Major Change in UK Attitude to Tobacco Harm Reduction?
I’ve just had an email from Bill Godshall in which he applauds apparent moves by the UK’s NHS to approve a Tobacco Harm Reduction approach to smoking.
To the unitiated tobacco harm reduction involves getting smokers who can or can’t quit to use products which are vastly safer (usually 99% safer) than smoking.
You can learn all about tobacco harm reduction here: TobaccoHarmReduction.org (run by the University of Alberta).
For years, despite ASH’s initial enthusiasm, THR has been avoided in the UK.
Crazily, one of the safest products available, SNUS, has been banned in the UK while more dangerous forms of chewing tobacco which cause oral cancer are perfectly legal.
Anti-smoking fanatics have opposed tobacco harm reduction on the basis that anything which does not involve completely quitting smoking is bad, and also because of the fear that it might lead youngsters into smoking.
Now, according to Bill Godshall, UK attitudes to THR have changed:
In an historic first for public health, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) of the UK’s National Health Service overwhelming approved tobacco harm reduction as a key component in England’s ten year plan to reduce cigarette smoking by half. The US FDA should follow the UK’s lead. The announcement and a news excerpt are below, the press release is attached, and the full report “A Smokefree Future” is at http://www.dh.gov.uk/dr_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/@ps/documents/digitalasset/dh_111748.pdf
Bill Godshall
- – -
Citizens Council vote in favour of harm reduction in smoking
http://www.nice.org.uk/newsroom/news/CitizensCouncilVoteInFavourOfHarmReductionInSmoking.jsp
The Citizens Council, a group which brings the views of the public to NICE’s decision-making, has voted overwhelmingly in favour of the use of harm reduction as a way to reduce the dangers of smoking.
The 30 members of the Citizens Council met in October last year for three days to discuss the pros and cons of harm reduction. Whereas smoking cessation aims to help smokers quit smoking and break their reliance on nicotine completely, the idea of harm reduction involves reducing the harm associated with cigarettes for smokers who find it too hard to quit. This could include replacing cigarettes with a clean form of nicotine, or with cigarettes which intend to deliver lower levels of toxins.
Overall, the Citizens Council supported the use of harm reduction in smoking but the idea of considering harm reduction as a way to provide a less harmful alternative to smoking – while accepting that nicotine addiction continues – proved relatively unpopular.
Sir Michael Rawlins, Chair of NICE, said: “The concept of harm reduction conflicts with traditional smoking cessation as it does not necessarily seek to help people stop smoking altogether, nor does it treat nicotine addiction. What would this approach mean for the goal of having a smoke free society?
“The Citizens Council’s view will help guide our independent advisory committees, should they be required in the future to make recommendations about harm reduction in smoking.”
The findings from the Citizens Council come as the Department of Health launches a Tobacco Control Strategy for England which aims to halve the number of smokers, from 21 to 10 per cent of the population by 2020.
This latest strategy, A Smokefree Future, builds on the previous 1998 strategy and sets out to ensure that every smoker will be able to get help from the NHS to suit them if they want to give up. This includes introducing new approaches to reducing smoking such as harm reduction.
The Department of Health will also work with NICE to encourage alignment of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), so as to encourage more smokers to use the NHS Stop Smoking Services.
The 30 members of the public that make up the Citizens Council are drawn from all walks of life, and provide NICE with insights into the public’s views on challenging issues that often involve values such as fairness and need. It meets twice a year and reports directly to NICE’s Board. Its recommendations inform a wide programme of work. When the Council was set up in 2002 it was the UK’s first advisory body made up entirely of members of the public.
The public is now invited to comment on the Citizens Council members’ views on the use of harm reduction in smoking, before the report is presented to the NICE Board. The report on the Council’s views is available for public comment, at www.nice.org.uk . Comments must be sent in by 5pm on Wednesday, 31 March 2010. http://www.nice.org.uk/getinvolved/patientandpublicinvolvement/opportunitiestogetinvolved/citizenscouncil/reports/CitizensCouncilReportSmokingAndHarmReductionWithInvitationToComment.jsp
1 February 2010
We’ll be writing more shortly on major ongoing developments in the UK regarding tobacco harm reduction, the MHRA and the electronic cigarette.
Like this post? Keep up to date with us by signing up for our email updates.
Ready to switch? Visit the Electronic Cigarette Store.
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:37 pm
If you read the statement from NICE you will notice that tobacco alternatives are favoured but NICE is not inclined to allow them.
In fact the MHRA have issued a consultation about banning all recreational nicotine except for tobacco products. All non-tobacco nicotine will be classified as medicine and will be subject to medical registration criteria.
The Department of Health also announced on Monday that they will remove non-medical nicotine from the market. Unapproved ecigs will be banned.
http://vapersnetwork.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=166
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:15 am
"If you read the statement from NICE you will notice that tobacco alternatives are favoured but NICE is not inclined to allow them."
Yes it is a bit confusing, isn't it?
This seems clear:
"The Citizens Council, a group which brings the views of the public to NICE’s decision-making, has voted overwhelmingly in favour of the use of harm reduction as a way to reduce the dangers of smoking."
But then this doesn't:
"Overall, the Citizens Council supported the use of harm reduction in smoking but the idea of considering harm reduction as a way to provide a less harmful alternative to smoking – while accepting that nicotine addiction continues – proved relatively unpopular."
Regarding electronic cigarettes, I think some form of regulation which didn't involve banning electronic cigarettes would be a good thing. There are lots of cowboys out there who are giving the whole industry a bad name. This is not a move to ban the electronic cigarette – as we understand it the MHRA sees the additional regulations and finance halving the number of online retailers. This may not be a bad thing. We have heard quality concerns from even e-cig supporters about cheap alternatives (not ours!) and we have heard from customrs who have been scammed by 'free' e-cig trials.
I know you are concerned about this move. Can you explain your concerns?
February 3rd, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Sure.
The DH and MHRA intent is to ban recreational nicotine but allow tobacco and medicine.
Actions speak louder than words and all the nice words in the world don't result in support for tobacco alternatives.
No ecigs are approved and to get approval each flavour will cost around £24,000 a year (I think but haven't checked that figure) plus proof of effectiveness as a medical treatment trials and standardisation of dose, ingredients, design and other medicalisation like tamperproofing. This will take the fun from the habit and make it as ineffective as NRT I believe. The likely beneficiaries of restricting the nicotine market will be pharmaceutical companies who have no interest in promoting a product that will work and encourage people to quit their product and the tobacco companies who will have the only satisfying nicotine delivery system – smoke.
Innovation, competition and harm reduction are being stopped.
Plus, when people can't buy liquid nicotine legally they will turn to the completely unregulated black market. At the moment the Poisons Act 1972 regulates the nicotine market and general trading laws say the product must be fit for purpose and not likely to cause harm during normal use. Ethical traders would be protected even at the moment as the law stands if Trading Standards weren't trying to avoid doing their job properly.
What's missing is an international standard of what is an acceptable level of toxicity, contamination and permitted ingredients.
Banning recreational nicotine won't create a standard and won't promote tobacco alternatives.
http://vapersnetwork.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=174