fbpx

Author: Maria Chaplia

6 Reasons Nicotine Is Not Your Enemy

This month’s Christmas festival has great news on public health. In countries that encouraged and accepted tobacco harm reduction policies, the number of smokers has dropped significantly.

In the UK, for example, smoking levels have dropped by 25% since 2013 (when e-cigarettes became popular). Over the past four years in Japan, cigarette sales have fallen by 34%, while sales of reduced-harm alternatives such as heat-not-burn tobacco surged to 30% in 2019.

This was achieved because people who usually look for nicotine do so in a harmless way.

But while these numbers are important wins for consumers, the entire army of nicotine’s unscientific scapegoats undermines their success. This approach has dire consequences: fewer people switch to less harmful alternatives such as vaping, nicotine pouches, or heat-not-burn tobacco devices.

In the Philippines, additional categories of harm reduction are being legalized, but still failing to achieve the widespread adoption required.

Read the full article here

Consumer expert cites 6 reasons why nicotine is not the enemy

In this month of Christmas festivities, we have great news on the public health front: in countries that have encouraged and embraced a policy of tobacco harm reduction, the number of smokers has decreased significantly.

In the UK, for example, smoking levels have fallen by 25 per cent since 2013 (the time when vaping became popular). Over the last four years In Japan, cigarette sales have fallen by 34 per cent while sales of harm-reducing alternatives such as heat-not-burn jumped to 30 per cent in 2019.

This has been achieved because those who usually seek out nicotine are doing so in a less harmful way.

However, even though these numbers are a significant victory for consumers, an entire legion of unscientific scapegoating of nicotine undermines these successes. This approach has dire consequences: fewer people switch to less harmful alternatives, such as vaping, nicotine pouches, or heat-not-burn devices.

In the Phillippines, there has been progress on legalising additional categories of harm reduction, but we still have not been able to achieve the broad adoption necessary.

As such, here are six reasons that we must stop demonising nicotine.

People consume nicotine but die from smoking

We shouldn’t encourage people to start using nicotine. But health authorities must stop preventing smokers from switching to vaping and other alternatives. According to the British National Health Service, “Although nicotine is an addictive substance in cigarettes, it is relatively harmless in itself. Almost all the harm from smoking comes from thousands of other chemicals in tobacco smoke, many of which are toxic.”

Nicotine in patches and chewing gums is not a problem, so it should not be considered a problem in vapes

The Royal College of Physicians in the United Kingdom summarised the role of vaping as a method of delivering nicotine as follows: “Electronic cigarettes meet many of the criteria of an ideal product to reduce tobacco harm. Although the delivery of nicotine from e-cigarettes depends on several factors, […], they may contain a high dose of nicotine, but do not have harmful components of tobacco smoke […] “.

Nicotine addiction is complex, and prohibitions cannot effectively tackle it

Nicotine causes the release of dopamine, which contributes to tobacco addiction. But this may not be the only reason why so many people can not quit smoking. If nicotine was the sole cause of smoking addiction, every smoker who uses nicotine patches should have quit smoking immediately. But we know that’s not the case.

A study published in 2015 in the scientific journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence found that the potential dependence on nicotine is very low in the absence of tobacco smoke. That means that most vapers experience much less addiction pressure than tobacco smokers.

Nicotine has medical benefits

Research in the 1960s showed that smokers had lower levels of Parkinson’s disease, and recent studies have established nicotine as a cause. The result found that “men who did not smoke but used snus (a type of smokeless tobacco) had a significantly lower risk of Parkinson’s disease.” One of the reasons for that is nicotine’s positive cognitive effect, which has been revealed in a host of studies.

Misconceptions about nicotine inhibit progress

Unfortunately, public perceptions of nicotine are distorted. 57 per cent of respondents of the US survey agreed with the statement that “nicotine in cigarettes is the substance that causes most cancers caused by smoking,” and even 80 per cent of doctors mistakenly believe that nicotine causes cancer. These misconceptions of the public and experts have negative consequences, as they distort the perception of vaping, which is 95 per cent less harmful than smoking.

A recent review of 755 case studies on the general effects of vaping concluded that only 37 “meet the exact criteria of scientific quality.”

