Archive for category: In The News

You are here: / / In The News

Letter to the Editor: The issue with smoking is addiction, not freedom

I am writing in response to the Herald’s editorial on tobacco use in Grand Forks parks (“Too much loss for too little gain,” Page F1, June 1).

Tobacco prevention policies have, throughout history, always been met with some resistance. Tobacco use was so common when I was a child that it was normal to see smokers in grocery stores, movie theaters, school classrooms, teacher’s lounges, doctors’ offices, airplanes, airports and hospital rooms.

Each of those changes was met with the attitude that it was beyond the pale to even consider making changes. But today, it would seem unusual to see someone smoking in their hospital room or at a movie theater.

Tobacco use rates were high, and we all paid the price of the damage tobacco use does to the human body by way of health care costs, Medicaid costs, loss of productivity and sadly, early deaths of loved ones.

As a result of sound evidence-based practices, such as 1) preventing initiation among youth and young adults, 2) promoting quitting among adults and youth, 3) eliminating exposure to secondhand smoke and 4) identifying and eliminating tobacco-related disparities among population groups, headway has been made in reducing tobacco-use rates. But there still is work to be done.

Grand Forks Park District Commissioner Molly Soeby’s column put it well: “Tobacco use kills more people than AIDS, alcohol, car accidents, illegal drugs, murders and suicides combined” (“For health’s sake, Grand Forks parks should ban tobacco use,” Page F1, June 1).

“It is the No. 1 cause of preventable death in our country. Young people in North Dakota use tobacco more than the national averages. They smoke at higher rates (19.4 percent vs. 18.1 percent), and they use more chewing tobacco than adults (13.6 percent vs. 8.2 percent).”

Tobacco use kills about 480,000 people each and every year in the United States. That equals the number of American deaths in all the U.S. wars since the American Revolution, every 2½ years.

So, what can be done to improve these numbers? What does the research show us works?

The Centers for Disease Control recommends creating tobacco-free social norms through the use of “increasing the unit price of tobacco products, sustaining anti-tobacco media campaigns and making environments smoke-free.”

Tobacco-free parks policies are part of a comprehensive combination of strategies to get our youth tobacco use rates lowered.

Tobacco-free parks policies will keep young people from ever starting. The research is done, the evidence is clear. According to the CDC, comprehensive tobacco-free policies prevent young people from seeing tobacco use as a normal adult activity and show a significant effect on reducing tobacco use initiation among youth.

Our community would not be the first to adopt a tobacco-free parks policy. North Dakota currently has 12 communities with tobacco-free parks, and Minnesota has more than 150.

According to the editorial, “secondhand smoke in indoor areas is a health hazard; secondhand smoke in parks in inconsequential.”

But it’s not about secondhand smoke, which, by the way, many people consider a nuisance that interferes with their personal enjoyment of the parks. It is about what we know will work to keep young people from starting to use tobacco.

The editorial says that this is not a good enough reason to “clamp down on personal freedom.”

But this is not a personal freedom issue, either. Tobacco use is an addiction, and most adult tobacco users report that they started using before age 18.

A policy such at this will not prohibit anyone from using tobacco. It will help to keep children, who do not use tobacco, from starting.

That is a public health issue, not a personal freedom issue.

Recent studies in Grand Forks show overwhelming support in the community for the adoption of tobacco-free policies on all of our Park District properties. (The community-wide study is available on www.tobaccobytes.com)

Tobacco-free parks policies are cost effective. They’re good for the health of North Dakotans now and, as Soeby put it, “for future generations of residents of Grand Forks.”

Knox coordinates the tobacco prevention program for the Grand Forks Public Health Department.

http://www.grandforksherald.com/content/theresa-knox-issue-smoking-addiction-not-freedom

AMA, Doctor Allies Push CVS Rivals To End Tobacco Sales

The American Medical Association and allied physician groups this week are exacting added pressure on pharmacies and others that sell health products to join CVS’ move to cease peddling cigarettes and other tobacco products.

Earlier this year, CVS grabbed international kudos that included acclaim from the White House for the giant pharmacy chain’s decision to stop selling cigarettes and other tobacco products in all of its more than 7,600 stores by October 1, according to its parent company, CVS/Caremark (CVS).

Public health advocates said CVS’ move was particularly notable given its drugstores would be sacrificing $2 billion in annual sales for public health and future growth.

