Why Strawberry Jam is More Regulated than Cigarettes

Medicine & Health / Research

(PhysOrg.com) -- While jams and other consumer products are strictly regulated and are required to pass stringent tests before they can be sold, tobacco has no restrictions and manufacturers can, and do, add anything they want into the product.

Published in Respirology by Wiley-Blackwell, the invited editorial “Regulation of Consumer Products: The Bizarre Case of Strawberry Jam and Cigarettes” discusses the issues surrounding tobacco regulations and how the industry could be more effectively governed.

“The establishment of regulation is a political process and occurs slowly. However, with the gradual but prolonged and massive epidemic of tobacco-related diseases, regulation of the industry’s products – specifically the constituents of tobacco smoke – has to begin now”, says author Dr. Nigel Gray, member of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Tobacco Regulation Study Group.

Despite the complexities of regulating cigarette manufacturing, the Tobacco Regulation Study Group, or TobReg, has proposed practical means to begin the progressive process of tobacco regulation. As a first step, it has suggested setting mandatory levels for some of the major carcinogens and toxicants in cigarettes. In addition, regular reviews must also be conducted as initial toxin levels are considered generous by industry standards for many countries.

“There is no need for an expensive bureaucracy to oversee this regulation. Countries can simply mandate TobReg’s recommendations and publicize them as advice from the world’s central public health board. Countries without cigarette manufacturing facilities can simply refuse to import cigarette that do not meet these standards”, says Dr. Gray.

He adds, “International standards are highly desirable as large amounts of cigarettes are traded between countries with differing national standards. It is timely for WHO to set standards and offer world leadership – particularly as their Framework Convention on Tobacco Control is now in its implementation process, albeit much slower than most public health advocates would desire. Singapore, Australia and New Zealand are ideally placed to pioneer the introduction of these measures.”

This paper will be published in the September 2008 issue of Respirology (Vol. 13, Issue 6).

Provided by Wiley

» Next Article in Medicine & Health - Research: Study confirms vCJD could be transmitted by blood transfusion

would you recommend this story?

User Rating

4 out of 5 after 22 total votes

not at all
1
2
3
4
5
highly

Leave a Comment or

Flag

Posted by nilbud 08/29/08 15:03

Rank: 2/5 after 2 votes

Once again a rather parochial attitude. The EU has regulation on additives to tobacco already which is why lots of yanks buy imported EU smokes.

Flag

Posted by E_L_Earnhardt 08/29/08 21:21

Rank: 1.4/5 after 5 votes

How about some regulation on irradiating SEEDS.
Such action causes accelerated mitosis for faster, larger leaves. In the human body the residual reaction can cause CANCER!

Flag

Posted by Velanarris 08/29/08 21:36

Rank: 3.7/5 after 3 votes

How about some regulation on irradiating SEEDS.
Such action causes accelerated mitosis for faster, larger leaves. In the human body the residual reaction can cause CANCER!

Any proof of that? Especially seeing as most countries have used that same radiation to affect plant seeds in the growth of foods both organic and non-organic?

Flag

Posted by DavidRochlin 08/30/08 14:58

Rank: 3.7/5 after 3 votes

This article supposes there is no legitimate argument against regulation and in doing so, it misses the point, entirely. If you are regulating a consumer product that is deadly, addictive, but legal to sell, then how can you ethically regulate it, other than to ban it entirely? It really isn't possible to ethically do that, not in the U.S., anyway. And it is not really possible to make that work, legally here, either. Once the decision is taken away from politicians, and given to health bureaucrats, then the product will have to be banned. Even if the bureaucrats don't want to ban tobacco, they will be forced to do so in court, since they can't very well argue that any smoking tobacco, however formulated or processed, is safe.

Flag

Posted by cdvw 08/30/08 15:37

Rank: 4/5 after 3 votes

This article supposes there is no legitimate argument against regulation and in doing so, it misses the point, entirely. If you are regulating a consumer product that is deadly, addictive, but legal to sell, then how can you ethically regulate it, other than to ban it entirely? It really isn't possible to ethically do that, not in the U.S., anyway. And it is not really possible to make that work, legally here, either. Once the decision is taken away from politicians, and given to health bureaucrats, then the product will have to be banned. Even if the bureaucrats don't want to ban tobacco, they will be forced to do so in court, since they can't very well argue that any smoking tobacco, however formulated or processed, is safe.

Alcohol could be described in the same way, but as we saw during prohibition, outlawing the item failed. We had numerous deaths and other harm from adulterated "moonshine". We re-leagalized the item, taxed and regulated its production, and have accepted that there are always going to be those who wish to consume alcohol. Human behavior in regard to desire and addiction needs to be addressed in ways that encourage access to behavioral modification support programs rather than believing that simply banning will resolve the problem users.

Flag

Posted by Modernmystic 09/04/08 17:48

Not rated yet.

Yep, banning smoking will drive it underground, people will sell cigs in the back alleys and eventually make enough money to pay off the police/courts and further serve to subvert and corrupt the government....it won't work.

Even heavy regulation could have similar effects to an all out ban.

Oh, and this is politics, not science.

Flag

Posted by bhiestand 09/08/08 22:24

Rank: 5/5 after 1 vote

This article supposes there is no legitimate argument against regulation and in doing so, it misses the point, entirely. If you are regulating a consumer product that is deadly, addictive, but legal to sell, then how can you ethically regulate it, other than to ban it entirely? It really isn't possible to ethically do that, not in the U.S., anyway. And it is not really possible to make that work, legally here, either. Once the decision is taken away from politicians, and given to health bureaucrats, then the product will have to be banned. Even if the bureaucrats don't want to ban tobacco, they will be forced to do so in court, since they can't very well argue that any smoking tobacco, however formulated or processed, is safe.

Automobiles can also be seen in the same way. They are one of the leading causes of preventable deaths, but the government knows it wouldn't be feasible to simply ban them. Instead, the government affects the fact that a certain portion of people will die while driving, and the government attempts to regulate the industry to ensure that vehicles are as safe as reasonably possible. Drivers then accept the risk of driving and are able to decide how much they will pay for a safer car that exceeds government regulations.

Few things in the world must be taken to their extremes.

Flag

Posted by WillB 09/10/08 01:12

Rank: 1/5 after 1 vote

But cigs kill you no matter the dose. If you are using an automobile analogy, you'd have to add in making it legal to run red lights. Because what you are doing is enjoyable and thrilling, but will kill you and someone else (2nd hand smoke) in the long run.

Flag

Posted by Modernmystic 09/10/08 08:12

Not rated yet.

But cigs kill you no matter the dose. If you are using an automobile analogy, you'd have to add in making it legal to run red lights. Because what you are doing is enjoyable and thrilling, but will kill you and someone else (2nd hand smoke) in the long run.

Patently false, cigs significantly raise your chances of lung cancer, They will not "kill you no matter the dose". It's a risk assessment, and your analogy to the red light is apples to oranges.

However an analogy to simply diriving on the road and having the risk of an accident at some point is perfectly valid. Wanna ban cars?

Moreover let's ban cigs and have another drug war, that's a brilliant plan isn't it, since the current moralistic tirade of people thinking they have the right to force others to do things they don't think is right is working SO well.