Six Arguments For the Elimination of Cigarettes

Prohibition and the “tobacco control endgame.”

Despite all our efforts in recent years to reduce the percentage of Americans who smoke cigarettes—currently about one in five—the idea of full-blown cigarette prohibition has not gained much traction. That may be changing, as prominent nicotine researchers and public police officials start thinking about what is widely referred to as the “tobacco control endgame.”

Considering the new regulatory powers given the FDA under the terms of the Tobacco Control Act of 2009, as a commentary in Tobacco Control framed it, “will the government be a facilitator or barrier to the effective implementation of strategies designed to achieve this public health goal?”
Two newer approaches have gained some traction in the research community: Reduce the level of nicotine in cigarette products (the FDA is prohibited by law from reducing nicotine content to zero), and continuing to emphasize the non-combustible forms. Plus, everybody pretty much agrees on higher prices.

Here are the six arguments for going all the way:

1) Death. Six million of them a year, worldwide, a number that will grow before it starts shrinking. A billion deaths this century, compared to 100 million in the 20th Century. Robert Proctor, author of The Golden Holocaust and a professor of history at Stanford, whose six arguments these are, calls the cigarette “the deadliest object in the history of human civilization.” So there’s that.

2) Other product defects. The cigarette is defective, Proctor writes in defense of his six arguments in Tobacco Control, because it is “not just dangerous but unreasonably dangerous, killing half its long-term users.” Indeed, it is hard to imagine the FDA green-lighting a drug product like that today. In addition, Proctor claims cigarettes are defective because the tobacco has been altered by flue curing to make it far more inhalable than would otherwise be the case. “The world’s present epidemic of lung cancer is almost entirely due to the use of low pH flue-cured tobacco in cigarettes, an industry-wide practice that could be reversed at any time.”

3) Financial burdens. These can be reckoned principally in terms of the costs of treating smoking-related illnesses. This, in turn, leads to diminished labor productivity, especially in the developing world, a process that “in many parts of the world makes the poor even poorer,” Proctor observes.

4) Big Tobacco’s impact on science. By sponsoring shoddy and distracting research, by publishing “decoy” findings and by otherwise confusing and corrupting scientific discourse on the cigarette question in the advertising-dependent popular media. The tobacco industry has proved to everyone’s satisfaction that it can put politicians and regulators under intense pressure to see things its way. Not to mention other institutions that have been “bullied, corrupted or exploited,” according to Proctor: The AMA, The American Law Institute, sports organizations, Hollywood, the military, and the U.S. Congress, for starters. (Until 2011, American submarines were not smoke-free.)

5) Environmental harms. More than you might think falls into this category: Deforestation, pesticide use, loss of savannah woodlands for charcoal used in flue curing, fossil fuels for curing and transport, fires caused by burning cigarettes, etc.

6) Smokers want to quit. Smoking is not a recreational drug, as Proctor takes pains to point out. Most smokers hate it and wish they could quit. This makes cigarettes different from alcohol or marijuana, Proctor insists. He quotes a Canadian tobacco executive, who said that smoking isn’t like drinking; it’s more like being an alcoholic. This rings true to for the majority of addicted smokers I know, and was certainly true of me when I was a smoker.


So there it is, the case for tobacco prohibition. But hasn’t all this prohibition business been tried and found wanting? We know the results of drug and alcohol prohibition, whatever their rationales: Smuggling, organized crime, increased law enforcement, more money. This argument, says Proctor, has been central to the cigarette industry since forever: “Bans are ridiculed as impractical or tyrannical. (First they come for your cigarettes…)”

Proctor’s response is that smuggling is already common, and people should be free to grow tobacco for their personal use. He advocates a ban on sales, not possession.

There are at least two major obstacles to cigarette prohibition. First, an enormous amount of tax revenue is generated by the production and sale of cigarettes. And the troubling question of a steep rise in black marketeering goes largely ignored or unaddressed. In the same special issue of Tobacco Control, Peter Reuter has sobering thoughts on that front: “Cigarette black markets are commonplace in high tax jurisdictions. For example, estimates are that contraband cigarettes now account for 20-30% of the Canadian market, which has restrained government enthusiasm for raising taxes further. All the proposed ‘endgame’ proposals for shrinking cigarette prevalence toward zero run the risk of creating black markets.”

In the end, Proctor argues that the cigarette industry itself has repeatedly promised to quit the business if its products where ever found to be profoundly harmful to consumers. As recently as 1997, Philip Morris CEO Geoffrey Bible swore under oath that if cigarettes were found to cause cancer “I’d probably… shut it down instantly to get a better hold on things.” Incredible statements like this by company executives go back to the 1950s. Perhaps it’s time to let them stop lying. “The cigarette, as presently constituted,” writes Proctor, “is simply too dangerous—and destructive and unloved—to be sold.”

Proctor R.N. (2013). Why ban the sale of cigarettes? The case for abolition, Tobacco Control, 22 (Supplement 1) i27-i30. DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050811

Photo: AAP/April Fonti

Novartis Gives Up On Nicotine Vaccine

Another one bites the dust.

Novartis, a leading health care products company, called it quits on its NIC002 nicotine vaccine project, which failed badly three years ago in Phase II studies undertaken with an eye toward government approval. Novartis said it would terminate the license it has for the NIC002 vaccine with Cytos Biotechnology, for which it paid $38 million in 2007. The Phase II study “showed formation of nicotine-specific antibodies in patients but did not meet its primary endpoint of increased smoking cessation,” according to Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News

Much the same arc was followed by Nabi Biopharmaceuticals, which announced in 2011 that its vaccine, NicVax, had failed to outdo placebos in Phase III clinical trials—the only addiction vaccine to advance that far in the approval process. The company’s own studies had shown happier results in 2007. In regulatory filings, the company claimed that the NicVax vaccine triggered a reliable antibody response, thus preventing nicotine molecules from reaching the brain. The antibodies bind with the nicotine molecules, making nicotine too large to cross the exceedingly fine blood-brain barrier of the brain. Roughly 15 per cent of smokers who received injections of NicVax were nicotine-free after one year in company-funded studies. For comparison, early studies of Chantix as an anti-smoking medication show a quit response rate in the range of 20 per cent for heavy smokers.

As I have previously written, the idea of vaccinating for addictions is not new. If you want the body to recognize a nicotine molecule as a foe rather than a friend, one strategy is to attach nicotine molecules to a foreign body--commonly a protein that the body ordinarily rejects--in order to switch on the body’s immune responses against the invader. A strong advantage to this approach, say researchers, is that the vaccinated compound does not enter the brain and therefore is free of neurological side effects.

There remain a wealth of questions related to the effects of long-lasting antibodies. And it is sometimes possible to “swamp” the vaccine by ingesting four or five times as much cocaine or nicotine as usual.

Drugs that substantially reduce a smoker’s craving for nicotine, like Chantix, may yet prove to be a more fruitful avenue of investigation. While several anti-craving medications have been approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), no vaccines have made it onto the approved list. However, as the Genetic Engineering article reminds us, “all is not lost for the vaccine yet: in November of 2010, Duke University, in collaboration with Wake Forest University, commenced a Phase II clinical study with NIC002 performed with 65 smokers that aims to assess how nicotine antibodies, induced by vaccination, affect the pharmacokinetics of nicotine during cigarette smoking. The study is being conducted in the United States with funding from the NIH.”

Photo: Creative Commons / juliealicea1947

Big Tobacco Makes a Move Into E-Cigarettes

“A battery-operated, addiction-based market.”

