Presentations from the 2017 e-cigarette summit | November 2017

The 5th annual E-Cigarette Summit was held at the Royal Society in London on Friday 17th November 2017. Linda Bauld, Robert West and several other members of the UKCTAS network presented their research at the event to a large audience of other scientists, policy makers, medical and public health professionals and e-cigarette stakeholders. The presentations included the latest evidence on the safety of e-cigarettes for users and bystanders, usage in young people and non-smokers, advertising and marketing, use in public places and the conflicts arising from the tobacco industry’s dual corporate ownership of tobacco harm reduction products and cigarettes.

To view the slides from each presentation and the full list of videos click here.

Robert West (University College London) & Linda Bauld (University of Stirling):

Panel Discussion:

Lion Shahab (University College London) & Jamie Hartmann-Boyce (University of Oxford):

Deborah Arnott (ASH) & Martin Dockrell (Public Health England):

See more information about the event and view each of the lecture slides.

 

Advertisements

Upcoming Tobacco & Alcohol courses now taking applications: limited places available!

nottingham

“Tobacco Control Interventions”
29th Jan – 2nd Feb 2018
University of Nottingham

Closing date for applications: 16th January 2018

This year we will be discussing important factors in tobacco control including; youth smoking, the role of the tobacco industry, use of mass media for smoking prevention and cessation, smokefree legislation, harm reduction and the neurobiology of nicotine addiction.


kcl_front_ukctas

“Alcohol, Problems, Policy & Practice” 
5th – 9th February 2018
Kings College London

Early bird deadline: 21st December 2017

The course is a mixture of blended learning, with face-to-face lectures being held in February 2018. It is open to all UKCTAS researchers as well as students of the MSc in Addiction Studies.


stirling-banner

“Nicotine and Tobacco CPD”
21st – 24th May 2018
University of Stirling

Early bird deadline: 28th February 2018

In addition to the topics covered on our previous tobacco control CPD, we will also be examining in detail the current evidence on tobacco harm reduction, electronic cigarettes and other nicotine-containing devices.


More information about these courses can be found on our website @ UKCTAS.net

UKCTAS welcomes the ruling in favour of MUP! Minimum unit pricing will save lives, reduce hospital admissions and cut crime! #MUPsaveslives

In a landmark ruling, seven justices unanimously rejected a challenge led by the Scotch Whisky Association that Scottish proposals for strict price controls were illegal under EU trade rules. The ruling comes after a five-year legal battle against the measures, which were passed by the Scottish parliament in 2012 but then fought by the Scotch Whiskey Association and two European wine and spirits industry bodies all the way to the European court of justice.

Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, first suggested the measure nine years ago while acting as the Scottish health secretary. The supreme court ruled on Wednesday 15th November that “minimum pricing is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”.

Prof Petra Meier, director of the alcohol research group at the University of Sheffield, which published the data and evidence that Sturgeon’s proposals were based on, said a 50p minimum price would in time result in 120 fewer deaths and 2,000 fewer hospital admissions from alcohol abuse each year.

“Our research has consistently shown that minimum unit pricing would reduce alcohol-related health problems in Scotland by targeting the cheap, high-strength alcohol consumed by the heaviest and highest-risk drinkers. Moderate drinkers would be affected to a much smaller degree.”

They said protecting public health outweighed the damage to free trade which the spirits industry and EU wine producers said they wanted to protect. “The courts should not second-guess the value which a domestic legislator puts on health,” the judges stated.

With Welsh ministers and the Republic of Ireland introducing similar measures, health campaigners in England said the ruling left the Westminster government isolated, and removed the last legal barrier to minimum pricing.

Professor Sir Ian Gilmore, chair of the Alcohol Health Alliance, said:

“We are delighted with the Supreme Court’s judgement that minimum unit pricing is legal and can be implemented in Scotland. The decision today represents a great victory for the health of the public.

“Five years ago the legislation introducing MUP passed through the Scottish Parliament without opposition. It has taken five years to implement for the simple reason that the Scottish Whisky Association and others chose to challenge it in the courts. In that time many families have needlessly suffered the pain and heartache of losing a loved one.

