Save lives by placing tobacco out of sight

The following letter is published in today's Times:

Sir, Putting tobacco products out of sight in shops, banning vending machines and considering plain packaging for cigarettes will help to protect children from the devastating influence of tobacco marketing. 

As a group of leading health organisations, we are calling on all members of the House of Lords to vote for these proposals in the debate on the Health Bill later this month.

Removing glossy tobacco displays — designed to attract youngsters — from sight doesn’t infringe “smokers’ rights” to choose their favourite brand. Ninety per cent of smokers already know which brand of cigarettes they will buy before going into a shop.

Research shows that keeping tobacco out of sight helps to reduce teenage smoking. Numbers dropped in Iceland and some Canadian provinces after displays were removed. And it could cost less than £200 to refit tobacco displays.

There is good evidence — backed by the World Health Organisation and other leading medical experts — that these measures will help to stop children smoking. The tobacco industry denies this. But it is difficult to believe that healthy children are a priority for an industry intent on recruiting a new generation of smokers. Approximately 340,000 under-16s try cigarettes for the first time each year and 80 per cent of smokers start before age 19. Half of all long-term users will die from their addiction. Smoking remains the single biggest preventable cause of premature death, killing more people than alcohol, obesity, illegal drugs and road accidents put together.

The UK has led the way in tobacco control: the smoking ban now enjoys huge public support. But Ireland and Scotland are ahead of the game with plans to put tobacco out of sight and ban vending machines. We urge Parliament to follow suit by ensuring that health — not the financial interests of the tobacco industry — is at the heart of a Health Bill.

Harpal Kumar

Chief Executive, Cancer Research UK

Dame Helena Shovelton

Chief Executive, British Lung Foundation

Peter Hollins

Chief Executive, British Heart Foundation

Dr Hamish Meldrum

Chairman, British Medical Association Council

Neil Churchill

Chief Executive, Asthma UK

Source: The Times Online, 20 April 2009
Link: http://tinyurl.com/cp97x8

Ireland: Children harmed by smoke in cars

Irish doctors claim they have found evidence that exposure to “secondhand smoke” in cars is damaging children’s health. 

Their study isolated the effects of passive smoking in cars and found it gives rise to significant respiratory symptoms in children. Those exposed to cigarette smoke had a 35% increased risk of having wheeze symptoms and a 30% higher risk of hay fever.

“This paper is the first to isolate exposure in cars as distinct from the children smoking themselves and from exposure at home,” said Luke Clancy, the director general of the Research Institute for a Tobacco Free Society, and one of the study’s authors.

“We find secondhand smoke in cars does give rise to significant symptoms in these children. People say they’re only going down the road to school and ‘how do we know that it’s actually doing any harm?’. This says, ‘yes it is’.”

Clancy, a respiratory consultant, claims the findings support calls for a ban on smoking in cars similar to the workplace ban. ASH Ireland, an anti-smoking group of which Clancy is a board member, has been calling for such a ban for more than a year, pointing to similar legislation in Cyprus and some Australian, Canadian and American states and provinces. Clancy claims it would be too difficult to police a ban on smoking in private vehicles if children are present, and is instead demanding a blanket restriction.

“It should be banned outright in cars because you won’t be able to enforce it if it only applies when children are present. The reason the workplace ban works is because it is complete.”

The study, published in the European Respiratory Journal found that one in seven children in a nationally representative sample of 13- to 14-year-olds was exposed to passive cigarette smoke in cars. Secondhand smoke in a car is 23 times more toxic than in a house due to the enclosed space.

Clancy added, “Even if you open the window you don’t get rid of it all because the air that blows in doesn’t really drive it out. You can reduce it by ventilation but you can’t bring it down to none, and there is no safe level."

“The car window is more likely to be closed in Ireland because of the climate and you are more likely to get a lift when the weather is inclement.”

