Op deze pagina delen we de minder sensationele / meer analytische mediaberichten, onderzoeken en interviews met wetenschappers.

________________________

Jan. 2021

Gerenommeerde wetenschappers waarschuwen voor de risico's van slecht geïnformeerde regulering en symboolpolitiek die het smaakverbod aanjagen.

Starre kortzichtige beslissingen forceren de markt ondergronds en zorgen voor ernstig schadelijke inhoudelijke problemen.

Een deel van de samenvatting...:

"The case for the ban on vaping flavours described in the memorandum supporting the measure is wholly inadequate, and the measure should not proceed on this basis. The critical weaknesses in the rationale described in the memorandum are as follows: 

1. Sets conflicting objectives and takes a “war on drugs” approach to nicotine. The proposed measure is supposed to support a “smoke-free Netherlands” objective for 2040 as part of the Prevention Agreement. As stated, this is a sensible goal and should be widely supported – it recognises that smoke, not nicotine, is the overwhelming cause of disease. It is practical and achievable if smoke-free alternatives to smoking, such as vaping products, are available. However, the proposal introduces a significant expansion of scope by extending “smoke-free” to mean all tobacco, even if not smoked and then to tobacco-free nicotine products like e-cigarettes. It will make it impossible to use harm-reduction approaches, despite the enormous potential to reduce disease and death. It misunderstands the nature of youth risk behaviours. It amounts to extending the war on drugs to nicotine, but at a time when failures of prohibition are widely recognised. It would be better to stick to a smoke-free goal and use smoke-free alternatives to achieve it rather than pursue nicotine prohibition. The Netherlands is rightly world-famous for its pragmatic approach to soft drugs — that pragmatism should be leveraged to accelerate the end of smoking in the Netherlands by embracing harm reduction for those who smoke. [Go to detailed discussion] 

2. Adopts false and misleading claims about the risks of e-cigarettes. The justification fails to adequately characterise the overwhelming evidence showing e-cigarette use is much less harmful than smoking. Suppose policymakers believe e-cigarettes are just as harmful as cigarettes. In that case, their policies will be detrimental to public health by hindering substitution as smokers move from high-risk to low-risk products. It is clear from toxicology and exposure studies that e-cigarettes are, beyond any reasonable doubt, far less harmful than cigarettes. It is simplistic to apply the precautionary principle to use long-term uncertainties to justify excessive regulation. This ignores the substantial body of science suggesting much lower risk and neglects the problem that excessive regulation can cause harm by protecting the cigarette trade, which is known to be highly harmful. "

Lees hier de volledige brandbrief van deze veelzijdige wereldwijde groep bezorgde onderzoekers en professoren, gericht aan het Nederlandse Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport.

________________________

De National Health Service (NHS) in het VK heeft een vooruitstrevende kijk op het gebruik van e-sigaretten. Waar Nederlandse politiek en media het als een mysterieus op zichzelf staand opkomend kwaad behandelen, benaderd de NHS de technologie wetenschappelijk (gebaseerd op gevalideerde uitkomsten van recente onderzoeken) en altijd in de bedoelde context; de aantoonbare potentie ten aanzien van de ernstige schadelijkheid van tabaksrook en de grote aantallen aan tabak verslaafde volwassenen. 

Lees hier wat de National Health Service over e-sigaretten als hulpmiddel bij het stoppen met roken te zeggen heeft: NHS - QUIT SMOKING

________________________

Van CBS NEWS Sept 2019

Public health expert worries e-cigarette panic is ruining "single biggest public health opportunity" in 120 years

Researchers are working hard to determine the cause of more than 500 reported cases of lung illness affecting e-cigarette users. But even before this outbreak, e-cigarettes divided the medical community. Public Health England describes e-cigarettes as "at least 95% less harmful than tobacco cigarettes" – a claim New York University professor David Abrams agrees with. Abrams tells "CBS This Morning" Tony Dokoupil why he's concerned about what the current panic about e-cigarette safety could mean for public health.SEPT 20, 2019

________________________

________________________