Posts

Reuters: US tobacco companies drop lawsuit vs FDA over labeling

The three largest U.S. tobacco companies on Tuesday dropped their lawsuit accusing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of exceeding its authority by closely monitoring the content of their product labels after the agency said it would reconsider its rules.

Altria Group Inc, Reynolds American Inc and Lorillard Inc dismissed their case after the FDA on May 29 said it would review whether to mandate advance approval for label alterations such as changes to logos and background colors, or the use of descriptors such as “premium tobacco.”

In their April lawsuit filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., the companies said the 2009 Tobacco Control Act limited FDA authority to pre-approve label changes to two “narrow” circumstances: products claiming to lower tobacco-related risks, or when prior approval is required by regulation.

By expanding its oversight to cover how labels look, the FDA violated the tobacco companies’ commercial speech rights under the First Amendment, the complaint said.

The plaintiffs included Altria’s Philip Morris USA, Reynolds American’s RJ Reynolds and Lorillard Tobacco, whose respective cigarette brands include Marlboro, Camel and Newport, and some of their smokeless tobacco units.

In its May 29 statement, the FDA said it would not act against tobacco companies that do not seek pre-approval for label changes that create “distinct” products otherwise identical to those being sold, or where the only change is the quantity in each package.

The FDA said the interim policy would remain in place while the agency decides whether to adopt new label approval procedures.

Altria spokesman Brian May said there was no need to pursue the lawsuit in light of the FDA’s announcement. Reynolds American spokesman David Howard declined to comment. Lorillard did not respond to a request for comment.

FDA spokesman Michael Felberbaum declined to comment.

On May 26, Reynolds American won U.S. antitrust approval to buy Lorillard, combining the second- and third-largest U.S. cigarette companies.

The case is Philip Morris USA Inc et al v. FDA et al, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, No. 15-00544.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2015/06/03/us-tobacco-companies-drop-lawsuit-vs-fda-over-labeling/

Today's Smokers Are Having a Harder Time Quitting — What Changed?

Dr. Daniel Seidman,  Smoking cessation expert | From HuffPost Healthy Living Blog

Over the last 25 years, cigarette consumption by smokers in the United States decreased by almost one-third. Over that same period, however, many tobacco companies reengineered cigarettes to more efficiently deliver the nicotine that keeps their customers coming back (1,2). This is called the “yield.” Increased yield means smokers, even if they smoke fewer cigarettes per day, still get plenty of nicotine. In other words, most of today’s cigarettes are not the same ones your mother or father smoked.

Not only are today’s cigarettes different — so are smokers. They are more likely to experience stress, worry, and depression regardless of their income (3). Recent research shows that it is quitting that brings stress relief rather than the other way around; cigarette addiction itself is a source of stress, anxiety, and depression (4,5) As the number of smoke-free environments increased, and because smokers smoke fewer cigarettes on average, today’s smokers generally wait longer between cigarettes. This delay increases the psychological and emotional reward value of each cigarette. At the same time, because they can’t smoke whenever they want, the timing is often uncertain, and the payoff — being able to light up — is irregular. Paradoxically, this sort of “intermittent” sporadic or random reinforcement is actually the strongest form of psychological reinforcement, thus making current patterns of smoking behavior harder to extinguish. Waiting to smoke is not quitting smoking!

Another factor making it harder to quit smoking today is that funding for tobacco prevention has been cut significantly. This illustrates the diminished importance society places on efforts to help smokers. Meanwhile, tobacco companies spend $18 to market their products for every dollar spent to support smokers and reduce smoking (6). Ostracized from private homes, work, cars, and public spaces, many smokers report high levels of shame when they leave social gatherings to get a nicotine fix. Our cultural norm of self-help places the burden of quitting, and blame of failure, squarely on smokers’ shoulders. Self-help, however, is clearly not working for many struggling to quit.

The United States has made remarkable progress against smoking, but most of that progress occurred in the 40 years before 2004, when the adult smoking rate was cut about in half to 20.9 percent. The most recent data, released by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on May 22, 2015 (7), is that the median prevalence of cigarette smoking in 2011 was 21.2 percent. Even adjusting for changes in the way smoking rates are being measured, this is higher, not lower, than the 20.9 percent reported 7 years earlier! For 2012, the smoking rate was 19.6, and for 2013 it was 19.0, barely budging from a decade earlier!

