The European Parliament is the first legislative body to recognize tobacco harm reduction as a public health strategy.
In a monumental shift from the norm de rigueur for governing bodies in the world, in mid-February this year the European Parliament officially recognized tobacco harm reduction (THR) as a public health strategy, a first for any legislative body. This endorsement is an encouraging change of direction, one that follows the science rather than the dogmatic approach that rejects anything that dares to deviate from the “tobacco, in all shapes and forms, is evil and must be wiped off the face of this earth” belief dominating public health policies across the world.
THR promotes using less harmful alternatives to combustible cigarettes such as e-cigarettes, heat-not-burn, and snus to help reduce smoking prevalence. It is a more pragmatic approach that allows smokers to make their own informed decisions not only on smoking but also which tools they could use and what works best for them. It gives them back the right to choose for themselves, a right stripped from them with complete bans.
The European Parliament adopted – by an overwhelming margin of 652 votes in favor of and 15 against with 27 abstentions – a report by the Special Committee on Beating Cancer (BECA) which introduced for the first time a THR perspective at the EU level. One part of the report stated, “electronic cigarettes could allow some smokers to progressively quit smoking.” A report by the Independent European Vape Alliance (IEVA) said Parliament also shut down attempts by a political faction to water down the report’s harm reduction declaration.
The good stuff doesn’t stop there. The BECA report also called on the European Commission to follow up on the scientific evaluations of the health risks related to e-cigarettes, heated tobacco products (HTPs), and novel tobacco products, as well as the assessment of the risks of using these products com-pared to consuming other tobacco products, and the establishment at European level a list of substances contained in, and emitted by, these products. After so long and so many voices calling for regulators to follow the science, it seems they finally listened.
Dustin Dahlmann, president of IEVA, hailed this historic event as “a landmark declaration by the European Parliament, which should go a long way to reassuring smokers of the health benefits that a switch to vaping can bring,” adding that, “we now encourage the other EU institutions – and in particular the European Commission – to take this on board and ensure that policy follows science, not the other way around.”
And while BECA understands that e-cigarettes allow some smokers to progressively quit smoking, it also believes e-cigarettes should not be attractive to minors and non-smokers. In that light, it also called on the European Commission to evaluate, in the framework of the Tobacco Products Directive, which flavors in e-cigarettes attract minors and non-smokers, and to propose a ban on these.
This is another encouraging note if the ban is only on those that attract minors and not on all flavors. An IEVA survey of more than 3,300 e-cigarette users found that variety of flavors are one of the most important reasons for users to use e-cigarettes, with 40% using fruit-flavored liquids, 25% preferring other sweet flavors, and 35% selecting tobacco flavor. When asked how they would react if all liquid flavors except tobacco flavors were banned, only 20% of the survey respondents said they would switch to tobacco flavors, 31% said they would buy other liquid flavors on the black market, and 9% would even start smoking again. Clearly a ban on all flavors would not serve the best interests of smokers wanting to cut down or even stop smoking.
The debate on the effectiveness of e-cigarettes as a less harmful alternative for tobacco harm reduction rages on in most parts of the world and governments’ attitudes on the matter vary, with prohibition occurring most in Asia, the Middle East, and South America. The European Parliament’s latest stance will hopefully create a ripple effect leading to more countries recognizing and ratifying tobacco harm reduction through the use of e-cigarettes and new tobacco products.
Harm reduction is already being used as a public health strategy when it comes to opioids and other substances. Rather than unrealistically insisting on abstinence only, harm reduction methods employed can include syringe exchange programs that prevent HIV transmission, safe injection sites, distribution of overdose-reversing naloxone, and distribution of safer kits which sometimes include crackpipes.
In fact, Bloomberg Philanthropies recently launched a US$500,000 ad campaign promoting the virtues of using harm reduction strategies to fight opioid addiction. This is the very same organization that is totally intolerant in its approach to tobacco control, smoking cessation, e-cigarettes, nicotine, and pretty much anything even remotely related to tobacco; the very same organization that influences governments and the World Health Organization in their tobacco control policies. The stark contrast is glaring.
Dr. Kelly Henning, public health program lead at Bloomberg Philanthropies, was quoted by the New York Daily News as saying, “At Bloomberg Philanthropies, we believe in promoting evidence-based interventions to ensure longer, better lives for the greatest number of people — harm reduction does just that.” Too bad that does not seem to apply to all the organization’s “interventions”.