fbpx

flavour ban

Flavoured vape e-liquids help smokers to quit smoking

A recent paper by Consumer Choice Centre (CCC) and the World Vapers’ Alliance (WVA) has concluded that vapers risk returning to smoking traditional cigarettes if they do not have access to flavoured vape e-liquids.

The paper titled Why Flavours Matter cited a five-year US study involving 17,000 Americans. It found that adults who used flavoured vaping products were 2.3 times more likely to quit traditional cigarettes compared with those who consumed tobacco-flavoured vaping products.

Read the full article here

Vaping is safe, and the EU must give it a chance

Both the EU Beating Cancer Plan and Dutch vape flavour ban – expected to enter into force on 1 July 2022 – fail to see the important role vaping plays in helping smokers quit.

Vaping is safe, and the EU must give it a chance

Such an approach doesn’t stand up to scrutiny and does nothing to reduce the smoking rates and beat cancer. The longer Europe continues to ignore an emerging plethora of studies on vaping and its lifesaving properties, the more lives will be lost.

Nearly 700,000 Europeans die every year as a result of smoking-induced cancer. Unless the EU recognises the benefits of vaping, these numbers will likely persist, depriving future generations of tobacco-free saved years of life. Anti-vaping policies are anti-human rights because they knowingly endanger the lives of smokers by limiting their access to an effective harm reduction tool.

Read the full article here

Why the WHO is wrong about vaping

The health institution’s anti-vaping approach set out in its latest report on the global tobacco pandemic is scientifically unjustified and will cost lives.

Last week, the World Health Organisation published yet another report which spreads fake news and false myths about vaping.  Despite the tool being recognised as 95 percent less harmful than conventional smoking, the WHO’s scientifically unjustified vaping witch-hunt could cost millions of lives.

Among the worn-out and debunked theories peddled by the WHO report ‘on the global tobacco epidemic 2021: New and Emerging Products’ is the so-called gateway effect theory, which suggests that vaping leads to smoking. This dangerous and misleading theory has long since been disproven by numerous studies, as well as nationwide case studies, such as in England where upwards of 50,000 smokers are using vapes as a gateway out of (not into) smoking every year.

“Rather than focus on the all-important goal of beating smoking, the WHO is turning its guns on vaping, the most powerful smoking cessation tool on the planet.”

Vaping has also proven to be more effective than other quitting tools. A 2019 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that vaping was twice as effective as nicotine-replacement products in helping smokers quit. Vape flavours – continuously demonised by the WHO – have also shown to be crucial in helping smokers quit. Vapers that use flavours are 2.3 times more likely to quit than those who use tobacco-flavoured e-cigarettes.

Besides being riddled with biased anti-vaping scaremongering and false claims, the entire direction of travel set out in the latest WHO report is nonsensical. Rather than focus on the all-important goal of beating smoking, the WHO is turning its guns on vaping, the most powerful smoking cessation tool on the planet.

They clearly find it more important to fall into line with the narrow-minded ‘quit or die’ approach trumpeted by the WHO’s billionaire sponsors, like Mike Bloomberg. The reality is that if the world follows the WHO’s lead, fewer smokers will quit and more will die as a consequence.

The WHO systematically ignores the wealth of scientific evidence pointing to the benefits of vaping, not to mention the first-hand experience of millions of vapers. Unfortunately, this anti-vaping approach has spill over effects to other jurisdictions – especially to low- and middle-income countries, but also the European Union.

For example, both Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan and a vape flavour ban in the Netherlands mirror the WHO recommendations – and are extremely dangerous for that reason. In 2007, nearly a quarter of the Dutch population smoked daily. That number went down to 16 percent in 2018 and continues to drop. However, with the new Dutch vape flavour ban in place, this positive trend might quickly reverse. According to newly published research by the Consumer Choice Center, the ban will drive over 250 thousand adults back to smoking.

“The weight of research and real-world evidence shows that progressive vaping policies can help 19 million European smokers to quit.”

The same is true for the EU Beating Cancer plan. Smoking-induced cancer claims nearly 700,000 lives each year in the EU. But instead of fostering life-saving innovation, the EU has opened the door to flavour bans and tax increases which would deprive millions of smokers of the opportunity to stop smoking once and for all. The weight of research and real-world evidence shows that progressive vaping policies can help 19 million European smokers to quit.

