What do the wine and tomato industries have in common? Besides the fact that they both play a major role in California agriculture, both could potentially be courted by cigarette manufacturers looking to market a safer, more “green” product. Here’s why: Cornell University scientists have found a way to dramatically reduce the amount of cancer-causing free radicals that pass through cigarette filters by (literally) stuffing conventional filters with grape seed extract and lycopene, a compound that occurs naturally in tomatoes.

Researchers used an electron spin resonance spectroscopy (ESR) to quantify radicals that were trapped in smoke samples obtained by a machine that “smoked” their modified cigarettes. It was determined that the grape seed/active-carbon-treated-lycopene combo scavenged up to 90 percent of free radicals that would have otherwise made it through the filter. Their research noted that both grape seed extract and lycopene can be obtained in large quantities – byproducts of wine producers and tomato processors.

Research associate and study co-auther Boris Dzikovski said of the results:

“The implications of this technique can help reduce the hazardous effects of tobacco smoke.”

This isn’t the first time that scientists have achieved significant reductions of free radicals in smoke, but it is the first time they did so in a cost effective manner. The lab of Physical Chemistry Professor Jack H. Freed published its research in the Jan. 2 issue of the Journal of Visualized Experiments (JoVE). The work was supported by the National Institutes of Health.

There are more than 46 million Americans who still smoke despite the known health risks, and the latest warnings being added to cigarette packs. Now researchers at Cornell University have brought a new angle into the equation: they’re trying to build a better cigarette. The researchers have added lycopene and grape seed extract to cigarette filters, which drastically cut the amount of free radicals that pass through cigarette filters and into your body, according to Everyday Health. Free radicals are cancer-causing properties that come from cigarettes.

UPI.com reported that the researchers’ work was published in the Journal of Visualized Experiments, an indexed video journal.

Study co-author Dr. Aaron Kolski-Andreaco said that the best cigarette for your health is none at all, but a less toxic brand may help millions unable to quit. Healthier cigarettes have been introduced in the past, but were too costly to bring in much on the market. Newswise reported that the introduction of hemoglobin and activated carbon into cigarettes have brought a 90 percent reduction in cancer-causing properties in the smoke.

TG Daily points out that the addition of the antioxidants may only work best for heavier or chain smokers. And the filters have shown a loss of effectiveness in beating the free radical components after being stored at room temperature for just a week.

According to new research, a drug known as cytisine, which is available in Europe but not approved in the United States, may provide a substantially cheaper alternative to Chantix to help people quit smoking. A study published in the current issue of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) indicates that users of the cytisine, which was first introduced more than 40 years ago, stayed off cigarettes for a year at rates comparable to that of newer prescription medications, such as Chantix and Zyban.

While some users reported suffering gastrointestinal illnesses, the study was too small to fully evaluate the potential side effects of cytisine and further studies are necessary to ensure that it is safe and effective.

Cytisine, which is marketed as Tabex in Central and Eastern Europe, is made from seeds of the Golden Rain acacia and has a similar affect on the body as nicotine, due to the structural similarty between the two molecules. It has not been approved for sale in the U.S. by the FDA.

British resarchers conducted a randomized, double-blind study on 740 smoking adults, half of whom were given Tabex and the other half a placebo. They found that 8.4% of adults given Tabex practiced smoking abstinence for a year, compared to only 2.4% of those on a placebo. That’s comparable with Chantix and Zyban, experts say.

A month’s supply of cytisine may cost only about $15, compared to $63 for a month’s supply of the relatively new anti-smoking drug Chantix (varenicline), which was introduced in the United States in 2006.

Although many expected Chantix to become a blockbuster medication to help people quit smoking, sales have been impacted by serious concerns about an increased risk of suicide, violence and aggressive behavior linked to potential Chantix side effects.

Chantix works by reducing the positive feelings that come from cigarettes, blocking the receptors in the brain commonly stimulated by nicotine. However, the medication has been associated with an increased risk of neuropsychiatric injuries leading to behavioral changes, depression, aggression, agitation, hostility, rage, suicidal ideation, suicide attempts and, in many cases, successful suicide. It also may increase the risk of heart attacks and other cardiovascular problems.

Hundreds of individuals throughout the United States are currently pursuing a Chantix lawsuit against Pfizer, alleging that the drug maker introduced the medication without fully researching the impact it has on the brain and then heavily marketed the drug with inadequate warnings for consumers or the medical community.

A cheaper, and potentially safer, alternative to Chantix could save many thousands of lives by helping stop smoking. The study, which was funded by Britain’s National Prevention Research Initiative, notes that approximately 5 million people throughout the world die each year from smoking related illnesses.

