Imperial Tobacco has chosen lucky Edmonton for the launch of test marketing of a new nicotine product “SNUS.” This is a chewing tobacco alternative that that replaces smoking and does not involve “chewing or spitting.” How charming.
Reader of this blog will know I have written on tobacco control often. I have worked in the area professionally helping get a smoking ban in Alberta legislated…something that is still in process.
The CEO of Imperial Tobacco was dong the run of the Edmonton Editorial Boards yesterday and is quoted as admitting the product is not completely safe but his justification for knowingly incurring risk by using it is – wait for it: “SNUS is the first real product we’re able to bring onto the market where there seems to be pretty compelling evidence that this product is significantly less risky.” (EMPAHSIS ADDED)
And the rational the CEO uses for Imperial Tobacco doing this is – wait for it: it is part of the company’s strategy to become a better corporate citizen by offering a product that research SUGGESTS poses lower risk than smoking.” (EMPHASIS ADDED).
He is also quoted as saying “harm reduction is what responsible companies do.” This is a company offering an unproven product positioning it as a safer alternative to another deadly product it legally sells under the guise of a public health campaign and call this corporate social responsibility.
The company refers to studies showing SNUS users experience significant smoking declines and anecdotal evidence (TRANSLATED AS MEANING GOSSIP) that SNUS is effective in keeping smokers from returning to cigarettes. They admit that the researcher have noted they did not placebo-based controlled confirmation studies that prove this. Spare us the hype and hypocrisy.
Sweden is offered as the shining example of the positive impacts noting only 13% of men smoke and 22% use SNUS. So the rational conclusion from this is that 35% of the male population of Sweden are nicotine users – and this is progress? There is the added bonus of SNUS studies showing a 100% increase in pancreatic cancer in non-smoking construction workers and it raises blood pressure and it is admittedly addictive.
The launch initiative in Edmonton is a test marketing effort to see how people respond to the purchase of the product – NOT the health implications of the product. If it is a product that is a “gateway product out of smoking” you would expect the company to be researching the positive health impacts on lung cancer and other diseases and health issues associate with the product. That would be some serious examples of a meaningful corporate social responsibility effort.
This entire idea is like Kafka meets Alice in Wonderland.
Reader of this blog will know I have written on tobacco control often. I have worked in the area professionally helping get a smoking ban in Alberta legislated…something that is still in process.
The CEO of Imperial Tobacco was dong the run of the Edmonton Editorial Boards yesterday and is quoted as admitting the product is not completely safe but his justification for knowingly incurring risk by using it is – wait for it: “SNUS is the first real product we’re able to bring onto the market where there seems to be pretty compelling evidence that this product is significantly less risky.” (EMPAHSIS ADDED)
And the rational the CEO uses for Imperial Tobacco doing this is – wait for it: it is part of the company’s strategy to become a better corporate citizen by offering a product that research SUGGESTS poses lower risk than smoking.” (EMPHASIS ADDED).
He is also quoted as saying “harm reduction is what responsible companies do.” This is a company offering an unproven product positioning it as a safer alternative to another deadly product it legally sells under the guise of a public health campaign and call this corporate social responsibility.
The company refers to studies showing SNUS users experience significant smoking declines and anecdotal evidence (TRANSLATED AS MEANING GOSSIP) that SNUS is effective in keeping smokers from returning to cigarettes. They admit that the researcher have noted they did not placebo-based controlled confirmation studies that prove this. Spare us the hype and hypocrisy.
Sweden is offered as the shining example of the positive impacts noting only 13% of men smoke and 22% use SNUS. So the rational conclusion from this is that 35% of the male population of Sweden are nicotine users – and this is progress? There is the added bonus of SNUS studies showing a 100% increase in pancreatic cancer in non-smoking construction workers and it raises blood pressure and it is admittedly addictive.
The launch initiative in Edmonton is a test marketing effort to see how people respond to the purchase of the product – NOT the health implications of the product. If it is a product that is a “gateway product out of smoking” you would expect the company to be researching the positive health impacts on lung cancer and other diseases and health issues associate with the product. That would be some serious examples of a meaningful corporate social responsibility effort.
This entire idea is like Kafka meets Alice in Wonderland.
Hancock's utter failure to institute a tobacco ban is a vivid reminder of why he did not become leader of the Alberta PCs and is a stark example of how lefties within the party talk a lot but fail to get things done (similar to the federal LPC). Hopefully, in the next election, the PC Party will rid itself of these types of individuals.
ReplyDeleteNice Try Anon - Hancock has actually got the tobacco control Bill 45 passed Second Reading before the session adjourned for the summer.
ReplyDeleteHe has since met with a number of the stakeholders and has the regulation drafting in process and the matter is ready for third and final reading in November when the Legislature resumes.
This was done with four other attempts failed. So much for "utter failure."
Yeah, what was with the "utter failure" comment? Someone is cranky. Umm, last time I checked, a ban was proposed - one that went further and made changes to tobacco sales practices.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that it did not pass third reading and become law immediately does not detract from the fact that one is on its way. Rather than bull-doze it through, there is discussion on implementation BEFORE making it law. To me, this seems to be the "right" way to do things (pun intended).
If one is to compare Hancock's attempt to previous attempts by the AB gov't, well sure it looks good. However, is that the type of comparison we should have? Or should we be looking at other provincial gov'ts who simply used commonsense and passed the legislation?
ReplyDeleteMy bet is that there will be a "cabinet shuffle" after the next election and Hancock will be the odd man out. Stelmach has paid his debt to Hancock for supporting him in the leadership race but that can only last so long.
The tobacco control legislation is being passed by Alberta on Hancock's watch. Klein and McClellan blocked all other efforts. It is a pity it took so long but it is now being done.
ReplyDeleteStelmach is a new leader and on the way to providing much better overall governance than we have had for the past 7 years or so of drift and lethargy.
Tobacco control legislation is a pretty god example of the progressive changes we can expect from a Stelmach government.
On the issue of the Cabinet shuffle after the next election - you are presuming the PCs will win the next election.
Campaigns matter and unless we PCs provide better government than we did in the last days of the Klein regime - your assumption that the PC Party will have the support of Albertans to continue to govern is not a foregone conclusion - not to my mind anyway.
Well, remember that the rural ridings represent approximately 1/3 of the seats and they will never vote liberal after the bad taste PET left in their mouths. The average voter does not dissociate the corrupt LPC with the Alberta Liberals.
ReplyDeletelung cancer is a disease that these patients brought on themselves.
ReplyDelete