Low nicotine cigarettes form the basis of the FDA's latest plan to reduce tobacco consumption, but will it actually work? Will Godfrey of Filter Magazine joins us to discuss the details of this proposal, and why this not-so-new idea may cause a significant headache for US smoking cessation efforts.
Chapters:
0:00 - Coming up on today's programme 0:33 - FDA's proposes low-nicotine cigarettes 1:37 - Will this plan actually work? 3:11 - Nicotine misinformation may cause problemsTranscription:
00:04
Joanna Junak: Hello and welcome! I'm Joanna Junak and this is GFN News on GFN.tv. Today we will be speaking with Will Godfrey of Filter about the FDA's plan to require low nicotine cigarettes in the United States. Hi, Will. Can you tell us what's been happening?
00:36
Will Godfrey: Hi, Joanna. Yes, in January, the FDA issued a proposed rule to cap nicotine in combustible tobacco products at a very low level, as Kiran Sidhu reported for Filter. It would set a limit of 0.7 milligrams of nicotine per gram of tobacco in all cigarettes, rolling or pipe tobacco, and most cigars. That really is very low when the average equivalent figure in cigarettes is 10 to 12 milligrams. The FDA declares that by making cigarettes minimally or non-addictive, the US would be the first country globally to take such a bold, life-saving action to prevent and reduce smoking-related disease and death. Capping nicotine levels is something the FDA has been suggesting for years, but it's now moving forward and we're in a public consultation period that concludes in September before a final decision is made. Tobacco harm reduction experts see problems ahead.
01:37
Joanna Junak: So what are the problems?
01:40
Will Godfrey: The FDA anticipates that when very low nicotine cigarettes are all that's legally available, people will become less dependent on smoking and more likely to quit. But reality is unlikely to match the theory. Firstly, while we and the FDA know that nicotine does not cause cancer and other life-threatening conditions, years of misinformation give many people who smoke a different impression, as Professor David Abrams described to Kieran. Some of his research indicates how people smoking low nicotine cigarettes might believe they're safer. Without a rigorous and effective public education campaign, they would be less likely to quit. Another possibility is some people adapting by inhaling harder or smoking more to get the nicotine they want, exposing themselves to more harm. But that's all assuming that people will even smoke low nicotine cigarettes in the first place. In the real world, people who smoke are highly unlikely to hand over their hard-earned cash for cigarettes that contain barely any nicotine, said THR expert Clive Bates. So what will people do instead? A strong likelihood is they'll just buy cigarettes from illicit sources when a large illicit market already exists in the US to evade taxes. And this will actually increase their exposure to harm, both in terms of questionable product and retail environments, said Alex Clark, CEO of the consumer group Kazar.
03:11
Joanna Junak: And is there a chance things could turn out better?
03:16
Will Godfrey: Well, the sunnier scenario is that people would instead switch to safer nicotine alternatives like vapes or pouches in larger numbers. But that relies on two things being in place first, experts agree. A large, attractive range of products being easily available. And as Kieran wrote, misinformation about these products, which is currently rife, would need to be robustly corrected. We are so far from fixing these prerequisites that we shouldn't even be talking about a de facto cigarette prohibition, Bates commented. In current circumstances, he said, the measure would just rely on forced behavior, and both he and Clark object to that in principle. The mandate is not consistent with harm reduction principles, Clark said. Instead, it is a top-down, coercive product standard that scoffs at the agency of people who smoke. Using the carrot rather than the stick by promoting attractive low-risk alternatives would be a much better fit with those principles, but apparently not to the FDA. Bates is among those who see likely political and legal obstacles to the plan's implementation as a positive.
04:29
Joanna Junak: Thank you Will. That's all for today. Tune in next time here on GFN TV or on our podcast. You can also find transcriptions of each episode on the GFN TV website. Thanks for watching or listening. See you next time.