What scientific evidence is considered when evaluating product regulation?
The scientific evidence shows nicotine, while addictive and not risk-free, is not the primary cause of smoking-related diseases. Rather they are caused by the harmful chemicals present in smoke which is produced when burning tobacco. Through science and technology, nicotine delivery has been decoupled from burning tobacco to create smoke-free products such as heated tobacco products, e-cigarettes and other innovations, which can reduce the formation of harmful chemicals and the bodys exposure to these toxicants compared to cigarette smoke. To be clear, these products are not risk-free and contain nicotine, which is addictive. The best choice any smoker can make is to quit tobacco and nicotine altogether. However, most dont. Changing to scientifically substantiated smoke-free products is a better choice than continued smoking and can represent a public health opportunity to accelerate the decline in smoking prevalence and smoking-related population harm. But this cant happen if adults who smoke are unable to get accurate information about or access to these products. According to the white paper, while 87% of SA respondents seek more in-depth, reliable information about scientific developments, only 18% find it easy to access the latest scientific developments and studies. In the case of smoke-free products, reliable information is perhaps tougher to come by given the barrage of misinformation spread by those ideologically opposed to the idea that adult smokers should have access to better alternatives. This behaviour and misinformation must be challenged because it maintains that smoking cigarettes is the most harmful form of nicotine consumption. According to the white paper, 84% of people polled across all countries want their governments to take recent findings into account when crafting policy. However, just 51% of those individuals believe their leaders are doing so. Just over half (54%) believe that their government does a good job of communicating unbiased and reliable information about the latest scientific developments and studies. This implies that beyond looking for objective facts and assessing the totality of available evidence to inform their decisions, its equally important for policymakers to debate the data openly and transparently. When policymakers are guided by robust science, it is in their interests to provide access to science content that explains and justifies their policy decisions. Regulatory frameworks that put science and evidence at the heart of decision-making and differentiate smoke-free alternatives from combustible cigarettes to promote public health already exist. For instance, the US FDA Modified Risk Tobacco Product Application process sets a clear pathway for assessing and potentially authorising say relating to tobacco and nicotine-containing products that are scientifically substantiated to be a better choice than cigarettes. Scientifically substantiated smoke-free products represent a public health opportunity and regulating these products differently to cigarettes will ensure adult smokers know about and can get reliable information to make better choices than continued smoking. The scientific evidence regarding smoke-free products should be trusted to inform regulations that encourage adults who would otherwise continue smoking cigarettes to choose better alternatives. This article was paid for by Philip Morris.