Now, the largest doctor group in the U.S. and affiliated state and national medical societies are voicing a more unified chorus against retail sales of tobacco products at the AMA’s annual policy-making House of Delegates meeting that runs through Tuesday in Chicago.

Several doctor groups said Sunday that they want the AMA to push pharmacies and “providers of health services and products” to stop-selling cigarettes and tobacco products or work to pressure them to limit sales of such products. An AMA reference committee Sunday considered two resolutions urging the organization to step up the pressure on pharmacies and other retailers.

The American College of Cardiology, for example, said even limiting tobacco has led to its reduced use.

“We urge retailers that sell health related products to follow the example set by CVS Caremark CVS +0.38% and discontinue the sale of all tobacco products,” said Dr. L. Samuel Wann, an AMA delegate representing the American College of Cardiology. “Selling both prescription medicines and cigarettes in the same store is hypocritical. Large pharmacy chains that continue to sell cigarettes appear irresponsible to society. The ACC supports all possible action to reduce tobacco access and use, especially when it comes to our nation’s youth.”

The resolutions before the AMA didn’t name retailers specifically. CVS rivals Wal-Mart (WMT) and Walgreen WAG -0.75% (WAG) continue to sell tobacco products.

The AMA reference committee ultimately reaffirmed the organization’s existing policy which opposes “the sale of tobacco at any facility where health services are provided.” 

The AMA’s annual House of Delegates’ meeting serves as more of a bully pulpit for health issues than anything.

“The power of the AMA is in its role as a single umbrella organization that covers all physicians, across specialty, geography, practice type or career stage,” Dr. Robert Wah, the incoming AMA president, said in a statement at the meeting’s open. “We have the ability to convene all the parties that need to come to the table to work on solutions to the challenges physicians face today. It’s the bringing together of different perspectives that makes the organization stronger.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2014/06/08/ama-doctor-allies-push-cvs-rivals-to-end-tobacco-sales/

Andrew Knight: Extend to parks the push to reduce smoking

By Andrew Knight, Grand Forks Herald

Smoking should be allowed in Grand Forks parks because banning it “clamps down on personal freedom?” (“Too much cost for too little gain,” editorial, Page F1, June 1)

Is the argument really about progress vs. freedom?

The Herald’s “ThreeSixty” opinion section on June 1 includes the phrases “enjoy a cigarette on a park bench,” “cigarette smoke smells like roses,” and that a “(smoking) ban is ‘pointless’ from a traditional perspective.” It felt more like an opinion section from the 1960s.

Grand Forks Park District Commissioner Molly Soeby expertly lays out the issues with several pieces of evidence for this ban, and then non-local public policy wonks (Dennis Prager et al.) are trotted out as the counterpoint, with nary a point made specific to smoking in parks.

Soeby explains 78 percent of the Grand Forks community and 82 percent of golfers and softball managers are for a comprehensive tobacco-free policy. Even with sampling error, we can discern a clear majority opinion here.

How then, does Grand Forks City Council President Hal Gershman think the ban would be “very unpopular?” (“Banning smoking in parks a ‘needless intrusion,’” letter, Page A4, June 4).

This isn’t to say that I don’t expect a small but vocal backlash from the “hey, freedom!” crowd.

The supposed “counter” to Soeby’s arguments and statistics is a smattering of excerpts on the topic of smoking, starting with Simon Chapman from Australia (yes, Australia). Chapman compares car exhaust to secondhand smoke because we breathe in benzene from both sources. There are a LOT of car owners and not nearly as many smokers. How much benzene shoots out of exhausts in cars versus a single cigarette?

This argument fails because he’s using two different scales.

Chapman finishes the tortured analogy saying “we hear no serious calls for the banning of cars.” First, no one is calling for banning cigarettes; it’s about reducing smoking.

Second, there is substantial market pressure on car companies to reduce emissions. Science told us vehicle emissions are pretty bad, so we are trying hard to reduce them. Science also told us smoking is bad, so that’s why the push to reduce places where smoking is allowed needs to continue to parks and other public places.

The slippery slope fallacy continued with an excerpt from a New York Times editorial (from three years ago) to that city’s smoking ban, comparing it outright to alcohol prohibition 90 years ago. If we ban smoking in parks, it may lead to “a civic disaster,” according to the writer.

