Menthol Reduces Lung Cancer Risk

[Vocalek]

Saw the story in today's paper. On Google search, most of the headlines are saying that menthol cigarettes "pose no additional risk," but the study itself shows a 30% reduced risk of lung cancer among menthol smokers. Bloomberg reported it correctly: Menthol May Pose Lower Lung-Cancer Risk, Vanderbilt Study Finds - Bloomberg

Menthol cigarettes may pose a lower risk for lung cancer than unflavored versions, according to researchers at [URL="http://topics.bloomberg.com/vanderbilt-university/"]Vanderbilt University[/URL].

A seven-year study of almost 86,000 adults in 12 southern states found that menthol smokers also use fewer cigarettes a day than non-menthol smokers, said a report published online today in the Journal of the [URL="http://topics.bloomberg.com/national-cancer-institute/"]National Cancer Institute[/URL].

Went searching for the source article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. You can read the abstract here, but have to pay to read the entire article. Lung Cancer Risk Among Smokers of Menthol Cigarettes

In an editorial in 2009, the Washington Times stated:

The menthol exception makes the new regulation particularly toothless among blacks. Mentholated brands are preferred by three-quarters of black smokers. Blacks tend to be more likely to smoke and to smoke more. As a result, blacks suffer a disproportionate share of lung cancer.

EDITORIAL: Loophole creates toothless tobacco ban - Washington Times

Older research showed the lung cancer rate for menthol v. regular to be similar:

Menthol Cigarettes and Risk of Lung Cancer

 

[Vocalek]

Even though blacks are more likely to have lung cancer, they are not the largest smoking demographic.

About 25 percent of black men, 23 percent of white men and 42 percent of Native American and Alaska native men are smokers, the report said. Women smoke at lower rates - 18 percent of black women, 20.6 percent of white women and 22.4 percent of Native American and Alaska native women.

Native Americans and Alaska native men and women have the lowest lung cancer rate per 100,000 at 44.9.

Black men and women have the highest rate at 74.7 per 100,000, and the rate for whites is 64.4.

"Clearly something else is going on," Hicks said.

The report found that black neighborhoods typically have air toxin levels on average 1.5 times higher than other communities.

The report said that 68 percent of black families live within 30 miles of coal-fired power plants. That is 12 percent higher than most white communities.

Genetics could play a role as well, the study said.

Research shows that a specific gene occurs with higher frequency among black people and is linked with cotinine levels, the report said. Cotinine is a byproduct of nicotine that stays in the blood stream.

Report finds lung cancer rates higher among blacks | SHFWire

The report referred to is “Too Many Cases, Too Many Deaths: Lung Cancer in African Americans”

http://www.lungusa.org/assets/docum...g-disease-data/ala-lung-cancer-in-african.pdf

 

[MoonRose]

You will also find higher rates of lung cancer among lower income demographics in the continental US than you find in middle and upper income groups. I think not only genetics is at work here, but also overall nutritional and general health conditions related to one's income. The higher one's income the more nutritionly balanced one's diet thus the better overall health of someone.

 

[Vocalek]

And I can testify to the contribution of coal-burning power plants to air pollution. The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (CEICO) power plant was located right on the shore of Lake Erie where breezes blew the nasty back smoke inland. That plant was not too far away from "The Flats" where a number of steel mills operated. The Flats were the bottom land of the Cuyahoga River flowing into Lake Erie. Most of the rest of the city on either side of the river is dozens of feet higher. If you drove down the street in one of the poor neighborhoods that overlooked The Flats, you could observe paint peeling off all the houses and even the cars.

 

[MoonRose]

That's not to say that smoking doesn't increase the chances of getting lung cancer, because I'm sure that it does. But smoking in and of itself does not cause cancer, otherwise we would all have cancer. Having worked in Hospice for 5 years, the large majority of those I cared for had cancer and I can tell you for a fact that of those who had lung cancer, almost half of them had never smoked, lived with a smoker or worked somewhere that allowed smoking indoors, if I had to guess at a percentage I would put it at about 40%. Now when it comes to COPD or emphysema I would say that almost 75% had been smokers, lived with a smoker or had worked in a place that allowed indoor smoking.

 

[kristin]

Not to mention that African Americans tend to live in more urban areas, filled with pollution from factories and automobile emissions. And lower income groups also seem to have higher incidence of MJ use.

 

[Vocalek]

The number of stories with a headline and lead paragraph that state "No additional risk" are astonishing.

Yahoo News: Menthol Cigarettes Pose No Added Lung Cancer Risk: Study - Yahoo! News

Headline: Menthol Cigarettes Pose No Added Lung Cancer Risk: Study

Lead Paragraph:

WEDNESDAY, March 23 (HealthDay News) -- The risk of lung cancer for people who smoke menthol cigarettes is no greater than that of those who prefer regular cigarettes, researchers report.


