cigarette flavors may have different effects

Researchers tested the effects of flavored e-cigarette liquid on calcium in the lungs and found that not all flavors had the same effect. Five of 13 flavors tested caused changes to calcium signaling in the lungs, according to a study by University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill researcher Temperance Rowell. Hot cinnamon candies, banana pudding and menthol tobacco were among the flavors that disturbed the lungs.

Evidence is growing that e-cigarettes probably aren’t an effective way to quit smoking

E-cigarettes are a popular tool people use to stop smoking, but they may not be the best way, suggests one research review. Using e-cigarettes improved the likelihood that a smoker would quit smoking cigarettes for the first month on the new technology, but the effect dissipated at 3 and 6-month followups, according to a meta-analysis of four studies by University of Toronto researcher Riyad al-Lehebi. He recommended that people who want to quit smoking consider “other more well-established options.”

http://time.com/3860166/ecigs-research/?xid=emailshare

NPR: Smokers More Likely To Quit If Their Own Cash Is On The Line

Richard Harris

Screen Shot 2015-06-03 at 2.19.15 PM

A new study finds that employer-based programs to help people stop smoking would work better if they tapped into highly motivating feelings — such as the fear of losing money.

This conclusion flows from a study involving the employees of CVS/Caremark. Some workers got postcards asking them if they wanted a cash reward to quit smoking. One card ended up in the hands of Camelia Escarcega in Rialto, Calif., whose sister works for CVS.

Escarcega says she had smoked for many years and wanted to quit, and figured money would be a good incentive. Her sister told her she was welcome to enroll in the study, so she did.

Screen Shot 2015-06-03 at 2.15.01 PMEscarcega didn’t know it at the time, but the study was comparing different financial incentives to help people quit smoking. Hers was straightforward: Over a span of six months, she’d get up to $800 if she quit and didn’t start again.

She did pretty well, she says. “I’ve been smoke-free for a year and a half now.” The program offered her free nicotine patches, but Escarcega says she didn’t even need that added help.

Dr. Scott Halpern, a professor of medicine, epidemiology, medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, worked with colleagues to design the study, as a way of exploring the best way to entice people to quit tobacco, using financial incentives.

“A dollar is not a dollar,” Halpern says, “and how you design smoking cessation programs of the same approximate value goes a long way toward determining how effective these programs will be.”

The researchers compared a few approaches. Some people simply got cash for quitting. Others were offered a carrot-and-stick approach. They’d get a similar financial reward if they quit, but they’d also lose $150 of their own money if they started smoking again.

“People are much more afraid of losing $5 than they are motivated to earn $5,” Halpern says. “And so people’s actions go with their psychology.”

It came as no surprise that the researchers found it a lot harder to convince people to put down a deposit of their own money. But when they did, the results were remarkable.

“The deposit programs were twice as effective as rewards, and five times more effective than providing free smoking cessation aids like nicotine replacement therapy,” Halpern says.

More than half of the people who had money on the line stopped smoking for at least six months. These results are reported Wednesday in the latest New England Journal of Medicine. And Halpern argues the approach is much more effective than what most companies do now.

“Many programs are structured such that employees who stop smoking are rewarded by having less money taken out of their paychecks for insurance premiums the following year,” Halpern notes. “But by bundling the rewards into paychecks they’re relatively invisible to people — and the fact that they occur in the future — makes it less influential than if people were handed the same amount of money more quickly.”

Mercer, a benefits consulting company, reports that 21 percent of large employers currently offer financial incentives to workers who quit smoking or don’t start — primarily by reducing their health-insurance premiums. (An additional 5 percent of those companies offer other incentives). And more than half of the nation’s biggest employers use incentives.

Halpern says insurance premium rebates aren’t the best way to go.

“Employers and insurers could do a whole lot more to curb smoking than they currently are,” he says. “And doing so, they would reduce costs to themselves and improve public health.” Each employee who smokes costs a company more than $5,000 extra a year, due to health care costs and other expenses.

This is potentially tricky ground to navigate, though.

“Companies may have a concern that if they sign people into this kind of a wellness program and [the employees] lose that deposit, they’re going to feel really badly,” says Oleg Urminsky, at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business.