“This decision has implications far beyond Scotland. Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are now clear to progress their own plans for minimum unit pricing.

“The spotlight should now fall on England, where cheap alcohol is also causing considerable damage.  Over 23,000 people in England die every year from alcohol-related causes, many of them coming from the poorest and most vulnerable sections of society. We urge the Westminster Government to act now and introduce the measure in England. A failure to do so will needlessly cost more lives.”

Scottish ministers are expected to introduce a minimum price of 50p a unit for alcoholic drinks by spring next year, in a bid to cope with increasing deaths and hospitalisations from alcohol abuse. Health campaigners say the strongest but cheapest ciders were so cheap in Scotland an adult could consume their maximum recommended weekly limit of alcohol – 14 units – for £2.52. The cheapest fortified wine came in at 27p per unit, while the cheapest vodka and gin was 38p. That rate will force up the price of all alcoholic drinks so that a standard bottle of whisky will cost £14, regardless of its wholesale cost, although the Scottish measures mean retailers will keep any surplus profits once prices rise.

The Welsh government has said it would press ahead with proposals it published last month to implement minimum pricing, with Welsh ministers also evaluating a 50p minimum price. Ministers in Northern Ireland have also backed the policy, but implementation has stalled after the collapse earlier this year of Stormont’s power-sharing administration. The Republic of Ireland is also considering similar measures.

The Alcohol Health Alliance UK, which includes the British Medical Association and the Royal College of GPs, is drafting a joint letter to the UK government formally urging ministers to reinstate plans for similar measures in England.

Urged on by the medical profession and some police commissioners, the UK government came close to following Scotland’s lead while David Cameron was prime minister, but after disputes in cabinet the proposal was dropped. The Home Office, which takes the lead on alcohol control policy, said it noted the supreme court’s ruling but said it would only keep the issue under review. A spokeswoman said ministers in London would watch its implementation in Scotland, but Home Office officials were unable to specify how long ministers would wait before reaching a decision.

The department said its focus now was on using other measures to control excessive alcohol consumption, including higher duties for high-strength ciders, and lower duty for lower strength wines. There were campaigns and initiatives by NHS England to support problem drinkers. The SWA acknowledged defeat, and said it would help ministers implement the strategy. But it warned that imposing strict price controls would increase the risk of other countries using the policy as justification for higher tariffs on Scotch whisky imports, damaging its £5bn-a-year export trade.

The brewing trade was split: major brewers, such as the makers of Tennents lager and Magners cider, with higher cost brands and a significant stake in supplying pubs, welcomed the court’s decision. The real-ale campaign group Camra denounced it, saying it “penalises moderate and responsible drinkers while doing little to support those who have issues with alcohol abuse”.

Dr Eric Carlin, director of Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems, a campaigning body backed by the medical profession, lambasted drinks companies for their “ferocious, cynical” opposition to the measure.

“The opponents to MUP have shamed the reputation of their industry by prioritising profits over people’s lives. As MUP has been delayed, we have seen the tragic, premature deaths of 24 people every week in Scotland as a result of alcohol misuse, many of them in our poorest communities, and affecting families across our nation,” he said.

Twitter posts about the decision:

News reports on the decision:

UK supreme court rules minimum alcohol pricing is legal – The Guardian

Minimum alcohol pricing: How will new policy affect you? – STV

Campaigners urge minimum alcohol price in England after Scottish ruling – The Guardian

Minimum alcohol pricing is a chance to tackle a problem which is ruining Scotland’s health – The Scottish Sun

Green light for minimum alcohol pricing in Scotland – PharmaTimes

Scots get set for ‘booze cruises’ into England as Supreme Court clears the way for minimum alcohol prices – Daily Mail

Full coverage of the decision on google.news!

Are you a vaper who also smokes? Would you be willing to help with an important study at QMUL?

How does dual use of e-cigarettes and conventional cigarettes change over time?

The Study:

This study is being run by the Health and Lifestyle Research Unit at Queen Mary University of London, and is funded by Cancer Research UK (CRUK).

