Smokeless Tobacco Study Weighed By Kansas Lawmakers In R.J. Reynolds-Backed Resolution

Kansas lawmakers are considering a resolution that would require state health officials to conduct a study about the health effects of smokeless tobacco, potentially allowing the state to market smokeless tobacco as a healthier alternative to cigarette smoking.

The Federal and State Affairs Committee of Kansas' House of Representatives has been debating a measure that would require the state's Department of Health and Environment to conduct a study of the health effects of using smokeless tobacco -- commonly known as chewing tobacco -- to determine if it is safer than cigarette smoking.

One goal of the resolution is for the state health department to ultimately make a recommendation to the legislature as to whether Kansas should promote smokeless tobacco over cigarette smoking. The Kansas proposal follows the passage of recent similar resolutions in Nebraska, Indiana and Kentucky -- all backed by R.J. Reynolds.

Richard J. Smith, a spokesman for R.J. Reynolds, confirmed that his company has been encouraging the state-based studies. Such studies are in keeping with the company's "tobacco harm reduction" strategy, he told HuffPost. R.J. Reynolds has found scientific evidence showing that chewing tobacco does not pose the same health risks as cigarette smoking, he said.

"We believe that tobacco products should be regulated in a manner that achieves health," Smith said.

To handle the lobbying in Topeka the tobacco company has hired to the Republican-leaning Hein law firm, which is headed by former Sen. Ronald Hein of Kansas and his wife Julie; their son, Derek, is involved with the main lobbying for the measure. Both Ron and Julie Hein have co-chaired the Kansas chapter of the American Legislative Exchange Council. Ron and Derek Hein declined to comment on the measure, referring all questions to R.J. Reynolds.

The committee is scheduled to debate the measure on Tuesday or Wednesday.

There is support for the measure in the committee, resolution opponents said.

"R.J. Reynolds is the force behind it," said Chris Masoner, the chief Kansas lobbyist for the American Cancer Society. "There are several members of the committee receptive to the idea, which boggles my mind, but maybe it shouldn't."

The cancer society opposes the measure, citing concern about smokeless tobacco's potential cancer link, including a risk for oral cancer, Masoner said. State public health officials should not conduct research for an industry, he said. Supporters of the measure have said the study would not cost additional taxpayer funds.

"We don't need to encourage people to trade one carcinogen for another," Masoner said.

The resolution is being sponsored by the committee and not an individual legislator but has attracted bipartisan interest. House Minority Leader Paul Davis (D-Lawrence) said he helped devise the final wording, calling for a study first instead of an outright legislative declaration in favor of smokeless tobacco. He was first approached about the resolution by Hein, Davis said.

"I don't know the conclusion, but it is worth it for the Department of Health and Environment to look into," Davis said.

Jeff Stier, a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research who has promoted smokeless tobacco as an alternative, said that state governments should investigate the issue. While oral cancer risks remain, they are diminished, according to the research he has studied, Stier said.

While Davis is open to having a study, his caucus isn't united behind him.

State Rep. Sean Gatewood (D-Topeka), a member of the committee, said he is concerned that the measure could encourage teens to start chewing tobacco. "I don't see an incentive in doing this," Gatewood told HuffPost. "My largest objection is that if there is a reduced risk, what is the state going to do? Are we going to encourage people to switch to chew?"

Citing 28 carcinogens, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states on its website, "Smokeless tobacco is not a safe alternative to smoking cigarettes," and "Smokeless tobacco use can cause cancer, oral health problems, and nicotine addiction." Snuff as well as chewing tobacco is considered smokeless tobacco.

Comments

[Roland Gate]

10:39 AM on 05/09/2012

Perhaps the EU statistics would be of use, if Snus is being discussed. Sweden reduced their number of smokers by 40%, and the smoking-related death rate fell in parallel. As a result they have the lowest smoking mortality of any developed country by a wide margin - only 12% of the population are smokers now, vs about 21% for many countries with advanced anti-smoking policies such as the US and UK. This is popularly known as 'the Swedish Miracle'.

More than 150 clinical trials and surveys over 25 years show that smokers who switch to Snus have the same health outcomes as smokers who totally quit. The risk for a Snus user is the same as that for a non-smoker (the difference is not statistically significant).

Sweden has the lowest male lung cancer rate in Europe and the second-lowest oral cancer rate, which will soon be the lowest. Smoking causes oral cancer, not Snus. The only increased risk shown by a meta-analysis of 89 Snus clinical trials is a very slight increase in risk for stroke. No increase in risk for any kind of cancer is shown.