As we observed World No Tobacco Day 2015 this past Sunday, May 31, many smokers continued to find themselves in a trap set for them by cigarettes. Cigarettes are designed for addiction and not for recreational “take it or leave it” use. Many of today’s smokers therefore find themselves caught between a lack of constructive social and psychological support, and the destructive effects of highly nicotine-efficient cigarettes, creating a tobacco control stalemate.

What can be done?

We can start by requiring manufacturers to limit or taper permitted nicotine levels in cigarettes. All tobacco and nicotine products should be standardized and openly disclose their nicotine levels, and how much is absorbed into smokers’ bodies the same way people track calories or carbohydrates.

Here are five quick tips for smokers trying to quit:

  • Try to challenge beliefs that justify smoking. Beliefs such as “I smoke because I’m stressed,” “I’ll quit tomorrow,” “I’ll only smoke one,” and “I’m not strong enough to quit” are common and tend to cement smoking as a behavior.
  • Consider these three “triggers” to smoking, and be prepared with strategies to cope with them: 1) Other smokers: Avoid other smokers or ask them not to smoke around you, 2) Alcohol: Avoid alcohol or limit drinks as necessary, and 3) Emotional stress: Learn to adjust to situations without smoking.
  • With cigarettes delivering a stronger dose of nicotine, consider using two forms of NRT. The combined NRT approach not only delivers nicotine more aggressively to replace that from cigarettes, the U.S public Health Service 2008 update (8) found this to be the best of the medical options available for helping smokers quit.
  • Beware of cutting down as a strategy to quit unless you schedule your reduction of smoking in advance for a limited and specific amount of time prior to a target quit date. Stalling, delaying, or reducing smoking are tactics to avoid smoking, but are also ways to avoid quitting. Randomly reducing to quit is a common cessation strategy which recent research suggests is associated with lower cessation success rates. A 2013 Gallup poll (9) found smokers who succeed are more likely to quit abruptly (48 percent) vs. gradually (2 percent). A short-term technique for building confidence to prepare a successful quit day is smoking by the clock, otherwise known as “scheduled smoking” (10).
  • Download an app on your smartphone so you always have access to scientifically supported psychological and behavioral techniques. Such an app should help you prepare for and plan a successful quit day, as well as offer relapse prevention tools. It is critical that the app address not only the physical ties to your smoking addiction, but also the emotional side. Of course, I would like to highlight my own Up in Smoke app for iPhone, iPad Android, and the web!

Dr. Daniel Seidman, a clinical psychologist, is director of smoking cessation services at Columbia University Medical Center. He is author of the book Smoke-Free in 30 Days and of the “Up in Smoke” app from Mental Workout for iPhone, iPad, Android, Mac, and PC.

References:

  • Variation in nicotine intake in U.S. Cigarette smokers Over the Past 25 Years: evidence From nHanes surveys. Martin J. Jarvis, Gary A.Giovino, Richard J. O’Connor, Lynn T. Kozlowski, John T. Bernert.
  • SRNT Journal Research Advance Access published July 25, 2014
  • Recent increases in efficiency in cigarette nicotine delivery:implications for tobacco Control. Thomas Land, Lois Keithly, Kevin Kane, Lili Chen, Mark Paskowsky , Doris Cullen, Rashelle B. Hayes, Wenjun Li. SRNT Journal Advance Access published January 13, 2014
  • 2013 Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index.
  • Tanya R. Schlam, Megan E. Piper, Jessica W. Cook, Michael C. Fiore and Timothy B. Baker. “Life 1 Year After a Quit Attempt: Real-Time Reports of Quitters and Continuing Smokers.” Annals of Behavioral Medicine, Vol. 44, Issue 3, 309-319. December, 2012.
  • West R, Brown J (2015) How much improvement in mental health can be expected when people stop smoking? Findings from a national survey, Smoking in Britain, 3,6. http://www.smokinginbritain.co.uk/read
  • Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. Broken Promises to Our Children: The 1998 State Tobacco Settlement Fourteen Years Later (Updated in 2014).
  • State-Specific Prevalence of Current Cigarette Smoking and Smokeless Tobacco Use Among Adults Aged ≥18 years -United States, 2011-2013. CDC, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) May 22, 2015 / Vol. 64 / 19. See Table 1. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6419a6.htm?s_cid=mm6419a6
  • The 2008 update to Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service May 2008. See page 109 http://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/clinicians-providers/guidelines-recommendations/tobacco/clinicians/update/treating_tobacco_use08.pdf
  • http://www.gallup.com/poll/163763/smokers-quit-tried-multiple-times.aspxhttp://www.gallup.com/poll/163763/smokers-quit-tried-multiple-times.aspxThe effects of smoking schedules on cessation outcome: Can we improve on common methods of gradual and abrupt nicotine withdrawal? Cinciripini, Paul M.; Lapitsky, Lynn; Seay, Sheila; Wallfisch, Annette; Kitchens, Karen; Van Vunakis, Helen. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol 63(3), Jun 1995, 388-399.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-seidman/todays-smokers-are-having_b_7471194.html