If this is the best group of arguments to keep smoking legal in parks, maybe it means there are few, if any, locals willing to write against the ban (in which case, kudos to Gershman and the Herald’s editorial board for being lone wolves on this minority opinion).

You have freedom to smoke on your property, in your car, while you walk around town and so on. You have freedom to do a LOT of things in your own home that you cannot do in a park because many of us believe it is better not to expose nature, playgrounds and children to it.

Add smoking to the list. We don’t want children to see adults smoking, feel cigarette butts in their toes or smell the cigarette smoke. Leave the cigarettes in the car for a round of golf or a volleyball match.

Soon my family is moving to Colorado — a state with acres ravaged by fires in recent years. Herald readers can probably understand that the residents there are skittish about smoking in places such as parks and playgrounds, and therefore have enacted smoking bans.

Like people in Grand Forks, they have natural beauty worth preserving, would prefer not seeing people “enjoying a cigarette on a park bench” and don’t want to take the chance that an errant cigarette butt could take down a forest range.

We’re packing up for the move and are already missing people we’ve befriended here, but we won’t miss the overly cautious, conservative approach to environmental protections.

This is not a simple false choice of progress or freedom. The Park Board should feel very confident moving forward in enacting this policy.

And to the Herald editorial board: Yes, the benefits are more than worth the costs.

Knight is an assistant professor in the music department at UND. 

http://www.grandforksherald.com/content/andrew-knight-extend-parks-push-reduce-smoking

Teens and young adults confronted by more TV ads for e-cigarettes

By: Karen Kaplan, LA Times

Commercials for electronic cigarettes have become so ubiquitous that millions of American teens have seen them since 2012, a new study says.

About 4 out of 5 of the TV ads seen by these young viewers were for blu eCigs, a brand that was purchased by tobacco giant Lorillard Inc. in April 2012. Though the ads are ostensibly aimed at adults, they employ language that makes e-cigarettes seem desirable to teens, researchers write in a study published Monday by the journal Pediatrics.

Electronic cigarettes are battery-powered devices that allow users to inhale nicotine vapor. The devices have generated billions of dollars in sales but remain extremely controversial. Advocates for e-cigarettes like that the vapor contains fewer toxins than the smoke from traditional cigarettes, and some studies suggest they can help smokers kick the habit. But public health advocates contend that e-cigarettes get young people hooked on nicotine, increasing the risk that they will become regular smokers. The devices also undermine efforts to make smoking seem taboo and may make it harder for smokers to quit by keeping them hooked on nicotine, they say.

Though the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has announced its intention to prohibit sales of e-cigarettes to minors, the agency has not taken steps to limit advertising aimed at kids. The authors of the new report wanted to quantify how often teens and young adults saw e-cigarette ads on TV.

To do, so they turned to data from Nielsen, the company that keeps track of what Americans are watching. The data reported in the study was in the form of “target rating points,” or TRPS, a measurement that combines the proportion of viewers exposed to an ad and the number of times it may be seen.

The researchers found that nationally televised e-cigarette commercials were not particularly common through the first half of 2012. But in the second half of 2012 and the first nine months of 2013 – the period after Lorillard entered the industry – such advertising increased dramatically.

Between 2011 and 2013, the TRPs for viewers between the ages of 12 and 17 rose by 256%, according to the study. In the year that ended Sept. 30, 2013, those TRPs were high enough that 80% of teens could have seen 13 e-cigarette commercials, on average. Those TRPs also could work out to half of all teens viewing an average of 21 e-cigarette ads over the course of a year, or 10% of viewers watching an average of 105 commercials over a year.

The researchers also calculated the exposure for young adults between the ages of 18 and 24 and found that it increased by 321% between 2011 and 2013. The TRPs for this group were high enough to allow half of these young adults to see 35 e-cigarette commercials, on average, over the course of a year.

About 75% of these commercials aired on cable TV channels, including AMC (which aired 8% of them), Country Music Television (6.1%), Comedy Central (5.9%), WGN America (5.4%) TV Land and VH1 (both 5.3%), the study authors found. The commercials also ran during network shows that are popular among teens, including “The Bachelor,” “Big Brother” and “Survivor,” according to the study.

Among the nationally televised ads seen by teens, 82% were for blu eCigs, the data show. For young adult viewers, ads for blu eCigs accounted for 80% of the total.

The researchers also reported that 19 e-cigarette makers aired commercials in some local markets between 2011 and 2013. These ads aired in groups of cities that were home to as many as 40% of American teens.

