• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

FDA advances plan to limit/eliminate nicotine in cigarettes

Captain.Heroin

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
94,868
https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2018-05345.pdf

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...advances-plan-to-slash-nicotine-in-cigarettes

The Food and Drug Administration said Thursday it wants to sharply reduce the amount of nicotine in cigarettes. The idea is to help wean millions of smokers off their deadly habit and prevent millions more from becoming regular smokers in the first place.

"Despite years of aggressive efforts to tackle the leading cause of preventable disease and death in the United States, tobacco use ? largely cigarette smoking ? still kills more than 480,000 Americans every single year," FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said in a statement.

"Given their combination of toxicity, addictiveness, prevalence, and effect on non-users, it's clear that to maximize the possible public health benefits of our regulation, we must focus our efforts on the death and disease caused by addiction to combustible cigarettes," he said.

The FDA hasn't yet decided exactly how much it will cut nicotine or how quickly.

But the goal is clear. In a Federal Register notice that is expected to be published Friday, the agency said it "is considering developing a proposed product standard to make cigarettes minimally addictive or nonaddictive by setting a maximum nicotine level."

The agency cited research that could support reducing levels of nicotine to 0.3 to 0.5 milligrams per cigarette. The nicotine levels delivered by conventional cigarettes made domestically are in the range of 1.1 to 1.7 milligrams, according to the notice.

Cutting nicotine to 0.4 milligrams could help about 5 million adults smokers to quit within one year and prevent more than 33 million people from becoming regular smokers by the year 2100. The shift could reduce the current U.S. smoking rate from 15 percent to as low as 1.4 percent, the FDA said, and prevent 8 million tobacco-related deaths by the end of the century.

The FDA's move was welcomed by anti-smoking advocates.

"The announcement today is potentially the most significant public health step the Food and Drug Administration has taken in decades," says Matthew Myers, who heads the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. "The benefits laid out in this proposal are of such an extraordinary nature that it compels rapid action. It is a public health urgency to move forward rapidly."

The FDA announced preliminary plans to cut nicotine in cigarettes in July but didn't make any specific proposals. The Thursday announcement marks the first formal step towards making that plan a reality. But the latest announcement also makes it clear that no firm decisions have been made and that many factors have to be considered before taking such a drastic step.

One concern is that cutting nicotine in cigarettes could result in smokers smoking more or inhaling smoke more deeply to compensate. Another concern is that slashing nicotine could lead to a black market in high-nicotine cigarettes.

But the FDA says research has indicated that there may be ways to prevent such negative outcomes.

Although the move could be a significant blow to the tobacco industry, initial reaction from companies was muted.

"As this process gets underway, we look forward to working with FDA on its science-based review of nicotine levels in cigarettes and to build on the opportunity of establishing a regulatory framework that is based on tobacco harm reduction and recognizes the continuum of risk," said an emailed statment from James Figlar, executive vice president of research and development for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.

The FDA also says it will be seeking comment on additional new regulations of the tobacco industry, including possibly limiting menthol in cigarettes.
 
People will just switch to vaping in mass
 
People will just switch to vaping in mass

Actually that's one thing I think might happen.

The other might be that, given that going from 1.1mg (up to 1.4mg) to 0.3mg to 0.4mg might mean people smoke 2-3x more often, or more at a time?

They suggested it will prevent new smokers and encourage new people to quit/consider quitting, but not 100% of the smoking population. Perhaps just a few percent.
 
NPR said:
Although the move could be a significant blow to the tobacco industry, initial reaction from companies was muted.

Hmm, maybe because they'll be able to sell three to four times as many cigarettes to those unable or unwilling to quit.

This will drive some to quit, some to vaping, and some to far worse health outcomes. What will the proportions be? I don't know, and the FDA doesn't either. But I think it's wrong to throw that last group under the bus, whatever its proportion.
 
Was reading more in depth and apparently lowering 2.4mg to 0.4mg really means 1 less cigarette per day on average.

Quite possible this just means cigarettes will be less physically addictive.

The people physically hooked are going to suffer for a while. Likely will chain smoke to compensate.
 
During the sixth week of the study, the average number of cigarettes smoked per day was lower
for participants randomly assigned to cigarettes containing 2.4, 1.3, or 0.4 mg of nicotine per
gram of tobacco (16.5, 16.3, and 14.9 cigarettes per day, respectively) than for those assigned to
their usual cigarette brand or those cigarettes containing 5.2 or 15.8 mg per gram (22.2 and 21.3
cigarettes per day, respectively) (Ref. 85).

from the first link in the original post

This implies that lowering the nicotine level from 5.2mg-15.8mg/gram of tobacco (I apologize on my numbers earlier I was incorrect) to < 2.5mg/gram of tobacco, that they go from roughly 22 to 15 cigarettes per day.
 
from the first link in the original post

This implies that lowering the nicotine level from 5.2mg-15.8mg/gram of tobacco (I apologize on my numbers earlier I was incorrect) to < 2.5mg/gram of tobacco, that they go from roughly 22 to 15 cigarettes per day.

Thanks. The study does seem to show that reducing nicotine per cigarette can lead, on average at least, to decreased smoking and not to a compensation effect. It would be nice to see a more granular analysis, though, as it is not clear whether the lower cigarette consumption was fairly consistent within the low-nicotine groups, or whether there were relatively few participants who smoked a lot less.
 
Sounds counter-productive. Isn't this going to just cause people to smoke more?? They wont get enough nicotine so they will spark a second or third on and get 3x as many carcinogens.
 
Sounds counter-productive. Isn't this going to just cause people to smoke more?? They wont get enough nicotine so they will spark a second or third on and get 3x as many carcinogens.

This is what I thought would happen in many cases.

I still think it's best to eliminate combustible tobacco all together.
 
Its already been shown that with 'light' fags that smokers just inhale more deeply and smoke more of them, has it not?

The govts just need to take their fingers out of adult citizens' pies and return said fingers to their anal sphincters.
 
I understand that nicotine is the addictive substance but isn't tar the carcinogenic and therefore worse substance in cigarettes?
 
Its already been shown that with 'light' fags that smokers just inhale more deeply and smoke more of them, has it not?

The govts just need to take their fingers out of adult citizens' pies and return said fingers to their anal sphincters.

Nah smokers are fucking the rest of us over by shoving their lungcancerous dicks down the throat of the healthcare system. Don't pretend like it's not affecting other people.
 
Doesn't sound like the best plan to me. I agree that some or most people will just continue to smoke more to make up for the decreased nicotine. Not to mention everybody who will just pick up their smokes off an Indian reserve like they all do over here.
 
Doesn't sound like the best plan to me. I agree that some or most people will just continue to smoke more to make up for the decreased nicotine. Not to mention everybody who will just pick up their smokes off an Indian reserve like they all do over here.

They may start to enforce that.
 
Sounds counter-productive. Isn't this going to just cause people to smoke more?? They wont get enough nicotine so they will spark a second or third on and get 3x as many carcinogens.

its not counter productive if the point is to please the tobacco lobby
 
Top