CSPI: Big Food: Sounds a Lot Like Big Tobacco

Michael F. Jacobson, Executive Director, Center for Science in the Public Interest

Food is not tobacco. From birth, we need food to sustain us. On the other hand, no one needs to smoke. But the public health community is concerned about both diet and tobacco use for a very good reason: Over a lifetime, poor diets and smoking both cause serious health problems, including diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.

1

The similarities between unhealthy food and tobacco go beyond the health effects. When it comes to corporate responsibility, executives at some of the nation’s largest food and beverage companies seem to have learned a lot from their counterparts at Big Tobacco in aggressively promoting consumption of unhealthy foods and, in the same breath, blaming the consumer.

Big Food and Big Tobacco share some common bloodlines. It wasn’t very long ago that some of these companies were one and the same. RJR Nabisco, for instance, once simultaneously contained the companies that made Camel cigarettes and Chips Ahoy! cookies. Until the mid-2000s, the companies that manufacture Marlboro and Virginia Slims cigarettes were part of the same conglomerate, Philip Morris (now Altria), which manufactured Kraft Macaroni & Cheese and Kool Aid. Those companies have since split their tobacco businesses from their food businesses, but heavy-handed product marketing may be ingrained in the companies’ DNA.

2

While we need food to live, we certainly don’t need many of the junk foods — many aimed at kids — served up by food processors and restaurants. Soda and other sugary drinks, in particular, are one category of food that does far more harm than good. Sugary drinks are the single biggest source of calories in the American diet and prime culprits when it comes to diabetes, heart disease, obesity, and other health problems.

Like Big Tobacco, Big Food goes to great lengths to muddy the waters and obscure the connections between soda and disease. “The products we make are not injurious to health,” is how the Tobacco Industry Research Committee put it in a 1954 advertisement. In 2012 the American Beverage Association opined, “Sugar-sweetened beverages are not driving obesity.” Coca-Cola executive Katie Bayne told this whopper to USA Today: “There is no scientific evidence that connects sugary beverages to obesity.”

3

Besides denying the connections between their products and disease, food and tobacco companies both use the same language to blame their customers for the harm caused by their products. “What people want to do is their own decision,” said American Tobacco CEO Robert Heimann in 1988. More recently, Don Thompson, then CEO of McDonald’s, said “All of us have to make personal choices.” Those statements may be literally true, but ignore the extent to which companies persuade, lure, and manipulate customers — including children — into making the very decisions that companies say should be up to them.

Though both food and tobacco companies have been notorious marketers to children, they both like to lecture parents: “It is the responsibility of every parent to encourage their children to make proper choices about lifestyle decisions,” is how RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company put it in the mid-1990s. It’s not the role of the federal government to discourage kids from smoking, it went on to say. In 2011, McDonald’s CEO Jim Skinner said “It is up to [kids] to choose and their parents to choose, and it is their responsibility to do so.”