Many people who smoke conventional cigarettes also use an e-cigarette and this is called ‘dual use’. Little is known about the way such use develops over time. Most dual users aim to stop smoking altogether, but many people continue using both products. It is not clear at present how many of these dual users stop smoking, at which time point, and what factors help them to stop.

We are inviting up to 500 dual users to take part in a study which aims to gain a greater understanding of these issues. If you take part, we will ask you questions about your vaping and smoking over the telephone or internet at 3 monthly intervals, over a 12-month period. The surveys should take approximately 10 minutes each to complete. You will receive a £15 voucher as compensation for your time. The study is funded for 1 year initially, but if we obtain further funding, we will extend the follow-up period to 10 years.

We hope that the results of this trial will inform what advice doctors and other health professionals give on e-cigarettes in the future.

Who can take part?

You will be able to take part if you are:

  • Aged 18 years or over.
  • Currently using both an e-cigarette and conventional cigarettes either on the same or separate days for at least one day a week, and practiced such use for at least one month.
  • Willing to provide data on your vaping and smoking at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months.
  • Are not currently taking part in another conflicting study.

Thank you for your interest in this study. It is important that you understand what is involved before you consent to take part. There is information at the end of the information leaflet on how to contact the study organiser if you have any questions or concerns. Your participation is completely voluntary and will not affect any access to treatment or services that you may be currently receiving.

If you are interested in taking part please call: 0207 882 5747 (lines are open Monday-Friday, 9-5pm) Or click the link to email us: health-research@qmul.ac.uk

For more information and to apply to take part in this study click here!

 

 

 

E-Cigarette Summit 2017 – Friday 17th November | Royal Society, London

cropped-summit-logo-2017

Since the inaugural meeting in November 2013, The E-Cigarette Summit has been at the forefront of taking forward the scientific and public health debate around e-cigarettes and broader harm reduction debates. The Summit has established itself as a neutral environment for scientists, policy makers, medical and public health professionals and stakeholders to come together and look at the latest scientific research and evidence on e-cigarettes and debate their impact. In 2013, the conversation was UK centric as the public health and policy communities sought to find an appropriate regulatory system for e-cigarettes that would reflect the opportunities for smokers without ignoring potential harms. In the intervening years, the UK has emerged as an active proponent for tobacco harm reduction alongside stringent tobacco control measures and now five years on the Summit welcomes scientists, public health professionals and policy makers from around the world who are looking to establish their own regulatory framework in the face of new nicotine products.

Alongside the latest evidence on the safety of e-cigarettes for users and bystanders, The E-Cigarette Summit will continue to address broader debates including evidence on “gateway” for youth and non-smokers, advertising and marketing, use in public places and the conflicts arising from the tobacco industry’s dual corporate ownership of tobacco harm reduction products and cigarettes. The role that e-cigarettes could play in ending or extending the smoking epidemic will remain one of the most fiercely fought debates in public health history.

For governments and policy makers/advisors, the weight of making the right decision cannot be underestimated. From outright bans, advertising restrictions to higher taxation; the way that each country introduces, interprets and implements legislation, including consumer and medical licensing routes, will have far reaching consequences. Setting the regulatory bar at the correct level, will be vital to harnessing the opportunities that e-cigarettes and reduced harm nicotine products could offer while remaining responsive to a tobacco control manifesto to reduce smoking related harm.

What questions will be explored?

The E-Cigarette Summit will include high level briefings from experts and encourages interaction through panel debates and open floor discussions. Questions will be explored in a balanced and objective environment allowing attendees to build their knowledge and share their viewpoints.

This year the summit will explore the latest research and evidence on the following areas:

  • The Continuum of Harm Reduction and different policy/regulatory approaches.
  • E-Cigarette safety and research
  • Nicotine health impacts including addiction
  • Dual use – how concerned should we be?
  • Heat not Burn and E-cigarettes – similarities and differences
  • Advertising restrictions – how to reach smokers and protect youth?
  • Medicinal Licensing – is this a viable route and where are the products?
  • What does the evidence say about gateway?
  • Are there health risks through second hand vapour for non-users?
  • If e-cigarettes are so good, why aren’t all smokers using them?