Restricting or banning access to vaping will do nothing but cost lives, and the WHO and the EU – both as a bloc and at member state levels – will soon learn this painful lesson if they keep ignoring science and consumers. 

Originally published here

BESTECHUNG GEGEN VAPING: LEAKS ÜBER DIE BLOOMBERG-FINANZIERTE “CAMPAIGN FOR TOBACCO-FREE KIDS”

Den Menschen in Deutschland ist der Milliardär Michael Bloomberg vor allem als ehemaliger Bürgermeister von New York City bekannt, der eine Menge Geld für eine unglückliche Präsidentschaftskandidatur verpulvert hat.

Aber auf der ganzen Welt hat sein Netzwerk von Wohltätigkeitsorganisationen und Interessensgruppen, die er mit Millionen von Dollar an Zuschüssen versorgt, eine Art Privatregierung errichtet. Diese nimmt Einfluss auf Regierungschefs, finanziert Gehälter von Beamten des öffentlichen Gesundheitswesens und schreibt sogar Gesetzentwürfe, die dann in die gesetzgebenden Prozesse rund um die Welt eingebracht werden – einschließlich des jüngsten Verbotes von E-Zigaretten in Mexiko und auf den Philippinen.

Einige dieser Organisationen werden direkt von Bloomberg geleitet und kontrolliert, darunter Bloomberg Philanthropies. Aber die meisten sind verschiedene Kampagnengruppen, die sich auf die Finanzierung und Führung durch den New Yorker Milliardär im Hintergrund stützen. Sie konzentrieren sich in der Regel auf Umwelt- und Bildungsthemen und sind besonders im Bereich der öffentlichen Gesundheit und Tabakkontrolle aktiv.

Laut dem neuesten Artikel von Michelle Minton vom „Competitive Enterprise Institute“, die interne Dokumente der von Bloomberg finanzierten Organisation „Campaign For Tobacco-Free Kids“ (CTFK) in die Hände bekam, geht der schädliche Einfluss der Kampagnen, die insbesondere Entwicklungsländer fokussieren, weit über Standardmaßnahmen zur Kontrolle des Tabakkonsums wie Steuern, Altersbeschränkungen und Werbebeschränkungen hinaus.

Einflussnahme auf klamme Regierungen

Es werden direkte Zahlungen an Regierungsstellen und Beamte des öffentlichen Gesundheitswesens angeboten, die im Gegenzug die CTFK-Wunschliste von Gesetzen umsetzen. Da Entwicklungsländer weniger für öffentliche Gesundheitsmaßnahmen und -programme ausgeben können als Industrienationen, wird ausländischen NGOs im Austausch für Millionen von Dollar immenser Einfluss gewährt.

Anstelle von demokratisch legitimierten Maßnahmen zur Raucherentwöhnung, verabschieden diese Nationen Gesetze im Tausch gegen Zuschüsse von Bloomberg-Organisationen. Zuschüsse, die oft viel größer sind als die Budgets der Ministerien. In anderen Zusammenhängen würde man dies zu Recht als Bestechung bezeichnen.

Entsprechend der fast 700 Millionen Dollar, die Michael Bloombergs Wohltätigkeitsorganisationen weltweit ausgegeben haben, um ihre Forderungen in Gesetze umzuwandeln, hat der lange Arm der globalen Anti-Tabak-Bewegung bereits einige Erfolge zu verzeichnen.

Die Dokumente zeigen die Bemühungen der Aktivisten von CTFK, verschiedene Tabakkontroll- und Anti-Vaping-Maßnahmen in Ländern wie Brasilien, China und Nigeria zu verabschieden, einschließlich der “finanziellen Unterstützung” von Ministerien und Regierungsstellen.

Nicht nur Regierungsbeamte und Gesundheitseinrichtungen, sondern auch Universitäten und Medieninstitutionen werden mit exorbitanten Summen unterstützt, um die Kernbotschaften und Ziele der CTFK zu verbreiten, wie die Dokumente zeigen.

Die Nebelwand

Anstatt für allgemeine Maßnahmen zur Eindämmung des Tabakkonsums einzutreten, konzentriert sich ein großer Teil der CTFK-Kampagnen auf das Verbot oder die starke Einschränkung neuer Technologien wie Vaping, und dies insbesondere in Entwicklungsländern wie Indien, den Philippinen, China, Brasilien, Peru, Uruguay, Uganda, Nigeria, Kenia und anderen.

