Philip Morris wants F.D.A. to say snus less harmful than cigarettes

[sgreger1]

The company once called Philip Morris is hoping the F.D.A. will go easier on Marlboro Snus, a spit-free smokeless pouch, than on Marlboro cigarettes. Altria wants the F.D.A. to allow it to promote snuff and other smokeless products as being less harmful to their users. "Smokeless products “to complement proven prevention and cessation strategies."


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/bu...l?pagewanted=2





FDA to Philip Morris:

Dear Harm Reduction Proponents,

....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...

[tom502]

It's all tobacco, therefore it's worse than heroin, and we must save the children.

[danielan]

“If you look at how they’re marketing smokeless now, they’re marketing for dual use, and to protect the cigarette market, which is their big money maker,” says Stanton A. Glantz, a professor of cardiology and a specialist in tobacco research at the University of California, San Francisco.

This argument is so goofy.

They can't market it as a safer alternative. It is against the master settlement. So they are asking the FDA for permission and then getting beat up for not illegally marketing it as a safer alternative.

[Jwalker]

That's exactly what I've thought. People use circular arguments smokeless tobacco is bad and then when asked why they say it leads to smoking. Well the reason it leads to it is you've convinced kids that every sore spot means you've got cancer and that you'll die in ten years, but half of cigarette smokers on the other hand live and you don't hear about smokers in their twenties getting cancer although it's happens just like non-tobacco users get leukemia. They can market it as an alternative to smoking though they just can't claim health benefits, Usstc used to with ads like tobacco in the office you bet and people said it was implying that dip was safer.

[tom502]

Dip is not marketed as something to do when one can't smoke.

[justintempler]

The FDA has a mechanism for this, all the tobacco companies are working towards this goal.

P.R.E.P. Potenial Reduced Exposure Product. The idea is to get snus declared a P.R.E.P. Altria, R.J. Reynolds and Swedish Match are all trying.

[Jwalker]

That's true it was because United States SMOKELESS Tobacco Company didn't make money off of cigarettes even when they sold cigs they didn't have a significant market share so any dual user wouldn't buy their product. First off they named their products after their flagship cigarettes which is justifiable but raised suspicion right off the bat. Phillip Morris and RJR have an interest in selling cigarettes although the profit margin is lower than with smokeless tobacco(They're both criminally high). PM is the worse offender on dual use("fits with your smokes") camel did ads like for when you can't smoke or smokefree no problem. That's the only way they felt they could target smokers. I can also assure you they're not heartbroken if non-users buy the product or smokers of their brand continue to smoke. RJR screwed up not having an unsweetened bergamont or tobacco flavor. PM did rich, mild, spearment, and the other mint. They should have made an original tobacco flavored and marlboro whiskey like they did in sweden. Americans like foreign things and exotic flavors why does camel emphasize the turkish tobacco with turkish gold, silver, royal etc.

[Jwalker]

Yeah the FDA isn't the right agency to regulate tobacco. Their job is to make products safe and tobacco can't be made safe. Safer alternatives to chemicals and other products aren't approved for use but the chemicals that we were using before like atrazine are doctored in and you have to prove they're harmful. It's the same with stuff like oil refineries where they're not upgraded because you have to do the most expensive safest technology available or nothing and companies can't afford to upgrade them.

[tom502]

The crappy American snus would be better if they just stuffed the pouches with ground up semi moist ciggarette tobacco scraps, and didn't add any sweetner or flavor to it.

[Tobakssmak]

“It’s a pipe dream,” says David Adelman, an analyst at Morgan Stanley, of the prospects for snus.

I got a pipe for ya *right here*

[Tobakssmak]

On one side are people like Matthew L. Myers, president of Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, an advocacy group in Washington, who argues that there is no evidence that smokeless products are effective tools to help people quit smoking.

Now I'm really getting pissed. I am living, breathing evidence, you ignorant fool. As are many people in this group. Oh, and let's not forget about the Swedes who've known this for decades. I could have discovered snus and quit smoking 20 years ago if it weren't for jerk-offs like this guy.

[SnusoMatic]

this might of off topic (like people like me always say next) BUT yall seen these http://www.nicorette.com/products/nicorette-mini.aspx ? Give me a break..... if that dispenser had snus in it the anti tobacco morons would be saying stuff like "they are marketing to children. Looks like a pez snus dispenser (http://www.pez.com/index.php). Next thing they will have one shaped like mickey mouse." They make 2 mg and 4 mg minis (nicorette). The directions say only use one at a time. Funny thing is i saw them advertised on tv and i know the person put two in their mouth at the same time. So if it was brought up i bet they would say the person on tv needed the 4 mg ones but only had access to the 2 mg ones. So they had to double up and use two of the 2 mg nicorette. The legal nicotine market in the usa kills me. how many are using patches, gum, etc to actually try to quit smoking and not just until they can smoke.

[tom502]

Big Pharma, big money, big politician buy offs.

[skyline142]

Reading all this is just making me so mad! Now I do agree with them saying "This is not a safe alternative to cigarettes." Because it isnt safe, addiction is not safe. Sooo, we should see signs on nicotine gum and patches saying the SAME warning. Because they classify addiction as not being safe. SO WTF! Erg. I think they should have every right to say it is a SAFER (emphisize the R) product than cigarettes. The FDA has no right to bash tobacco so bad. In my opinion, there are sooo many other things in life that are just as horrible for you; fast food, highly processed foods, the soda industry(high fructose corn syrup). Even TV! Psychological addictions can be far worse than physical ones. People can be addiction to anything. Literally, anything. They shouldn't focus so much on one topic. WE make the choice to smoke, WE make the choice for everything we consume. If people can bash smokers, we can bash fat people. We made the decision to ingest what we ingest, but we have every right to have the correct information on what we ingest. This FDA bullsh*t is pissing me off. They need to open their minds and realize that their lies are another broken step on the ladder on why this damn country is failing. Ugh, anyway. Back to work, the gas station life needs some excitement, this rant will have to do. Haha. Have a good day fellas.

[Tristik]

~~
The biggest problem they have going for the US market, from what I've read, is that they have a process in place for marking a product as "reduced harm". The problem is, they just instituted this and they don't even have a method in place yet for companies even APPLY for their product to become a 'hard reduction' product.
~~