While the FDA dithered, and health advocates argued, Big Tobacco began placing its bets on the e-cigarette market last year. Tobacco firm Lorillard Inc., the third largest tobacco company in America, bought privately held Blue Ecigs of Charlotte, N.C., for $135 million, driven by what the company says is a market that’s been doubling ever year since e-cigs first arrived from China in 2008.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Blue Ecigs had $30 million in revenues last year, selling through retail outlets like Walgreens, where it competes with e-brands such as NJOY and 21s Century. The FDA has announced vague plans to regulate, and state lawmakers have threatened to ban them outright, or at least place them under the same public smoking bans as cigarettes—bans that some e-smokers love to flout. (E-cigarette manufacturers, based primarily in Asia, quickly changed the electric orange glow at the end of the e-cigarette to a cool shade of blue, to help make clear to bartenders and bouncers that the thing wasn’t a lit cigarette.)

Meanwhile, Reynolds, an industry leader in smokeless products, is developing its own line of e-cigs, and is test-marketing its Vuse and Zonnic brands. “We will be in this category in 2013,” an RJ Reynolds representative said in a CNBC article by Jane Wells. “We have very big plans.”

Altria, the industry giant, is now generating $1.6 billion from smokeless tobacco products, and is expected to make a move into what is viewed as a billion-dollar industry with unlimited growth potential. Last year, the company began testing a new “nicotine-extract product” called Verve, a lozenge that can be sucked or chewed and contains about 1.5 milligrams of nicotine. Late last year, the company reportedly engaged in acquisition talks with e-cig maker Eonsmoke.

Meanwhile, the company that invented the electronic cigarette, Dragonite/Ruyan, is suing practically everybody. And the Argentinean and Venezuelan governments have attempted to ban the use and marketing of electronic cigarettes altogether.

In December, astute American TV viewers may have noticed what looked for all the world like a television commercial for cigarettes—the first since 1971, when Congress banned cigarette ads on TV. It was a commercial for NJOY Kings electronic cigarettes, a brand that currently owns about one-third of the U.S. e-cig market. Patent lawyer Mark Weiss, who founded NJOY, told Time that the company was only competing for the 45 million Americans who are current smokers, not attempting to make new recruits. In the article, Weiss noted three advantages for e-cigarettes: They’re odor free, they don’t burn tobacco, and, at about $8 per e-cigarette, Weiss claims, they’ll last you as long as two regular packs of cigarettes.

When major tobacco companies make moves like this, people notice. “I think they see this as an opportunity to get a seat at the table with opportunities to talk to the FDA about regulation over this growing category,” according to Bonnie Herzog, senior analyst and managing director of tobacco, beverage and consumer research for Wells Fargo Securities. “Lorillard wants to help steer that conversation in the right direction.”

While still a relatively modest market—no more than $500 million, compared to the $100 billion tobacco market in the U.S.—electronic cigarettes have the potential of becoming the most contentious entry in the market for nicotine delivery systems since the advent of the machine-rolled cigarette. “We think e-cigs are to tobacco what energy drinks are to beverages,” Herzog told the media.

Lorillard chairman and CEO Murray Kessler said in an earnings conference call late last year that with e-cigarettes, “you get all of the benefits of not having combustion, but on the other hand you are maintaining the behavior that cigarette smokers enjoyed.” That’s one way of putting it. And according to critics, that’s part of the problem. Anti-smoking activists often view e-cigarettes as gateway products for young adults.

They are cheaper, primarily because of heavy taxes on traditional cigarettes, and produce no second-hand smoke, only steam-like vapor that quickly dissipates. But they have had a rocky start in the U.S. An article in the Winston-Salem Journal in prime tobacco country stated that consumers have “shied away out of safety concerns since most e-cigs are made in China.” Even North Carolina health officials have expressed concerns about “limited regulatory oversight of their contents.” But according to Wells Fargo’s Herzog, Lorillard’s purchase of Blu Ecigs had the effect of “lending credibility and legitimacy to the entire category.”

Brad Rodu, professor of medicine at the University of Louisville, insisted that “tobacco manufacturers have an obligation to smokers to develop, manufacture and sell these vastly safer cigarette substitutes.” In this view, smokers smoke for the nicotine, but it’s the tar that kills them. 

In the same Winston-Salem Journal article, a professor of family and community medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine said that “many of the carcinogens in tobacco are volatile and would vaporize, and thus be inhaled when heated. I would not recommend that product.”

It seems safe to predict that this “battery-operated, addiction-based market,” as Forbes dubbed it, will be one to watch.

Cigarettes: Should the FDA Mandate a National Taper?

Addiction expert calls for reduced-nicotine tobacco.

For years now, nicotine researcher Neal Benowitz has been a man on a mission. Dr. Benowitz, a professor of medicine at the University of California in San Francisco, has been pushing a Big Idea about how to eliminate cigarette smoking in America: Reduce the amount of nicotine in cigarettes.

In essence, Benowitz is calling for a national nicotine taper. Whether the FDA is interested remains an open question. But the result, several years down the road, would be a nation of teenagers confronted with only weakly addictive tobacco products.

It is an old idea, often viewed with great suspicion because of the failure of “light” and “low-tar” cigarettes to reduce nicotine intake, and in fact causing smokers to smoke harder. But Benowitz, one of the nation’s premier tobacco scientists, believes that when it comes to the roughly one out of five Americans who still smoke, a new generation of so-called “low-nicotine delivery” cigarettes is the answer. 

In a controlled study of 135 smokers of various ages, participants smoked cigarettes with progressively lower nicotine over a two-year period, and did so “without evidence of compensation”—meaning that they did not smoke more cigarettes or smoke differently when using the low-nicotine offerings. This varies dramatically from the behavior associated with light cigarettes and special filters—innovations that were marketed as “safer” cigarettes—that simply increase ventilation. The light cigarettes themselves contain the same amount of nicotine as a “regular” cigarette. And smokers quickly learn to puff harder, or cover small holes in the filter paper with their fingers, in order to extract more nicotine from each cigarette.

But with low-nicotine delivery cigarettes, you can’t get more nicotine, no matter what kind of smoker’s gyrations you perform. And the result, according to a paper by Benowitz and coworkers in Cancer, Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, is that “when the nicotine content of cigarettes is progressively decreased at monthly intervals over 6 months there is a progressive decline in nicotine intake by smokers, with only a small degree of compensation at the lowest nicotine content levels.”

The two-year study was randomized but unblinded, in order to simulate situations in which smokers are fully aware of using cigarettes with progressively less nicotine. A control group smoked their usual brands of cigarettes throughout the study. Benowitz, who led the studied, said in prepared remarks that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) now has the authority to regulate the nicotine content of cigarettes sold in the U.S. (Benowitz is a member of the FDA’s Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee.) “The idea is to reduce people’s nicotine intake, so that they get used to the lower levels, and eventually get to the point where smoking is no longer satisfying.”

The study was small, and there were dropouts. As always, further long-term study will be needed to track smokers during this kind of long-term nicotine taper. Traditionally, tapering has not been an effective method of breaking a nicotine addiction. But the reason for that may have to do with the easy availability of full-strength cigarettes in every store and gas station. The obvious goal for Benowitz is the reduction of nicotine in cigarettes to the point where they are no longer addictive. But would a robust black market in strong cigarettes leap up if nicotine reduction were a federally mandated program?