Im Gegensatz zu ihrer Mission, Kinder vom Tabak wegzubekommen, haben die mit Bloomberg verbundenen Organisationen stattdessen ihren Einfluss genutzt, um innovative und neuartige Technologien wie das Vapen, das nichts mit Tabak zu tun hat und nachgewiesen weniger schädlich als Rauchen ist, ins Visier zu nehmen.

Organisationen wie „Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids“ haben den Kampf gegen das Rauchen als Vorwand benutzt, um alle weniger schädlichen Alternativen zum Rauchen zu eliminieren oder stark einzuschränken –  einschließlich E-Zigaretten, Heat-not-burn-Geräte, Nikotinbeutel und ähnliches.

In Anbetracht des nachgewiesenen Potentials zur Raucherentwöhnung, sollten die Hunderte von Millionen Dollar, die ausgegeben werden, um die Verbreitung dieser Alternativen in Entwicklungsländern mit hohen Raucherquoten zu untergraben, ein Skandal epischen Ausmaßes darstellen.

Aber leider werden diese Schlagzeilen kaum beachtet. Stattdessen werden zahlreiche Maßnahmen umgesetzt, die die Konsumentenfreiheit und den Zugang zu Alternativen einschränken, ohne viel Rücksicht auf die öffentliche Gesundheit.

Öffentliche Gesundheit effektiv verbessern

Was diese Enthüllungen besonders erschreckend macht, ist das Fehlen jeglicher Nuancen. Fraglich ist ja gerade, ob innovative neue E-Zigaretten und ähnliche tabaklose Alternativen als Tabakprodukte angesehen werden sollten. Zum Beispiel behauptet die Framework Convention on Tobacco Control der Weltgesundheitsorganisation, dass es keine Unterschiede gäbe.

Aber das ist falsch. Immer mehr akademische Studien und Regierungsberichte zeigen, dass Vaping zu 95% weniger schädlich ist als Rauchen.

Die Tatsache, dass Millionen von Menschen durch den Konsum von E-Zigaretten mit dem Rauchen aufhören konnten, sollte Beweis genug dafür sein, wie der Markt Lösungen im Sinne der öffentlichen Gesundheit liefern kann. Und sie sollte auch zeigen, dass man Entwicklungsländern nicht Knüppel zwischen die Beine werfen und ihnen die reale Möglichkeit verwehren sollte, das Leben von Millionen ihrer Bürger zu verbessern und zu retten.

Aber wie Minton vom „Competitive Enterprise Institute“ feststellt, “scheint die Strategie von CTFK und der breiteren von Bloomberg finanzierten Anti-Tabak-Bewegung darauf abzuzielen, politischen Einfluss zu nehmen und Gesetze zu verabschieden, ohne Rücksicht darauf, ob sie zu einer tatsächlichen Verringerung des Rauchens oder einer Verbesserung der Gesundheit führen.”

Wenn dies das Gesicht der modernen Anti-Tabak-Bewegung ist, dann wissen wir, dass die öffentliche Gesundheit nicht ihr wahres Ziel ist.

Originally published here

Health Canada coughs up counterintuitive vape policy

Ban on flavoured vape juice, nicotine limits will push smokers back to cigarettes

Just when it was thought to be safe to vape rather than smoke cigarettes, the Trudeau Liberals are unwittingly conspiring to resurrect the age-old sin of cigarette smoking.

They don’t think this will happen of course, but it will

On July 19, as per the federal Gazette, the Liberals of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will announce new regulations to not only reduce the nicotine level in e-cigarette vaping products but ban flavoured vape liquids beyond tobacco and menthol/mint.

“Health Canada is pushing smokers back to smoking cigarettes and into the arms of ‘Big Tobacco’,” says Shai Bekman, president of DashVapes Inc., Canada’s largest independently owned e-cigarette company.

Ontario’s pre-emptive move to ban vape flavours will affect the big-name e-cigarette brands that sell primarily in convenience stores, such as Juul and Vype.

Both companies sell e-cigarette pods that come in flavours such as cucumber, mango, strawberry, and vanilla.

But what is Health Canada thinking?

According to various experts in sociological behaviour, and confirmed in many peer-reviewed articles, rather than reduce smoking, this will eventually drive vapers back to real cigarettes and, because of the severe 70-plus per cent tax on smokes, will also cause increased demand for contraband cigarettes.

After all, if you’re going to smoke, why pay a heavily taxed $20 a pack when a trip to the friendly smoke shack on any Mohawk reserve in Ontario and Quebec will get you a tax-free pack for as little as $4?

