Review of epidemiologic data on the debate over smokeless tobacco's role in harm reduction

Some tobacco researchers have argued that the European Union should remove its ban on a form of low-nitrosamine smokeless tobacco referred to as Swedish 'snus'. This argument has developed in to an international debate over the use of smokeless tobacco as a measure of harm reduction for smokers. Leading authorities in the USA have firmly stated that there is no safe tobacco - a message which does not allow for any discussion of comparative tobacco risks. This commentary is intended to review the origin of the controversy over Swedish 'snus', to examine briefly the meta-analysis on cancer risks by Peter Lee and Jan Hamling (published in July in BMC Medicine) and to discuss the anticipated direction of the debate on tobacco-harm reduction in the USA. We anticipate that much of the debate will shift from the discussion of epidemiologic data to the discussion of the marketing, health communication and economics of smokeless tobacco. While the Food and Drug Administration's newly approved authority over tobacco will undoubtedly affect the smokeless products, it may not be the sole determinant of harm reduction's fate in the USA

What potential has tobacco control for reducing health inequalities? The New Zealand situation

In this Commentary, we aim to synthesize recent epidemiological data on tobacco and health inequalities for New Zealand and present it in new ways. We also aim to describe both existing and potential tobacco control responses for addressing these inequalities. In New Zealand smoking prevalence is higher amongst Māori and Pacific peoples (compared to those of "New Zealand European" ethnicity) and amongst those with low socioeconomic position (SEP). Consequently the smoking-related mortality burden is higher among these populations. Regarding the gap in mortality between low and high socioeconomic groups, 21% and 11% of this gap for men and women was estimated to be due to smoking in 1996–99. Regarding the gap in mortality between Māori and non-Māori/non-Pacific, 5% and 8% of this gap for men and women was estimated to be due to smoking. The estimates from both these studies are probably moderate underestimates due to misclassification bias of smoking status. Despite the modest relative contribution of smoking to these gaps, the absolute number of smoking-attributable deaths is sizable and amenable to policy and health sector responses. There is some evidence, from New Zealand and elsewhere, for interventions that reduce smoking by low-income populations and indigenous peoples. These include tobacco taxation, thematically appropriate mass media campaigns, and appropriate smoking cessation support services. But there are as yet untried interventions with major potential. A key one is for a tighter regulatory framework that could rapidly shift the nicotine market towards pharmaceutical-grade nicotine (or smokeless tobacco products) and away from smoked tobacco