Prohibition never works

History shows us that bans don’t work, and that is one of the most overlooked lessons. The alcohol ban in the United States was a complete catastrophe, which led to increased alcohol consumption, unsafe consumption, massive cartels. The same is true with recent pandemic-related restrictions on alcohol and tobacco in South Africa. The global war on drugs around the world has, in many ways, failed to achieve what it sought to do or even made the problem worse. In many cases, it has led to counterproductive policies. Therefore, it is fair to assume that the war on nicotine will have the same results.

Since smoking and smoking-induced diseases remain one of the challenges of humanity, it is essential to address them without ideological biases. Nicotine is not our enemy, and we cannot forget that.

Originally published here

Editorial on COVID and PFAS chemicals needlessly alarmist

The Nov. 24 South Jersey Times editorial headlined “COVID and PFAS: A match not made in heaven” argues that exposure to PFAS, a class of man-made chemicals, potentially reduces the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and calls on New Jersey to further assess the risks associated with these chemicals.

While a clean-drinking-water approach to PFAS is appropriate, the debate is far more nuanced than represented in the editorial.

It is true that when dumped into water supplies or used beyond threshold amounts, PFAS do pose a considerable danger to our health and well-being. Some individual chemicals do require regulations or potentially bans, but that alone is not sufficient to justify a blanket ban, something now being attempted at the federal level.

PFAS are a group consisting of 4,500 to 6,000 chemicals. Because of their liquid resistance and surface tension lowering properties, PFAS are key to producing many consumer products and lifesaving medical equipment. PFAS products ensured the durability and reduced contamination from COVID-19 protective equipment, too.

The use of PFAS has dropped, thanks to self-regulation by manufacturers. The presence of PFAS in the bloodstreams of Americans has decreased, and industrial releases have declined as well.

Banning all of these chemicals will only shift PFAS production, most likely, to China. That said, we need a careful evaluation of PFAS. Demonizing these chemicals as a group doesn’t help anyone, and implying that they might reduce vaccine efficacy without evidence is a huge disservice to readers.

Originally published here

New survey shows MEPs know worryingly little about vaping

According to the findings of the new ECigIntelligence survey, 57 per cent of Members of the European Parliament have no knowledge of vaping (with 16 per cent not even being aware of its existence).

Given that European politicians are now determining Europe’s approach to vaping, these results are extremely worrying.

ECigIntelligence surveyed Members of the European Parliament (MEP) for the second time (the last survey was in 2020). The results show that many MEPs continue to be misinformed or uninformed about vaping and other less harmful smoking alternatives.

Maria Chaplia, Research Manager of the Consumer Choice Center, commented on the survey: 

“Currently, 140 million people in the European Union still smoke, and most of them struggle to quit. It is key that European policymakers have sufficient knowledge of life-saving alternatives such as vaping and their potential to tackle this problem. The low awareness signals an increased risk of making the wrong decisions that could cost Europe lives of current and future smokers. The MEPs should take these issues more seriously and open their minds to a growing plethora of studies on vaping.”

Key findings of the survey: 

  • More than a third of MEPs have no knowledge of any new nicotine product (vaping, heat not burn, pouches), and over one in ten are not even aware of them.
  • Incredibly, 28% believe that vaping is as harmful or more harmful than smoking, and a further 18% don’t know at all.
  • Also, 16% incorrectly believe that vaping is likely to lead non-smokers to smoking cigarettes. 
  • On flavours, the worrying trend from last year continues. 53% are in favour of regulating flavours the same or even more than cigarettes.

“The World Health Organisation’s misguided recommendations against vaping have skewed the discourse against evidence-based policymaking in Europe and across the world. Vaping is 95 per cent less harmful than smoking. Vape flavours help smokers quit once and for all, and nicotine is not our enemy. It is crucial that the stigma around vaping ends before it is too late,” concluded Chaplia.

New paper slams the nicotine stigma

Today, the Consumer Choice Center and the World Vapers’ Alliance published a new paper on the war on nicotine, arguing that there are evidence-based reasons to end it in Europe and globally.

Vaping and other alternatives such as nicotine pouches have been recognised as far less harmful than smoking, and yet their lifesaving qualities continuously come under fire for a variety of reasons. The consumption of nicotine is one of them.