“Progressive reduction of the nicotine content of cigarettes as a national regulatory policy might have important potential benefits for the population,” the authors write, adding that “some people who had no intention of quitting upon entry into the study had… either quit spontaneously or were thinking about quitting in the near future after smoking reduced-nicotine content cigarettes.” Low-nicotine cigarettes could be produced by extracting nicotine from existing tobacco, or by genetically engineering tobacco with a lower nicotine content.

“Adolescents initiate smoking for social reasons, with friends, and later begin to smoke for pharmacologic reasons related to dependence,” the authors conclude. “Presumably a cigarette with very low nicotine content would be less likely to support the transition from social to dependent smoking, although the threshold level of nicotine to prevent this transition is not yet known.”

Benowitz NL, Dains KM, Hall SM, Stewart S, Wilson M, Dempsey D, & Jacob P 3rd (2012). Smoking behavior and exposure to tobacco toxicants during 6 months of smoking progressively reduced nicotine content cigarettes. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 21 (5), 761-9 PMID: 22354905

Photo Credit: http://chronicle.uchicago.edu

High-Risk Haplotypes in Smokers

It’s getting harder to interpret genetics studies, and that’s a good thing.

Reporting the results of published studies concerned with genetic risk factors has always been a tricky proposition. Beyond the inevitable, and too often ideological nature/nurture split, there has been an unfortunate history of false positives in the rush to make news with a “gene for” alcoholism or schizophrenia or belief in God.

But single gene theories are mostly a thing of the past, and results tend to be broader and more tentative, as befits the state of our knowledge about genes and risk in a post-epigenetic landscape. Nonetheless, there’s no denying that genes play a strong role in all kinds of behaviors and processes. A large group of U.S. tobacco researchers went looking for associations between genetic risk factors and the ability to stop smoking successfully, and published their results in the American Journal of Psychiatry. The group came down strongly in favor of the proposition that genetic variations in the chromosome 15q25 region help dictate who manages to quit smoking and who does not.

The genetic variants in question are for nicotine receptors, and are called CHRNA5-CHRNA3-CHRNB4. They compose a “high-risk haplotype” that Li-Shiun Chen and coworkers believe to be involved in the ability to quit. (A haplotype is a combination of DNA sequences on a chromosome that are transmitted as a unit). People with these genetic variants “quit later than those at low genetic risk; this difference was manifested as a 2-year delay in median quit age.” However, this association tended to wash out at very high levels of smoking. Nonetheless, “pharmacological cessation treatment significantly increased the likelihood of abstinence in individuals with the high-risk haplotype,” compared to the low-risk group.

The suspicious haplotypes did not reliably predict tobacco abstinence across all groups that were studied. And any pharmacological treatment at all vastly increases abstinence rates, compared to placebo, while those who smoke the fewest cigarettes per day have the best shot at abstinence no matter what. In one sense, all the study is saying is that anti-craving drugs are more likely to be effective in smokers “who are biologically predisposed to have difficulty quitting.” Other smokers may not need them at all as a quitting aid—which is very much as common sense would have it. But further research in this area may allow medical workers to genetically identify smokers who will definitely require a pharmacological booster shot to overcome their crippling addiction.

In brief, the study says that success in quitting may be directly modulated by certain types of genetic variation among smokers. And genetic variations influencing quitting success may be different from gene variants controlling for “severity of nicotine dependence” (how many cigarettes you smoke), and whether you get addicted in the first place. It is all very complicated. But it’s the sort of thing that gives researchers hope when they contemplate deploying forms of personalized medicine in addiction treatment.

Study limitations abound. The work looked at only one genetic locus, while the success of smoking cessation might depend on multiple gene sites. The placebo arm was relatively small, and the smoking reports were obtained through a combination of biochemical confirmation and self-reporting.

Baker, T. (2012). Interplay of Genetic Risk Factors (CHRNA5-CHRNA3-CHRNB4) and Cessation Treatments in Smoking Cessation Success American Journal of Psychiatry DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.11101545

Graphics Credit: (Li-Shiun Chen)

Science, Academia, and Tobacco

A review of The Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition

Part III

Academic collaborations come in many flavors. Just because the money is corporate doesn’t mean the studies that are funded are flawed by definition. But the cigarette industry’s academic philanthropy set new records for hubris, writes Robert Proctor, professor of history at Stanford University, in his new book, The Golden Holocaust. Duke University and Bowman Gray School of Medicine, both in North Carolina, are named for tobacco magnates.

Harvard has a long and dubious history of tobacco largesse.  Harvard’s Tobacco and Health Research Program kicked off in 1972 with a generous tobacco grant from the Tobacco Institute, who dreamed up the program in the first place. “The Harvard project made the industry look good and so was handsomely endowed, absorbing $7 million over an eight-year period.” Also in 1972, Harvard anthropologist Carl Seltzer testified for the industry in numerous public hearings, stating: “We do not know whether or not there is a causal relationship between smoking and heart disease.” In 2002, Harvard’s School of Public Health declared it would no longer undertake research sponsored by the cigarette industry. Many universities had already gone cold turkey, and after Harvard, bans were put in place by the Karolinska Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Emory University, and many others.

Proctor informs us that “Washington University in St. Louis has been another big sponge for tobacco money." In 1971, the university set a new world record for an industry grant to a single institution, and “millions more were eventually funneled into the School of Medicine, turning it into a hotbed of cigarette-friendly activism.” The irony of taking money from Big Tobacco to fund research on lung cancer is not lost on Proctor. A good deal of the research was aimed away from tobacco and toward possible causes like viruses. “The goal was clearly more than cancer cures,” he writes. “The industry also hoped to generate good PR and academic allies.” The industry was able to garner  sympathetic headlines, like “Helping in Fight against Cancer,” in the St. Louis Globe-Democrat.

The other academic hotbed thoroughly penetrated by Big Tobacco was UCLA, according to Proctor. “Tobacco collaborators at UCLA have attracted their fair share of criticism from public health advocates, and for understandable reasons.” The university picked up its own multimillion-dollar grant from cigarette makers for the Program on Tobacco and Health in 1974, and that wasn’t the first tobacco money the university had taken. “As with all such projects,” Proctor writes, “industry lawyers… played a key role in the decision to fund—with the companies also conceding that the decision ‘should be based more on public relations than on purely scientific grounds.’” The end came in 2007, when “UCLA’s dance with the devil” garnered a ton of unwanted press. Reports showed that UCLA had taken more than $6 million from Philip Morris for research “to compare how children’s brains and monkey brains react to nicotine.”

Proctor admits that singling out Harvard, Washington University and UCLA is somewhat misleading, “given that scholars throughout the world have gorged themselves on tobacco money. Indeed it may well be the rare institution that has NOT at one time or another dipped into this pot.”

Including Stanford, where Proctor teaches. Plenty of Stanford researchers have undertaken contract work and served as expert witnesses for the industry right in Proctor’s own backyard, where “at least eighteen faculty members have received monies (in the form of sponsored research) from the Council for Tobacco Research, with at least two of these—Judith Swain and Hugh McDevitt from the medical school—serving on its Scientific Advisory Board. Stanford pharmacologists were assisting the industry with its diethylene glycol studies as early as the 1930s…”

In the conclusion to his densely researched but surprisingly readable work, Proctor returns to the controlling irony of the book: “Our bizarre starting point is the well-stocked shelf of cigarettes, to which we respond by begging people not to purchase them.” He presents the dream of a world in which cigarettes have been abolished. To do so, he admits, would require a leap. “If phasing out tobacco seems out of reach, this is only because our imaginations are impoverished.” And he has scant patience for the “Prohibition failed” argument. It failed, he says, because people like to drink. “Tobacco presents us with a very different situation. Nicotine is not a recreational drug. Most people who smoke wish they didn’t, and most smokers (90 percent) regret ever having started.”