As David Clement, North American Affairs Manager with the Consumer Choice Centre recently wrote in the Financial Post, “our federal government is ignoring what is working abroad and is rejecting its usual governing principle of harm reduction.

“Curbing youth access to vape products is very important but banning flavours for adult smokers trying to quit tobacco is a huge mistake, one that could have deadly consequences,” said Clement.

“Approximately 1.5 million Canadians use vape products, most of them smokers trying to quit. Research on consumer purchasing patterns shows that 650,000 of those vape users currently rely on flavours that would be prohibited if the ban goes through.”

In May, also in the Financial Post, Fred O’Riordan, a former director-general at Revenue Canada, said “ the federal budget had something for everyone, including contraband traders.

“Their unexpected gift came in the form of a $4 per carton increase in excise duties on legally manufactured cigarettes, a sharp increase that may mark the end of one era — in which tax policy was an effective tool to control tobacco use — and the beginning of another.

”More smokers will switch to readily available and far cheaper contraband products,” he wrote.

“(This) will be bad for the health side of policy, especially for young people since illegal sellers do not ask for proof-of-age ID.”

The purpose of tobacco taxes, of course, is to raise revenues, but projections have been falling for years.

Last November, the Canada Revenue Agency estimated the 2014 loss in federal excise duty revenue from illegal cigarettes — the so-called “tax gap” — at about $483 million.

Lost provincial tax revenues would more than double that estimate. And those “latest” numbers are seven years old.

What’s needed is the ballsy move of reducing tobacco taxes enough to make buying contraband a non-thought. Ontario Premier Mike Harris did this and sin-tax tobacco revenues predictably went up.

And keep flavoured vapes — the mango, the vanilla and even the bubble-gum, all of which are also sold on reserves.

Health Canada has to stop being so counterintuitive.

It’s not working.

Originally published here.

Don’t ban flavoured vapes

Banning flavours for adult smokers trying to quit tobacco is a huge mistake, one that could have deadly consequences

Earlier this month Ottawa submitted new regulations for vaping products to the Canada Gazette. It wants to ban all vape flavours with the exception of tobacco, mint and menthol.

The rationale behind the ban is that limiting flavours will curb youth access to vaping products. Vapes, of course, should never be in the hands of minors. Their main value is to offer adult smokers substantially reduced risk for consuming nicotine — a 95 per cent reduction according to Public Health England. That reality is why vaping works as a means to quit smoking, something which has been reaffirmed by many peer-reviewed articles. A 2017 study from the University of California using U.S. Census data found that vaping had contributed to a “significant” increase in smoking cessation and as a result it recommended positive public health communications on vaping.

Other national public health agencies have seen the value of vaping as a smoking cessation tool and shifted their approach. Ireland, for example, has started actively promoting vape products to adult smokers trying to quit, while New Zealand has launched an interactive online tool explaining the value of switching to vaping from smoking.

Our federal government, however, is ignoring what is working abroad and is rejecting its usual governing principle of harm reduction. Curbing youth access to vape products is very important but banning flavours for adult smokers trying to quit tobacco is a huge mistake, one that could have deadly consequences. Approximately 1.5 million Canadians use vape products, most of them smokers trying to quit. Research on consumer purchasing patterns shows that 650,000 of those vape users currently rely on flavours that would be prohibited if the ban goes through.

If Ottawa does gets its ban, many of those targeted by it are likely to return to smoking, and that is something no one should be celebrating. This isn’t just a hypothesis on what may happen; it’s what has happened in jurisdictions that have sought to limit access to flavours.

South of the border, a nationally representative longitudinal study of over 17,000 Americans showed that adults who used flavoured vaping products were 2.3 times more likely to quit smoking cigarettes when compared to vapers who consumed tobacco-flavoured vaping products. Its authors, Abigail S. Friedman and SiQing Xu, both health policy researchers at Yale University, concluded that: “Although proponents of flavour bans have claimed that tobacco-flavoured e-cigarettes are adequate to help individuals who smoke, these results call for evidence to support that claim before it is acted on.”

San Francisco provides yet another example where banning flavoured vaping products directly correlated with a spike in smoking rates. In a single-authored study, Abigail S. Friedman concluded that the ban on flavoured products doubled the odds that those under the legal age of purchase had smoked recently. The ban, passed to curb youth access to vaping, ultimately ended up shifting minors to cigarettes, which is a public health failure by any measure.

