• 7/22/2003
  • Scripps Howard News Service

This is an editorial opinion, not a news article

The best is enemy of the good, the ancient Greeks told us, and the meaning of the saying is hardly a puzzle: By insisting on something ideal but extraordinarily difficult to achieve, you may exclude a significant improvement that’s much more likely of accomplishment, if also short of ideal. And that thought brings us to the U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Co., which is asking the Federal Trade Commission if it would be OK to put out an ad recommending a change from cigarettes to something called Revel, described by the Associated Press as “a tobacco-filled packet, like a tea bag, which consumers suck on.”

The pitch of this ad would be that Revel includes no objectionable secondhand smoke. A year ago, the company had a bigger idea, since abandoned. It wanted to promote snuff and chewing tobacco as less a health risk than smoking cigarettes.

Anti-smoking groups aren’t having any of either proposal. Smokeless tobacco can kill, too, they say, and smokers need to quit, not switch. There’s no question that smokeless tobacco can be addictive. It’s a vile, dirty habit. It’s a contributing factor to oral cancer and other diseases. Its use, as the anti-smoking groups are quoted as saying, can be fatal. Nevertheless, it is not as dangerous as smoking, and a scientist whose research is financed by the tobacco company is right: Some people who cannot force themselves to break loose of tobacco’s hold on them might well save their lives by switching.

At the very least, smokers are entitled to know what’s what, even if the anti-smoking groups do not trust their adult judgment. Unless the government believes the ads are false, it should allow them.

Yes, smokers should quit tobacco entirely if they value their health and prospects of longevity more than the sensation of poisonous chemicals in their bodies, and yes, it would be a health-endangering mistake for nonsmokers to take up smokeless tobacco or for smokers to both smoke and suck tea-bag tobacco products, too.

But treating the public like nincompoop children is not the proper role of government, and holding out for the best is getting in the way of the good.

OCF Note: Here we go again, another news story about smokeless tobacco being the “safe alternative”. While this writer has made a valid point, many questions remain. OCF believes that a switch to conventional spit tobaccos is merely trading one poison for another. The argument that there would be fewer lung cancers as a result of this type of switch is attractive, but no clinical trials have actually proven that to be the case, logical as it may seem. Only in the last 5 years have we seen new studies which reveal tobacco carcinogens showing up as cofactors and promoters of other diseases in remote parts of the body that one would never have suspected, included the female reproductive organs, and in breast cancers. The total extent and routes of distribution of these many tobacco carcinogens are not fully understood, and the benefits that the few small studies, sponsored by big tobacco money, might produce, may not be as exceptional when actual negative end results in other diseases are added to the equation. Further, we know the downsides of conventional spit tobacco and its relationship to oral cancers. We also know that besides oral cancers, less deadly conditions are created by chewing tobaccos such as chronic and severe periodontal infections. We now know that chronic infections such as those of the periodontal tissues and other areas are contributors to heart disease, strokes, and even diabetes. These other factors would likely be increased if the use of conventional chew were increased, potentially reducing the benefits touted by the proponents of this substitution.

The issue of advertising a product in the marketplace and what the criteria are for allowing that, is an important point brought up in this article. The government’s position on advertising is not new, and certainly not isolated to tobacco products. Claims made by a product manufacturer must be substantiated, no matter what the product. Smokeless-tobacco makers face a difficult balance in marketing the products, for if they tout them as being safer, they face scrutiny from the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general and would have to prove their claims based on clinical trials they now are not required to conduct. Some anti-smoking program directors also fear that although there may be less carcinogenic risk in the new smokeless products, (referring to the newer “Snus” type of chew and not conventional chewing tobacco) no one can be sure they won’t pose other potential dangers because they have not been independently tested. “It’s likely they are less hazardous, though we don’t know much about them because nobody has done any independent analyses,” said Dr. Richard Hurt, professor of medicine and director of Mayo’s nicotine dependency program. “What if they’re found to have strychnine in them? They can put anything they want in them because they’re not regulated by the FDA.” So substantiation of their safety would be a precursor to making claims, which would be a precursor to advertising. It is unlikely that the big tobacco firms will go there as it opens a Pandora’s box related to the bulk of their products not currently regulated by any oversight.

While we will not conclusively state that the findings from tobacco sponsored studies are suspect, nothing that the tobacco industry has told the American public in the past, and their consistent and overt attempts to discourage the revelation of data that would be harmful to their sales, makes them suspect sources of information. OCF would like to see these products required to go through FDA testing and recommendations…. if they stand up to the claims, they should be allowed to market and advertise them. But please be aware that we are referring to the new teabag, Snus types of tobacco, and not conventional chew as we know it in the US market today. While the direct benefits to the oral cancer community do not exist, we would welcome a reduction in deaths around the world related to the smoking of tobacco. Of course as we have stated many times, our first choice would be to have the FDA allow over-the-counter tobacco cessation products to have an increased nicotine content so that their effectiveness would be enhanced, and we would also like to see greater use of the currently available prescription nicotine inhalers which pose no health threat, both to assist smokers to leave the world of tobacco altogether. *(Once again OCF editor Brian Hill proves that the phrase “economy of words” and his name are seldom used in the same sentence……)

OCF Note #2 posted 11/16/04 Anyone who was starting to think that snus type spit tobaccos were a safe alternative to smoking, should rethink their arguments. This recent study published in Sweden regarding the long term experience in users of these products shows a 67% increase in cancers in people who use them….. This link will take you to the swedish article directly and you may find the article posted in OCF’s news section dated November 16, 2004. Study in Sweden