Note that Snus is a specially-processed oral tobacco with most of the carcinogens removed, and is not chewed: it is supplied in micro pouches placed behind the upper lip and is invisible in use (there is no chewing or spitting).

http://www.eccauk.org/index.php/ecca-library/21-why-is-snus-important.html

[DixieWrecked]

07:19 PM on 05/09/2012

Snus isn't specially processed, it's natural steamed tobacco with food grade additives only. It's US Snuff that is specially processed by fermenting the tobacco leaves, and stopping the fermentation process with smoke, a hold over from the days when tobacco would spoil en-rout to the processing plants.

US Tobacco companies need to take a trip to Sweden to check Swedish Match's Gotiatek processing technology. I've been using Snus for over 2 years. It helped me kick a 10 year old pack a day habit. If any smokers are interested, google buy swedish snus. Buy only from Sweden, not companies that import.

I buy in bulk, and keep it in the freezer. My total cost is less the $5 for a can of snus that lasts me about two days vs. the $5.50+ that I used to spend on a pack of cigarettes a day.

[deadcat2]

02:20 PM on 05/02/2012

Reading these comments is scary, and the level of ignorance being displayed is even more scary. Here are some facts for you folks, and for the person who wrote the article: (1) "smokeless tobacco" is not equivalent to "chewing tobacco" as there are many kinds of smokeless tobacco, (2) smokeless tobacco products most definitely carry different degrees of risk, with many of them posing no more risk than Big Pharma's nearly useless quit-smoking products, (3) people who can not or will not quit smoking for whatever reason should be encouraged to switch to much less harmful smokeless alternatives, and it is unbelievable that anyone could think otherwise.

If any of you reading this do not agree with any of the facts I just stated above, you are wrong. It doesn't matter what you think, or what your reason for not agreeing is, you are simply wrong. And what's worse, not only are you wrong, but your beliefs are contributing to the early death of people who can not or will not quit smoking. You may not care whether or not a smoker dies, but at least be honest with yourself and admit that you could care less about their lives and the lives of those around them.

[Thad Marney]

12:35 PM on 05/02/2012

If warnings on packages were science-based, every FDA Approved smoking cessation product would say: "WARNING: This product is not a safe or effective alternative to switching to smokeless tobacco products."

Is there any evidence that any FDA approved smoking cessation methods are more safe or effective than switching to smoke-free alternatives? ALL evidence (and common sense) indicates that smoke-free alternatives are multiple orders of magnitude safer than smoking cigarettes. Even the most dangerous, old-fashioned, high-nitrosamine nasal snuff causes 90% fewer deaths and chronic diseases than lighting cigarettes on FIRE and inhaling SMOKE 100's of times a day--which FDA Approved smoking cessation product or method is 100% safe or effective??

Oh...but I forgot this is a matter of good vs. evil...Products containing nicotine are evil unless they're FDA regulated/approved (and sold by companies held/supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation), right?

[Haveissues]

10:42 AM on 05/01/2012

Change over to smokeless. I don't care. Just one thing. Spitting (even into a cup) should now be illegal.

[Thad Marney]

12:38 PM on 05/02/2012

With modern products like Swedish-style snus and dissolvables, they can be held in the upper lip and have had the acidity adjusted to make spitting unnecessary....but illegal? You really want to make a bodily function a crime? Please put farting next on the list--that's way worse than spitting.

[chris hatala]

05:18 AM on 05/01/2012

More evidence that big business runs and owns America.

[tripas de leche]

10:53 PM on 04/30/2012

Smokers enjoy smoking and will pay whatever it cost for a pack of smokes. There is plenty of money to be made because we could charge 100 dollars per pack and smokers would still pay it. Let them smoke, but charge more. They will pay it.

[Thad Marney]

12:46 PM on 05/02/2012

Economy Struggling? Just beat the slaves more, they'll work harder. I promise.

[Steven Pedullo]

10:40 PM on 04/30/2012

if people who are adults want to smoke and destroy their lives go ahead, there is way to many people on the planet now and the politicians will just raise my taxes from all the revenue they will lose if you stop. so by all means smoke away and when you start coughing please cover your mouth. Thank you

[JoeBlough]

01:43 AM on 05/01/2012

In destroying their lives, they cause non-smokers a bundle to pay for smokers health care.

[drwtsn]

10:36 PM on 04/30/2012

This is like encouraging people to stab someone with a knife instead of shooting him if you don't agree with what he says.

[Kristin Noll Marsh]

11:23 AM on 05/01/2012

No, it's more akin to pushing someone down vs. shooting them. Smoke-free tobacco alternatives carry up to 98% less health risks than smoking. This article is misleading - there are smoke-free alternatives other than "chew." There is also snus, which has been proven to have very little to no health risks and dissolvables like lozenges, strips and sticks, which are no more carcinogenic than nicotine gums and patches, yet work a lot better to keep people off cigarettes.

