Home > Publications . Search All . Browse All . Country . Browse PSC Pubs . PSC Report Series

PSC In The News

RSS Feed icon

Shaefer and Edin's book ($2 a Day) cited in piece on political debate over plight of impoverished Americans

Eisenberg tracks factors affecting both mental health and athletic/academic performance among college athletes

Shapiro says Americans' low spending reflects "cruel lesson" about the dangers of debt

Highlights

Susan Murphy elected to the National Academy of Sciences

Maggie Levenstein named director of ISR's Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research

Arline Geronimus receives 2016 Harold R. Johnson Diversity Service Award

PSC spring 2016 newsletter: Kristin Seefeldt, Brady West, newly funded projects, ISR Runs for Bob, and more

Next Brown Bag

PSC Brown Bags
will resume fall 2016

Tobacco Harm Reduction: What Do the Experts Think?

Publication Abstract

Martin, E.G., K.E. Warner, and Paula M. Lantz. 2004. "Tobacco Harm Reduction: What Do the Experts Think?" Tobacco Control, 13(2): 123-128.

Objective: To assess experts' opinions about the future of, and potential to improve individual and public health through "tobacco harm reduction" (THR), the use of novel nicotine containing products purporting to reduce the health risks from cigarette smoking. Design: Semi-structured telephone interviews on nine topic areas, with qualitative content analysis of coded transcripts. Participants: 29 professionals with expertise related to tobacco and interest in THR, including prominent tobacco control advocates (7), pharmaceutical (3) and tobacco industry scientists/ officials (5), non-industry scientists (12), and Congressional staff (2). Results: Respondents agreed that harm reduction is at minimum theoretically plausible, that characteristics of "good" and "bad" THR products can be identified, that government regulation is essential but not likely in the foreseeable future, and that additional scientific data are very much needed. However, there was no consensus on specifics, such as preferred regulatory strategies or examples of ideal THR products. Disagreement was seen not only across but also within respondent categories. Mistrust of key stakeholders - for example, tobacco control advocates distrust of tobacco industry scientists and vice versa - was pervasive, and cited frequently as a barrier to regulation and collaboration. Conclusions: Continued dialogue and debate are essential as we enter a new and uncertain era of products purporting to reduce tobacco produced harm. Experts have concluded that effective government regulation is crucial to minimising the risks associated with THR and maximising potential benefits.

DOI:10.1136/tc.2003.006346 (Full Text)

PMCID: PMC1747871. (Pub Med Central)

Browse | Search : All Pubs | Next