The worry is that those bad feelings “may spill into other things,” Urminsky says. “Are they going to resent the employer? Are they going to be complaining? It’s a powerful tool but it’s one that has to be used carefully.”

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/05/13/406459255/smokers-more-likely-to-quit-if-their-own-cash-is-on-the-line?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20150513

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.

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/opinion/columns/3742094-e-cigarettes-doctors-view-e-cigarette-tobacco-smoke-enough-alike-warrant

TIME: San Francisco Bans Chewing Tobacco at Sports Venues

By Olivia B. Waxman

Effective Jan. 1, 2016

On Friday, San Francisco became the first American city to ban smokeless tobacco—chewing tobacco and “moist inhalable snuff”—at sports venues.

The new ordinance, signed by Mayor Ed Lee, goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2016. Violators will be asked to leave the playing fields (where cigarette and cigar smoking is already banned), the Associated Press reports.

Anti-smoking groups argue that a ban on smokeless tobacco—which has been linked to cancer and nicotine addiction—sends the right message to kids who look up to the players. But San Francisco Giants pitcher Matt Cain said the measure may be hard to enforce, noting that coffee pouches resemble tobacco pouches, according to an article on the team’s website.

The state Assembly is still considering a bill banning tobacco use—electronic cigarettes included—wherever there’s a baseball game, the AP reports.

To read more or watch video: http://time.com/3852742/san-francisco-bans-chewing-tobacco/

Reuters Health: Youth who receive tobacco coupons may be more susceptible to smoking

BY KATHRYN DOYLE

(Reuters Health) – Middle and high school students exposed to tobacco coupons were more likely to find smoking “cool” and less likely to feel confident in quitting if they already smoked, according to recent U.S. survey data.

Some kids may encounter the coupons for free or discounted tobacco products passively, via direct mail campaigns aimed at their parents, but the coupons are also often sent by email and are readily available on the Internet.

“In previous studies, my collaborators and I found that exposure to cigarette coupons predicts smoking progression in youth and young adults and reduces likelihood of cessation among general adult smokers from the U.S. upper Midwest,” said the study’s author, Dr. Kelvin Choi of the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities in Bethesda, Maryland.

This new national sample of middle and high school students who were included in the current analysis can be generalized to youth across the United States, Choi told Reuters Health in a statement.

Choi’s opinions do not necessarily reflect those of the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, or the United States Government, the statement added.

Using the National Youth Tobacco Survey 2012, Choi examined questionnaire responses from more than 24,000 middle and high school students, who reported if and where they had received coupons from a tobacco company over the past 30 days.

Almost 10 percent said they were current smokers, 16 percent were experimenters and almost 75 percent were non-smokers.

Thirteen percent of the students had received tobacco coupons over the previous month, most often digitally – by text message, Internet or social networks – and sometimes by paper mail or on tobacco packages themselves.

In the survey, kids who had been exposed to these coupons in any form were less likely to disagree with positive statements about cigarette smoking, such as that it helps young people fit in and have more friends. They were also less likely to agree with negative statements, such as that all tobacco products are dangerous.

The kids who were exposed to the coupons but had never smoked gave survey responses that suggested they were more susceptible to trying smoking, and those who were smokers gave responses suggesting they were less confident in their ability to quit.

Among those who experimented with cigarettes, kids who saw the coupons were more likely to purchase cigarettes over the next month, as reported in Tobacco Control.

“It is well-established that a wide variety of psychosocial factors are associated with smoking and are likely on the causal pathway to smoking,” said Dr. Jennifer O’Loughlin of the department of social and preventive medicine at the University of Montreal in Canada, who was not part of the new study.

“Note that one of the determinants of tobacco use is pricing,” O’Loughlin told Reuters Health by email. “Coupons directly reduce the price and may be a powerful incentive for tobacco use.”

But with a study of only one point in time, like this one, it is difficult to determine which came first, the coupons or the smoking, she said.

Without a long-term study randomizing kids to receive these coupons, it will be difficult to establish that the coupons cause kids to smoke, and therefore difficult to hold coupon distributors responsible, she said.

“In kids especially (who may be particularly vulnerable to advertising and promotion), it is vital to combat anything that contributes to the social norm that tobacco smoking is OK,” O’Loughlin said.