Graphics Credit: http://www.prwatch.org/node/7004

The Tobacco Industry as Disease Vector

A review of The Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition

Part II

The famous Surgeon General’s Report of 1964, officially warning Americans about the dangers of smoking, and publicizing the cancer connection, is typically seen as a triumphal moment in American medical history. But according to Stanford history professor Robert Proctor in his book, The Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition, the report was “flawed in a number of interesting respects.” [The author, above, with paraphernalia] For one thing, members of the advisory committee consulting on the report, many of them congressman friendly to the tobacco cause, succeeded in their attempts to have smoking referred to as a “habit” rather than as addiction—a shameful Orwellian turn that went uncorrected for 25 years.

Meanwhile, the industry continued to fund new institutes, and continued to give out research grants for “red herring” research. As an example, the highest-ranking officer of the American Heart Association received money from one of the industry’s fraudulent research arms.

As late as the early 80s, most smokers believed they suffered from a bad habit, rather than an addiction—even though a majority of them wished they didn’t smoke. That is an odd kind of consumer “choice.” Cigarette makers have spent millions to perpetuate this myth. Proctor views tobacco industry executives and lawyers as a unique form of disease vector, spreading the pernicious health consequences of smoking across the globe.

The 2008 World Health Organization (WHO) Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic fleshes out this metaphor, suggesting that all epidemics have a means of contagion, “a vector that spreads disease and death. For the tobacco epidemic, the vector is not a virus, bacterium or other microorganisms—it is an industry and its business strategy.”

In an email exchange, I asked Professor Proctor to expand on this notion of a disease vector:

“We tend to divide "communicable" from "non-communicable" diseases,” Proctor told me, “when the reality is that many "non-communicable" diseases are in fact spread by communications.”

Examples? “Through ignorance and propaganda, for example, which can spread like a virus,” Proctor wrote. “We don't count the anthropogenic communications, oddly enough, even though these can be just as dangerous, and just as deadly. And just as preventable--by changing our exposure environments.”

In a recent article for Tobacco Control, Proctor laid out how the calculus of the disease vector plays out. We know, for example, that smoking will cause roughly 6 million deaths in 2015. And about a third of those will be from lung cancer. We know that 25 acres of tobacco plants will result in about 10 lung cancer deaths per year, starting 20 or 30 years down the road. Here’s a sick equivalence: “A 40 ft container of the sort shipped overseas or trucked by highway houses 10 million cigarettes, which means that each container will cause about 10 deaths.” Proctor works out the numbers for the value of a human life:

“Cigarette companies make about a penny in profit for every cigarette sold, or about $10,000 for every million cigarettes purchased. Since there is one death for every million cigarettes sold (or smoked), a tobacco manufacturer will make about $10,000 for every death caused by their products…. The value of a human life to a cigarette manufacturer is therefore about $10,000.” 

Proctor has even produced a “factories of death” chart, illustrating that arguably the world’s most lethal production plant is Philip Morris’s Richmond cigarette facility, which churned out 146 billion cigarettes in 2010, which adds up to about 146,000 deaths per year.

By 1964, researchers at Harvard had already identified the presence of radioactivity in the form of polonium 210 in cigarette smoke, and the cry went up for safety. As for the notion of safer cigarettes, Proctor says all cigarette filters function the same way—“basically like drinking through a somewhat thinner straw.” He goes even further, arguing that “filters have reduced smoke particle size, producing cancers deeper in the lungs, making them harder to identify and harder to treat.” (Scientists determined that the radiation source was the newer “superphosphate” fertilizers being used heavily on tobacco plants.)

 Next came mandated “tar and nicotine numbers,” which turned out to be misleading measures obtained from smoking robots. Then, “an opportunity presented itself to game the system, as we find in the brilliant trick of ventilation.” Manufacturers pricked tiny holes in the paper near the mouthpiece of cigarettes brands like Carlton and True, which consumers got around by covering the holes with fingers or with “lipping” behavior. “Low tars were a fraud, just as “lights” would be,” Proctor writes. Smokers just smoked harder, or differently, or more frequently. In 1983, pharmacologist Neal Benowitz at UCSF broke the official news in the New England Journal of Medicine: Smokers got just as much nicotine, whether they smoked high-, low-, filtered, unfiltered, regular, light, or ultra-light.  The industry itself had known this for more than 20 years. “Nicotine in the actual rod was rarely allowed to drop below about 10 milligrams per cigarette,” Proctor asserts, “and no cigarette was ever commercially successful with much less than this amount.” (A Philip Morris psychologist compared nicotine-free cigarettes to “sex without orgasm.”)

Indeed, almost every design modification put in place by tobacco companies over the past century, from flue-curing to filters, has served to make cigarettes deadlier than before. “Talk of ‘safer cigarettes’ is rather like talking about safer terrorism, or safer smallpox, or safer forms of drowning,” Proctor concludes.

And the industry testing continues. The point of tobacco-sponsored research is not simply to discredit an individual researcher’s work, but to create an aggregate bias in the pattern of research—a lot of “noise” in the signal. In other words, “you basically fund lots of research to dispute a hazard, then cite this same research to say that lots of scholars dispute it.” We are told about “mucociliary escalators,” which dredge the tar up and out of smokers’ lungs. We learn that “a rabbit will scream if nicotine is introduced into the eye.” We read excerpts from anguished letters to tobacco companies: “Do you suppose if I continue to smoke Camel Ultra Light Cigarettes and I should develop cancer it will be ‘Ultra Light Cancer?’”

Proctor brings us up to date: Harm reduction, he writes, has become the industry’s new mantra. “The companies now want us to believe that less hazardous products can be and are being made and marketed.” Proctor thinks harm reduction “may end up causing even greater harm” if products touted as “safer” make smokers less likely to quit. As for public health campaigns, “consumers are encouraged to stop consuming,” Proctor writes, “but producers are never discouraged from producing.” Or, as Louis Pasteur once wrote: “When meditating over a disease, I never think of finding a remedy for it, but, instead, a means of preventing it.”

So, what comes next? A glimpse of the future may already be here, in the form of cinnamon- and mint-flavored Camel Orbs, “which look like Tic Tac candy and contain about a milligram of nicotine in a highly freebased form.”

As for the industry’s success in corrupting scientists and academics through various means, the story is just as bad as you think it is: “It would take many thousands of pages to chronicle the full extent of Big Tobacco’s penetration of academia; the scale of such collaborations is simply too vast. From 1995 to 2007 alone, University of California researchers received at least 108 awards totaling $37 million from tobacco manufacturers….”

Part II of III.

Photo Credit: http://theloungeisback.wordpress.com/

The Hidden Story of How Big Tobacco Invented Freebasing

Review of The Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition.