The Consumer Choice Center’s paper examines six main reasons why the war on nicotine is unreasonable, ineffective and ignorant of a growing body of evidence.

Six main reasons why the war on nicotine should end:

  1. People consume nicotine, but they die from smoking  
  2. Nicotine in patches & gums is not a problem — it is neither when vaped nor in a pouch
  3. Addiction is complex and not solved by a war on nicotine
  4. Nicotine makes some people smarter, stronger and more attractive
  5. Misconceptions about nicotine are hindering public health progress 
  6. Prohibition never works

Nicotine is not your enemy

Commenting on the findings, Michael Landl, Director of the World Vapers’ Alliance and a co-author of the paper, said: “The anti-vaping discourse is riddled with double standards about nicotine. If we are to be consistent about nicotine, we have to treat vaping with the same openness and encouragement as nicotine replacement therapy, such as patches. Due to innovation nicotine consumption can finally be decoupled from the hazardous effects of smoking and therefore help millions of smokers to improve their health. And yet, nicotine is unjustifiably demonised. This must end.

Reducing the number of smokers and allowing them to rapidly and efficiently switch to a less harmful alternative should be a major priority for governments and public health agencies worldwide. To achieve that, the stigma around nicotine should stop. 

“We aim to use our new paper as a factsheet to debunk many myths that surround nicotine prohibition. Potential benefits of nicotine must be explored, and unbiased scientific endeavours must be ensured,” said Maria Chaplia, Research Manager at the Consumer Choice Center.

Researchers Call for End to ‘War on Nicotine’

A new research paper attempts to clarify the confusion surrounding nicotine consumption and the role it plays in the diseases caused by smoking. The paper, released by the Consumer Choice Center, outlines six main reasons why the “war on nicotine is pointless” and should end.

“Instead of celebrating declining numbers of smokers and far fewer deaths, many governments, public health agencies and anti-smoking activists have been on the hunt for new enemies,” the researchers wrote. “They decided to scapegoat nicotine, and as a result, the fight against smoking gradually transformed into a fight against nicotine. Such an approach has dire consequences: fewer people switching to less harmful alternatives.”

Read the full article here

Independent Women's Forum

The U.S. Shouldn’t Follow The EU’s Green Agriculture Lead

To tackle climate change, the European Union has decided to go all organic. Europe’s green agriculture — outlined in the Farm to Fork (F2F) strategy — seeks to reduce the use of pesticides by 50% percent. That looks very climate-friendly and revolutionary on paper. In reality, the F2F is extremely costly and will not help save the planet.

The U.S. should see the EU’s F2F as a lesson in how not to approach agriculture in the 21st century.

Pesticides are a critical tool for fighting pests and diseases that can decimate crops. They fall into the following categories: herbicides, which protect from the 30,000 weed species that deprive crops of space, water, sunlight, and soil nutrients; insecticides, which defend against 10,000 plant-eating species; and fungicides, which are used to prevent 50,000 plant diseases, such as mycotoxin contamination.

Limiting the use of pesticides will limit farmers’ ability to maximize food production, which will drive down food supply and drive up food prices. According to a recent study conducted by Dutch scientists, production will decline by 10 to 20%, or in some cases 30%.

Furthermore, the EU will attempt to impose this agenda on the rest of the world. Should that happen, about 185 million people will become food-insecure.

On top of that, organic agriculture is hardly climate-friendly. To name one example, a 2018 international Swedish study published in the journal Nature found that organic peas, farmed in Sweden, have around a 50% larger climate impact than conventionally farmed peas.

So far, the United States has been opposing the Farm to Fork strategy, calling it “protectionist.” However, with the recent launch of an EU-U.S. transatlantic platform on agriculture, it is unclear which approach will succeed in shaping the discourse. It is crucial that the U.S. doesn’t follow the EU’s flawed green lead.

Originally published here

New Research Hopes to Help End War on Nicotine

A new research paper attempts to clarify the confusion surrounding nicotine consumption and the role it plays in the diseases caused by smoking. The paper, released by the Consumer Choice Center, outlines six main reasons why the “war on nicotine is pointless” and should end.