In fact, the economic evaluation of the ban, in the federal government’s own submission, openly admits that a ban on flavours will cause a return to smoking: “They (vapers) would choose to purchase more cigarettes, hence offsetting the loss” retailers will incur as a result of eliminating flavoured vape products.

The link between vaping flavours and quitting smoking is intuitive. Smokers trying to quit are more likely to enjoy a flavoured vape product than something that tastes exactly like the product they are desperately trying to quit using. Regulators here in Canada must know that this is exactly what will happen and yet are pushing onward regardless.

The federal Liberals have steadfastly, even stubbornly, championed harm reduction when it comes to illicit drugs — which makes their stance on vaping all the more incomprehensible. Their approach to illicit substances is the right approach given that it ultimately saves lives, and they should let those same harm reduction principles guide vaping policy. In fact, harm reduction should guide all drug policy, whether those drugs are legal or not.

Originally published here.

Why the Dutch vaping flavour ban won’t drive down underage smoking rates

Although noble in intent, the ban would have the opposite effect, argue the Consumer Choice Center’s Maria Chaplia and World Vapers Alliance’s Michael Landl.

Starting from 1 July 2022, flavoured e-liquids might be banned in the Netherlands. The decision to proceed with the ban – originally proposed in June 2020 – is drastically at odds with public opinion, let alone science. Combined with the EU Beating Cancer Plan’s restrictive anti-vaping measures, the flavour ban demonstrates Europe’s incessant drift away from evidence-based policymaking.

Vaping is facing such regulatory hardships primarily because it’s misunderstood. Invented as a cessation tool, vaping targets adult smokers, in particular heavy ones, to help them quit. In the UK, electronic cigarettes are even given to smokers at hospitals. And vape flavours play a crucial role in the crusade for lowering tobacco smoking rates.

The Dutch government’s reasoning for the vape flavour ban is to tackle teen smoking. As such, the goal is indeed noble since e-cigarettes should be adult-only products and strict age restrictions need to be enforced. However, if that is really the goal then the Dutch government is shooting in the wrong direction.

According to a recently published study by Yale School of Public Health, a San Francisco vape flavour ban doubled high school students’ probability of smoking conventional cigarettes. The California city saw a 30 percent increase in underage use of cigarettes for the first time in more than a decade, while other cities across the country continue to see declining rates.

“Without solving the teen smoking problem, the ban will have disastrous unintended consequences and undermine harm reduction efforts”

According to a 2017 study published in Tobacco Control, as the number of vapers in the US and UK went up, there was no increase in youth smoking. Between 2011 and 2016, smoking in the past 30 days declined from 6.3 percent to 4.3 percent among middle school students and from 21.8 percent to 13.8 percent among high school students in the US.

Without solving the teen smoking problem, the ban will have disastrous unintended consequences and undermine harm reduction efforts. In the Netherlands, 3.1 percent of adults use e-cigarettes, and, with the ban in place, nearly 260,000 Dutch vapers might return to smoking.

Flavours play a vital role for smokers who want to quit. Adult consumers, who have used vaping to quit smoking say that flavours, other than tobacco, were a decisive factor in preventing them from returning to smoking. By using flavoured e-liquids they are 230 percent more likely to quit smoking than if using tobacco-flavoured ones.

The proposed ban won’t drive down demand for flavours. What it will do, however, is boost illicit trade. As demonstrated by high taxes, marketing and advertising bans, and other restrictions across the board, restrictive policies do not achieve the desired outcomes. Despite a nicotine sales vaping ban in Australia, more than half a million consumers vape, while 2.4 million people have tried it at some point.

As demonstrated by Public Health England, vaping is 95 percent less harmful than tobacco cigarettes. Therefore, both in the short-and long-term, the Dutch vape flavour ban is too high of a price to pay, especially in light of our shared European efforts to reduce cancer rates.

“By using flavoured e-liquids they [adult smokers] are 230 percent more likely to quit smoking than if using tobacco-flavoured ones”

In light of the strong opposition expressed by citizens’ in the public consultation, with 98 percent of submissions opposing the ban, as well as the lack of legitimacy of this cabinet, the Dutch anti-vaping aspirations are completely unethical. This is a huge blow for tobacco harm reduction efforts and all the vapers who raised their voices, and it is likely to tarnish the reputation of the Netherlands.

Originally published here.

Scroll to top
en_USEN