Part I

It’s easy to think of cigarettes, and the machinations of the tobacco industry, as “old news.” But in his revealing 737-page book, The Golden Holocaust, based on 70 million pages of documents from the tobacco industry, Stanford professor Robert N. Proctor demonstrates otherwise. He demonstrates how Big Tobacco invented freebasing. He shows how they colluded in misleading the public about “safe” alternatives like filters, “low-tar,” and “ultra-lights.” We discover in Lorillard’s archives an explanation of menthol’s appeal to African Americans: It is all part of a desire by “negroes” to mask a “genetic body odor.” Radioactive isotopes were isolated in cigarette smoke, and evidence of the find was published, as early as 1953. He reveals that the secret ingredient in Kent’s “micronite filter” was asbestos. And he charges that the “corruption of science” lies behind the industry’s drive to continue its deadly trade. “Collaboration with the tobacco industry,” writes Proctor, “is one of the most deadly abuses of scholarly integrity in modern history.”

Half of all cigarette smokers will die from smoking—about a billion people this century, if present trends continue. In the U.S., this translates into roughly two jumbo jets crashing, killing everyone onboard, once daily. Cigarettes kill more people than bullets. The world smokes 6 trillion of them each year. (The Chinese alone account for about 2 trillion). Some people believe that tobacco represents a problem (more or less) solved, at least in the developed West.

All of this represents a continuing triumph for the tobacco industry. The aiders and abettors of tobacco love to portray the tobacco story as “old news.” But as Stanford Professor Robert M. Proctor writes in The Golden Holocaust, his exhaustive history of tobacco science and industry: “Global warming denialists cut their teeth on tobacco tactics, fighting science with science, creating doubt, fostering ignorance.”

Checking in at 737 pages, The Golden Holocaust is nobody’s idea of a light read, and at times its organization seems clear only to the author. But what a treasure trove of buried facts and misleading science Proctor has uncovered, thanks to more than 70 million pages of industry documents now online (http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu) as part of the Master Settlement Agreement of 1998. Once the material was finally digitized and available online, scholars like Proctor could employ full-text optical character recognition for detailed searchability. Ironically, this surreal blizzard of documentation was meant to obscure meaningful facts, not make them readily available, but tobacco executives seem not to have factored in digital technology when they turned over the material.

The single most important technological breakthrough in the history of the modern cigarette was flue-curing, which lowers the pH of tobacco smoke enough to make it inhalable. The reason few people inhale cigars, and very few used to inhale cigarettes, is that without some help, burning tobacco has a pH too high for comfortable inhalation. It makes you cough. But flue-curing lowered pH levels, allowing for a “milder,” less alkaline smoke that even women and children could tolerate.

World War I legitimized cigarettes in a major way. Per capita consumption in the U.S. almost tripled from 1914 to 1919, which Proctor considers “one of the most rapid increases in smoking ever recorded.” After World War II, the Marshall Plan shipped a staggering $1 billion worth of tobacco and other “food-related items.” (The U.S. Senator who blustered the loudest for big postwar tobacco shipments to Europe was A. Willis Robertson of Virginia, the father of televangelist Pat Robertson.)

The military, as we know, has historically been gung-ho on cigarettes. And Proctor claims that “the front shirt pocket that now adorns the dress of virtually every American male, for example, was born from an effort to make a place to park your cigarette pack.” In addition, cigarette makers spent a great deal of time and effort convincing automakers and airline manufacturers to put ashtrays into the cars and planes they sold. Ashtrays were built into seats in movie theaters, barbershops, and lecture halls. There was even an ashtray built into the U.S. military’s anti-Soviet SAGE computer in the 50s.

In the early 50s, research by Ernest Wynder in the U.S. and Angel Roffo in Argentina produced the first strong evidence that tobacco tars caused cancer in mice. Roffo in particular seemed convinced that tobacco caused lung cancer, that it was the tar rather than the nicotine, and that the main culprits were the aromatic hydrocarbons such as benzpyrene. Curiously enough, it was influential members of Germany’s Third Reich in the 40s who first took the possibility of a link seriously. Hans Reiter, a powerful figure in public health in Germany, said in a 1941 speech that smoking had been linked to human lung cancers through “painstaking observations of individual cases.”

In the December 1953 issue of Cancer Research, Wynder, et al. published a paper demonstrating that “tars extracted from tobacco smoke could induce cancers when painted on the skins of mice.” As it turns out, the tobacco industry already knew it. Executives had funded their own research, while keeping a close eye on outside academic studies, and had been doing so since at least the 30s. In fact, French doctors had been referring to cancers des fumeurs, or smokers’ cancers, since the mid-1800s. All of which knocks the first leg out from under the tobacco industry’s classic position: We didn’t know any stuff about cancer hazards until well into the 1950s.

Only weeks after the Wynder paper was published, tobacco execs went into full conspiracy mode during a series of meetings at the Plaza Hotel in New York, “where the denialist campaign was set in motion.” American Tobacco Company President Paul Hahn issued a press release that came to be known as the “Frank Statement” of 1954. Proctor calls it the “magna carta of the American’s industry’s conspiracy to deny any evidence of tobacco harms.” How, Proctor asks, did science get shackled to the odious enterprise of exonerating cigarettes? The secret was not so much in outright suppression of science, though there was plenty of that: In one memorable action known as the “Mouse House Massacre,” R.J. Reynolds abruptly shut down their internal animal research lab and laid off 26 scientists overnight, after the researchers began obtaining unwelcome results about tobacco smoke. But the true genius of the industry “was rather in using even ‘good’ science, narrowly defined, as a distraction, something to hold up to say, in effect: See how responsible we are?”

Entities like the Council for Tobacco Research engaged in decoy research of this kind. As one tobacco company admitted, “Research must go on and on.”

A good deal of the industry’s research in the 50s and 60s was in fact geared toward reverse engineering competitors’ successes. Consider Marlboro. Every cigarette manufacturer want to know: How did they do it? What was the secret to Marlboro’s success?

As it turns out, they did it by increasing nicotine’s kick. And they accomplished that, in essence, by means of freebasing, a process invented by the cigarette industry. Adding ammonia or some other alkaline compound transforms a molecule of nicotine from its bound salt version to its “free” base, which volatilizes much more easily, providing low-pH smoke easily absorbed by body tissue. And there you have the secret: “The freebasing of cocaine hydrochloride into ‘crack’ is based on a similar chemistry: the cocaine alkaloid is far more potent in its free base form than as a salt, so bicarbonate is used to transform cocaine hydrochloride into chemically pure crack cocaine.” Once other cigarette makers figured out the formula, they too began experimenting with the advantages of an “enhanced alkaline environment.”
  
(End of Part I)

Photo Credit: http://theloungeisback.wordpress.com/

Smoking and Adolescent Attention Deficit

Are young smokers risking cognitive impairment as adults?

 Call it “nicolescence.” It’s that time of life when certain 18-and-unders discover cigarettes. Most adult smokers begin their habit before the age of 19, and a majority of adolescents have tried cigarettes at least once. But for some of them—those who were “born to smoke,” in a sense—early exposure to nicotine may influence adolescent cognitive performance in ways that adult exposure to nicotine does not. Furthermore, early exposure may result in “cognitive impairments in later life.”

These provocative notions are raised by a group of researchers at VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, in a paper for Nature Neuroscience. And while the specifics of glutamate activity they have documented are fascinating, the leaps back and forth between adolescent humans and adolescent lab mice are dizzying. Nonetheless, the bold claims made in the paper prompted the scientists “to reconsider our views on the etiology of attention deficits.”

That may be more than many addiction researchers are willing to countenance, but the study makes an intriguing case for long-term effects on attentional processing. The Dutch researchers exposed adolescent rats to nicotine, assessed visuospatial attention and other markers associated with synaptic activity in the prefrontal cortex, and found impaired measures of attention and signs of increased impulsivity in adulthood after five weeks of abstinence. Adult rats exposed to nicotine for the first time did not show similar long-term consequences.

