The fight against cancer is an extremely important undertaking, and regulatory agencies have rightly placed it at the top of their priorities.

This struggle requires fairness, deep scientific knowledge, forward-looking vision and the support of citizens. However, if you do not understand the complexity of the challenge and are willing to fight certain attitudes, you should not put the same citizens at risk.

This is why in a noble effort to protect the health of consumers by improving current regulations on tobacco products, regulators consult various sources and collaborate with experts to make the best decisions aimed at protecting the health of their citizens.

However, in this Internet age where content can be created and distributed freely without responsibility or actual consequences, there is a lot of misinformation about the role of filters in tobacco products. If regulators consider this information in the decision-making process, it may lead to Cause greater harm to smokers and harm the entire public health.

Scientific contributions supporting the role of filters used in tobacco products are critical to the debate.

At the most basic level, filters for tobacco products work through the following main processes:

In an independent study published by the Hollins Cancer Center of the Medical University of South Carolina on the JAMA network in 2019, researchers found that unfiltered smokers are nearly 40% more likely to develop lung cancer and die from lung cancer. Sex increased nearly twice compared with those who smoked filter cigarettes. In addition, the all-cause mortality rate of smoking cigarettes without a filter is nearly 30% higher than smoking cigarettes with a filter.

In addition to these health evidences, we must also emphasize that there are currently no widely available and suitable filter alternatives on the market.

The European Single-use Plastics Directive came into effect on July 3, 2021, and has become a blueprint for most other countries to formulate regulations to limit plastic pollution. Several countries in Asia are currently evaluating the implementation of similar regulations to promote the development of non-plastic products. These new regulations are the driving force for innovation in new environmentally friendly materials and technologies, and we are gradually seeing an increase in intellectual property applications in this field.

Consumers are increasingly demanding more sustainable products, regulators are creating a framework to promote life cycle strategies, and investors are beginning to favor initiatives with clear ESG goals. All research supports the transformation of a better environment into better public health, and the fight against cancer must also reflect this influential holistic approach.

Considering this scientific evidence, decision makers should consider debates with different stakeholders to understand the importance of the arguments presented here. Science is evolving, and this evolution may contradict empirical knowledge. A serious and transparent debate inviting stakeholders to present and discuss the results of such scientific discoveries is essential to ensure better supervision. On this basis, it is important to let public opinion, especially the European Parliament, understand the above facts.

The European Parliament has the responsibility to promote such debates and to perform its duties and issue regulations after hearing the opinions of all stakeholders and evaluating scientifically proven facts. It is unwise to ignore the debate, and certainly not in the interests of citizens. The more debates, the better.

All in all, the Trillet-Lenoir report should consider and debate recent scientific facts in order to create the best possible results based on an important and noble legislation.

Copyright © 2021 The Brussels Times. all rights reserved.