Disparities between public health educational materials and the scientific evidence that smokeless tobacco use causes cancer

Pancreatic Cancer Health Disparity: Pharmacologic Anthropology

Pancreatic cancer (PCa) remains a formidable global health challenge, with high mortality rates and limited treatment options. While advancements in pharmacology have led to improved outcomes for various cancers, PCa continues to exhibit significant health disparities, disproportionately affecting certain populations. This paper explores the intersection of pharmacology and anthropology in understanding the health disparities associated with PCa. By considering the socio-cultural, economic, and behavioral factors that influence the development, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of PCa, pharmacologic anthropology provides a comprehensive framework to address these disparities and improve patient care.

Public education about the relative harm of tobacco products: an intervention for tobacco control professionals

BACKGROUND

In the USA, new regulations require the collection of information on tobacco constituents by brand and variety and publication of this information in a way not likely to be misconstrued by consumers. Understanding of such information becomes increasingly important as new tobacco products are marketed and modifications are made to reduce the toxicity of some products. This pilot study assessed the current knowledge of tobacco control professionals regarding the relative harmfulness of several tobacco products, and evaluated an online educational intervention aimed at improving understanding of variations in nicotine and tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines (TSNAs).

METHODS

Fifty-two tobacco control professionals participated in an online intervention which presented and discussed the results of constituent analyses of Camel Snus and Marlboro Snus compared to several conventional smokeless tobacco products. Comparisons with cigarettes were also discussed. Pre- and post-intervention questions assessed understanding of the concepts.

RESULTS

Pre-intervention responses demonstrated that 31% did not know that cigarettes are more harmful than smokeless tobacco, 67% did not know that smokeless products higher in nicotine are likely to be more effective substitutes for cigarettes, 52% did not know TSNAs are the major carcinogens in tobacco and 81% did not know new snus products tend to be lower in TSNAs than conventional spit tobacco. After intervention participation, knowledge increased on all points except one where pretest results were 100% correct.

CONCLUSIONS

Public education campaigns are urgently needed for tobacco control professionals and consumers to increase awareness and understanding of the continuum of risk among tobacco products.

Smokeless Tobacco Risk Comparison and Other Debate Messages in the News

OBJECTIVES

Public health professionals have debated the use of smokeless tobacco (SLT) over cigarettes for harm reduction. This article describes SLT and cigarette risk comparisons and other SLT "debate" messages potentially reaching the public through news stories.

METHODS

We conducted a content analysis of SLT-related 2006-10 articles from top newspapers and selected news wires.

RESULTS

About 16% of articles (N = 677) referred to SLT as less harmful than smoking, attributing these messages to public health professionals as frequently as to tobacco company representatives. About 29% of articles included an "anti" SLT message, including variously phrased warnings that SLT is not a safe smoking alternative, or other potential consequences such as youth uptake.

CONCLUSION

Professionals should begin developing and using more consistent messages about SLT's risks.

A content analysis of smokeless tobacco coverage in U.S. newspapers and news wires

INTRODUCTION

Research attention on smokeless tobacco (SLT) has focused on SLT use, health risks, harm-reduction potential, and risk perceptions, but few studies have examined mediated communications about SLT. This study aims to contribute to the literature by providing the first description of SLT coverage in the news, an important communication channel given its ability to educate and shape public opinion about tobacco issues.

METHODS

A content analysis was conducted on SLT-related news and opinion articles between 2006 and 2010 from top circulating national and state newspapers and select news wires. Articles were coded for the main SLT topic, SLT risk references, and slant of opinion articles.

RESULTS

SLT was discussed in news/feature articles (n = 677) in terms of business (28%), new products, product regulation and harm reduction (19%), prevention/cessation (11.4%), taxation (10.2%), profiles/trends in use (9%), bans (8.1%), and tobacco industry promotional activities (4.9%). Health risk references (i.e., addictiveness, carcinogenicity, and specific health effects including oral cancer) were found in 40% of articles, though frequency differed by article topic. Although the majority of opinion articles (n = 176) conveyed an anti-SLT slant (64%), 25.6% were pro-SLT.

CONCLUSIONS

SLT topics of both national and local importance are covered in the news. Public health professionals can participate in SLT coverage by sending in press releases about new study findings, events, or resources and by submitting opinion pieces to share views or respond to previous coverage. Research on SLT news should continue given its potential to shape the public's SLT knowledge and opinions.

