HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Martin, E G Articles by Lantz, P M Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Martin, E G Articles by Lantz, P M Related Collections Health effects of tobacco use

Tobacco harm reduction: what do the experts think?

Department of Health Management & Policy, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Correspondence to:
Dr Kenneth E Warner
Department of Health Management & Policy, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, 109 South Observatory, Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48109-2029, USA; kwarner{at}umich.edu

Objective: To assess experts’ opinions about the future of, and potential to improve individual and public health through "tobacco harm reduction" (THR), the use of novel nicotine containing products purporting to reduce the health risks from cigarette smoking.

Design: Semi-structured telephone interviews on nine topic areas, with qualitative content analysis of coded transcripts.

Participants: 29 professionals with expertise related to tobacco and interest in THR, including prominent tobacco control advocates (7), pharmaceutical (3) and tobacco industry scientists/officials (5), non-industry scientists (12), and Congressional staff (2).

Results: Respondents agreed that harm reduction is at minimum theoretically plausible, that characteristics of "good" and "bad" THR products can be identified, that government regulation is essential but not likely in the foreseeable future, and that additional scientific data are very much needed. However, there was no consensus on specifics, such as preferred regulatory strategies or examples of ideal THR products. Disagreement was seen not only across but also within respondent categories. Mistrust of key stakeholders—for example, tobacco control advocates distrust of tobacco industry scientists and vice versa—was pervasive, and cited frequently as a barrier to regulation and collaboration.

Conclusions: Continued dialogue and debate are essential as we enter a new and uncertain era of products purporting to reduce tobacco produced harm. Experts have concluded that effective government regulation is crucial to minimising the risks associated with THR and maximising potential benefits.

Abbreviations: FDA, Food and Drug Administration; IOM, Institute of Medicine; NRT, nicotine replacement therapy; THR, tobacco harm reduction

Keywords: harm reduction; experts’ opinions; qualitative research

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R S Caraballo, L L Pederson, and N Gupta New tobacco products: do smokers like them? Tob. Control, February 1, 2006; 15(1): 39 - 44. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. T. Levy, E. A. Mumford, K. M. Cummings, E. A. Gilpin, G. Giovino, A. Hyland, D. Sweanor, and K. E. Warner The Relative Risks of a Low-Nitrosamine Smokeless Tobacco Product Compared with Smoking Cigarettes: Estimates of a Panel of Experts Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., December 1, 2004; 13(12): 2035 - 2042. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. A. Giovino TOBACCO HARM REDUCTION INVOLVES MORE THAN CIGARETTE HARM REDUCTION Am J Public Health, August 1, 2004; 94(8): 1294 - 1294. [Full Text] [PDF]