I left this comment:

The headline and lead paragraph of this story are wrong! "No added lung cancer risk" implies that the researchers found the same rates of cancer among both menthol and non-menthol smokers. The article in the Journal of the American Cancer Institute is titled "Lung Cancer Risk Among Smokers of Menthol Cigarettes" Lung Cancer Risk Among Smokers of Menthol Cigarettes

The abstract states, "Menthol cigarettes were associated with a lower lung cancer incidence (OR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.47 to 0.90) and mortality (hazard ratio of mortality = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.49 to 0.95) than nonmenthol cigarettes." What that means is that for every 100 cases of lung cancer in non-menthol smokers,only 65 menthol smokers got lung cancer, and for every 100 deaths from lung cancer among non-menthol smokers, only 31 methol smokers with lung cancer died. Since when are "lower" and "no added" synonymous?

The thing is that later in this same story it states:

Menthol cigarettes were associated with lower lung cancer incidence and fewer lung cancer deaths than regular cigarettes, according to the study. For example, among people who smoked 20 or more cigarettes a day, menthol cigarette smokers were about 12 times more likely to develop lung cancer than never-smokers while the risk was about 21 times higher for smokers of regular cigarettes.

From the abstract:

A lower lung cancer incidence was noted in menthol vs nonmenthol smokers (for smokers of <10, 10–19, and ≥20 cigarettes per day, compared with never smokers, OR = 5.0 vs 10.3, 8.7 vs 12.9, and 12.2 vs 21.1, respectively).

Who cares about comparisons to "never smokers" unless you happen to be never smoker thinking about taking up the habit and asking yourself, "Should I go with regular or menthol?" Smokers cannot turn themselves into "never smokers'. Best we can do is "former smoker" and they didn't bother to look at that demographic.

More important is the comparison of menthol to non-menthol use. If a smoker who cannot quit could theoretically cut his lung cancer risk in half by switching to menthol, should we not make this information public, and report it accurately?

 

[Rar]

Wow, Vocalek! Thanks for posting this. I am/a menthol smoker (soon to be ex-smoker) and have always believed there was a higher lung cancer rate among menthol smokers.

 

[rothenbj]

Why don't they do these studies on population densities, perhaps because urban environments would produce much higher incidence of cancer than rural environments. Blacks have historically been in more urban settings, Native Americans more rural. It only seems logical to me that urban environments have higher levels of all forms of pollutants leading to higher levels of disease.

*Sorry Kristin, should have read all the posts before making this point, but it is a fact.

 

[rothenbj]

Moonrose that does make sense and I wouldn't be surprised to see those COPD numbers expand with RIP cigarettes.

 

[GMoney]

All these numbers are skewed anyway. tobacco certainly has a negative health impact, but one of the brilliant parts of the propaganda war was to get Doctors to make a determination that a person died from "XXXXX cancer or Heart Disease due to smoking". If anyone even looked at a cigarette, even if they were 400llbs and worked in a coal mine, it is attributed to tobacco.

I always laugh when they make statements like "menthol cigarettes "pose no additional risk,"" It is obvious they are dissembling, otherwise they would say menthol and regular cigarettes pose the same risk,

It is infuriating when they say "there are substances found in e-cigs that are in anti-freeze" ; what? DG that was a manufacturing error and found in harmless quantities; PG? yes, it is found in both - you won't hear the FDA saying it is found in asthma inhalers.

Watch out for terms like "Deaths from Tobacco Related Diseases" and understand that this is in NO way the same as "Deaths Attributable to Tobacco Use".

Unfortunately, these deceptive tactics work on the general public all too well.

 

[Demarko]

All these numbers are skewed anyway. Tobacco certainly has a negative health impact, but one of the brilliant parts of the propaganda war was to get Doctors to make a determination that a person died from "XXXXX cancer or Heart Disease due to smoking". If anyone even looked at a cigarette, even if they were 400llbs and worked in a coal mine, it is attributed to tobacco.

It's the same story with "automatic fault" car accident numbers. If a man stops and has 3 beers on his way home from work, and is promptly t-boned by a girl texting her boyfriend, he's automatically at fault.

The same goes for not having auto insurance in Washington state - the person without insurance is automatically at fault, unless trumped by the accident involving someone who is intoxicated. Same situation - no insurance, rear ended by a speeding texter? You're at fault even if you weren't moving.

Then, years later, they come out with studies showing the largest causes of accidents and sure enough, it's people drinking, followed by people without insurance!