Exploring attitudes regarding smokeless tobacco products for risk reduction

Utilizing qualitative data analysis, this study focused on the attitudes, knowledge, and beliefs relating to smokeless tobacco (ST) as a reduced-risk cigarette substitute for smokers among focus groups from the general public and from the health profession. It revealed that there is a lack of awareness and understanding of ST products, which has a significant impact on overall perception of these products as acceptable substitutes. Regulatory actions regarding tobacco by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration should enhance consumers' access to accurate information about nicotine addiction and tobacco use.

Association between willingness to use snus to quit smoking and perception of relative risk between snus and cigarettes

INTRODUCTION

Smokers are often incorrect in their assessment of the relative risk of snus and cigarettes. We have studied how perception of risks of snus compared with cigarettes was associated with the willingness of trying snus as a quit-smoking method.

METHODS

Fourteen thousand seven hundred and forty-four Norwegian men aged 20-50 years were selected at random from a national representative web panel and sent a questionnaire by e-mail. Of the 7,170 (48.6%) who responded, there were 1,155 former daily smokers who reported method for quitting smoking and 1,213 current daily smokers who stated their willingness to try different methods for quitting smoking. They were also asked to assess the relative risk between daily use of snus and cigarettes.

RESULTS

Adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for reporting willingness to try snus in future quit attempts was significantly higher (AOR = 4.82, p < .001) for the 22.9% of the current smokers who, consistent with scientific evidence, believed that the health risks were "far lower" for snus than for cigarettes compared with the 39.8% who incorrectly perceived the health risks to be "equal or higher" for snus (reference AOR = 1). About 37.2% of the daily smokers believed that the risk was "somewhat lower" for snus than for cigarettes and had a significantly higher AOR of reporting willingness to try snus (AOR = 2.31, p < .001) compared with the reference group.

CONCLUSION

Devising a way to inform smokers about the risk continuum of tobacco products could be an important research priority in countries where snus is allowed to compete with cigarettes for market share.

Chemical and toxicological characterization of commercial smokeless tobacco products available on the Canadian market

Some health experts are recommending that smokers who refuse to quit or refuse to use nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) such as nicotine-containing chewing gum switch to certain types of smokeless tobacco products (STP) such as Swedish snus. Other health experts disagree citing the uncertainty in the composition of commercially available STP, the lack of governmental regulations to ensure that STP advertised to meet certain standards (i.e., GothiaTek) do actually meet such standards, and the uncertainty that any STP can provide as safe as alternative to smoking as NRT. One reason for uncertainty is the dearth of detailed chemical and toxicological information on contemporary STP. Unlike the situation with cigarettes, there are few standardized methods for analytical and toxicological studies of STP. Consequently, the objective for this work was to characterize several types of STP available on the Canadian market using the modifications of the Official Health Canada chemical and toxicological methods developed for cigarettes. Moist snuff samples tested had TSNA and B[a]P levels somewhat above the GothiaTek standard while samples of Swedish snus, low-moisture snuff, and US-style chewing tobacco did not. Use of in vitro assays to assess STP toxicity was of limited utility in distinguishing product types.

Meta-analysis of the relation between European and American smokeless tobacco and oral cancer

BACKGROUND

Smokeless tobacco is often referred to as a major contributor to oral cancer. In some regions, especially Southeast Asia, the risk is difficult to quantify due to the variety of products, compositions (including non-tobacco ingredients) and usage practices involved. In Western populations, the evidence of an increased risk in smokeless tobacco users seems unclear, previous reviews having reached somewhat differing conclusions. We report a detailed quantitative review of the evidence in American and European smokeless tobacco users, and compare our findings with previous reviews and meta-analyses.

METHODS

Following literature review a meta-analysis was conducted of 32 epidemiological studies published between 1920 and 2005 including tests for homogeneity and publication bias.

RESULTS

Based on 38 heterogeneous study-specific estimates of the odds ratio or relative risk for smokeless tobacco use, the random-effects estimate was 1.87 (95% confidence interval 1.40-2.48). The increase was mainly evident in studies conducted before 1980. No increase was seen in studies in Scandinavia. Restricting attention to the seven estimates adjusted for smoking and alcohol eliminated both heterogeneity and excess risk (1.02; 0.82-1.28). Estimates also varied by sex (higher in females) and by study design (higher in case-control studies with hospital controls) but more clearly in studies where estimates were unadjusted, even for age. The pattern of estimates suggests some publication bias. Based on limited data specific to never smokers, the random-effects estimate was 1.94 (0.88-4.28), the eight individual estimates being heterogeneous and based on few exposed cases.