The study authors expressed great concern over Lorillard’s ad campaign for blu eCigs. They noted that other studies have found a strong correlation between smoking in movies and the number of teens and young adults who pick up the habit. They also wrote that the ads were running at much higher frequency than the levels needed for anti-tobacco ads to influence teens that smoking is harmful.

The most widely aired blu eCig commercials featured actor Stephen Dorff. In one, he is seen smoking in restaurants, a taxi, a subway, at a rock concert, on a hike and even while riding his bike. In another, he ticks off the benefits of e-cigarettes versus traditional cigarettes and winds up by saying, “We’re all adults here. It’s time we take our freedom back.”

That kind of explicit reference to e-cigarettes being an adult product may seem like a responsible move by Lorillard, but it also serves to make the devices more appealing to teens, the study authors wrote.

The study was conducted by researchers at RTI International in North Carolina’s Research Triangle Park and a colleague at the Florida Department of Health in Tallahassee. Funding was provided by the state’s Tobacco Free Florida program.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-electronic-cigarette-tv-advertising-20140602-story.html

An 'explosion' of youth exposure to e-cigarette TV ads

Michelle Healy, USA TODAY

As the federal government moves to set rules that would ban the sale of electronic cigarettes to minors, a new study shows that TV ads for the products have increased dramatically during programs most likely to be watched by adolescents and young adults.

According to the study published online today by the journal Pediatrics, between 2011 and 2013 exposure to e-cigarette TV ads increased by 256% among adolescents ages 12 to 17 and by 321% among young adults, ages 18 to 24.

Approximately 76% of the ads seen by each of the two age groups occurred while watching cable networks — most often AMC, Country Music Television, Comedy Central, WGN America, TV Land and VH1. They also appeared on broadcast network programs that were among the 100 highest rated youth programs for the 2012-2013 TV season, including The Bachelor, Big Brother and Survivor, the study finds.

One brand, blu eCigs, owned by tobacco company Lorillard, accounted for almost 82% of all nationally aired e-cigarette ads viewed by 12- to 17-year-olds.

“The tobacco industry and e-cigarette industry say that they are not advertising products to youth, but they are advertising products on a medium which is the broadest based medium in the country,” says Jennifer Duke, lead author of the study and a public health researcher at RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C.

With a national television audience that includes 24 million viewers between the ages of 12 and 17, “as e-cigarette advertisements increase for adults they are by default also increasing exposure to youth,” Duke says. “It’s hard to argue that only adults are seeing these ads,” she adds.

Ads for traditional cigarettes have been banned from TV since 1971. A proposed rule, released in April by the Food and Drug Administration, would ban the sale to minors of tobacco products that are currently unregulated, including e-cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco and hookahs. The rule would also require require ingredient disclosure, federal approval and warning labels. Marketing and advertising restrictions are currently not part of the proposed rule.

Commercial: blu eCigs ad that aired during study

Commercial: NJOY ad that aired during the study

In a statement, blu eCigs said it has “proactively set limitations on when and where” its product “can be marketed in an effort to minimize any potential exposure to minors.” A part of the criteria used “is to screen all marketing opportunities to ensure that our TV ads only run with media targeting an adult audience of 85 percent or greater.”

The new study, which analyzed Nielsen television audience measurement data, did not focus on the content of the commercials or the audience intentionally targeted by the ads, only who had exposure to them, Duke says.

The finding that these “unregulated advertisement messages about the benefits of e-cigarettes are out at a large and increasing volume” is alarming because “there are no counter messages by the public health community,” she says.

Among the safety concerns about the battery-powered devices that turn nicotine-laced liquid into a vapor that users inhale, is that nicotine (derived from tobacco leaves) is addictive and may lead users to try other tobacco products.

E-cigarettes have not been fully studied by the FDA, but a laboratory analysis of several samples conducted by the agency in late 2008 found trace amounts of carcinogens and toxic chemicals, such as diethylene glycol, an ingredient used in antifreeze.

Results of the new media study provide “the strongest evidence that there has been an absolute explosion of youth exposure to e-cigarette advertising on television,” says Matthew Myers, president of the advocacy group Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

“It’s particularly disturbing precisely because Congress removed cigarette advertising from television because of the unique impact TV advertising has on young people,” Myers says. ” When e-cigarette manufacturers say that they don’t market to minors, it’s deja vu all over again. This study demonstrates the importance of FDA moving rapidly and decisively to protect our nation’s children.”