The molecular underpinnings for this phenomenon appear to be reduced glutamate receptor protein levels in the prefrontal cortex. Glutamate is a neurotransmitter involved in attention, among other cortical tasks. Glutamate levels were “altered specifically by adolescent and not adult nicotine exposure” in the lab animals, the researchers found.

The glutamate receptor mGluR2 is the likely culprit.  The researchers report that “a lasting downregulation of mGluR2 on presynaptic terminals of glutamatergic synapses in the prefrontal cortex persists into adulthood causing disturbances in attention…. Restoring mGluR2 activity in vivo in the prefrontal cortex of adult rats exposed to nicotine during adolescence remediated the attention deficit.”

The study concludes: “Not only from a behavioral, but also from a molecular point of view, the adolescent brain is more susceptible to consequences of nicotinic receptor activation.” In other words, there is at least some evidence that the neurotoxic effects of nicotine are potentially more severe in the early developmental stage called adolescence.

The Dutch study is not the only one of its kind. In 2005, Biological Psychiatry published a report on cognition in which adolescent smokers “were found to have impairments in accuracy of working memory performance irrespective of recency of smoking. Performance decrements were more severe with earlier age of onset of smoking.”

And a 2007 study published in Neuropsychopharmocology, based on testing and fMRI scans of 181 male and female adolescent smokers, concluded that “in humans, prenatal and adolescent exposure to nicotine exerts gender-specific deleterious effects on auditory and visual attention…” Boys were more sensitive than girls to attention deficits involving auditory processing, while girls tended to show equal deficits in both auditory and visual attention tasks. 

Counotte, D., Goriounova, N., Li, K., Loos, M., van der Schors, R., Schetters, D., Schoffelmeer, A., Smit, A., Mansvelder, H., Pattij, T., & Spijker, S. (2011). Lasting synaptic changes underlie attention deficits caused by nicotine exposure during adolescence Nature Neuroscience DOI: 10.1038/nn.2770

Photo Credit: http://smoking-quit.info/

Challenging the Received Wisdom on Tobacco Addiction

What does it take to get hooked on nicotine?

--Smokers who smoke five or fewer cigarettes per day can still become addicted to tobacco.

--Tobacco addiction can also be present in non-daily smokers.

--Nicotine withdrawal symptoms do not necessarily begin within 24 hours.

These and other controversial assertions come from Joseph R DiFranza, a physician with the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. Dr. DiFranza recently authored a provocative examination of smoking truisms in an article for the online publication Harm Reduction Journal.

In an attack on what he calls the Threshold Model of Addiction, DiFranza defines the model as follows:

In brief, the threshold model maintains that until tobacco consumption is maintained above a threshold of 5-10 cigarettes per day (cpd) for a prolonged period, smokers are free of all symptoms of tobacco addiction. It holds that declining blood nicotine levels trigger withdrawal symptoms so quickly that addicted smokers must protect their nicotine levels by smoking at least 5 cpd. The threshold model states that until addiction is established with moderate daily smoking, smoking is motivated and maintained by peer pressure, pleasure seeking and the social rewards of smoking.

DiFranza breaks this prevailing paradigm into a half-dozen hypotheses, offering his opinion on the state of scientific evidence that, in his view, refutes every one of them:

--Hypothesis 1. Tobacco addiction cannot occur in nondaily smokers, or even in daily smokers who regularly consume fewer than 5 cpd.

DiFranza’s response:   “Although it is difficult to prove a negative, this hypothesis would be supported if study after study demonstrated that all surveyed subthreshold smokers (individuals who smoke < 5 cpd) have no symptoms of addiction…. Since no studies have demonstrated a complete lack of addiction symptoms in any representative population of subthreshold smokers, the peer reviewed literature soundly refutes the hypothesis that tobacco addiction requires as a prerequisite the daily consumption of 5-10 cigarettes. The threshold model and the DSM are wrong. “

--Hypothesis 2. Tobacco addiction requires prolonged daily use as a prerequisite.

Response: “Many subjects developed symptoms quite soon after the onset of intermittent tobacco use. These findings have been replicated in several longitudinal studies, in cross-sectional studies showing symptoms of addiction in nondaily smokers, and by case histories showing the same.”

Hypothesis 3. Nicotine withdrawal symptoms begin within 24 hours in all smokers.

“The standard subject in all early smoking studies was an adult who had been a heavy daily smoker for decades. Such individuals do experience nicotine withdrawal soon after their last cigarette. A problem arises when this observation is inappropriately generalized by applying it to all smokers, including children, novices and nondaily smokers.”

Hypothesis 4. Addicted smokers must maintain nicotine above a threshold blood concentration to avoid withdrawal.

“Since a person must smoke at least 5 cpd to maintain a minimum nicotine level throughout the day, another approach to testing this hypothesis would be to determine if all smokers that experience withdrawal symptoms smoke at least 5 cpd. This test has been completed over a dozen times, and always with the same result. Withdrawal symptoms have been reported in smokers of fewer than 5 cpd in every study that has examined this issue.”

Hypothesis 5. Psychosocial factors maintain smoking over the several years it may take to reach threshold levels of smoking.

“There must be thousands of studies that demonstrate that social factors such as socioeconomic status, smoking by family and friends, cigarette advertising, the availability of cigarettes, smoking depictions in movies, and attitudes and beliefs are predictive of which youth will try smoking. However, if such factors sustain tobacco use until tobacco addiction develops, they should predict which smokers will advance to addiction in prospective studies. But this has not been shown. None of more than 40 psychosocial risk factors for the onset of smoking was able to predict the progression to tobacco addiction. The author is aware of no studies that establish that peer pressure of other social factors sustain adolescent or young adult smoking over the 4 or 5 years it may take for smokers to reach threshold levels of smoking. “

Hypothesis 6. Increasing tolerance to the pleasurable effects of smoking drives the escalation in tobacco use up to the threshold of addiction.

“The author is not aware of any studies that demonstrate that smokers must smoke more cigarettes over time to obtain the same amount of pleasure (for example smoking 10 cpd to obtain the same pleasure initially obtained from smoking 1 cpd. Indeed, our data indicate that the pleasure obtained from smoking each cigarette actually increases in proportion to the degree of addiction, with pleasure ratings correlating strongly with addiction severity. While this is only one study, it directly contradicts the hypothesis that non-addicted novice smokers obtain much more pleasure from each cigarette than do addicted heavy smokers.”

Photo Credit: http://nikotin.floridadmat.com/

The Death of “Low Tar” Cigarettes… Or Maybe Not.

Is this the best the FDA can do?

Lots of cigarette news lately. To begin with, cigarette manufacturers will no longer be able to market specific brands as “low tar” or “light.” And while David Kessler, former head of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), called for the regulation of nicotine levels in cigarettes, cancer researchers were backpedaling away from some questionable numbers about cancer risk from smokeless tobacco offered up by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Meanwhile, the American Medical Association (AMA) called on the FDA to ban so-called e-cigarettes.

Covering nicotine news is inherently confusing, ambiguous, and tentative, since the product in question is a legal drug responsible for an immense amount of tax revenues. It is also addictive. The relatively inelastic nature of demand for nicotine products makes governments reluctant to, er, snuff out the tax bonanza in its entirety.

Nonetheless, Congress gave the FDA broad new regulatory power over cigarettes a year ago with the passage of the Tobacco Control Act of 2009.  Last week, various provisions of the bill became effective, including provisions that “prohibit the advertising or labeling of tobacco products with the descriptors ‘light,’ ‘mild,’ or ‘low’ or similar descriptors” without specific permission from the FDA.  (See earlier post). In addition, health warning labels will be strengthened on smokeless tobacco packaging.

“As FDA continues implementation of the Tobacco Control act, we are committed to assuring that the actions we are taking are grounded in science and are open and transparent with participation by various stakeholders,” according to a press release from the agency’s Center for Tobacco Products.

The problem, as a glance at the photograph above aptly demonstrates, is that the America tobacco industry is already a jump ahead of the FDA’s measured approach. The industry plans to “let the colors speak to smokers in the same way the soon-to-be banned words ‘mild,’ ‘light,’ and ‘ultralight’ did,” Stephen Smith wrote last year in the Boston Globe.

Thus Pall Mall Lights become Pall Mall Blues. Whereas Salem Lights will forever after be known as Salem Gold Box. And so on. “These tricks are now well-established,” tobacco control specialist Stanton Glantz of the University of California told the Boston Globe. “The real question for the FDA is, are they going to let them get away with these shenanigans?”

The FDA is changing colors on the packages, and roughing up the warning labels, and starting to zero in on menthol, but one of the things it won't be doing is lowering the nicotine levels in cigarettes. Former FDA chairman David Kessler, for one, insists that this is the only substantive change likely to make a difference in addiction rates. In an AP report by Michael Felberbaum, Kessler said: “The tobacco industry knew 40 years ago that there was a threshold below which people would quit. Reducing the level of nicotine in cigarettes will change smoking as we know it. It is the ultimate harm reduction strategy.”

Meanwhile, on another contested front, (see earlier post) the Partnership at Drugfree.org reported that the AMA called on the FDA to regulate electronic cigarettes, which to date the agency has declined to do.  “Very little data exists on the safety of e-cigarettes,” said AMA board member Edward Langston. “Because e-cigarettes have not been thoroughly tested, one cannot conclude that they are less harmful or less dangerous than conventional cigarettes.” E-cigarettes also come in different candy and fruit flavors, the AMA pointed out during the process of adopting the policy at its annual meeting in Chicago.

And finally, a Wall Street Journal report by Carl Bialik in April caused a good deal of embarrassment at the American Cancer Society, which conceded that it had stopped using its long-cited figure of a 50-fold increase in the risk of oral cancer among users of smokeless tobacco. The National Cancer Institute has also cited the 50-times risk figure in its literature. As it turned out, the original survey had been about dry snuff, a form of tobacco rarely used in America today. Other scientists have concluded that the increased risk of oral cancer from smokeless tobacco is on the order of a factor of 10, not 50.

Photo credit: http://www.google.com/

Life After Cigarettes: Book Review

Why Women Smoke.

Women are different from men. Well, maybe you already knew that.  But did you know that women smoke differently than men, and quit smoking differently than men?

Dr. Joseph Califano, the U.S. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare under President Jimmy Carter, once said that even though he gained thirty pounds when he quit cigarettes, he did not then appreciate the importance to women of the link between smoking cessation and weight gain. As Dr. Cynthia Pomerleau, formerly the director of the Nicotine Research Laboratory at the University of Michigan and now Research Professor Emerita in the Department of Psychiatry, remarks in her new book, Life After Cigarettes: “If we’d had a woman HEW Secretary at that time, and she had stopped smoking, I’m sure a thirty-pound weight gain would have grabbed her attention!”

In her book, Dr. Pomerleau makes clear that the challenges of quitting smoking are even greater for women than they are for men. She is refreshingly frank: “Face it; There are definitely some plusses to smoking. If there weren’t, you wouldn’t have done it, and neither would anyone else.”

For women, one of the primary pluses is, and has always been, weight control.  Pomerleau offers up the image of smoking ballerinas, women performing in a business where gaining two pounds can mean the loss of a job. Models, gymnasts, and ice skaters have also looked to cigarettes for help with weight control.

When women quit smoking, here are the facts of the matter: They will begin gaining weight almost the minute they quit—as much as three pounds in the first week—and will stabilize within three to six months. The average weight gain for women, writes Pomerleau, is ten pounds, with a quarter of female quitters gaining five pounds or less, and about a quarter gaining more than 15 pounds.  And the longer women smoke, the harder it is to battle the weight gain when they eventually quit.

The problem, Pomerleau discovered when screening patients for her Nicotine Research Lab, was that 75 per cent of the women who wanted to quit smoking said that they were unwilling to gain more than five pounds while doing so. 40 per cent of the women responded that they were unwilling to gain ANY pounds in pursuit of tobacco abstinence.

In an email exchange with Addiction Inbox, Professor Pomerleau was kind enough to expand on her message.  

When I asked her about reports that the dopamine D2 receptor gene has been implicated in both weight gain and smoking, she responded:

“In a laboratory study of food reward in smokers attempting to quit, Caryn Lerman and colleagues found that carriers of the DRD2 A1 minor allele exhibited significant increases in the rewarding value of food following abstinence from smoking, and that higher levels of food reward after quitting predicted a significant increase in weight by 6-month follow-up in participants receiving placebo.  Both effects were attenuated in participants receiving bupropion, leading them to conclude that bupropion’s efficacy in attenuating abstinence-induced weight gain may be attributable, in part, to decreasing food reward.  How well these findings will hold up to further scrutiny in larger samples remains to be seen.”

On smoking and bulimia: “As I’m sure you’re aware, the question of ‘self-medication’ is a complicated one, but it seems likely that some women ‘use’ nicotine to hold the symptoms of bulimia in check; when they quit, the underlying predisposition reemerges – which helps to explain why these women may be more prone to larger weight gain than other quitting smokers.” 

On smoking as a weight management tool: “Using a variety of different measures, it’s probably safe to say that around 40% of women qualify as serious weight-control smokers.  (The proportion is much lower in men.)  By the way, though findings are mixed, these women don’t necessarily fare worse than other women when they quit, even if they do gain weight; the real challenge is bringing them to the point of even considering quitting.”

And finally, when I asked Professor Pomerleau about the role of primary care physicians in promoting smoking cessation, she noted that she was “concerned about possible attempts to downplay the amount of weight quitters can expect to gain or to overstate the ease with which it can be avoided – which can backfire and lead to relapse when the needle on the scale begins to creep up.  I personally think it’s better to be realistic about the likelihood of weight gain after quitting and to concentrate on keeping it in the 5-10 pound range (approximately one unit of BMI and less than a dress size) – something that is in fact an achievable goal for most women.”

Photo Credit: http://www.mapleplaceventures.com/

Germs in Tobacco

Bacteria found in major cigarette brands.

It’s not enough that smoking causes all manner of cardiopulmonary complications, or that more than 3,000 chemicals and heavy metals have been identified as additives. Now comes evidence that tobacco particles extracted from cigarettes contain markers for hundreds of known bacteria. Lung infections in some smokers may be caused by germs on shredded tobacco, rather than the act of smoking itself.

According to a report by Janet Raloff in Science News, Amy Sapkota and a team of researchers at the University of Maryland screened tobacco flakes from cigarettes for bacterial DNA using known markers. In an online paper for Environmental Health Perspectives, the scientists explored the bacterial metagenomics of cigarettes using standard cloning and sequencing processes. The team provided evidence for the presence of Campylobacter (a cause of food poisoning), E. coli, several Staphylococcus varieties, as well as a number of bacteria, such as Clostridium, which is directly associated with pneumonia and other infections. Fifteen different classes of bacteria in all, with no significant variation from one cigarette brand to another. 

The time has come, Sapkota and coworkers conclude, “ to further our understanding of the bacterial diversity of cigarettes,” given the more than 1 billion smokers worldwide.  Smoking is now recognized as a risk factor for a basketful of respiratory illnesses, including influenza, asthma, bacterial pneumonia, and interstitial lung disease. In light of this, the authors have advanced their study as solid evidence that “cigarettes themselves could be the direct source of exposure to a wide array of potentially pathogenic microbes among smokers and other people exposed to secondhand smoke.”

In 2008, researcher John Pauly and coworkers at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York, helped provide early evidence by conducting a tobacco flake assay and publishing the results in the journal Tobacco Control. The scientists opened a package of cigarettes “within the sterile environment of a laminar flow hood. A single flake of tobacco was collected randomly and aseptically from the middle of the cigarette column and placed onto the surface of a blood agar plate. The test cigarettes included eight different popular brands, and these were from three different tobacco companies.”

And the results? “After 24 hours of incubation at 37 degrees C, the plates showed bacterial growth for tobacco from all brands of cigarettes. Further, more than 90% of the individual tobacco flakes of a given brand grew bacteria.” Pauly believes that “the results of these studies predict that diverse microbes and microbial toxins are carried by tobacco microparticulates that are released from the cigarette during smoking, and carried into mainstream smoke that is sucked deep into the lung.”

In a recent study published in Immunological Research , Pauly and others expanded on their findings, writing that “Cured tobacco in diverse types of cigarettes is known to harbor a plethora of bacteria (Gram-positive and Gram-negative), fungi (mold, yeast), spores, and is rich in endotoxin (lipopolysaccharide).” This time out, the researchers conclude that “lung inflammation of long-term smokers may be attributed in part to tobacco-associated bacterial and fungal components that have been identified in tobacco and tobacco smoke.”

Cigarette manufacturers already use antibacterial washes during the curing process in order to reduce infection by fungi and bacteria.

If the findings are sound, they could place the argument over secondhand smoke in a vastly different light—cigarettes smoke may be taking the rap for respiratory infections cause by extant bacteria. With smoking rates in the U.S. holding at a steady 21 percent of the population, the issue is not trivial.

Graphics Credit: http://commons.wikimedia.org/

Sapkota, A., Berger, S., & Vogel, T. (2009). Human Pathogens Abundant in the Bacterial Metagenome of Cigarettes Environmental Health Perspectives, 118 (3), 351-356 DOI: 10.1289/ehp.0901201

Pauly, J., Smith, L., Rickert, M., Hutson, A., & Paszkiewicz, G. (2009). Review: Is lung inflammation associated with microbes and microbial toxins in cigarette tobacco smoke? Immunologic Research, 46 (1-3), 127-136 DOI: 10.1007/s12026-009-8117-6

The Patch and How to Use It

Take the Fagerstrom test.

The U.K. Guardian, in partnership with the British Medical Journal, recently offered its readers a short version of the Fagerstrom test, a questionnaire used for assessing the intensity of physical addiction to nicotine. The Guardian article then made recommendations about which patch strength smokers should be using, based on their scores.

Here is a longer version of the Fagerstrom test, with scoring assessment, followed by the Guardian’s recommendations about patches:

Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence *

1. How soon after you wake up do you smoke your first cigarette?
-- After 60 minutes
(0)
-- 31-60 minutes
(1)
-- 6-30 minutes
(2)
-- Within 5 minutes
(3)

2. Do you find it difficult to refrain from smoking in places where it is forbidden?
-- No
(0)
-- Yes
(1)

3. Which cigarette would you hate most to give up?
-- The first in the morning
(1)
-- Any other
(0)

4. How many cigarettes per day do you smoke?
-- 10 or less
(0)
-- 11-20
(1)
-- 21-30
(2)
-- 31 or more
(3)

5. Do you smoke more frequently during the first hours after awakening than during the rest of the day?
-- No
(0)
-- Yes
(1)

6. Do you smoke even if you are so ill that you are in bed most of the day?
-- No
(0)
-- Yes
(1)

* Heatherton TF, Kozlowski LT, Frecker RC, Fagerstrom KO. The Fagerstrom Test for
Nicotine Dependence: A revision of the Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnaire. British Journal of Addictions. 1991; 86:1119-27

0-2 Very low dependence

3-4 Low dependence

5 Medium dependence

6-7 High dependence

8-10 Very high dependence

[Scores under 5: “Your level of nicotine dependence is still low. You should act now before your level of dependence increases. “]

[Score of 5: “Your level of nicotine dependence is moderate. If you don’t quit soon, your level of dependence on nicotine will increase until you may be seriously addicted.”]

[Score over 7: “Your level of dependence is high. You aren’t in control of your smoking–-it is in control of you!”]

The U.K. Guardian’s scoring assessment

Which patch to use:

--2 points = light nicotine dependence. Start with the 7 mg nicotine patch.

--3 or 4 points = moderate nicotine dependence. Start with the 14 mg nicotine patch.

--5 or 6 points = heavy nicotine dependence. Start with the 21 mg nicotine patch.

Graphic Credit: Electronic Illustrators Group

smoking addiction nicotine

“More Doctors Smoke Camels”

The good old days of tobacco advertising.

The Transform Drug Policy Foundation of the U.K. has an absolutely first-rate collection of early cigarette advertising on display at their TDPF blog.

I’ve always been a sucker for the ones featuring doctors:

The TDPF blog calls this one “particularly awful, featuring a five year old girl proclaiming to her paternal looking doctor figure and radiant young mother that 'I'm going to grow a hundred years old'. It then goes on to inform us that ‘possibly she may - for the amazing strides of medical science have added years to life expectancy.' You can 'thank your doctor and thousands like him--toiling ceaselessly--that you and yours may enjoy a longer better life.’”

It sounds like something Don Draper and his associates might have dreamed up on "Mad Men."

Yes, toiling ceaselessly—and, one may add, perversely—to convince an increasingly wary public that popular slang like “coffin nails” and “smoker’s cough” were the results of misguided thinking.

The TDPF, in turn, found the extensive collection at Stanford University’s wonderful “Not a Cough in a Carload” site.

The exhibit is intended “to tell—principally through advertising images—the story of how, between the late 1920s and the early 1950s, tobacco companies used deceptive and often patently false claims in an effort to reassure the public of the safety of their products.”

Smoking doctors were everywhere in the ads. The Stanford site states: “Among the more reprehensible tactics was the utilization of the image of the noble and caring physician to sell cigarettes: Doctors were depicted both as satisfied and enthusiastic partakers of the smoking habit ("More Doctors Smoke Camels"). Images of medical men (and a few token women) appeared under soothing reassurances of the safety of smoking. Liberal use was also made of pseudo-scientific medical reports and surveys.”

The print ad above is lamentably undated. The collection covers advertising from the 1930s through the 1950s.

“On first impression,” says the Stanford site, “most viewers will find these images outrageous, humorous, and so blatantly false as to trigger incredulity. But tobacco industry ad men also excelled in creative genius and had high levels of artistic skill. The best talent money could buy was recruited for this effort. Tobacco advertisers faced a daunting challenge: How do you sell a product which shortens the life of the user by an average of about 8 years?”

smoking