Why Strawberry Jam is More Regulated than Cigarettes

August 29, 2008

(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


print this article email this article download pdf blog this article bookmark this article     Stumble it Digg this share on Facebook retweet share on Reddit add to delicious
Rate this story - 4 /5 (22 votes)

Rank Filter

Move the slider to adjust rank threshold, so that you can hide some of the comments.


Display comments: newest first

  • nilbud - Aug 29, 2008
    • Rank: 2 / 5 (2)
    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.
  • E_L_Earnhardt - Aug 29, 2008
    • Rank: 1.4 / 5 (5)
    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!
  • Velanarris - Aug 29, 2008
    • Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
    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?
  • DavidRochlin - Aug 30, 2008
    • Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
    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.
  • cdvw - Aug 30, 2008
    • Rank: 4 / 5 (3)
    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.
  • Modernmystic - Sep 04, 2008
    • Rank: 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.
  • bhiestand - Sep 08, 2008
    • Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
    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.
  • WillB - Sep 10, 2008
    • Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
    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.
  • Modernmystic - Sep 10, 2008
    • Rank: 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.

August 29, 2008 all stories

Comments: 9

4 /5 (22 votes)
  • Stumble this up

  • Digg this

  • share this

  • hide
  • Related Stories

  • Smoke no longer found in European hospitals
    created Sep 04, 2009 | popularity not rated yet | comments 0
  • Study: Cigarette packaging still misleading consumers over health hazards
    created Jul 28, 2009 | popularity not rated yet | comments 0
  • Study links cigarette changes to rising lung risk
    created May 18, 2009 | popularity not rated yet | comments 0
  • Common plants can eliminate indoor air pollutants
    created Nov 04, 2009 | popularity not rated yet | comments 0
  • Four percent of adults worldwide using cannabis: Lancet
    created Oct 16, 2009 | popularity not rated yet | comments 0



  • hide
  • Relevant PhysicsForums posts

  • Improving the brain through chemistry
    created 6 hours ago
  • Sleep / REM Sleep and homeostasis
    created 22 hours ago
  • The Biceps Reflex
    created Nov 05, 2009
  • Consequenses of striking a Vein and an artery?
    created Nov 05, 2009
  • More from Physics Forums - Medical Sciences

Other News

House passes health care bill on close vote (AP)

House passes health care bill on close vote

Medicine & Health / Health

created 23 minutes ago | popularity 5 / 5 (1) | comments 0

(AP) -- In a victory for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House narrowly passed landmark health care legislation Saturday night to expand coverage to tens of millions who lack it and place ...


Decision day for health care in the House (AP)

Decision day for health care in the House

Medicine & Health / Health

created 19 hours ago | popularity not rated yet | comments 0

(AP) -- President Barack Obama is trying to close the deal in the House on his health care overhaul, facing a make-or-break vote that's certain to be seen as a test of his presidency.


Island village hit by suspected swine flu (AP)

Island village hit by suspected swine flu

Medicine & Health / Diseases

created 19 hours ago | popularity 5 / 5 (1) | comments 1

(AP) -- Suspected swine flu is sweeping a traditional Eskimo whaling village on a remote Alaska island - prompting an urgent medical mission to deliver help.


Higher carotid arterial stenting rates associated with poorer clinical outcomes

Medicine & Health / Other

created 20 hours ago | popularity not rated yet | comments 0

Among eligible Medicare beneficiaries, increased use of carotid arterial stenting (CAS) procedures to treat carotid stenosis--the narrowing of the carotid artery--is associated with higher rates of mortality and adverse clinical ...


Turn On, Tune In, Develop?

Turn On, Tune In, Develop? Researchers Examine How Brain Benefits From Musical Training

Medicine & Health / Neuroscience

created Nov 06, 2009 | popularity 5 / 5 (9) | comments 4

For most people music is an enjoyable, although momentary, form of entertainment. But for those who seriously practiced a musical instrument when they were young, perhaps when they played in a school orchestra ...