Public Health England publishes independent evidence papers on e-cigarettes

[KulrMeStoopid]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...s-independent-evidence-papers-on-e-cigarettes

Reports commissioned from leading academics examine the evidence on risks and opportunities.



<aside><figure>

</figure></aside>

Electronic Cigarettes: a report commissioned by Public Health England by Professor John Britton and Dr Ilze Bogdanovica (University of Nottingham) takes a broad look at the issues relating to e-cigarettes including their role in tobacco harm reduction, potential hazards, potential benefits and regulation.
E-cigarette uptake and marketing: a report commissioned by Public Health England by Professor Linda Bauld, Kathryn Angus and Dr Marisa de Andrade (University of Stirling) examines use of e-cigarettes by children and young people, the scale and nature of current marketing and its implications, in particular in relation to its potential appeal to young people.
Publication of the evidence papers coincides with a national symposium, ‘Electronic cigarettes and tobacco harm reduction’, being held by <abbr title="Public Health England">PHE</abbr> in London today. The symposium brings together senior public health leaders to discuss the opportunities and risks presented by the rise of e-cigarettes, and to identify areas of consensus to inform future action.
Photo by pixelblume. Used under Flickr Creative Commons

 

[Gonloopy]

---

Hehehe. Beat me to it KMS

Not had chance to get into the detail of this yet, but on a quick skim read seems broadly positive.

Wow, what a long way we've come.

 

[knome]

A reasonable summary and conclusion...

Smoking kills, and millions of smokers alive today will die prematurely from their
smoking unless they quit. This burden falls predominantly on the most disadvantaged
in society. Preventing this death and disability requires measures that help as many of
today’s smokers to quit as possible. The option of switching to electronic cigarettes as
an alternative and much safer source of nicotine, as a personal lifestyle choice rather
than medical service, has enormous potential to reach smokers currently refractory to
existing approaches. The emergence of electronic cigarettes and the likely arrival of
more effective nicotine-containing devices currently in development provides a radical
alternative to tobacco, and evidence to date suggests that smokers are willing to use
these products in substantial numbers. Electronic cigarettes, and other nicotine
devices, therefore offer vast potential health benefits, but maximising those benefits
while minimising harms and risks to society requires appropriate regulation, careful
monitoring, and risk management. However the opportunity to harness this potential
into public health policy, complementing existing comprehensive tobacco control
policies, should not be missed.

I've no idea of the stats for cig-a-like users upgrading to personal vaporisers but the following is fixed on the idea of mimicking smoking when, personally, that isn't the case...

Electronic cigarettes offer nicotine delivery in a format that mimics smoking, have a
socially acceptable non-medical image which enables users to retain their smoker
identity but without the risk of smoke, are relatively inexpensive (start-up costs can be
high, but running costs much lower than smoking), and despite (to date) nicotine
delivery that is low relative to cigarettes,[24] have proved popular with the current
minority of smokers who use them. Consumer support for the product is evident from
the user sites that a brief internet search on electronic cigarettes or vaping generates.
To our knowledge, no users of NRT have ever felt sufficiently passionate about the
product to establish a user website. Unlike NRT therefore, and particularly if nicotine
delivery can be improved to mimic that of cigarettes more closely, these products have
the potential mass appeal to challenge the primacy of smoked tobacco as the product
of choice for nicotine users.

The second document relates to cig-a-like e-cigarettes which is fair enough. But perhaps there is a further phenomenom now at work of cig-a-likes being a gateway to personal vaporisers. As for branding, I see vaping and personal vaporisers as a sum of parts, not a single brand - one of the reasons it's different to smoking.

 

[Duffloop]

lat para in the conclusion:

Electronic cigarettes, and other nicotine devices, therefore offer vast potential health benefits, but maximising those benefits while minimising harms and risks to society requires appropriate regulation, careful monitoring, and risk management. However the opportunity to harness this potential into public health policy, complementing existing comprehensive tobacco control policies, should not be missed.
​

​

 

[steffijade]

This document appears to be little more than an attempt to attach 'scientific' justification to the back up plan of big pharma, big government and big tobacco control.

I use the term back up plan because all 3 originally wanted to see vaping banned to protect profits, tax revenue and careers but once it became apparent that vaping couldn't be stopped by fair means or foul, they had to adopt to a position where vaping is acceptable, but only if they get to control it and benefit from that control.

This sentence from the final paragraph is very telling to me :

"Electronic cigarettes, and other nicotine devices, therefore offer vast potential health benefits, but maximising those benefits while minimising harms and risks to society requires appropriate regulation, careful monitoring, and risk management."

In other words, we can continue to have our vape but only if big pharma gets a commercial advantage (by ensuring regulation is handled by their own tame organisation, the MHRA), vaping is continued to be classified as being a smoking related passtime and as such should be within the remit of those that make their living from tobacco control (thus ensuring their continued career) and that vaping devices are held under the umbrella of being a tobacco product, providing justification for punitive taxation (which big pharma products will escape by virtue of being deemed to be medicines after the purchase of prohibitively high licensing).

I also find the declaration of interest very interesting :

"John Britton is professor of epidemiology at the University of Nottingham and an honorary consultant in respiratory medicine at Nottingham City Hospital. He is director of the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, chairs the tobacco advisory group of the Royal College of Physicians, a member of the board of trustees of Action on Smoking and Health, and chairs a Public Health Advisory Committee for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). He receives salary from the University
of Nottingham and honoraria for NICE work, and has no financial or other conflicts of interest.

Ilze Bogdanovica is a research fellow at the University of Nottingham, funded by the UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies. She has no conflicts of interest.

The UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies is a UKCRC Centre of Public Health Research Excellence funded by the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, the Economic and Social Research Council, the Medical Research Council and the Department of Health, under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration."

Absolutely no big pharma bias/vested interests there then eh?

 

[cheersm8]

Still over 100,000 people, in the UK, dying, each year, from smoking related diseases, so? None of the aforementioned professionals are very good at ,or successful with, their jobs are they?

 

[twoeyedbob]

whose bright idea was yellow highlighted txt....i had a headache by the 2nd sentence

Vapourtrails tv have a really interesting and worthwhile feedback video regarding a meeting/summit about ecigs...if i could share a link i would :-/
Maybe someone could oblige :-)