Since kids can download coupons from the Internet easily, they may easily do so without their parents’ knowledge, she said.

“We found that cigarette companies say on their websites that they do not target anyone under the age of 21 with direct mail materials, although their compliance with this self-regulation is unknown,” Choi said. “Interested youth could also potentially bypass the age-verification on cigarette company websites using someone else’s or inaccurate identification.”

On the Internet and in social network channels, it is much harder, if not impossible, to enforce stringent age-verification, he said. “Plus, as we found in a previous study, individuals give coupons to others if they don’t use them,” he said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/06/us-adolescent-smoking-coupons-idUSKBN0NR25Q20150506

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.
http://www.grandforksherald.com/opinion/op-ed-columns/3734294-jim-whitehead-evidence-ban-tobacco-use-gf-parks

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.
http://www.grandforksherald.com/opinion/op-ed-columns/3728966-bill-palmiscno-tobacco-limits-parks-will-make-grand-forks-better-place

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.
http://www.inforum.com/opinion/editorials/3711115-forum-editorial-dont-be-fooled-e-cig-hype

Fargo Forum: Bill banning e-cigarette sales to minors in ND passes Senate

By Mike Nowatzki

BISMARCK – A bill outlawing e-cigarette sales to minors in North Dakota unanimously passed the Senate on Tuesday, though one lawmaker warned that not defining the nicotine-delivery devices as tobacco products will make it more difficult to enforce the law and protect minors.

“Sometimes the good outweighs the flaws, and that’s precisely how I view this bill,” said Sen. Erin Oban, D-Bismarck, executive director of Tobacco Free North Dakota.

Senators voted 46-0 in favor of House Bill 1186, which makes it an infraction to sell or give anyone under 18 an electronic smoking device or alternative nicotine product, or for minors to buy, possess or use them.

Introduced by Rep. Kim Koppelman, R-West Fargo, the bill also requires child-resistant packaging for liquid nicotine containers and bans self-service displays for e-cigarettes.

The Senate didn’t change the bill as approved by the House 71-20 last month, so it will soon head to Gov. Jack Dalrymple for his signature.

Sen. John Grabinger, D-Jamestown, who carried the bill from the Senate Judiciary Committee with a 6-0 do-pass recommendation, said the committee heard a lot of testimony and efforts to amend the bill but couldn’t decide on any changes that would make it better.

“Your committee decided rather than trying to fix the bill that really was getting these products out of the reach of the young, we should support the present bill,” he said.

Health advocacy groups and the state Department of Health have urged lawmakers to define e-cigarettes as tobacco products because the nicotine in the liquid vaporized by the battery-powered devices is derived from tobacco plants.

The definition would make e-cigarettes subject to tobacco excise taxes and require those who sell them to obtain a tobacco retailer license, as three North Dakota cities – Wahpeton, West Fargo and Grand Forks – have mandated through their city ordinances.

Twenty-three cities have updated their ordinances to prohibit e-cigarette sales to minors, according to the North Dakota Center for Tobacco Prevention and Control Policy.

Oban raised concern about using terms like “alternative nicotine product” for products “that are indeed tobacco products and should be treated as such under the law.”

“Creating multiple definitions makes enforcement and compliance more difficult and protection for minors less effective,” she said. “In addition, currently we have no idea who’s even selling products like electronic cigarettes, and unfortunately this bill doesn’t help us to address that concern, either.”

Still, she encouraged a yes vote with the understanding “that we may need to make some improvements in the future.”

Sen. Jonathan Casper, R-Fargo, said the debate over whether to classify e-cigarettes as tobacco products will continue as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration develops regulations for the devices. He said HB1186 struck a “middle-ground balance” between interests on both sides.

Senators also voted 9-37 Tuesday to defeat HB1078, which would have made it illegal for minors to use or be sold nicotine devices. Grabinger said committee members felt the bill introduced by Rep. Diane Larson, R-Bismarck, didn’t go far enough.

http://www.inforum.com/news/3712175-bill-banning-e-cigarette-sales-minors-nd-passes-senate

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

By Jason McCoy from Moorhead

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.
http://www.inforum.com/letters/3709662-letter-big-tobacco-companies-still-trying-hook-kids