Brad Rodu
Edmonton Journal
Thursday - November 13 - 2005
I am a professor of medicine and hold an endowed chair in tobacco harm reduction at the University of Louisville School of Medicine. I read with interest the Journal story “Tobacco company funds U of A prof” by Susan Ruttan (November 8).
Critics of Carl Phillips funding at the University of Alberta were long on rhetoric and indignation, and very, very short on facts that contradict Phillips’ science-based position that smokeless tobacco (SLT) is vastly safer than smoking. For example, the Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission’s Lisa Hedges claims that SLT can lead to cancer of the mouth and throat, esophagus and stomach.
But an independent analysis of anti-tobacco extremists’ claims about SLT, published last year by University of Alabama at Birmingham investigators, supports Dr. Phillips. For cancer of the throat, the UAB team reported that the scientific evidence showed “no relationship.” For cancer of the esophagus and stomach, the evidence was “not persuasive.” But the UAB study’s most surprising finding is about the extremists’ loudest complaint: the association of SLT use and mouth cancer. The scientific evidence: “not decisive.” The study reports, “Many brochures overemphasize the risk of oral cavity cancer, reaching beyond the scientific data.”
Phillips is definitely in good company. Britain's Royal College of Physicians, one of the world's most prestigious medical societies, issued a report on tobacco regulation in the United Kingdom called "Protecting Smokers, Saving Lives". This report stated "As a way of using nicotine, the consumption of non-combustible [smokeless] tobacco is on the order of 10-1,000 times less hazardous than smoking, depending on the product." The report continued with an even bolder statement, acknowledging that some SLT manufacturer s may want to market their products "as a 'harm reduction' option for nicotine users, and they may find support for that in the public health community." Hedges’ use of the term “spit tobacco” is unprofessional and irresponsible. She intends to demean the products, but she undeniably denigrates smokeless users as well. Does she designate people struggling with alcoholism as “alkies,” “boozers,” “winos,” or “drunks.” I hope not.
Furthermore, Hedges’ use of “spit” tobacco is more than inappropriate; it shows she is completely out of touch with SLT product development. Modern products are about the size of small breath mints (think “Tic-Tac”), and can be used invisibly; several manufacturers offer products that can be used in any social situation. No tobacco juices are produced when these products are used, so spitting is as unnecessary as the derogatory terminology.
George Santayana wrote that “fanaticism consists of redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim.” His words perfectly describe the modern anti-tobacco crusade and its irrational zealotry. The health community’s original aim, to help smokers live longer and healthier lives, was and continues to be a matter of life and death for 5 million Canadians who smoke. But fanatical anti-tobacco crusaders are undercutting that admirable goal, spewing misinformation and denying smokers life-saving facts about safer and satisfying tobacco products. The fanatics should know better. Inveterate smokers deserve better.
The article was printed in its entirety with the exception of the bolded parts of the first paragraph and the edition of the headline.