A British inventor has come up with a so-called “safe” cigarette: It’s a nicotine inhaler shaped like a cigarette that delivers doses of the addictive chemical equal to those of cigarettes. Unlike the real things, though, it doesn’t contain tobacco or burn when you puff it, so it doesn’t pollute the lungs with carcinogenic tar. Alex Hearn, the Oxford-educated 28-year-old who designed the product, has earned the backing of several wealthy investors as well as a licensing deal with British American Tobacco (BAT), (more…)

To raise awareness about electronic cigarettes, the National Vapers Club who support e-cigarette vaping has provided an ad that appeared on the CBS SuperScreen in Times Square. With an accompanying website, the said ad promotes the smoking devices telling smokers they have a choice. The measure was taken amidst the on-going proposal to ban product carried out in many jurisdictions across the country.

The National Vapers Club is composed of members who are former smokers. According to club president, Spike Babaian, many of the club’s advocates may return to smoking cigarettes if access to e-cigarettes is limited.
While legislators try to ban these products, many doctors and public health experts feel that e-cigarettes are safer alternative. Vapers maintain that no evidence of public health hazards has been proved to have a link with using the devices.
Josh Gregory of E-liquid Planet, an electronic cigarette distributor in New York, questioned the banning of the product. He said that there was no valid concern over the safety of the product. He added that it would be ridiculous to put electronic cigarette companies in New York out of business.
In a Federal lawsuit against the FDA, four judges have agreed that the product posed no immediate health hazards to the public.
Judge Leon, in the original lawsuit, found that FDA cites no evidence that those electronic cigarettes have placed anyone in danger. FDA hasn’t also cited any evidence that associate electronic cigarettes to public health and safety.
“Now, smokers have a choice”, is the message the National Vapers Club is sending to the smoking public if they are unable to lacking the will to give up nicotine.

First, there are significant differences between an e-cigarette and a conventional tobacco one. The electronic cigarette is not lit by fire. There is no smoldering or burning of any substance. Instead, the electronic cigarette contains liquid nicotine encased in a plastic filter combined with a micro-heating element. When you inhale or ‘puff’ on this alternative cigarette, the heating element warms the nicotine in the filter to produce a stream of vapor. This is inhaled and exhaled in the same way as a traditional cigarette. To enhance the experience and sensation of smoking, the vapor is flavoured to replicate the taste of either a tobacco or menthol cigarette. The e-cigarette is designed to simulate smoking a real cigarette and should not be confused with a regular nicotine inhaler.

There is no tar, carbon monoxide, tobacco or secondhand smoke with the e-cigarette. Also, there is no physical smoke or passive smoke. A non-lingering vapor is emitted, similar to steam from a boiling kettle. This vapor or steam is virtually odorless and vanishes within seconds.

The UK smoking ban does not apply to the use of e-cigarettes. The electronic cigarette can ‘legally’ be used inside any public place including leisure and hospitality establishments, places or work, offices and shops.

The e-cigarette is usually purchased as part of a kit. These kits include a rechargeable cigarette battery, the e-cigarette, a charger and nicotine cartridges. You can order an Electronic Cigarette Starter Kit direct from VIP.

It is estimated that 1 in 10 smokers in the UK will switch from tobacco cigarettes to e-cigarettes by 2012.

ukpressreleases.co.uk, By: Press Room, June 16, 2010

At least four groups are now questioning the credibility of a federal advisory panel created to study tobacco product safety, challenging two members with financial ties to drug firms that make smoking cessation products. At issue: Will the duo push to ban menthol ciggys and favor smokeless products?
The issue hit this week when the Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, filed a complaint against the FDA’s tobacco advisory panel for conflicts of interest since they have voting members who consult for pharmaceutical companies that work on nicotine delivery products to quit smoking.
The concern is that two members, Jack Henningfield and Neal Benowitz, have an incentive to favor smoking cessation products because they’ve advised drug firms on those products.

“This creates an obvious incentive for these members to ban menthol in cigarettes and create a multi-billion dollar market for more nicotine patches and gum potentially paid for by taxpayers,” says a critic. The menthol issue the advisory committee is considering is huge: Menthol cigarettes make up about one third of the cigarette market and eliminating them would likely shift users to smokeless products, say industry officials.

The FDA has rejected previous conflict charges and Benowitz told the New York Times this week: “My involvement with pharmaceutical companies is aimed at reducing the risk of smoking, quitting smoking. The aim of the committee is also to reduce the adverse health consequences of tobacco use.”

Besides the left-leaning CREW, the three other opposition groups are the Altria Group, the American Council on Science and Health, and the right-leaning Americans for Limited Government.

Bill Wilson of Americans for Limited Government said that having his and CREW oppose the two appointees on the panel shows how much of a concern there is.

“The odds may be greater of drawing a royal flush in poker than us agreeing on anything but we both know you the FDA shouldn’t have a stacked deck when playing with the taxpayers’ money,” he said. “However, two groups as disparate as ours, Americans for Limited Government, and CREW agree the FDA tobacco panel can’t possibly have a legitimate review of the science surrounding menthol’s use in cigarettes with multiple conflicts of interest by many of the panelists.”