“Instead of celebrating declining numbers of smokers and far fewer deaths, many governments, public health agencies and anti-smoking activists have been on the hunt for new enemies,” the researchers wrote. “They decided to scapegoat nicotine, and as a result, the fight against smoking gradually transformed into a fight against nicotine. Such an approach has dire consequences: fewer people switching to less harmful alternatives.”

The paper was co-authored by Michael Landl, director of the World Vapers’ Alliance, and Maria Chaplia, research manager at the Consumer Choice Center This six reasons listed to stop the war against nicotine the paper recommends are:

  • People consume nicotine, but they die from smoking
  • Nicotine in patches and gums is not a problem — it is neither (a problem) when vaped nor in a pouch
  • Addiction is complex and not solved by a war on nicotine
  • Nicotine makes some people smarter, stronger and more attractive
  • Misconceptions about nicotine are hindering progress
  • Prohibition never works

Read the full article here

Шість причин чому не варто демонізувати нікотин

Добрі новини для початку тижня: у країнах, які пішли шляхом заохочення вейпінгу, кількість курців суттєво зменшилась.

У Великій Британії, наприклад, рівень куріння впав на 25% з 2013 року (час, коли вейпінг став популярним). 

Але для критиків цих успіхів нікотин став козлом відпущення і в результаті боротьба з курінням поступово переросла в боротьбу з нікотином. Такий підхід має жахливі наслідки: менше людей переходить на менш шкідливі альтернативи.

Шість причин чому треба перестати демонізувати нікотин:

1. Люди споживають нікотин, але вмирають від куріння

Це правда, що не слід заохочувати людей починати вживати нікотин. Але органи охорони здоров’я повинні перестати перешкоджати курцям переходити на вейпінг та інші альтернативи. Британська національна служба охорони здоров’я (British National Health Service) дотримуєтьсяпрагматичного підходу до споживання нікотину та вейпінгу, заявляючи наступне: «Хоча нікотин викликає залежність у сигаретах, він сам по собі є відносно нешкідливим. Майже вся шкода від куріння походить від тисяч інших хімічних речовин в тютюновому димі, багато з яких є токсичними».

2. Нікотин у патчах і жувальних гумках не є проблемою, а тому він не має вважатись проблемою у вейпі

Королівський коледж лікарів Великобританії узагальнив роль вейпінгу як методу споживання нікотину таким чином: «Електронні сигарети відповідають багатьом критеріям ідеального продукту для зменшення шкоди від тютюну. Хоча споживання нікотину з електронних сигарет залежить від ряду факторів, […], вони можуть містити високу дозу нікотину, але при цьому не мати шкідливих компонентів тютюнового диму […]». 

3. Залежність від нікотину складна і вона не вирішується заборонами

Безсумнівно, нікотин викликає виділення дофаміну і, таким чином, сприяє звиканню до куріння, але це не може бути єдиною причиною, чому так багато людей не можуть кинути палити. Якби нікотин був єдиною причиною залежності від куріння, кожен курець, який використовує нікотинові патчі, мав би кинути курити одразу.

Як показало дослідження, опубліковане у 2015-ому році в науковому журналі Drug and Alcohol Dependence, за відсутності тютюнового диму потенційна залежність від нікотину дуже низька, тому більшість вейперів відчувають набагато менший тиск залежності, ніж курці.

4. Нікотин має медичні переваги 

Дослідження, проведені в 1960-х роках, показали, що у курців спостерігається нижчий рівень хвороби Паркінсона, і нещодавні дослідження показало, що причиною цього є нікотин. Було доведено, що «чоловіки, які не курили, але вживали снюс (тип бездимного тютюну), мали значно нижчий ризик хвороби Паркінсона». Однією з причин є те, що нікотин має позитивну когнітивну дію.

5. Помилкові уявлення про нікотин гальмують прогрес

Сприйняття громадськості щодо нікотину, на жаль, викривлене. 57% респондентів американського опитування помилково погодилися з твердженням, що «нікотин в сигаретах є речовиною, яка викликає більшість ракових захворювань, викликаних курінням», і навіть 80% лікарів помилково вважають, що нікотин викликає рак. Ці неправильні переконання громадськості та експертів мають негативні наслідки, адже вони викривлюють уявлення про вейпінг, який є на 95 відсотків менш шкідливий ніж куріння.

