EDITORIALS

The proposed tobacco regulation: the triumph of hope over experience?

Lynn T Kozlowski

School of Public Health and Health Professions, State University of New York, USA

Correspondence to:
Lynn T Kozlowski, School of Public Health and Health Professions, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, New York, USA; LK22@buffalo.edu

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

In tobacco control, we try to reduce death and disability from tobacco use. The job of TobReg is a tough one that its authors think someone should and can do. They may be right, but I am not yet convinced.

The industry has been faulted for its secrecy. And the absence of governmental regulation and the principles of trade secrets have supported this secrecy. Via TobReg, some of the best and the brightest in tobacco control propose extensive secrecy themselves with respect to what is learned or even thought about the toxic yields of cigarettes and possible reductions in those toxic yields. Why would those committed to improving public health want no public claims for individual products arising from systematic attempts to make cigarettes less dangerous? This could be a good idea for several reasons (in no special order): (1) the toxicant reductions may not actually produce any risk reduction . . . [Full text of this article]

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Liberman, J., Heyward, M. (2008). Use of the precautionary principle in the debate about emissions limits: a cautionary note. Tobacco Control 17: 286-287 [Full Text]  
• Gray, N. (2008). A letter from Nigel Gray. Tobacco Control 17: 287-288 [Full Text]