Who Should Attend?

In particular, this event will be relevant to:

  • Regulators and policy advisors
  • Scientific/research community
  • Smoking cessation practitioners/services
  • Health providers, health charities and health campaigners
  • Local Authorities and Environmental Health
  • Public health professionals and academics
  • Medical and health professionals
  • e-cigarette industry and broader stakeholders groups

This years summit welcomes many researchers from around the world, including many who are part of the UKCTAS network. Including; Professor Linda Bauld from the University of Stirling, Professor Ann McNeill from King’s College London, Dr Jamie Hartmann-Boyce from the University of Oxford and Professor Robert West from University College London. The summit will also feature inputs from the Department of Health, Public Health England and many more public health organisations. To see the full list of speakers click here.

Early Bird Rates are valid until Friday 20th October!

To register for this event or to find out more information, click here!

Alcohol industry misleading the public about alcohol-related cancer risk – Research Report from LSHTM

The study identifies “denying, distortion and distraction” as main strategies!

The alcohol industry (AI) is misrepresenting evidence about the alcohol-related risk of cancer with activities that have parallels with those of the tobacco industry, according to new research published in the journal Drug and Alcohol Review.

Led by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine with the Karolinska Institutet, Sweden, the team analysed the information relating to cancer which appears on the websites and documents of nearly 30 alcohol industry organisations around the world between September 2016 and December 2016. Most of the organisational websites (24/26) showed some sort of distortion or misrepresentation of the evidence about alcohol-related cancer risk, with breast and colorectal cancers being the most common focus of misrepresentation.

The most common approach involves presenting the relationship between alcohol and cancer as highly complex, with the implication or statement that there is no evidence of a consistent or independent link. Others include denying that any relationship exists or claiming inaccurately that there is no risk for light or ‘moderate’ drinking, as well discussing a wide range of real and potential risk factors, thus presenting alcohol as just one risk among many.

According to the study, the researchers say policymakers and public health bodies should reconsider their relationships to these alcohol industry bodies, as the industry is involved in developing alcohol policy in many countries, and disseminates health information to the public.

Alcohol consumption is a well-established risk factor for a range of cancers, including oral cavity, liver, breast and colorectal cancers, and accounts for about 4% of new cancer cases annually in the UK1. There is limited evidence that alcohol consumption protects against some cancers, such as renal and ovary cancers, but in 2016 the UK’s Committee on Carcinogenicity concluded that the evidence is inconsistent, and the increased risk of other cancers as a result of drinking alcohol far outweighs any possible decreased risk².

This new study analysed the information which is disseminated by 27 AI-funded organisations, most commonly ‘social aspects and public relations organisations’ (SAPROs), and similar bodies. The researchers aimed to determine the extent to which the alcohol industry fully and accurately communicates the scientific evidence on alcohol and cancer to consumers. They analysed information on cancer and alcohol consumption disseminated by alcohol industry bodies and related organisations from English speaking countries, or where the information was available in English.

Through qualitative analysis of this information they identified three main industry strategies. Denying, or disputing any link with cancer, or selective omission of the relationship, Distortion: mentioning some risk of cancer, but misrepresenting or obfuscating the nature or size of that risk and Distraction: focusing discussion away from the independent effects of alcohol on common cancers.

Mark Petticrew, Professor of Public Health at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and lead author of the study, said: “The weight of scientific evidence is clear – drinking alcohol increases the risk of some of the most common forms of cancer, including several common cancers. Public awareness of this risk is low, and it has been argued that greater public awareness, particularly of the risk of breast cancer, poses a significant threat to the alcohol industry. Our analysis suggests that the major global alcohol producers may attempt to mitigate this by disseminating misleading information about cancer through their ‘responsible drinking’ bodies.”

A common strategy was ‘selective omission’ – avoiding mention of cancer while discussing other health risks or appearing to selectively omit specific cancers. The researchers say that one of the most important findings is that AI materials appear to specifically omit or misrepresent the evidence on breast and colorectal cancer. One possible reason is that these are among the most common cancers, and therefore may be more well-known than oral and oesophageal cancers.