Patrick Manning, the chairman of the medical committee of the Asthma Society of Ireland, and who was also involved in the research, said: “People tend to smoke a lot more in their cars to avoid the ban where they work. When children are exposed at home they can probably run out to the kitchen or somewhere. Most parents will smoke away from children.”

Asthma and bronchitis symptoms were also higher in the children exposed to secondhand smoke.

Clancy was one of six authors of the study. They used the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood and added an additional question regarding exposure in cars.

Source: The Times, 19 April 2009
Link: http://tinyurl.com/d5xgk7

Cancer "culprits" in tobacco smoke revealed

Scientists have detected two substances in tobacco smoke that directly cause lung cancer, and they said the finding may help one day predict which smokers will develop the disease.

They said smokers who have a higher concentration of a nicotine byproduct calle NNAl double their risk of developing lung cancer compared with smokers who have a lower NNAL concentration in their urine.

And smokers who had high urine levels of both NNAL and another nicotine byproduct called cotinine had more than eight times the risk of lung cancer compared to smokers with the lowest concentrations of these two compounds.

The findings may help explain why some smokers get cancer while others do not, they said.

"Smoking leads to lung cancer, but there are about 60 possible carcinogens in tobacco smoke, and the more accurately we can identify the culprit, the better we will become at predicting risk," said Jian-Min Yuan of the University of Minnesota, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research in Denver.

Studies have found that laboratory animals with high concentrations of NNAL had higher rates of lung cancer, but its effect in humans has not been clear.

The researchers collected data from two large Chinese studies of 50,000 men and women aged 45 to 74. In addition to asking them how much they smoked, what they ate and other lifestyle factors, the researchers collected blood and urine samples.

Yuan and colleagues identified 246 smokers who later developed lung cancer and 245 smokers who did not during the 10-year period following their initial interview and exam.

The team, which included researchers at the National University of Singapore and the Shanghai Cancer Institute, divided NNAL urine levels into low, medium and high categories.

After accounting for number of cigarettes smoked per day, they found people who had medium levels of NNAL had a 43 percent higher risk of lung cancer than those in the lowest levels. And those with the highest levels had double the risk.

People with the highest levels of both cotinine and NNAL had an 8.5-fold higher risk compared with smokers who had the lowest levels of both.

Yuan said testing for NNAL and cotinine in urine may serve as a starting point for a new way of predicting lung cancer risk. "Our goal in the next three to five years is to amass this information so that it can be used as a screening test to alert smokers to their risks," he said.

Lung cancer kills 1.2 million people a year and is the top cause of cancer death globally.

Source: Reuters News, 19 April 2009
Link: http://tinyurl.com/c6xct2

Budget to sting drinkers and smokers

Britons will be drowning their recession sorrows into a dearer pint and puffing away more of their hard-earned cash on cigarettes after Wednesday's Budget, with the Treasury expected to raise taxes on both vices.

Consumers should expect a duty rise of two percent above inflation on alcohol, after the government announced a "duty escalator" increase for the next four years in the 2008 budget.

Smokers will feel the pinch too, with consumer groups predicting that the Chancellor will raise duty in line with inflation, judging from the last eight budgets.

Chris Ogden of the Tobacco Manufacturers' Association said that an inflation-only rise would roughly add an extra 11 pence on a packet of 20 cigarettes -- similar to last year.

Consumer group Forest, which represents smokers and receives industry funding, said it would settle for an inflation-only rise, but said anything more would be counterproductive.

But anti-smoking charity Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) said tax is an important tool to encourage smokers to quit.

"We would certainly welcome and are pushing for a tax rise. Price is important in helping to reduce consumption: price is a determining factor people often quote when they are giving up smoking," a spokeswoman for ASH said.

"We are obviously aware that if the price is going to go up then the government has to curb smuggling because that undermines the benefit of the tax hike," she said.

Source: Yahoo UK & Ireland News, 17 April 2009
Link: http://tinyurl.com/cbpqyz