SWEETS MAKERS WORK TO KEEP NAMES OFF E-CIGARETTES

By MICHAEL FELBERBAUM, The AP

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Owners of brands geared toward children of all ages are battling to keep notable names like Thin Mint, Tootsie Roll and Cinnamon Toast Crunch off the flavored nicotine used in electronic cigarettes.

General Mills Inc., the Girl Scouts of the USA and Tootsie Roll Industries Inc. are among several companies that have sent cease-and-desist letters to makers of the liquid nicotine demanding they stop using the brands and may take further legal action if necessary. They want to make sure their brands aren’t being used to sell an addictive drug or make it appealing to to children.

The actions highlight the debate about the array of flavors available for the battery-powered devices that heat a liquid nicotine solution, creating vapor that users inhale. The Food and Drug Administration last month proposed regulating electronic cigarettes but didn’t immediately ban on fruit or candy flavors, which are barred for use in regular cigarettes because of the worry that the flavors are used to appeal to children.

It’s growing pains for the industry that reached nearly $2 billion in sales last year in the face of looming regulation. E-cigarette users say the devices address both the addictive and behavioral aspects of smoking without the thousands of chemicals found in regular cigarettes.

There are about 1,500 e-liquid makers in the U.S. and countless others abroad selling vials of nicotine from traditional tobacco to cherry cola on the Internet and in retail stores, often featuring photos of the popular treats. Using the brand name like Thin Mint or Fireball conjures up a very specific flavor in buyers’ minds, in a way that just “mint chocolate” or “cinnamon” doesn’t.

“Using the Thin Mint name — which is synonymous with Girl Scouts and everything we do to enrich the lives of girls — to market e-cigarettes to youth is deceitful and shameless,” Girl Scouts spokeswoman Kelly Parisi said in a statement.

The issue of illegally using well-known brands on e-cigarette products isn’t new for some. For a couple of years, cigarette makers R.J. Reynolds Tobacco and Philip Morris USA have fought legal battles with websites selling e-cigarette liquid capitalizing on their Camel and Marlboro brand names and imagery. The companies have since released their own e-cigarettes but without using their top-selling brand names.

“It’s the age-old problem with an emerging market,” said Linc Williams, board member of the American E-liquid Manufacturing Standards Association and an executive at NicVape Inc., which produces liquid nicotine. “As companies goes through their maturity process of going from being a wild entrepreneur to starting to establish real corporate ethics and product stewardship, it’s something that we’re going to continue to see.”

Williams said his company is renaming many of its liquids to names that won’t be associated with well-known brands. Some companies demanded NicVape stop using brand names such as Junior Mints on their liquid nicotine. In other cases, the company is taking proactive steps to removing imagery and names like gummy bear that could be appealing to children.

“Unfortunately it’s not going to change unless companies come in and assert their intellectual property,” he said.

And that’s what companies are starting to do more often as the industry has rocketed from thousands of users in 2006 to several million worldwide, bringing the issue to the forefront.

“We’re family oriented. A lot of kids eat our products, we have many adults also, but our big concern is we have to protect the trademark,” said Ellen Gordon, president and chief operating officer of Tootsie Roll Industries Inc. “When you have well-known trademarks, one of your responsibilities is to protect (them) because it’s been such a big investment over the years.”

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/sweets-makers-work-keep-names-e-cigarettes

Fewer Americans Believe E-Cigs Safer Than Tobacco Cigarettes: Study

FRIDAY, May 23, 2014 (HealthDay News) — As they learn more about electronic cigarettes, American smokers are becoming less likely to believe that the devices are a safer choice than tobacco cigarettes, a new study finds.

In 2010, nearly 85 percent of smokers believed e-cigarettes were less dangerous than traditional cigarettes, but that dropped to 65 percent of smokers in 2013, researchers report in the August issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

“This apparent decline in smokers’ beliefs about reduced harm of e-cigarettes compared with regular cigarettes is perplexing against the background of advertising and media messages touting e-cigarettes as safer alternatives and cessation aids,” study co-investigator Cabral Bigman, from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, said in a journal news release.

“One possible explanation is that the increased media attention over the lack of [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] approval and regulation of this emerging tobacco product, injuries arising from e-cigarette-induced fires, and health concerns from toxic chemicals in e-cigarettes in recent years may have conveyed conflicting information about the relative safety of e-cigarette use,” Bigman said.

