Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco
-
With the tobacco industry developing and test marketing a wide array of modified cigarettes and novel nicotine-delivery products, the era of tobacco harm reduction is upon us. Like today's new technologies, two previous generations of cigarette innovation-filtered cigarettes in the 1950s and low tar and nicotine cigarettes in the late 1960s and early 1970s were introduced to offer smokers an ostensibly less hazardous means of smoking, and therefore an alternative to quitting. ⋯ Will a new generation of harm reduction products improve the public's health, or will the experience of the past half-century be repeated? This paper examines the concept of tobacco harm reduction and describes the variety of methods employed in pursuit of it. Through an examination of the experience with filters and low tar and nicotine cigarettes, and an explicit consideration of today's issues and challenges, the paper focuses attention on the essential dimensions of the contemporary harm reduction debate: how science can establish whether novel products or methods will reduce risks to health for individual smokers, or at least exposures likely to influence risks; how a determination can be made as to the likely population impacts of the introduction and marketing of novel products; how health professionals and consumers can learn the potential and limits of harm reduction; and what role for governmental regulation is possible and desirable.
-
Review
Nicotine concentrations with concurrent use of cigarettes and nicotine replacement: a review.
This paper reviews the data on blood nicotine or saliva cotinine concentrations with concomitant smoking and use of nicotine replacement (NR) products. Eleven studies that provided data on blood nicotine concentrations, carbon monoxide in exhaled air, and number of cigarettes smoked were reviewed. At least one day had to be spent on concurrent use of cigarette and NR products. ⋯ Where smokers had the intention or received instructions to reduce smoking, a greater reduction in cigarettes smoked and exhaled CO was observed. Despite substantially increased nicotine concentrations (e.g., up to 3 times the approved dose) there were no significant adverse reactions. Concurrent use of NR products and cigarette smoking appears to be safe.
-
The objective of this analysis was to examine further whether tobacco industry marketing using the labels light and ultra-light is perceived by smokers as a health claim. Smokers might view low tar/nicotine brands of cigarettes as a means to reduce the harm to their health from smoking and postpone quitting. Data were from smokers responding to a large, population-based survey of Californians' smoking behavior, conducted in 1996 (8,582 current smokers). ⋯ We conclude that some smokers appear to view low tar/nicotine brands as one short-term strategy to reduce the harm to their health from smoking without quitting. By implying reduced tar or nicotine exposure, tobacco industry marketing using the labels light and ultra-light is misleading smokers. The use of such labels should be regulated.
-
The goal of tobacco control has always been to reduce death and disease due to tobacco use. Recent discussions have broadened the concept of tobacco control beyond cessation and prevention to include concepts such as the use of medications to achieve reduction in tobacco use, chemoprevention to reduce disease, modifications of tobacco products to reduce toxicity, and behavioral approaches to change smoking and tobacco use behavior. ⋯ Because there have also been so many suggested applications of medicinal nicotine to smoking intervention, we separately catalog and analyze nine applications, some of which constitute new approaches to harm reduction. The suggested framework is intended to clarify the debate, provide for common nomenclature, and facilitate analysis of diverse approaches to tobacco harm reduction.
-
Public health policy needs to be assessed for effects on human rights as well as public health. Although promoting harm reduction products to cigarette smokers might lead to greater total public health harm, if the products become too popular, human rights issues also need to be considered. ⋯ As examples, based on current evidence, smokers have a right to information on snus (Swedish moist snuff) and medicinal nicotine as harm reduction options that would reduce substantially the risk of death to individuals. Smokers also have a right to truthful information about lower-tar cigarettes that have been erroneously promoted as risk reducing.