4

Joe Camel, the cartoon animal used to attract children to cigarettes, was retired in 1997, under pressure from state attorneys general. A master settlement agreement between the AGs and the tobacco industry eliminated much of that industry’s advertising to children, and even disbanded the Tobacco Institute, an aggressive industry lobbying force. But the food industry still uses cartoon characters to market disease-causing products to children, and food industry trade groups still devote millions to block progress and defend the status quo.

Big Tobacco and Big Food are now separate industries, but the playbook is much the same. How the game ends is up to us.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-f-jacobson/big-food-big-tobacco_b_7486934.html
http://cspinet.org/bigtobaccoORbigfood.html

Reuters: California Senate votes to raise smoking age to 21 from 18

LOS ANGELES | BY ALEX DOBUZINSKIS
The California Senate voted on Tuesday to raise the legal smoking age in the most populous U.S. state to 21 from 18, in a move that could make California one of the states with the highest smoking age.
The measure was approved by the Senate 26-8 and must now be approved by the state Assembly.
“We will not sit on the sidelines while big tobacco markets to our kids and gets another generation of young people hooked on a product that will ultimately kill them,” Senator Ed Hernandez, a Democrat and the bill’s author, said.
“Tobacco companies know that people are more likely to become addicted to smoking if they start at a young age,” Hernandez added in a statement.
The Institute of Medicine, the health arm of the National Academy of Sciences, has said that increasing the smoking age to 21 would result in more than 200,000 fewer premature deaths nationally for those born between 2000 and 2019.
The Cigar Association of America opposed the bill, contending that 18-year-olds can serve in the military, vote and sign contracts and should thus enjoy the right to smoke, according to the Los Angeles Times.
David Sutton, a spokesman for Altria Group Inc, the parent of Philip Morris USA, said in an emailed statement that Altria believed states should defer to the federal government and “allow FDA and Congress the opportunity to think through this issue further before enacting different minimum age laws.”
Representatives for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, a unit of Reynolds American Inc, did not return calls seeking comment.
Hawaii lawmakers approved a measure in April to raise the smoking age to 21, and that is awaiting the state governor’s signature. Democratic Governor David Ige has not indicated whether he will sign the measure, and has until June 29 to decide whether to veto it, a spokeswoman for his office said.
Since 2013, New York City has required tobacco purchasers to be 21 or older, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. No state has a smoking age that high, but Alabama, Alaska, Utah and New Jersey set it at 19.
(Reporting by Alex Dobuzinskis and Cynthia Johnston; Editing by Sandra Maler)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/02/us-usa-smoking-california-idUSKBN0OI2EI20150602

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

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

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

Press Release: Heitkamp Announces Significant Federal Funding for Tobacco Prevention

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Heidi Heitkamp today announced nearly $914,000 in federal funding to support statewide efforts to prevent tobacco use.

These funds, awarded to the North Dakota Department of Health, will be used to support its Tobacco Prevention and Control program, which includes information for schools and health care providers, programs to help North Dakotans quit smoking, data collection and trainings.

“Over the past several decades, the devastating health effects caused by tobacco use have become more and more clear,” said Heitkamp. “As North Dakota’s Attorney General in the 1990s, I led the charge to hold tobacco companies responsible for what their products were doing to North Dakotans, so I understand the importance of investing in tobacco prevention efforts and providing resources to help folks quit smoking. These funds will help the North Dakota Department of Health continue its great work to stop tobacco use and help make sure the next generation of North Dakotans are tobacco-free.”

While Attorney General, Heitkamp helped to broker an agreement between 46 states and the tobacco industry, which forced the tobacco industry to tell the truth about smoking and health. The settlement resulted in the award of about $336 million to North Dakota taxpayers to date and was one of the largest civil settlements in U.S. history.

###

SAVE OUR SCOUTS – A CALL TO END PARTNERSHIP WITH BIG TOBACCO

The following post was written collaboratively by the 2014-2015 Legacy Youth Activism Fellows, in an effort to call for the end of the partnership between the Boy Scouts of America and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco.