The FDA last month proposed long-awaited regulations governing the fast-growing electronic cigarette industry. The new rules would give the agency the authority to regulate e-cigarettes as tobacco products, placing them under the same requirements as cigarettes. That would include a ban on the sale to minors.

E-cigarettes are battery-operated devices that turn nicotine, flavorings and other chemicals into a vapor that can be inhaled. Most are designed to look like a tobacco cigarette, but some look like pens, USB drives or other everyday objects.

The devices are becoming more popular. It’s predicted that sales of e-cigarettes will soon reach $1.7 billion, or about 1 percent of current sales of regular cigarettes in the United States.

The current study included data from the Health Information National Trends Survey. The investigators found that Americans’ awareness of e-cigarettes rose from about 16 percent in 2009 to 77 percent in 2013.

“In the beginning of 2013, more than three in four respondents were aware of this novel product,” study co-investigator Andy Tan, from the University of Pennsylvania, said in the news release. “The rise in awareness of e-cigarettes could reflect sharp increases in advertising expenditures by manufacturers, availability in retail stores across the country, and presence in popular media.”

Those more likely to know about e-cigarettes included young people, current and former smokers, and those with higher levels of education. Those less likely to know about the devices included Hispanics and older people, the study authors noted.

The researchers also found no link between increased awareness about e-cigarettes or beliefs that they are less harmful and smokers being more likely to try quitting.

“One potential interpretation is that adult smokers have not yet accepted e-cigarettes as a means to quit smoking,” Tan said in the news release.

The finding means that any claims that e-cigarettes help reduce the health threat posed by regular cigarettes are likely premature, he added.

More information

The U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse has more about e-cigarettes.

SOURCE: American Journal of Preventive Medicine, news release, May 15, 2014

http://consumer.healthday.com/cancer-information-5/smoking-cessation-news-628/e-cigs-awareness-ajpm-release-batch-1200-687926.html

Reynolds expanding e-cigarette production

Washington Post – By Associated Press

RICHMOND, Va. — Reynolds American Inc. is expanding its Tobaccoville, North Carolina, manufacturing complex as it plans national distribution of its Vuse brand electronic cigarette this summer, the company said Friday.

The owner of nation’s second-biggest tobacco company did not disclose the costs related to the ramp-up, which will include a multi-million dollar investment for high-speed manufacturing equipment, for competitive reasons but said the move would create more than 200 jobs over the next four years.

Reynolds, based in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, launched Vuse in Colorado last June and plans the initial wave of national distribution next month.

Production is currently done at a contractor facility in Kansas, but the company said more production will be needed for the foreseeable future to meet anticipated market demand. The company will carve out about 70,000 square feet of space in its existing 2 million-square-foot Tobaccoville facility. It does not publicly provide the number of employees that work at the plant that also makes its cigarette brands, including Camel and Pall Mall.

The market for e-cigarettes has grown from the thousands of users in 2006 to several million worldwide and reached nearly $2 billion in sales last year. The battery-powered devices that heat a liquid nicotine solution, creating vapor that users inhale. E-cigarette users say the devices address both the addictive and behavioral aspects of smoking without the thousands of chemicals found in regular cigarettes. The Food and Drug Administration last month proposed regulating electronic cigarettes.

Reynolds says the rechargeable Vuse e-cigarette has technology that monitors and adjusts heat and power more than 2,000 times per second to deliver the “perfect puff.” It also has a smart light on the tip of to let users know when it’s getting low, needs to be replaced or recharged.

“This is all about smokers getting satisfaction from these alternatives and how many smokers find that an acceptable way to enjoy nicotine instead of smoking tobacco products,” Reynolds CEO Susan Cameron said at a news conference Friday with North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory. “I think we’ll see this evolve and it’s certainly in growth mode, but how big and how fast, we really don’t know yet.”

The nation’s biggest tobacco companies all have entered into the fast-growing electronic cigarette business as part of an industry wide push to diversify beyond the traditional cigarette business, which has become tougher in the face of tax hikes, smoking bans, health concerns and social stigma.

