2023-06-23 17:51:00
“There are many doctors and those who work within public health who have taken sides in strong opposition to the new alternatives to traditional cigarettes, i.e. products containing nicotine, which can help smokers to stop smoking. The reliability of their beliefs is not always based on scientific evidence: according to these people, in fact, one should opt for a different approach, based on abstinence and more stringent regulations, such as punitive taxation”. It is from this argument, presented at the opening of the meeting by the moderator and director of the Consumer Center of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, Lindsey Stroud, which kicked off the panel ‘Science, regulation and morality’, held during the third of the four days of the Global Forum on Nicotine 2023, taking place in Warsaw from 21 to 24 June. The topic was discussed by four international experts such as Marewa Glover, John Oyston, Arielle Selya and Kevin Garcia, who expressed their opinions on the issues of regulation and morals concerning products containing nicotine as safer substitutes for traditional cigarettes.
The Global Forum on Nicotine is the only international conference dedicated to the role of nicotine-containing products (such as e-cigarettes, heated tobacco products, nicotine pouches and oral tobacco) in helping smokers switch from traditional cigarettes in favor of alternatives Safer. In fact, the reduction of tobacco harm is at the center of the 2023 edition of the Forum, entitled ‘Tobacco harm reduction – the next decade’, which brought together 70 international experts who addressed an audience of delegates from 80 countries.
Marewa Glover, a New Zealand academic who works in public health and specializes in smoking cessation, explains that, in her view, “many people who work in the tobacco industry and many others who work in public health are aware that the products alternatives to tobacco are effective for reducing the harm caused by traditional cigarette smoking, however they do not recommend them. This approach – observes Glover – derives from a moralistic belief, often influenced by religion and almost never based on scientific evidence. An example is the decision of the Australian government, which has banned e-cigarettes from places frequented by children and very young people, so that they do not see people vaping and therefore do not go near these products. In reality, it is just a matter of control. It is not banning a certain behavior that you get a result – he specifies – and it is not by promoting a narrative of addiction using a religious perspective that people are helped to reduce the harm from smoking. What awaits us is a struggle for social justice.”
“In Canada – remarks John Oyston, retired anesthetist and anti-tobacco activist – there is a telephone line dedicated to those who need help to quit smoking. What I find absurd is that, if you contact them, no one recommends that you switch from traditional cigarettes to safer alternatives, such as e-cigarettes or heated tobacco products.So I have the impression that, when it comes to reducing the harm caused by smoking, there is a conflict between public health and capitalism. This should not happen, nor should a clash between innovation and profit ignite and, in the same way, the big tobacco companies should not be allowed to have full control over all products containing nicotine”.
According to researcher Arielle Selya, specialized in the study of epidemiological and regulatory analysis, it is important to underline that, “although we should not attribute negative intentions or ignorance to those who are against alternatives to traditional cigarettes, it is equally necessary to talk about certain topics only when you have scientific evidence to support your thinking.At the same time, however – continues Selya – it is essential that public health bodies, as in the case of the FDA, are committed to divulging to the population the information necessary to make informed choices. the task falls to the regulators because they are perceived as more trustworthy than tobacco companies by citizens”.
Another big issue, according to Kevin Garcia, a Colorado State University graduate and public health scholar, is the stigmatization of tobacco harm reduction. “Every form of harm reduction – he explains – should be supported and supported by those involved in public health. Having access to safer alternatives to traditional cigarettes is in fact a human right. Supporting harm reduction policies – Garcia points out – it doesn’t mean supporting the use of addictive substances. We need people to join the community promoting harm reduction and rejecting ‘bad science’ based on moral bias.”
#quit #alternatives