[NOTE: These comments were published in the medical journal tobacco Control on 9 August 2010 as a response to an article by Adrienne B Mejia, Pamela M Ling, and Stanton A Glantz.
Quantifying the effects of promoting smokeless tobacco as a harm reduction strategy in the USA. Tob Control 2010;19:297-305.
Dr. Joel Nitzkin of the American Association of Public Health Physicians also commented. He described the article as reporting on "a number of Monte Carlo simulations based on a set of totally unrealistic assumptions to reach the conclusion that promoting smokeless tobacco as a safer alternative to cigarettes is unlikely to result in substantial health benefits at a population level." My comments below were addressed to the authors of the article.]
What if we told smokers (and their doctors) the truth?
What if the government changed the warning labels to read "THIS PRODUCT IS NOT A 100% SAFE ALTERNATIVE TO SMOKING"? See what a difference one tiny change can make? This would lead folks to ask, "Well if it's not 100% safe, how much safer is it?"
The way the message is worded now, 85% of the people who read it conclude it means that smokeless tobacco products cause just as much disease and premature deaths as smoking. [1] We know it isn't true. But smokers don't know that.
And then what if the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, American Medical Society, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention informed smokers that their excess risk of lung disease would be totally eliminated if they switched from smoking to smokeless? What if they compared continued smoking with switching to smokeless and told the public the comparative odds of developing various types cancers, having a heart attack or a stroke?
We know that users of smokeless tobacco products have a lower mortality rate from all these diseases than continuing smokers. [2,3] We know that for most diseases, the Swedish snus user's mortality risks are reduced to the level of those who gave up all use of tobacco. [4] We know all that. But the smokers do not know that.
Most smokers do not read medical journals. They rely on the popular press and information provided by respected organizations that claim to have public health as a mission.
Curiously, most physicians are just as misinformed as their smoking patients. What if the doctors were to learn that their patients could reduce their risk of developing a smoking-related disease by 90 to 99% if they switch completely to a smokeless form of tobacco? Might not more smokers give snus a try if their own doctor told them it was safer than smoking?
What if the FDA required the tobacco companies to develop and conduct advertising campaigns aimed at convincing smokers to switch to smokeless products?
What if we did all these things? What effect would that have on the number of U.S. smokers who switch and consequently on the smoking-related morbidity and mortality rates? Factor in truth-telling and run those Monte Carlo simulations again.
Elaine D. Keller, Writer
CASAA.org
References:
[1] Phillips, C.V. et al. You might as well smoke; the misleading and harmful public message about smokeless tobacco. BMC Public Health 2005, 5:31doi:10.1186/1471-2458-5-31.
[2] Accortt, N.A., et al. Chronic Disease Mortality in a Cohort of Smokeless Tobacco Users. American Journal of Epidemiology 2002; 156:730- 737
[3] Roth, H.D. et al. Health Risks of Smoking Compared to Swedish Snus. Inhalation Toxicology, 17:741-748, 2005.
[4] Gartner C.E, et al., Assessment of Swedish snus for tobacco harm reduction: an epidemiological modeling study. Lancet. 2007 Jun 16;369(9578):2010-4
Link to the comments:
Replies to Quantifying the effects of promoting smokeless tobacco as a harm reduction strategy in the USA
Quantifying the effects of promoting smokeless tobacco as a harm reduction strategy in the USA. Tob Control 2010;19:297-305.
Dr. Joel Nitzkin of the American Association of Public Health Physicians also commented. He described the article as reporting on "a number of Monte Carlo simulations based on a set of totally unrealistic assumptions to reach the conclusion that promoting smokeless tobacco as a safer alternative to cigarettes is unlikely to result in substantial health benefits at a population level." My comments below were addressed to the authors of the article.]
What if we told smokers (and their doctors) the truth?
What if the government changed the warning labels to read "THIS PRODUCT IS NOT A 100% SAFE ALTERNATIVE TO SMOKING"? See what a difference one tiny change can make? This would lead folks to ask, "Well if it's not 100% safe, how much safer is it?"
The way the message is worded now, 85% of the people who read it conclude it means that smokeless tobacco products cause just as much disease and premature deaths as smoking. [1] We know it isn't true. But smokers don't know that.
And then what if the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, American Medical Society, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention informed smokers that their excess risk of lung disease would be totally eliminated if they switched from smoking to smokeless? What if they compared continued smoking with switching to smokeless and told the public the comparative odds of developing various types cancers, having a heart attack or a stroke?
We know that users of smokeless tobacco products have a lower mortality rate from all these diseases than continuing smokers. [2,3] We know that for most diseases, the Swedish snus user's mortality risks are reduced to the level of those who gave up all use of tobacco. [4] We know all that. But the smokers do not know that.
Most smokers do not read medical journals. They rely on the popular press and information provided by respected organizations that claim to have public health as a mission.
Curiously, most physicians are just as misinformed as their smoking patients. What if the doctors were to learn that their patients could reduce their risk of developing a smoking-related disease by 90 to 99% if they switch completely to a smokeless form of tobacco? Might not more smokers give snus a try if their own doctor told them it was safer than smoking?
What if the FDA required the tobacco companies to develop and conduct advertising campaigns aimed at convincing smokers to switch to smokeless products?
What if we did all these things? What effect would that have on the number of U.S. smokers who switch and consequently on the smoking-related morbidity and mortality rates? Factor in truth-telling and run those Monte Carlo simulations again.
Elaine D. Keller, Writer
CASAA.org
References:
[1] Phillips, C.V. et al. You might as well smoke; the misleading and harmful public message about smokeless tobacco. BMC Public Health 2005, 5:31doi:10.1186/1471-2458-5-31.
[2] Accortt, N.A., et al. Chronic Disease Mortality in a Cohort of Smokeless Tobacco Users. American Journal of Epidemiology 2002; 156:730- 737
[3] Roth, H.D. et al. Health Risks of Smoking Compared to Swedish Snus. Inhalation Toxicology, 17:741-748, 2005.
[4] Gartner C.E, et al., Assessment of Swedish snus for tobacco harm reduction: an epidemiological modeling study. Lancet. 2007 Jun 16;369(9578):2010-4
Link to the comments:
Replies to Quantifying the effects of promoting smokeless tobacco as a harm reduction strategy in the USA
