Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Re: It's Time for a Change: Cigarette Smokers Deserve Meaningful Information About Their Cigarettes

Re: It's Time for a Change: Cigarette Smokers Deserve Meaningful Information About Their Cigarettes The January 19, 2000, issue of the Journal reported a new study (1) concerning the “Federal Trade Commission (FTC) method” used for reporting the tar and nicotine yields of cigarettes. Accompanying that study was an editorial by Wilkenfeld et al. (2) stating that the new study shows that cigarettes “branded as `lights' can provide deliveries of tar and nicotine that are similar to those of the regular versions” and suggesting that the FTC is somehow indifferent to the need to improve the system. In doing so, the editorial overlooks an important finding of the study and ignores the substantial efforts the FTC has made and is making to improve the current testing system. By way of background, it is important to understand that the FTC tar and nicotine measurement system, from its inception in 1966, was intended to provide a reasonably accurate ranking of available cigarettes according to the tar and nicotine they would deliver to smokers under identical smoking conditions. The method was never expected to provide an absolute (as opposed to relative) measure of the amount of tar and nicotine exposure individual smokers would receive; such a measure would have been (and still is) exceptionally difficult to develop. The system was successful in generating competition to lower machine-measured tar and nicotine yields. During the last 30 years that the system has been in place, the average sales-weighted machine-measured tar yield (3) has fallen from 21.6 to 12.0 mg. Whether lower machine-based yields translate into lower exposure to smokers, however, depends on whether smokers compensate for the reduced nicotine yields by covering vents, taking deeper or more frequent puffs, or smoking more cigarettes. A rich body of evidence shows that many smokers do engage in these behaviors. An important, but unheralded, finding of the study by Djordjevic et al. (1) is that, after adjusting the testing method to reflect actual smoking behavior, smokers of low-yield cigarettes had about 25% less exposure to harmful tobacco constituents than smokers of medium-yield cigarettes. Thus, at least in this study, consumers who smoked the cigarettes with the lower machine-measured tar and nicotine yields, in fact, received a reduction in their exposure to harmful cigarette smoke constituents, albeit less of a reduction than the FTC numbers would predict. The FTC agrees with Djordjevic et al. that improvements in the testing of cigarettes are needed. In 1997, the Commission proposed changes (4) to the test method that would have provided a range of ratings for cigarettes, with upper-tier smoking parameters closely resembling those observed in this study. In 1998, public health agencies requested that the Commission indefinitely suspend its ongoing attempt to modify the testing protocol until more could be learned about studies that find a lack of a relationship between lower machine-measured tar and nicotine levels and smoker mortality. At the Commission's request, a committee of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is currently conducting a review (5) of this important issue, with a mandate to make specific recommendations for changes in the testing methodology. The editorial by Wilkenfeld et al. also calls for FTC regulation to be replaced by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulation that would require cigarette manufacturers to “clearly and accurately [describe] the toxicity and addictiveness of their products to their consumers.” We agree that consumers should have better information about both the risks of smoking and about differences in cigarettes. We have previously recommended to Congress (6) that one of the federal government's science-based agencies be given responsibility for developing a cigarette test method, and we look forward to receiving the recommendations by the DHHS. A better and more comprehensive testing program can both provide consumers with better information about cigarettes and encourage manufacturers to develop and market new, less hazardous, products for those smokers who continue smoking, despite the government's best efforts to inform them of the health risk of any form of tobacco use. This new work by Djordjevic et al. provides valuable information for the search for a better cigarette testing system. It is an important addition to the data already being considered by the DHHS. References 1 Djordjevic MV, Stellman SD, Zang E. Doses of nicotine and lung carcinogens delivered to cigarette smokers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000 ; 92 : 106 –11. 2 Wilkenfeld J, Henningfield J, Slade J, Burns D, Pinney J. It's time for a change: cigarette smokers deserve meaningful information about their cigarettes. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000 ; 92 : 90 –2. 3 U.S. Federal Trade Commission. Tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide of the smoke of 1252 varieties of domestic cigarettes for the year 1997. Washington (DC): Federal Trade Commission; 1999. 4 U.S. Federal Trade Commission. Cigarette testing; request for public comment. Fed Reg III 1997 ; 62 : 48,157–63. 5 Correspondence from Donna E. Shalala, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, to The Honorable Robert Pitofsky, March 3, 1999. 6 U.S. Federal Trade Commission. Report to Congress pursuant to the federal cigarette labeling and advertising act. Washington (DC): Federal Trade Commission; 1999. © Oxford University Press http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute Oxford University Press

Re: It's Time for a Change: Cigarette Smokers Deserve Meaningful Information About Their Cigarettes