Недавній огляд 755 тематичних досліджень про загальні наслідки вейпінгу прийшов до висновку, що лише 37 «відповідають точним критеріям наукової якості».

6. Політика заборон ніколи не є ефективною

Якщо політикам до цього часу слід було б чомусь навчитися з історії, так це те, що заборона не працює. Заборона алкоголю в США була повною катастрофою, що призвело до збільшення споживання алкоголю, споживання неощадливих продуктів і породило величезні картелі. Війна з наркотиками в усьому світі є повним провалом і в багатьох випадках призвела до контрпродуктивної політики. Тому справедливо припустити, що війна з нікотином матиме такі ж результати.

Оскільки куріння і хвороби, які ним спричинені, залишається одним з викликів людства, дуже важливо підходити до їх вирішення зважено і без нав’язаних ідеологій. Нікотин – не ворог.

Originally published here

Illicit trade: challenges and solutions

On the 10th of November, the Consumer Choice Center hosted a webinar titled “Illicit trade challenges and solutions.” To discuss how illicit activities endanger consumers and undermine brands, CCC’s Maria Chaplia was joined by David Haigh, CEO of BrandFinance, and Tamara Pirojkova, Marketing Director Leading Brands of Spain Forum. Sean Kelly, a Member of the European Parliament for Ireland, couldn’t join the event but shared his views in a pre-recorded video message.

Illicit trade is a severe and growing threat to our societies. Smuggling and counterfeit products undermine governments and legal businesses and expose consumers to poorly made and unregulated products. 

A 2021 report by Brand Finance concluded that brands help in the fight against illicit trade and that brand protection is key to ensuring consumers have access to safe and credible products. At the same time, illicit trade is a complex, multi-layered issue and should be analysed through multiple lenses. Commenting on the findings of the report, David Haigh said: “Illicit trade is usually strongest when brands are strongest because the profit margins are highest. So, on the one hand, the illicit trade people want to get on the back of profitable brands, but meanwhile, brands are being criticised for not being socially desirable.” According to the findings of the said report, while consumers want some regulation of brands, they also like brands and find them “extremely helpful”. 95 per cent of consumers agreed that brands improved the quality of their product choice, and 93 per cent said that brands improve the quality of the products themselves.

Expanding on David’s comments, Tamara Pirojkova elaborated on how brands contribute to society as a whole and individuals, and how much innovation, creativity, and effort goes into brand building and positioning. “It is also important to think about the role of advertising and marketing, through which brands can explain to consumers what we do and why, and how we improve the lives of people by introducing new – or old – products to the market. Brands are also very concerned about how they can be more sustainable and project human rights. On the opposite end, illicit trade is not conscious about any of these things,” said Tamara. 

One of the main takeaways of the event is that it is key that the European Union and member states focus not only on the enforcement side of anti-illicit trade policies, but also ensure that the policies in place do not stimulate illicit activities. Some examples of the latter include high taxation and branding, as well as marketing bans. A policy brief, published by the Consumer Choice Center, concluded that “branding and brand promotion should be encouraged as the most trusted way of presenting quality and confidence to consumers.” In the words of David Haigh, “There needs to be a slight change in the governments’ attitude towards brands. They need to be supportive rather than indifferent or aggressive.” 

Tamara Pirojkova added: “I see many opportunities for brands and consumers to build trustworthy relationships, which normally takes years. However, the high level of trust allows companies to be transparent when they are at risk and communicate their fears about illicit trade to their consumers”.

The Consumer Choice Center would like to thank the speakers for their participation in our event. As a global consumer advocacy group speaking on behalf of consumers globally, we will keep communicating the dangers of illicit trade and raise awareness about intrusive policies that undermine brands and encourage criminal activities. Be sure to keep an eye on our work to learn more.

Fun Police

ConsEUmer Podcast

Consumer Choice Center Cast

Follow us

Facebook-f Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube Spotify

Contact Info

712 H St NE PMB 94982
Washington, DC 20002

info@consumerchoicecenter.org

© COPYRIGHT 2024, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

Scroll to top
en_USEN
it_ITIT pt_BRPT fr_FRFR es_ESES de_DEDE en_USEN