Showing posts with label tobacco. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tobacco. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Caution: Camel Orbs are NOT Kid Friendly

Photo from the HSPH website

Candy or tobacco? Do you think your child could tell the difference?

Harvard School of Public Health professor, Gregory Connolly, recently published an article in Pediatrics on the dangers of this Camel Orbs, a dissolvable nicotine tablet, widely available in the US.

(Click here for the news release)

Note: I looked up the Colbert Report segment that references Camel Orbs and embedded it below. I think Stephen Colbert is hilarious. Thanks, Kelsey for your comments!
 
The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Cheating Death - Tobacco Mints, Breast Milk & Hallucinogens
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full EpisodesPolitical HumorFox News

Saturday, February 27, 2010

From Cigarettes to Snus: Tobacco Advertising Returns!

I had read about the tobacco industries attempts to shift its marketing from cigarettes to a "spitless" tobacco (or what it is calling Snus), but it didn't really sink in until I was reading Entertainment Weekly.

Sitting on the T on my way up to Cambridge I saw this ad. My first thought while reading it was "That's interesting...Camel is promoting quitting smoking?" It's fascinating how quickly I recognized it as a smoking ad...

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

States Cut Tobacco Prevention Funds

According to a recent report by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, all states with the exception of North Dakota have cut tobacco prevention funds.

Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be a result of ineffective prevention efforts.

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Sugar-Sweetened Beverages the Next Tobacco?


Image from the NY City Department of Health Anti-Obesity Campaign

In class this week, we discussed strategies for reducing the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages at home. Sugar-sweetened beverages are exactly what they sound like: any drink sweetened with sugar (sodas, fruit juices, "vitamin" or flavored waters, sports drinks, energy drinks....etc.).

The larger question at hand was: Can we utilize the same strategies that brought down the tobacco industry for reducing the consumption and availability of sugary drinks?

The idea of a "soda tax" has come under scrutiny by conservatives who don't like the idea of taxing anything, as well as groups that are strongly supported (i.e. funded) by the food and beverage industry, like the Center for Consumer "Freedom." And, yes, the quotes are my doing...

However, many in public health believe that taxation will curb consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, particularly among those who consume the most and are most likely to suffer poor health and overweight because of it. Nonetheless, soda is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to liquid, non-nutritive calorie consumption, especially among kids. There are many other beverages that provide just as many calories and can contribute to weight gain. What will happen when the beverage industry just switches production (and all its marketing!) to these other sugary beverages? Another tax?

Taxation of tobacco has been a primary strategy in reducing its consumption and preventing people from starting to use it. Yet, taxation of tobacco has gone extremely high! Right now the federal tax on tobacco is $1.00 per 20-cigarette pack, and states can tax tobacco even higher ($3.46). Would a soda tax ever get that high? Not likely. Harvard researchers suggest that just a $0.01 per ounce of soda would be enough to change consumption patterns of consumers; a typical 20 oz. soda would be marked with a 20 cent tax.

However, the strategy that I am most excited about is social marketing -- advertising that promotes healthy behaviors and discourages unhealthy ones. If you haven't seen the sugar-sweetened beverage ads out of New York City, check out my other post on this topic. Marketing can't just tell you that something is bad, it must suggest alternatives.

If you are looking for alternatives to sugary drinks here are a couple promoted on the Harvard Nutrition Source website:
  • Plain (or Infused) Water -- I think this means throwing some lemons or cucumbers in with the plain water to add flavor without the calories.
  • Tea -- Go light on the sugar and honey, of course.
  • Coffee -- Choose milk over cream, go sugar-free.
  • Sparkling water -- add a splash of 100% fruit juice for flavor, without packing in the calories.
The website even has a recipe for a healthy "fresh fruit cooler," which is a great alternative to store-bought smoothies. Notice, drinks that are "sugar-free" because they utilize artificial sweeteners are NOT included in this list.

Right now there is a national movement to get junk foods and soft drinks out of schools. While I believe this needs to happen soon, most kids get unhealthy foods outside of schools. A 2006 study by Harvard researchers found that 60-80% of sugar-sweetened beverages were consumed by kids at home.

This suggests that we need a national movement, not just to change school environments to provide healthier beverages, like water and low-fat milk, but also change social norms around providing sugary drinks to kids in homes.

What would sway parents to pass up purchases in the beverage aisle and stick to **free** tap water and nutrient-rich milk for kids?

That's a tough question. The strategy needs to incorporate environmental change, excellent social marketing of the health dangers of daily consumption of sugary drinks, and grassroots/community efforts. If we can get sugar-sweetened beverages out of schools (where they have no right to be!), perhaps we can raise awareness about the issues so that we can get them out of homes, too!

Could the tobacco model work? Perhaps. It may be important to look to other public health campaigns; however, to get the most insight into what public health strategies will be most effective. How about alcohol control campaigns?

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Smoking Outside, A Public Health Threat?

The New York Times has been impressing me recently with its coverage of public health issues. Sure, health care reform makes that coverage pretty much a no-brainer, but today's front page article on the proposal to ban smoking outdoors in New York City definitely peaked my interest. It is part of the "Take Care New York Plan 2012" and includes other public health proposals in addition to banning smoking in public parks and beaches.

New York City has long been an early adopter of public health initiatives, such as eliminating trans-fat from prepared foods, improving menu labeling in fast food chains to include calorie counts, and banning smoking from nearly all indoor spaces.

The proposal, launched by the NYC health commissioner, Dr. Thomas A. Farley, to ban smoking from public, outdoor spaces is not without precendence, as the article points out:
"A number of municipalities — particularly in California — have banned smoking at outdoor parks, playgrounds and beaches. In 2007, Los Angeles extended its smoking ban, which already covered beaches and playgrounds, to include municipal parks. Later that year, Chicago banned smoking at its beaches and playgrounds, though smoking is still allowed in many parks."
Nonetheless, there is much controversy over the need for such a ban. What are its objectives?