Altria Group Inc., owner of the nation’s biggest cigarette maker, Philip Morris USA, plans to expand its MarkTen electronic cigarette brand nationally during the first half of the year. Lorillard Inc., the nation’s third-biggest tobacco company, acquired e-cigarette maker Blu Ecigs in April 2012. Blu now accounts for almost half of all e-cigarettes sold.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/reynolds-expanding-e-cigarette-production/2014/05/23/aa1b73bc-e283-11e3-9442-54189bf1a809_story.html

How E-Cigarettes May Harm Your Health

– , Men’s Journal

The Food and Drug Administration just proposed a set of rules that would ban sales to minors and require e-cigarette manufacturers to disclose their products’ ingredients. If passed, the regulations would bring some much-needed order to an uncontrolled industry. “Right now, because there are about 250 different kinds of e-cigarettes and no regulations, it’s very much the Wild West,” says Tom Glynn, director of science and trends at the American Cancer Society. “Some e-cigarettes are pretty much just liquid nicotine, propylene glycol, and flavorings. But others have lots of contaminants and carcinogens, including heavy metals like nickel and cadmium. It’s very difficult for consumers to determine which is which.”

The proposed regulations still don’t address the biggest issue with e-cigarettes: Their long-term health effects are completely unknown. Experts agree that, compared to regular cigarettes – which contain 7,000 chemicals, 60 of them cancer-causing – e-cigarettes are the lesser of two evils. However, there’s mounting fear that even those e-cigarettes that contain only a few, “safe” ingredients may prove to be hazardous. “Since they’ve only been available in the U.S. since 2007 and didn’t really catch on until 2010, there’s been no opportunity to do long-term study on their impacts,” says Glynn.

 

The first big question surrounds the safety of liquid nicotine, which can cause vomiting, nausea, and eye irritation if too much is inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through the skin. And since it’s impossible to know how much nicotine you’re getting per drag – or how much is even in an e-cigarette – poisoning has become a real issue. According to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the number of calls received by poison control centers regarding liquid nicotine poisoning skyrocketed from one per month in September 2010 to 215 per month this February. Forty-two percent of these incidents involved people age 20 and over.
But even just continually inhaling nicotine vapor may be dangerous. “Our big concern is that we don’t know how breathing in nicotine vapor will affect people long-term,” says David Abrams, executive director of the Schroeder National Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies at the Legacy Foundation.
Health experts are also concerned about the propylene glycol in e-cigarettes. Although the FDA deems this ingredient safe for use in foods, heating it into a vapor and inhaling it may be a different story. “We don’t know whether inhaling heated propylene glycol is safe, especially if done continually,” Glynn says. “If you take 100 drags a day over 10 years, it could be completely harmless. Or it could be Pandora’s box.” At the end of the day, no cigarette – electronic or otherwise – is truly safe.

http://www.mensjournal.com/health-fitness/health/how-e-cigarettes-may-harm-your-health-20140520#ixzz32NumuRYc

Grand Forks Park District seeks info before acting on tobacco ban

By John Hageman, Grand Forks Herald

Grand Forks Park District Commissioners want to gather some more information before acting on a tobacco-free policy.

Commissioners received the results of a poll last week that showed overwhelming support for adopting a comprehensive tobacco-free policy on Park District property. On Friday, commissioners said they wanted to hear from adult users of park facilities, such as softball league teams, before crafting or acting on a policy.

“If we wanted to implement a policy right now (that says) absolutely no smoking for parts that have anything to do with our youth, we could do that tomorrow,” said Greg LaDouceur, vice president of the Park Board. “I think everybody’s got the same idea on that.”

“We’re just a little bit more cautious with our adult user groups,” he added.

The poll surveyed the Grand Forks community at large and people who use Park District facilities, such as softball team managers and golfers. Users showed more support for a tobacco-free policy, with 82 percent of respondents saying they strongly or somewhat support the idea while 78 percent of the community respondents showed support.

The survey question also mentions electronic cigarettes as being part of the ban. Minneapolis is considering banning all forms of smoking throughout its parks, including e-cigs.

LaDouceur said one concern they have is how a tobacco-free policy would be enforced.

Still, Paul Barta, another commissioner, called the survey an “important first step.”

“I think we learned a lot from that survey,” Barta said. “I think the results were pretty positive to going towards tobacco-free parks. So I think we have a good start to maybe head down that direction.”

Any tobacco-free policy wouldn’t affect the Greater Grand Forks Greenway, said Park District Director Bill Palmiscno.

http://www.grandforksherald.com/content/grand-forks-park-district-seeks-info-acting-tobacco-ban