When breast cancer is mentioned the researchers found that 21 of the organisations present no, or misleading, information on breast cancer, such as presenting many alternative possible risk factors for breast cancer, without acknowledging the independent risk of alcohol consumption.

Professor Petticrew said: “Existing evidence of strategies employed by the alcohol industry suggests that this may not be a matter of simple error. This has obvious parallels with the global tobacco industry’s decades-long campaign to mislead the public about the risk of cancer, which also used front organisations and corporate social activities.”

The researchers say the results are important because the alcohol industry is involved in conveying  health information to people around the world. The findings also suggest that major international alcohol companies may be misleading their shareholders about the risks of their products, potentially leaving the industry open to litigation in some countries.

Professor Petticrew said: “Some public health bodies liaise with the industry organisations that we analysed. Despite their undoubtedly good intentions, it is unethical for them to lend their expertise and legitimacy to industry campaigns which mislead the public about alcohol-related harms. Our findings are also a clear reminder of the risks of giving the AI the responsibility of informing the public about alcohol and health.

“It has often been assumed that, by and large, the AI, unlike the tobacco industry, has tended not to deny the harms of alcohol. However, through its provision of misleading information it can maintain what has been called ‘the illusion of righteousness’ in the eyes of policymakers, while negating any significant impact on alcohol consumption and profits.

“It’s important to highlight that if people drink within the recommended guidelines they shouldn’t be too concerned when it comes to cancer. For accurate and accessible information on the risks, the public can visit the NHS website.”

The authors acknowledge limitations of their study including that there are many other mechanisms and organisations through which industry disseminates health-related information which they did not examine, although it is unlikely that the messages would be different.

The researchers also say there is an urgent need to examine other industry websites, documents, social media and other materials in order to assess the nature and extent of the distortion of evidence, and whether it extends to other health information, for example, in relation to cardiovascular disease.

 

Publication:
Mark Petticrew, Nason Maani Hessari ,Cécile knai and Elisabete Weiderpass. How alcohol industry organisations mislead the public about alcohol and cancer. Drug and Alcohol Review. DOI: 10.1111/dar.12596
1Cancer Research UK: Statistics on preventable cancers.
2Committee on Carcinogenicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment (COC). Statement 2015/S2.
About the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine:
The London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine is a world-leading centre for research and postgraduate education in public and global health, with more than 4,000 students and 1,000 staff working in over 100 countries. The School is one of the highest-rated research institutions in the UK, is among the world’s leading schools in public and global health, and was named University of the Year in the Times Higher Education Awards 2016. Our mission is to improve health and health equity in the UK and worldwide; working in partnership to achieve excellence in public and global health research, education and translation of knowledge into policy and practice. http://www.lshtm.ac.uk

Society for the Study of Addiction – Annual Conference 2017

9th – 10th November 2017
Crowne Plaza, Newcastle, UK

Confirmed sessions include:

  • Sport & exercise in addiction and recovery with personal reflections from Clarke Carlisle.
  • End of life care for people with substance problems.
  • The psychedelic renaissance in addiction treatment.
  • Pathways to amphetamine type stimulant use.

Capture.JPG


NEW for 2017: The ADDICTION DEBATE

‘This Society believes it is appropriate to expand the concept of addiction to behaviours such as internet use’

With Professor Robert West & Professor Mark Griffiths


SSA PhD Symposium 2017

New for 2017, the SSA’s PhD Symposium will be held the day before our annual Conference, in the same venue.

The SSA’s symposium for PhD students is now in its ninth year. This event aims to bring together PhD students studying addiction-related topics so they can network, present their work in a low-key, supportive environment and share their ups and downs. It welcomes full and part-time students, studying in a range of disciplines including social sciences, laboratory sciences and health services research. The day includes presentations from students at various stages in the PhD process and some close to or who have recently submitted their thesis.

There is a social event in the evening of the PhD Symposium, and throughout the day there is plenty of opportunity to talk to other delegates.

 

For more information about this event please visit: www.addiction-ssa.org/symposium