CONCLUSION

Smokeless tobacco, as used in America or Europe, carries at most a minor increased risk of oral cancer. However, elevated risks in specific populations or from specific products cannot definitely be excluded.

Should the health community promote smokeless tobacco (snus) as a harm reduction measure?

The tobacco control community is divided on whether or not to inform the public that using oral, smokeless tobacco (Swedish snus) is less hazardous to health than smoking tobacco. Proponents of "harm reduction" point to the Swedish experience. Snus seems to be widely used as an alternative to cigarettes in Sweden, say these proponents, contributing to the low overall prevalence of smoking and smoking-related disease. Harm reduction proponents thus argue that the health community should actively inform inveterate cigarette smokers of the benefits of switching to snus. However, critics of harm reduction say that snus has its own risks, that no form of tobacco should ever be promoted, and that Sweden's experience is likely to be specific to that culture and not transferable to other settings. Critics also remain deeply suspicious that the tobacco industry will use snus marketing as a "gateway" to promote cigarettes. In the interests of promoting debate, the authors (who are collaborators on a research project on the future of tobacco control) have agreed to outline the strongest arguments for and against promoting Swedish snus as a form of harm reduction.

Tobacco harm reduction: an alternative cessation strategy for inveterate smokers

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 45 million Americans continue to smoke, even after one of the most intense public health campaigns in history, now over 40 years old. Each year some 438,000 smokers die from smoking-related diseases, including lung and other cancers, cardiovascular disorders and pulmonary diseases. Many smokers are unable--or at least unwilling--to achieve cessation through complete nicotine and tobacco abstinence; they continue smoking despite the very real and obvious adverse health consequences. Conventional smoking cessation policies and programs generally present smokers with two unpleasant alternatives: quit, or die. A third approach to smoking cessation, tobacco harm reduction, involves the use of alternative sources of nicotine, including modern smokeless tobacco products. A substantial body of research, much of it produced over the past decade, establishes the scientific and medical foundation for tobacco harm reduction using smokeless tobacco products. This report provides a description of traditional and modern smokeless tobacco products, and of the prevalence of their use in the United States and Sweden. It reviews the epidemiologic evidence for low health risks associated with smokeless use, both in absolute terms and in comparison to the much higher risks of smoking. The report also describes evidence that smokeless tobacco has served as an effective substitute for cigarettes among Swedish men, who consequently have among the lowest smoking-related mortality rates in the developed world. The report documents the fact that extensive misinformation about ST products is widely available from ostensibly reputable sources, including governmental health agencies and major health organizations. The American Council on Science and Health believes that strong support of tobacco harm reduction is fully consistent with its mission to promote sound science in regulation and in public policy, and to assist consumers in distinguishing real health threats from spurious health claims. As this report documents, there is a strong scientific and medical foundation for tobacco harm reduction, and it shows great potential as a public health strategy to help millions of smokers.

You might as well smoke; the misleading and harmful public message about smokeless tobacco

BACKGROUND

Compared to smoking cigarettes, use of Western smokeless tobacco (ST) products is associated with a very small risk of life-threatening disease (with estimates in the range of a few percent of the risk from smoking, or even less). This means that smokers can realize substantial health benefits by switching to ST, an obvious substitute. But consumers and policy makers have little chance of learning that ST is much less dangerous than smoking because popular information provided by experts and advocates overstates the health risks from ST relative to cigarettes.

METHODS

To examine the extent of this overstatement in one medium, we conducted a systematic review of websites containing information about ST and health risks. We examined the content of 316 relevant websites identified by a Google search.

RESULTS

We found that when any substantive information about the risk from ST is given, the risk is almost universally conflated with the risk from cigarettes. Accurate comparative risk information was quite rare, provided by only a handful of websites, all appearing low in our search results (i.e., of low popularity and thus unlikely to be found by someone searching for information). About 1/3 of the websites, including various authoritative entities, explicitly claimed that ST is as bad as or worse than cigarettes. Most of the other sites made statements that imply the risks are comparable.

CONCLUSION

Through these websites, and presumably other information provided by the same government, advocacy, and educational organizations, ST users are told, in effect, that they might as well switch to smoking if they like it a bit more. Smokers and policy makers are told there is no potential for harm reduction. These messages are clearly false and likely harmful, representing violations of ethical standards.