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/r-esponse-re-it-s-time-for-a-change-cigarette-smokers-deserve-vkmOyyH0jk

References (5)

Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© Oxford University Press
ISSN
0027-8874
eISSN
1460-2105
DOI
10.1093/jnci/92.10.842
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The January 19, 2000, issue of the Journal reported a new study (1) concerning the “Federal Trade Commission (FTC) method” used for reporting the tar and nicotine yields of cigarettes. Accompanying that study was an editorial by Wilkenfeld et al. (2) stating that the new study shows that cigarettes “branded as `lights' can provide deliveries of tar and nicotine that are similar to those of the regular versions” and suggesting that the FTC is somehow indifferent to the need to improve the system. In doing so, the editorial overlooks an important finding of the study and ignores the substantial efforts the FTC has made and is making to improve the current testing system. By way of background, it is important to understand that the FTC tar and nicotine measurement system, from its inception in 1966, was intended to provide a reasonably accurate ranking of available cigarettes according to the tar and nicotine they would deliver to smokers under identical smoking conditions. The method was never expected to provide an absolute (as opposed to relative) measure of the amount of tar and nicotine exposure individual smokers would receive; such a measure would have been (and still is) exceptionally difficult to develop. The system was successful in generating competition to lower machine-measured tar and nicotine yields. During the last 30 years that the system has been in place, the average sales-weighted machine-measured tar yield (3) has fallen from 21.6 to 12.0 mg. Whether lower machine-based yields translate into lower exposure to smokers, however, depends on whether smokers compensate for the reduced nicotine yields by covering vents, taking deeper or more frequent puffs, or smoking more cigarettes. A rich body of evidence shows that many smokers do engage in these behaviors. An important, but unheralded, finding of the study by Djordjevic et al. (1) is that, after adjusting the testing method to reflect actual smoking behavior, smokers of low-yield cigarettes had about 25% less exposure to harmful tobacco constituents than smokers of medium-yield cigarettes. Thus, at least in this study, consumers who smoked the cigarettes with the lower machine-measured tar and nicotine yields, in fact, received a reduction in their exposure to harmful cigarette smoke constituents, albeit less of a reduction than the FTC numbers would predict. The FTC agrees with Djordjevic et al. that improvements in the testing of cigarettes are needed. In 1997, the Commission proposed changes (4) to the test method that would have provided a range of ratings for cigarettes, with upper-tier smoking parameters closely resembling those observed in this study. In 1998, public health agencies requested that the Commission indefinitely suspend its ongoing attempt to modify the testing protocol until more could be learned about studies that find a lack of a relationship between lower machine-measured tar and nicotine levels and smoker mortality. At the Commission's request, a committee of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is currently conducting a review (5) of this important issue, with a mandate to make specific recommendations for changes in the testing methodology. The editorial by Wilkenfeld et al. also calls for FTC regulation to be replaced by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulation that would require cigarette manufacturers to “clearly and accurately [describe] the toxicity and addictiveness of their products to their consumers.” We agree that consumers should have better information about both the risks of smoking and about differences in cigarettes. We have previously recommended to Congress (6) that one of the federal government's science-based agencies be given responsibility for developing a cigarette test method, and we look forward to receiving the recommendations by the DHHS. A better and more comprehensive testing program can both provide consumers with better information about cigarettes and encourage manufacturers to develop and market new, less hazardous, products for those smokers who continue smoking, despite the government's best efforts to inform them of the health risk of any form of tobacco use. This new work by Djordjevic et al. provides valuable information for the search for a better cigarette testing system. It is an important addition to the data already being considered by the DHHS. References 1 Djordjevic MV, Stellman SD, Zang E. Doses of nicotine and lung carcinogens delivered to cigarette smokers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000 ; 92 : 106 –11. 2 Wilkenfeld J, Henningfield J, Slade J, Burns D, Pinney J. It's time for a change: cigarette smokers deserve meaningful information about their cigarettes. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000 ; 92 : 90 –2. 3 U.S. Federal Trade Commission. Tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide of the smoke of 1252 varieties of domestic cigarettes for the year 1997. Washington (DC): Federal Trade Commission; 1999. 4 U.S. Federal Trade Commission. Cigarette testing; request for public comment. Fed Reg III 1997 ; 62 : 48,157–63. 5 Correspondence from Donna E. Shalala, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, to The Honorable Robert Pitofsky, March 3, 1999. 6 U.S. Federal Trade Commission. Report to Congress pursuant to the federal cigarette labeling and advertising act. Washington (DC): Federal Trade Commission; 1999. © Oxford University Press

Journal

JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer InstituteOxford University Press

Published: May 17, 2000

There are no references for this article.