By Paul Bedard, Washington Whispers, June 10, 2010, usnews.com

A key U.S. Food and Drug Administration panel on tobacco came under fire from ethics and tobacco control watchdogs for what they said are conflicts of interests and misplaced priorities.
A group of 10 prominent tobacco control advocates yesterday launched an alternative scientific panel that they said would try to suggest more effective ways to cut the impact of smoking on the nation’s health. Recommendations include more aggressive anti-smoking media campaigns, dropping the agency’s opposition to electronic cigarettes and limiting cigarette sales to places that bar youths from entering.
“The shadow scientific panel on tobacco represents the loyal opposition,” said Dr. Alan Blum, director of the University of Alabama Center for the Study of Tobacco and Society and co-chairman of the group of 10 advocates.

“The loophole-laden FDA bill, its championing by top tobacco manufacturer Philip Morris, the presence of cigarette company representatives on the panel, the initial direction of the new FDA office on tobacco and the dominant role played by the professional FDA bureaucracy warrants an alternative, uncensored viewpoint,” Blum said.
Separately, a nonprofit legal group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington called on the FDA to investigate apparent conflicts of interest of two key voting members of the agency’s scientific panel on tobacco. The tobacco industry representatives on the panel cannot vote on its recommendations.
The two voting members — Dr. Neal Benowitz and Dr. Jack Henningfield, — are paid consultants to pharmaceutical companies on smoking cessation products, the nonprofit said.
Several tobacco firms, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Henrico County-based Star Scientific, are developing lozenges and dissolvable strips that, like drug companies’ products, deliver nicotine, the addictive compound in tobacco.
The companies usually market the products as an alternative to smoking, as opposed to a way of stopping smoking.
One of the key issues that will come before the FDA tobacco panel is when or if tobacco companies can claim any of their products, including lozenges or dissolvable items, reduce the risk of tobacco use.
Earlier this year, Henrico-based Altria Group Inc., which owns Philip Morris USA, the nation’s biggest cigarette company, had protested what it saw as conflicts of interest on the panel. Spokesman William R. Phelps said the company’s letter of protest still reflects its position. He declined to comment on Blum’s alternative panel.
The FDA said all members of its tobacco science advisory panel meet the conflict-of-interest standard specified in the federal act giving it regulatory authority over tobacco.
“Committee members are rigorously screened for conflicts of interest, including non-tobacco-product interests that might be affected by the committee’s work, and are recused where appropriate from committee deliberations that could affect such interests,” spokeswoman Kathleen Quinn, said in a written statement.
“FDA stands behind the membership of this committee and the scientific and public health expertise they will undoubtedly provide.”

June 9, 2010, By DAVID RESS, timesdispatch.com

FARMINGTON — Rep. Paul Ray, R-Clearfield, is a bulldog when it comes to cracking down on tobacco or for that matter, any nicotine-laced product.

A bill he introduced in the house to restrict “e-cigarettes,” and flavored smokeless tobacco, moved through a House committee Tuesday.

And Davis health officials are rallying behind his efforts.

“We are happy the issue is on the radar of legislators,” said Isa Kaluhikaua, a health educator with the Davis Health Department, whose expertise is in tobacco education. “We are concerned about the promotion of these products.”

The products that Ray and health officials are most concerned about are alternatives to smoking, which health officials fear may encourage young people and even children to try them out.

There’s Snus, a no-spit tobacco pouch meant to be placed under the upper lip, and Orbs, dissolvable breath-mint sized tobacco, with a camel imprinted on each. Strips are dissolvable, like breath freshening strips, containing tobacco, and dissolvable Sticks.

They’re each packaged in bright, attractive colors, which often look like candy packages.

Kaluhikaua is concerned products like these “could fall under the radar” and into the hands of children, “and that even the (store) clerks may not know what they are.”

She did some checking, and found the products are age-restricted. and when they are rung up at the register, the clerk should receive a notice to check for ID proving the buyer is 19.

Kaluhikaua said that she hasn’t done a check of which products are available at local retailers; she has seen some of them.

At a board of health meeting last month, Kaluhikaua told board members that if a child were to ingest three of the Orbs, they would get ill, and 10 would result in serious illness. Yet, she compared them to Tic-Tacs in appearance, and said they come in a variety of flavors children could mistake for candy.

“Some are designed to fit into creative packaging, and are marketed as a safe alternative to smoking,” Kaluhikaua told board members. She warned that the tobacco industry is creating new products all the time to keep the products in the public’s mind.

However, she warned, “There’s no such thing as a safe tobacco product.”

On Tuesday, House committee members heard from the public, some of whom defended the new electronic cigarette, “e-cigarette” which they say has helped them quit smoking.

The e-cigarette is a battery-powered device that looks like a cigarette and allows smokers to stop inhaling tar and other compounds found in cigarette smoke.

All the products contain some level of nicotine, which is of special concern to Ray, who told committee members that if he had his way, he would ban tobacco altogether. Countries worldwide are calling for additional studies of the e-cigarette and possible effects to the user’s health, especially if used for an extended period.

Most of the products still don’t have Federal Drug Administration approval, Kaluhikaua said.

by Melinda Williams, Clippertoday
Feb 04, 2010