[drwtsn]

09:32 AM on 05/02/2012

" R.J. Reynolds has found scientific evidence showing that chewing tobacco does not pose the same health risks as cigarette smoking, he said."
"Supporters of the measure have said the study would not cost additional taxpayer funds."
"R.J. Reynolds is the force behind it,"
----------------------------
I don't think they will be studying the health benefits of "lozenges, strips and sticks".

[Thad Marney]

01:08 PM on 05/02/2012

It's more like encouraging people to take out their aggression in a game of laser tag or paintball rather than duel with actual FIREarms.

[jingl]

10:31 PM on 04/30/2012

This makes me nuts. The tobacco industry has never been remotely honest. What part of the billboard photos of the guy with his jaw missing confuses the public. Why is my tax dollar going for another study on the relationship between cancer and tobacco? Put my dollar towards reclassification, medical studies, and the decriminalization of marijuana.

[Kristin Noll Marsh]

11:30 AM on 05/01/2012

That is EXACTLY what is confusing the public. A smoker is twice as likely to get oral cancer than a smoke-free tobacco user, yet billboards like that keep smokers smoking because they think their chances of oral cancer are worse if they switch to smoke-free. The chances of getting cancer from smoke-free tobacco products, especially products like dissovlables and snus, are extremely low. If someone is going to use tobacco anyway, wouldn't it be better to encourage them to use something that greatly reduces the burden of health costs associated with smoking on society and eliminates second-hand smoke altogether? By hiding the lower risks of smoke-free products, we are just encouraging smokers to keep smoking.

Think about it like drinking alcohol. We don't tell all people to quit all social drinking, but we do encourage them to be SAFER about it and not binge drinking or drive drunk, in order to protect themselves and innocent bystanders. Tobacco harm reduction (encouraging those who cannot or will not quit tobacco to switch to a less harmful form of tobacco) is the same premise.

[phaps]

10:25 PM on 04/30/2012

The Tobacco industry talking about 'harm reduction" is sinister. The camel just wants to get his nose under the tent of health restrictions on the Tobacco so that they can continue to addict people to their deadly product. They are worse that the drug dealers.

[Dosadi]

10:02 PM on 04/30/2012

What big money wants, big money gets.

Why do we even bother voting?

Our candidates get bribed on a daily basis.

Politics is a waste of time and money.

[Steelsil]

09:39 PM on 04/30/2012

Dumbhickistanis love cancer.  And corruption.

[DixieWrecked]

09:31 PM on 04/30/2012

The problem with US snuff is how the companies process it. Fermentation stopped by smoke adds the majority of carcinogens. Swedish snus, snuffs european grand-daddy, is pure un-fermented, steam-cured tobacco wth food grade additives only curtesy of the Swedish version of the FDA. It is regulated in Sweden as a food product. Athough you will still run into issues like a chance of gum recession, the oral cancer rate in Sweden is way lower than it should be for the number of snus users. The biggest cancer risk is a slight increase in pancreatic cancer if you are already genetically prone to it. RJ reynolds, are you listening? I wonder how many hickabillies have ever noticed that their favorite dips are named after the capital of socialist Denmark, and after the Swedish word for cheers, Skoal.
Did I mention Swedih snus is spitless and they are allowed to advertise different nicotine strengths.

[Dosadi]

10:03 PM on 04/30/2012

Once again, another socialist democracy makes us look stupid.

[JoeBlough]

01:45 AM on 05/01/2012

It's so easy. . .

[kcampo6453]

08:41 PM on 04/30/2012

Big Tobacco should get some cajones and stand ur to these morally superior groups. If an adult chooses to smoke that's his or her decision. It's not the federal goverment's. If the goverment can make this kind of attack on smokers they should be able to track down the Taliban, Al-quida and other terrorist groups with ease. And, if they win and stop all smoking and put tobacco farmers out of business what's going to happen? One hell of a lot of tax revenue goes away, and who gets to make up the shortfall? It's another case of the fanatics leading the parade and the politicians following. Sort of like prohibition. That worked out well.

[Steelsil]

09:41 PM on 04/30/2012

Hm.  Of course, all of these arguments could be made in favor of crack cocaine, too.

[addisonsteele]

08:21 PM on 04/30/2012

No surprises here. Remember that, in the early 1990s, John Boehner was a bagman for R.J. Reynolds and actually handed out checks on the floor of the House so that Republicans would know how to vote.