Statements made at the Scientific Standards for Studies on Reduced Risk Tobacco Products meeting

Thanks to Bill Godshall, we can give you the links to some of the statements made at the Scientific Standards for Studies on Reduced Risk Tobacco Products meeting to advise the FDA on the minimum standards for scientific studies to allow the marketing of modified risk tobacco products, and for post-market studies of marketed products.

1. Statement from Scott Ballin

Excerpt:

I also suggest that we consider redefining our terms about the spectrum of products in the market place. Calling any tobacco product that is a not burned a ‘smokeless product’ is no longer accurate or even useful. I prefer to use the term Smoking Replacement Product or SRP because that allows us to look at the growing spectrum of noncombustible products (tobacco, nicotine, and alternatives) in terms of risks and relative risks and intended use, and to label and set marketing standards for such products based on those risks.

2. Statement from Bill Godshall

Excerpt:

Requiring additional scientific studies before a company can make these types of modified risk or reduced exposure claims would be a “truth tax” for far less hazardous smokefree alternatives, would unfairly protect cigarettes from market competition by lower risk alternatives, and would threaten instead of improve public health.

3. Statement from Elaine Keller

Excerpt:

We were astonished and outraged to learn that, decades before the invention of electronic cigarettes, we could have stopped inflicting smoke-related damage to our bodies without becoming nicotine-abstinent. We were deceived about the relative safety of non-combusted tobacco products. The government and so-called public health organizations misapplied the word “safe” in the messages, “This product is not a safe alternative to smoking” and “There is no safe form of tobacco.” Most folks think they’re saying there is no safer form of tobacco than smoking. These messages encouraged smokers who did not want to give up nicotine to keep inhaling smoke, when they could have switched to products that reduce smoking-related disease risks by up to 99%! Their half-truths have killed millions of smokers and continue to do so today.

To provide your own feedback on this project…

Advertisements
Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

Comments

  • Carl V Phillips  On February 8, 2011 at 6:26 pm

    Just for the record, the reason that neither I nor THR.o made comments on this is because I do not feel like this is a good way to do science. Indeed, I think committees like this are where science goes to die (or at least hibernate for a decade). Given that this is openly my opinion, I thought it would be hypocritical for us participate directly in the process.

    I hope, however, to write a position statement about the matter the committee is addressing. That can be thought of as similar to what the committee is producing, though minus the bits that make Official Committee Reports so harmful to science: it will be without political pressure; it will be a whole rather than patching together of disparate bits of work; and we will not try to imply it is anything other than the possibly flawed analysis of a small group of people with expertise that will undoubtedly be outdated in a year or two, and a limited amount of time to devote to the project, and thus something that, for every part of it, some other analysis could undoubtedly offer improvements. (Needless to say, that last bit reflects the main reasons that I think these committees are so damaging to scientific inquiry.)

%d bloggers like this: