Rotting from the Inside

Smoking and the decline of the body. 

We all know smoking is bad for your health. It causes lung cancer and emphysema and contributes to heart disease. But that’s not the end of the list. Recently, Public Health England, a government organization, collected and analyzed research on the contribution smoking makes to other forms of internal body damage. Authored by Dr. Rachael Murray of the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies and the University of Nottingham, the study looked at the correlation between smoking and the musculoskeletal system, the cognitive system, dental health, and vision.

And the results of various meta-analyses are exactly as grim as we might expect. (You can download the PDF HERE.)

Bones, Muscle, and Tissue

Smoking does steady harm to the musculoskeletal system of habitual smokers. Osteoporosis in mature smokers may result from a loss of bone mineral density, a condition for which smoking “is a long established contributing risk factor.” There are a number of ways smoking can affect bone mineral density, says the report, including “decreased calcium absorption, lower levels of vitamin D, changes in hormone levels, reduced body mass, increased free radicals and oxidative stress, higher likelihood of peripheral vascular disease and direct effects of toxic components of tobacco smoke on bone cells.”

Moreover, smoking and broken bones go together like apple pie and ice cream, or in this case, bangers and mash. Overall in the UK, “current smokers have been reported to be at a 25% increased risk of any fracture,” the report concludes. The author notes that the greatest risk for smokers are seen at the hip and the lumbar spine, and women smokers in particular “were at a 17% greater risk of hip fracture at age 60, 41% at 70, 71% at 80 and 108% at 90.” The risk of fracture and the increased bone repair time decreases slowly in former smokers, and it may take 5 to 10 years before abstinent smokers see any statistical benefits.

Researchers have also documented a causal relationship between cigarette smoking and the onset of rheumatoid arthritis. But it is not known whether smoking cessation benefits existing patients with this condition.

As for soft tissue damage, a meta-analysis of 40 studies showed that smoking was associated with “a 33% increased prevalence of low back pain within the previous 12 months, 79% increased prevalence of chronic back pain and 114% increased prevalence of disabling lower back pain” among British smokers. Another study of 13,000 subjects showed that current and ex-smokers experienced up to 60% more pain in the lower back, upper neck and lower limbs than people who had never smoked. Smokers were also “74% more likely than non-smokers to have a rotator cuff tear,” Dr. Murray writes.

The Brain in Your Head

Chronic cigarette smoking hastens the decline in cognitive function that occurs with age. And there is a disturbing link between tobacco smoking and dementia: “A meta-analysis of eight studies published in 2008 reported that current smokers were 59% more likely than never-smokers to suffer Alzheimer’s disease and 35% more likely to suffer vascular dementia.” Earlier studies showed even higher risk percentages. Here, there is the possibility that smoking succession could reduce dementia onset. Two meta-analyses included in the report showed no association between former smoking and risk of dementia.

General cognitive impairment in adults over 50 is “consistently associated” with smoking, according to the UK report. “Faster declines in verbal memory and lower visual search speeds have been reported in male and female smokers aged 43 and 53, with the effect largest in those who smoked more than 20 cigarettes per day, independent of other potentially confounding factors.”

Dental Damage

Smoking is the primary cause of oral cancer, and the risk of developing it is three times less for non-smokers. Smoked and smokeless tobacco are linked to various non-malignant maladies of the soft and hard tissues in the oral cavity. Alcohol is a risk factor for oral cancer as well, “and is almost tripled in alcohol drinkers who smoke.”

Peridontitis, the inflammatory condition marked by bleeding gums and degeneration leading to tooth loss (and an associated greater risk of coronary heart disease) is three to four times as common in adult smokers. And although there are other confounding socioeconomic influences, smoking is also a risk indicator for missing teeth in older smokers and previous smokers. The increased peridontitis risk lasts for several years after smoking cessation.

As for cavities and general tooth decay (caries), “Although the association between smoking and prevalence of dental caries can be attributed to poor dental care and oral hygiene, a cross-section study with a four-year follow-up found that daily smoking independently predicts caries development in smokers.” 

A Dim View

Neovascular and atrophic age-related macular degeneration, the eye conditions that cause a gradual loss of vision, are causally related to cigarette smoking. "A recent meta-analysis reported significant increases in macular degeneration of between 78% and 358%, depending on the study design." Smokers tend to develop the disease ten years earlier than non-smokers, and heavy smokers are at particular risk.

Finally, a number of cohort and case-control studies show a statistically significant link between smoking and cataracts, the cloudy patches over the eye that cause blurred vision. In current smokers, the increased risk is pegged at about 50%. "Smoking cessation reduces risks over time, however, the larger the exposure the longer it takes for the risk to reduce and this risk is unlikely to return to that of a never smoker."

Photo credit: hhttp://www.healthcareaboveall.com/

Why the CDC Director Hates E-Cigarettes

The pros and cons of getting your vape on.

Last month, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began a new era—regulating e-cigarettes. With a non-controversial first step, the FDA banned the sale of e-cigarettes to minors, required health warnings, prohibited health claims, and outlined a plan to register and license all electronic nicotine products at some future date. The FDA’s proposed rules would also give the agency the power to regulate the currently unregulated mixture of chemicals and flavorings that are heated during e-cigarette use.  Whatever regulations the FDA promulgates for electronic cigarettes will also apply to nicotine gels, water pipe tobacco, and hookahs.

Perhaps what rankles e-cigarette activists the most is the FDA’s insistence that companies will have to provide scientific evidence before making any implied claims about risk reduction for their product, compared with cigarettes. The FDA did not restrict advertising or prohibit flavorings (bubble gum, apple-blueberry, gummi bear, and cappuccino are popular).

Within a few days after the FDA’s announcement, Chicago, New York City, and other major cities placed e-cigarettes under the same municipal smoking bans as cigarettes. 

The battle over e-cigarettes is both a public health issue and a private enterprise war for market share. Corporate giants Altria and Lorillard, which dominate the corporate tobacco landscape in the U.S., are fighting for a piece of what has become nearly a $2 billion market in a few short years. (Altria recently boosted  its growth forecast to 6-9% growth for 2014). Lorillard has been making heavy acquisitions of its own, and commands more than half the present market with its Blu brand. Altria has made its own vapor acquisitions, and is launching its own brand, MarkTen.

So far, the moves being contemplated by the FDA do not have these companies shaking in their boots. They anticipated the ban on sales to minors, a system of formal FDA approval, a disclosure of ingredients, and health warnings about the addictive nature of nicotine. And Congress gave the FDA legal authority to draft a set of rules for e-cigarettes five years ago, so the FDA’s reluctance to step in on liquid nicotine delivery systems has been evident.

In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Tom Frieden, director of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), listed the reasons for his opposition to electronic cigarettes:

—E-cigarettes are an additional means of hooking another generation of kids on nicotine, making them more likely to become adult smokers.

—Smokers who might have quit smoking will maintain their nicotine addiction, remaining highly vulnerable to tobacco craving.

—Ex-smokers might make themselves more vulnerable to relapse if they take up vaping.

—Smokers might forego medications that could help them quit, in favor of the unproven promise of tobacco abstention via e-cigarette.

—E-cigarettes might have the cultural effect of “re-glamorizing” smoking.

—E-cigarette users might be exposing children and pregnant women to nicotine via secondhand smoke mechanisms.

—E-cigarette users can refill cartridges with liquid cannabis products and other drugs.

Dr. Michael Siegel, a tobacco expert at the Boston University School of Public Health, worries that smaller players will be squeezed out due to costs associated with the FDA approval process, driving sales toward the traditional cigarette industry leaders. Go-go analysts have predicted market penetration of as much as 50% for e-cigarettes, but Siegel is more pessimistic, and believes the e-cigarette share could top out at 10% if FDA regulations set back efforts by vaping proponents to position their product as a safer and healthier alternative to tobacco cigarettes. And that, says Siegel, would be a shame. He told the Boston Globe: “There simply is no product on the market that’s more dangerous than tobacco cigarettes, and nobody in their right mind would argue that cigarette smoking is less hazardous or even equally hazardous to vaping.”

Frieden at the CDC is sympathetic to the fact that many smokers have indeed quit smoking tobacco with the aid of e-cigarettes. “Stick to stick, they’re almost certainly less toxic than cigarettes.” But like many tobacco experts, he sees the possibility of a new generation of nicotine addicts. Almost two million high school kids have tried e-cigarettes, Frieden told the LA Times, “and a lot of them are using them regularly…. That’s like watching someone harm hundreds of thousands of children.”  The CDC reported that the percentage of high school students who have used an e-cigarette jumped from 4.7% in 2011 to 10% in 2012. Calls to poison control centers involving children and e-cigarettes have increased sharply as well.

Frieden views the Food and Drug Administration as David under siege by Goliath. The FDA, he said, “tried to regulate e-cigarettes earlier, and they lost to the tobacco industry…. So the FDA has to balance moving quickly with moving in a way that’s going to be able to survive the tobacco industry’s highly paid legal challenge.” If E-cigarette makers really want to market to people trying to quit smoking, Frieden told the LA Times, “then do the clinical trials and apply to the FDA. But they don’t want to do that.” (See my post on Big Tobacco’s move into the e-cigarette market).

“It’s really the wild, wild West out there,” a beleaguered FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg told the press.   “They’re coming in different sizes, shapes and flavors in terms of the nicotine in them.”

On May 4, the New York Times published a report by Matt Richtel, based on an upcoming paper in the journal Nicotine and Tobacco Research. Nicotine researchers discovered that high-end electronic cigarette systems with refillable tanks produce formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, as a component of the exhaled nicotine vapor. Moreover, unlike disposable e-cigarettes, tank systems require users to refill them with liquid nicotine, itself a potent toxin. “Nicotine is a pesticide, fundamentally,” Michael Eriksen, dean of the School of Public Health at Georgia Statue University, told CNN. “We take so many precautions about pesticides for our lawns and how to wear gloves. But what precautions do consumers take when they put the nicotine vials in?”

This was not good news for harm reductionists, who view the advantages of e-cigarettes as self-evident. The New York Times report says that the toxin is formed “when liquid nicotine and other e-cigarette ingredients are subjected to high temperatures,” according to the research. “A second study that is being prepared for submission to the same journal points to similar findings.” In addition, a new study by researchers RTI International documents the release of tiny metal particles, including tin, chromium and nickel, which may worsen asthma and bronchitis.

Eric Moskowitz at the Boston Globe  reported that “thousands of gas stations and convenience stores statewide carry e-cigarettes, usually stocking disposable or cartridge-based versions that resemble traditional cigarettes.”

In U.S. News, Gregory Conley, president of the trade group American Vaping Association, predicted “a huge influx of anti-e-cigarette legislation in the last half of 2014 and especially in 2015 when the legislative sessions get going again.” 

According to Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, “it may be years before  regulations are imposed. The lobbying at FDA and Congress will be intense.”

Effectively regulated, e-cigarettes have the potential to drastically reduce deaths from tobacco-related diseases among cigarette smokers. In an editorial for the journal Addiction, Sara Hitchman, Ann McNeill, and Leonie Brose of King’s College, London, wrote: “E-cigarettes may offer a way out of the smoking epidemic or a way of perpetuating it; robustly designed, implemented and accurately reported scientific evidence will be the best tool we have to help us predict and shape which of these realities transpires.”

Photo credit: http://ecigarettereviewed.com

Smoking and Surgery Don’t Mix

Even routine operations are riskier for smokers.

Smokers who are scheduling a medical operation might want to think seriously about quitting, once they hear the results of a new review of the impact of smoking on surgical outcomes.

A scheduled operation is the perfect incentive for smokers to quit smoking. The fact that smokers have poorer post-surgical outcomes, with longer healing times and more complications, is not a new finding. But the study by researchers from the University of California in San Francisco, and Yale University School of Medicine, published in the Journal of Neurosurgery, spells out the surgicial risks for smokers in graphic detail.

Cellular Injury

The systematic effects of nicotine and carbon monoxide in the blood of cigarette smokers result in tissue hypoxia, which is a lack of adequate blood supply caused by a shortage of oxygen.  When carbon monoxide floods the bloodstream in high concentrations, as it does in smokers, it is capable of binding with hemoglobin and thus lowering the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood. A cascade of physiological reactions then lead to the possibility of low coagulation levels, vasoconstriction, spasms, and blood clots. 

Wound Healing and Infection

If the circulatory system is dysfunctional, healing will be impaired. “In addition,” the researchers say, “tobacco may stimulate a stress response mediated by enhanced fibroblast activity, resulting in decreased cell migration and increased cell adhesion. The net consequence is inappropriate connective tissue deposition at the surgical site, delayed wound healing, and increased risks of wound infection.”

Blood Loss

 In their review of the neurosurgical literature, the researchers found higher blood loss for smokers particularly following surgery for certain kinds of tumors and for lumbar spine injuries. Smoking causes “permanent structural changes of vessels such as vessel wall thickening,” and there is evidence that smoking is linked to “larger and more vascularized tumors, which may further contribute to intraoperative blood loss during resection.”

Cardiopulmonary Effects

Even smokers who don’t have any chronic conditions associated with smoking are at increased risk during and after surgery. Oxidative damage from smoke can cause “mucosal damage, goblet cell hyperplasia, ciliary dysfunction, and impaired bronchial function,” all of which impedes the ability to expel mucus, which increases the bacterial load, which alters the respiratory immune response, and which ultimately leads to higher rates of postoperative pneumonia in smokers.

The authors of the review note that the evidence is particularly strong in certain specialties: Cranial surgery, spine surgery, plastic surgery, and orthopedic surgery. One randomized clinical trial showed that a 4-week smoking cessation program lead to a 50 relative risk reduction for postoperative complications. Another study showed significant improvement in wound healing when patients abstained from smoking for 6 to 8 weeks prior to surgery. And a third trial of smokers cited in the study showed a major decrease in complications following surgery for the repair of acute bone fractures in patients who quit before surgery.

The authors close by suggesting that the seriousness of surgery can be used to create a “teachable moment” for patients who smoke. Other studies show consistently that “patients tend to be more likely to quit smoking after hospitalization for serious illness.” All of this makes the act of scheduling surgery a perfect point of contact with smokers in medical settings. Clinicians can neutrally lay out the facts of the matter, in a way that truly brings home the health consequences of tobacco.

Lau D., Berger M.S., Khullar D. & Maa J. (2013). The impact of smoking on neurosurgical outcomes, Journal of Neurosurgery,   1-8. DOI: 10.3171/2013.5.JNS122287

Graphics Credit:  http://www.ontarioanesthesiologists.ca/

Big Tobacco Easily Evades “Light” Cigarette Ban

Color coding allows smokers to easily identify their former brands.

The tobacco industry has once again made a mockery of the Food and Drug Administration’s attempts to ban ‘light” cigarettes from the marketplace, by simply eliminated the objectionable wording and substituting an easily-decoded color scheme. In a brochure prepared for cigarette retailers marked “For trade use only: not to be shown or distributed to customers,” tobacco giant Philip Morris wrote that “some cigarettes and smokeless packaging is changing, but the product remains the same.”

Research done at Harvard demonstrates "the continued attempts of the industry to avoid reasonable regulation of tobacco products,” said Hillel Alpert, co-author of a new study on light cigarettes, in a prepared statement. The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (FSPTCA) of 2009 highlights the banning of light cigarettes as a critical mission, since cigarettes marketed in this way are in fact no safer than regular cigarettes. What makes a cigarette Light or Ultra-light is a series of tiny holes drilled through the filter (See earlier post). This “filter ventilation” was calibrated to the descriptors: Ultra-lights had more holes drilled in the filter than Lights. Studies have demonstrated conclusively that such filter schemes do not make smoking safer or cut down on related diseases. A 2001 report from the National Cancer Institute documented how smokers were compensating for the ventilation holes by smoking more cigarettes, smoking them more intensely, or by blocking the filter holes with fingers or lips.

In a study for Tobacco Control, Gregory Connolly and Hillel Alpert of the Harvard School of Public Health documented the process. In 2010, Philip Morris sent manuals to retailers detailing how they were to deal with the new sales situation. Philip Morris made clear that “current pack descriptors such as light, ultra-light and mild will be removed from all packages.” All well and good. However, the Philip Morris material also specified how a series of new package names were to be doled out. Marlboro Light became Marlboro Gold. Marlboro Mild morphed into Marlboro Blue. And Marlboro Ultra-light reemerged as Marlboro Silver.

When the researchers commissioned a large public survey to document the state of affairs one year after the official “light” ban, they found that “88%-91% of smokers found it either ‘somewhat easy’ or ‘very easy’ to identify their usual brand of cigarettes by the banned descriptor names, Lights, Mediums or Ultra-Lights.” Sales figures for these brands in the first two quarters of 2010 were essentially unchanged, the authors report. They conclude that “the majority of smokers of brands in all categories correctly identified their brands’ pack color.”

The lesson here may well be that countries like Australia and the UK are on the right track: Plain packaging may be best. If lawmakers allow “misleading numbers, the use of colors, imagery, brand extensions, and other devices that contribute to deception” in place of words, nothing has really changed. “The findings of the present research strongly suggest that tobacco manufacturers have evaded one of the most important provisions of the FSPTCA for protecting the public health from the leading cause of preventable death and disease,” the authors conclude.

In a press release, co-author Gregory Connolly, director of the Center for Global Tobacco Control at Harvard, explained that the industry “was found guilty by a federal court in 2006 for deceptively promoting ‘light’ cigarettes as safer after countless smokers who switched to lights died prematurely, thinking they had reduced their health risks.”

Connolly G.N. & Alpert H.R. (2013). Has the tobacco industry evaded the FDA's ban on 'Light' cigarette descriptors?, Tobacco Control, PMID: 23485704

Photo Credit:http://www.mydiscountcigarette.net

States Quietly Defunding Anti-Smoking Programs For Kids

Only 2 cents of each tobacco settlement dollar goes to smoking prevention plans.

If there’s one thing we know about smoking, it’s that for every smoker who quits, we gain a net financial benefit. These health cost savings can be huge for states, which is why all of them have put in place smoking cessation plans and programs for their citizens. And they are able to run this programs because of the monies that come to them under the 1998 master tobacco settlement.

Perhaps it doesn’t come as a huge surprise, but it’s depressing, all the same: The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids estimates that states will spend less than 2 per cent of these court-mandated funds on actual programs to prevent kids from smoking. The report accuses the states of failing to reverse budget cuts to “programs that have set back the nation’s efforts to reduce tobacco use.”

The report was undertaken to access whether states have been using the estimated $246 billion over 25 years—plus cigarette taxes—to reduce tobacco use. What they found was that “states have failed to reverse deep budget cuts that reduced funding for tobacco prevention by 36 percent” from 2008 to 2012. Only North Dakota and Alaska are currently funding smoking cessation programs at the level recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Four states—New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Ohio—have allocated ZERO funds for tobacco prevention programs in FY 2013.

“Given such a strong return on investment,” the report concludes, “states are truly penny-wise and pound-foolish in shortchanging tobacco prevention and cessation programs.” The report declined to speculate on where the money actually goes, but noted that this was the “second lowest amount states have spent on tobacco prevention programs since 1999, when they first received tobacco settlement funds.”

The cries of outrage came thick and fast:

“The states have an obligation to use more of their billions in tobacco revenues to fight the tobacco problem. Their failure to do so makes no sense given the evidence that tobacco prevention programs save lives and save money by helping reduce health care costs."—Matthew L. Myers, President of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids

"States with comprehensive tobacco control programs experience faster declines in cigarette sales, smoking prevalence and lung cancer incidence and mortality than states that do not invest in these programs."—John R. Seffrin, CEO of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network

"The paltry amount of money that states spend on tobacco prevention and cessation programs is extremely disappointing…. These programs work and it’s time for states to put more skin in the game."—Nancy Brown, CEO of the American Heart Association

"Too many states are failing their citizens by abandoning their responsibility to invest in proven programs that prevent people from smoking and help smokers quit…. Supporting these programs at recommended levels is not only the right thing to do, it's the smart thing to do — quitting smoking or never starting saves lives and saves money."—Paul G. Billings, senior vice president of Advocacy & Education at the American Lung Association

In 2007, the CDC concluded: “We know how to end the epidemic. Evidence-based, statewide tobacco control programs that are comprehensive, sustained, and accountable have been shown to reduce smoking rates, tobacco-related deaths, and diseases caused by smoking.”

Two cents on every dollar. About 20 percent of Americans smoke. “Tobacco companies spend more than $18 to market tobacco products for every one dollar the states spend to reduce tobacco use.” What’s wrong with this picture?

Photo Credit: http://www.tobaccofreekids.org

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/

Does Menthol Really Matter?

Nicotine experts say menthol makes addiction more likely--but differ over what to do about it.

Back in the 1920s, Lloyd “Spud” Hughes of Mingo Junction, Ohio, was working as a restaurant cashier when, legend has it, he smoked some cigarettes that had been casually stored in a tin that contained menthol crystals. Menthol, a compound found in mint plants and also manufactured synthetically, is used medicinally, and as a food flavoring. Back in Spud’s day, menthol was mostly derived by extracting crystals from the Japanese Mint plant. What we know for certain is that the mentholated cigarettes tasted so good to Spud that he patented the mixture. In 1925, the Spud Cigarette Corporation of Wheeling, West Virginia, was born, and Spud Cigarettes quickly became the 5th best selling cigarette brand in America. 

Dr. Neal L. Benowitz, Professor of Medicine and Bioengineering & Therapeutic Sciences, and Chief of the Division of Clinical Pharmacology at the University of California in San Francisco, says that Spud Hughes had “accidentally identified an additive whose pharmacologic actions reduce the irritating properties of smoke generally and nicotine specifically.” Menthol accomplishes this because it acts on receptors involved in the detection of physical stimuli like temperature and chemical irritation. “Menthol contributes to perceptions of cigarettes’ strength, harshness, or mildness, smoothness, coolness, taste, and aftertaste.” That would seem to just about cover it. But no: In their article for the New England Journal Of Medicine—“The Threat of Menthol Cigarettes to U.S. Public Health"—Benowitz and Jonathan M. Samet also claim that “menthol has druglike characteristics that interact at the receptor level with the actions of nicotine.”

And nicotine hardly needs much help establishing its grip over addiction-prone individuals. “It’s not that it’s so intensive,” Dr. Benowitz told me some years ago, when I was researching my book, The Chemical Carousel, “it’s just that it’s so reliable. Nicotine arouses you in the morning; it relaxes you in the afternoon. It’s a drug that you can dose many times per day for the purpose of modulating your mood, and it becomes highly conditioned, more than any other drug, because it’s used every single day, multiple times per day.” Benowitz, along with Dr. Michael Siegel of the Boston University School of Public Health, recently sparked intense debate when they both championed electronic cigarettes as a safe alternative to smoking tobacco cigarettes, despite the FDA’s earlier wish to keep e-cigarettes out of the country. And last month, an advisory report for the FDA by a group that included Benowitz and Samet concluded that mentholated cigarettes were no more harmful, and no more likely to cause disease, than regular cigarettes. A study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute of 440 lung cancer patients and more than 2,000 matched patients without lung cancer showed no correlation at all between menthol and cancer. In fact, the researchers were surprised to discover that menthol smokers appear to have a lower risk of lung cancer than other smokers. Asked whether menthol cigarettes are more toxic than non-menthol cigarettes, the study's author William Blot of Vanderbilt University definitively responded: “The answer is, no, they are not.”

However, the advisory report suggested that, while menthol cigarettes may not be more dangerous, they might be more addictive than regular cigarettes.  In the May 4 New England Journal of Medicine article, Benowitz and Samet argue that because menthol cigarettes attract younger smokers by making tobacco easier to smoke, and because more of these smokers go on to become lifelong nicotine addicts due to this same cooling effect, "menthol cigarettes increase the likelihood of addiction and the degree of addiction in new smokers." Further adding to menthol’s tendency to create lifelong smokers is the fact that “some consumers, particularly blacks, hold beliefs about implicit health benefits of menthol cigarettes that may interfere with their quitting."

This is a substantial indictment of menthol as a component of cigarettes, despite the belief among some experts that it is much ado about nothing. But if that’s the case, Benowitz and Samet suggest, why has the tobacco industry fought so ferociously to exempt menthol from the list of banned flavorings over the years? And why has the industry so consistently linked its marketing of menthol cigarettes to images of “freshness” and health? The authors estimated that “by 2020 about 17,000 more premature deaths will have occurred and two million more people will have started smoking than would have been the case if menthol cigarettes were not available.” Two million additional cigarette smokers by the end of the decade does not sound especially trivial. Nonetheless, the FDA advisory report that Benowitz helped to shape stopped short of recommending an outright ban on nicotine, saying only that removal of menthol would “benefit public health.”

While not disputing the findings of the FDA Advisory Committee, Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University expressed dismay that “despite these conclusions, the [committee] did not recommend a ban on menthol cigarettes.” There are almost 20 million menthol smokers in the U.S., Siegel argues. If even a fraction of them quite smoking due to a ban on menthol in cigarettes, “it would have a profound effect on public health.” This is, Siegel insists, precisely why politicians managed to exempt menthol from bans on various flavor additives in the first place. The Black Congressional Caucus had “vigorously denounced the exclusion of menthol” at the time, while Lorillard, maker of Newports--the leading brand of menthol cigarettes--argued that banning menthol would result in the creation of a huge black market.  Because of all this, Seigel charges, Benowitz and the committee simply “punted the issue back to the FDA.” And if anyone harbored doubts about who benefited from this non-action, in Siegel’s view, one need only look at the fact that Lorillard’s stock enjoyed a nice run-up of about 8% after the public announcement of the FDA panel’s recommendations.

Because of all this, Siegel does not believe the FDA will ever ban menthol cigarettes. In his view, the Obama administration doesn’t need the grief of added health care complexities just now, and there is no movement in Congress to make additives an issue. And since the FDA has chosen not to demand the banning of menthol, Siegel thinks the committee’s findings will serve as a convenient smokescreen for Congress. And for the makers of menthol cigarettes, it will be business as usual. A window of opportunity on the menthol issue is now closing, says Siegel, who confesses to difficulty understanding a policy that bans “every other type of cigarette flavoring—including chocolate, strawberry, banana, pineapple, cherry, and kiwi—yet exempts the one flavoring that is actually used extensively by tobacco companies to recruit and maintain smokers… Menthol is a major contributor to smoking initiation and continued addiction, and for this reason, it will continue to enjoy the protection of a federal government that seems afraid to alienate any corporation, whether it’s part of Big Pharma, Big Insurance, or Big Tobacco.”

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

Update on Smoking Bans Around the World

The noose tightens.

Smoking bans are everywhere. But what does the global picture look like as 2011 gets underway? Herewith, a brief rundown of the smoking situation in assorted countries, courtesy of an analysis late last year by BBC News.

-- Canada. In a nation known as one of the toughest of all when it comes to regulating cigarettes, the Canadian Medical Association Journal says the strict laws have been responsible for “cutting hospital admissions for heart and respiratory problems by about a third.”

-- China. In contrast, 2010 gave observers little reason to think that the Chinese government was actually going to enforce the promised national ban on smoking in public places. Enforcement varied from city to city but in general remained vague at best. Only about 25 % of the adult population believes that smoking is linked to cancer. “The country has an estimated 350 million smokers. For every three cigarettes lit worldwide, one is smoked in China,” according to BBC News.

-- Germany. The smoke-free movement hit some snags in Germany, where a ban on smoking in pubs and restaurants in 2008 has been fiercely resisted in some quarters. Tavern owners complain of lost income, and the bans are also disliked “because of an earlier crackdown on smoking initiated by Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime,” says BBC News. Nonetheless, cigarettes were banned from Munich’s Oktoberfest for the first time in history.

-- France. Curiously, in a nation that was expected to rise up as one against workplace smoking bans, “correspondents say attitudes to smoking have changed dramatically in France since the 2007 ban, and any fears that people would generally ignore the laws have proved false.”

-- United Kingdom. Smoking is banned almost everywhere—“nearly all enclosed public spaces”—in England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales. This year, England may become the first nation to sell cigarettes in plain brown wrappers—a move government officials hope will make the packages less attractive to younger smokers.

-- Iran. Back in 2003, Iran banned smoking in public buildings. According to the BBC, the measures have had “little effect. However, in July 2010 smokers were banned from taking high-ranking jobs in the Iranian government, the news agency ILNA reported.”

-- Russia. The heavy-smoking Russians continue to astound: “A 2009 survey by the World Health Organization found that Russia has 43.9 million smokers—about 40% of the population.” About 60% of Russian men smoke. 500,000 people die of smoking-related illness each year. The Russian government is considering a blanket no-smoking policy for enclosed spaces—starting in 2015.

-- Uruguay. The host of a recent international summit on tobacco control strategies, Uruguay has adopted some of the toughest anti-smoking laws in the world—so tough that the government was forced to back down on some of its sweeping new restrictions due to tobacco industry pressure.

-- Australia. Starting last September, there was no smoking “in cars carrying children, on sections of beaches, and within 10m (32ft) of playground equipment.” Australia also bans smoking in public workplaces, and plans to follow England’s lead in forcing tobacco companies to use plain wrappers for cigarette packages.

-- United States. California, a state that almost managed to pass a proposition legalizing marijuana, has the strictest and most extensive set of anti-tobacco laws on the planet. Smoking is banned not just within public buildings, but also within 20 feet of public buildings, and on all state beaches.

Graphics Credit: http://www.nicotineedge.com/