Each day, we interact with a world full of seemingly static realities. Because facets of the world we live in appear the same day after day, it is easy to accept them. The natural inclination to go on autopilot prevents us from questioning the realities created around us. As youth activists engaged in the 2014-2015 Legacy Youth Activism Fellowship Program, we feel a deep-rooted sense of questioning when it comes to facing the seeds of Big Tobacco that are planted all around us. We are baffled by the way tobacco is a reality of our world, despite the unnecessary disease and death it causes, and the evidence that the tobacco industry has acted on a vested interest in attracting youth to its products.

On November 25, 2014, three U.S. Senators took a stand to question the status quo of Big Tobacco’s presence in youth tobacco prevention programs. We applaud U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), and Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) for urging the Boy Scouts of America to put an end to their partnership with Right Decisions Right Now (RDRN), a youth tobacco prevention program funded by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.  These leaders are not buying Big Tobacco’s efforts to insinuate themselves into youth-focused programs – and neither are we.

Other tobacco prevention programs funded by tobacco companies have been found to be ineffective. When we take a step back to question the presence of Big Tobacco in uncanny places like prevention programs, we can evaluate the reality of their drive. Big Tobacco is maintaining a presence with young people, who are key to keeping their business going as older smokers pass due to tobacco-related illness. In fact, the very company that is sponsoring this prevention program once stated that “younger adult smokers are the only source of replacement smokers… if younger adults turn away from smoking, the industry must decline…”

Inconspicuously, Big Tobacco continues to place its image in front of youth such as through prevention programs like RDRN, and offering funding to after-school programs. In addition to the Boys Scouts of America, some youth-serving groups are partnering with other industry-sponsored prevention programs. Philip Morris USA and other Altria companies are also supporting groups that provide youth-targeted services through the Success360 prevention program. For an industry that has a history of deceitful marketing, it’s shocking that we are continuing to see their involvement with these national organizations and the youth that they serve.

As nearly 9 out of 10 smokers start before the age of 18, the tobacco epidemic can be halted by removing these influences and preventing youth from starting to use tobacco. We urge schools and youth programs like the Boy Scouts of America to divest from their partnerships with Big Tobacco. Prevention programs and funding from tobacco companies undermine efforts such as our own to end youth tobacco use. As Legacy Youth Activism Fellows, we are taking a stand in our own communities to challenge the norms that keep tobacco use prevalent, including: evaluating point of sale tobacco advertising, exploring use of emerging tobacco products on college campuses, supporting tobacco cessation in mental health settings, and engaging youth in promoting smoke-free policies in apartments. Through each of our local efforts, we are striving to place an image in front of youth and our communities that encourages people to live free of tobacco.

We encourage youth-serving groups to join us in questioning the presence of Big Tobacco in their midst. Youth should seek to interact with the many great tobacco prevention programs in their state. With their help and the support of bold leaders like Senators Blumenthal, Brown, and Harkin, we can challenge the status quo and create an environment that gives our communities, especially youth, the tools to thrive. Together, we can #FINISHIT.

http://www.legacyforhealth.org/newsroom/blog-making-waves/save-our-scouts-a-call-to-end-partnership-with-big-tobacco

Tobacco companies criticize federal judge

WASHINGTON (AP) — Tobacco companies on Wednesday accused a federal judge of forcing them to inaccurately describe themselves as unscrupulous villains who continue to deceive the public.

In an appeals court filing, the industry said statements ordered by the judge in a government lawsuit would only trigger public anger against the companies and should be scrapped.

U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler ordered the largest cigarette makers to admit they had lied for decades about the dangers of smoking, and to publicize a federal court’s conclusion that Altria, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, Lorillard, and Philip Morris USA deliberately deceived the public.

The companies said the statement was misleading and too broad.

In 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit directed Kessler to craft corrective statements confined to purely factual and uncontroversial information that would reveal previously hidden truths about the tobacco industry’s products.

But the companies said in the new filing that Kessler went beyond those instructions and ordered a series of inflammatory statements that require the defendants to denigrate themselves.

The companies said that in accordance with the appeals court’s ruling, they stand ready to disseminate statements that provide public health information about cigarettes.

Arguments in the case will be heard on Feb. 23.

http://news.yahoo.com/tobacco-companies-criticize-federal-judge-192705159–finance.html