Apply federal research rules on deception to misleading health information: an example on smokeless tobacco and cigarettes

Cytotoxicity, oxidative stress, and inflammatory response of smokeless tobacco extracts and cytotoxicity of combustible cigarette whole smoke in a 3D oral organotypic buccal cell model

Oral disease is frequently associated with viral and environmental exposures and oral hygiene. The use of tobacco is a risk factor in the development of oral disease. Cytotoxicity, inflammatory response, and oxidative stress have been reported to have a role in the development of oral disease. These three endpoints were evaluated in a 3D human oral buccal model, EpiOral™, following exposure to CORESTA reference smokeless tobacco products (CRPs) and cigarette whole smoke. CRPs for Swedish style snus (CRP1), moist snuff (CRP2), and dry snuff (CRP3) were each extracted in complete artificial saliva (CAS) with a ratio of 300 mg CRP to 1 mL of CAS. Each of the CRP extracts (15-300 mg/ml) were applied to the apical side of a 3D organotypic buccal cell model for 24 or 48 h continuously, then cytotoxicity (LDH), oxidative stress (8-isoprostane), and inflammatory response (IP10, IL-1α, and IL-8) were measured. Experiments with 3R4F cigarettes were conducted by exposing the buccal tissues to whole smoke for a maximum of 2.5 h. Cytotoxicity (MTT) was measured 24 h post-exposure. Exposure of buccal tissues to whole smoke from a cigarette induced a dose-dependent cytotoxic response. In contrast, the CRP extracts elicited minimal cytotoxicity (<15%) when compared to CAS (vehicle control), but time- and dose-dependent effects on oxidative stress and inflammatory response were observed. Collectively, these data demonstrate that a 3D organotypic buccal human model may be used to assess biological mechanisms (MOAs) involved in the development of oral disease following exposure to smokeless tobacco products and may be applicable for differentiation between tobacco product categories.

The Ethics of Tobacco Harm Reduction: An Analysis of E-Cigarette Availability From the Perspectives of Utilitarianism, Bioethics, and Public Health Ethics

Much evidence suggests e-cigarettes are substantially less harmful than combustible cigarettes. Assuming this is true, we analyze the ethical case for a policy of e-cigarette availability (ECA) as a tobacco harm reduction strategy. ECA involves making e-cigarettes available to allow smokers to switch to them, and informing smokers of the lower risks of e-cigarettes vis-à-vis smoking. After suggesting that utilitarian/consequentialist considerations do not provide an adequate ethical analysis, we analyze ECA using two other ethical frameworks. First, ECA is supported by a public health ethics framework. ECA is a population-level intervention consistent with respecting individual autonomy by using the least restrictive means to accomplish public health goals, and it supports equity and justice. Second, ECA is supported by four principles that form a biomedical ethics framework. By reducing smokers' health risks and not harming them, ECA fulfills principles of beneficence and non-maleficence. Because ECA allows smokers to make informed health decisions for themselves, it fulfills the principle requiring respect for persons and their autonomy. Here, we consider whether nicotine addiction and thus ECA undermine autonomy, and also discuss the ethical warrant for special protections for youth. Finally, ECA can also advance justice by providing a harm reduction alternative for disadvantaged groups that disproportionately bear the devastating consequences of smoking. Policies of differential taxation of cigarettes and e-cigarettes can facilitate adoption of less harmful alternatives by those economically disadvantaged. We conclude that public health and biomedical ethics frameworks are mutually reinforcing and supportive of ECA as a tobacco harm reduction strategy. Implications: Making e-cigarettes and information about them available is supported as ethical from multiple ethical perspectives.

Managing nicotine without smoke to save lives now: Evidence for harm minimization

Tobacco control has made strides in prevention and cessation, but deaths will not decline rapidly without massive behavior change. Currently, inhaled smoke from combusting tobacco is chiefly responsible for prematurely killing 7.2 million people worldwide and 530,000 in the United States annually. An array of noncombustible nicotine products (NNPs) has emerged and has disrupted the marketplace. Saving lives more speedily will require societal acceptance of locating a "sweet spot" within a three-dimensional framework where NNPs are simultaneously: 1. Less toxic, 2. Appealing (can reach smokers at scale), and 3. Satisfying (adequate nicotine delivery) to displace smoking. For this harm minimization framework to eliminate smoking, a laser focus on "smoking control" (not general tobacco control) is needed. By adopting these economically viable NNPs as part of the solution, NNPs can be smoking control's valued ally. Synthesis of the science indicates that policy and regulation can sufficiently protect youth while speeding the switch away from smoking. Despite some risks of nicotine dependence that can be mitigated but not eliminated, no credible evidence counters the assertion that NNPs will save lives if they displace smoking. But scientific evidence and advocacy has selectively exaggerated NNP harms over benefits. Accurate communication is crucial to dispel the misperception of NNPs harms and reassure smokers they can successfully replace smoking cigarettes with NNPs. Saving more lives now is an attainable and pragmatic way to call for alignment of all stakeholders and factions within traditional tobacco control rather than perpetuate the unrealized and unrealizable perfection of nicotine prohibition.

Harm Minimization and Tobacco Control: Reframing Societal Views of Nicotine Use to Rapidly Save Lives

Inhalation of the toxic smoke produced by combusting tobacco products, primarily cigarettes, is the overwhelming cause of tobacco-related disease and death in the United States and globally. A diverse class of alternative nicotine delivery systems (ANDS) has recently been developed that do not combust tobacco and are substantially less harmful than cigarettes. ANDS have the potential to disrupt the 120-year dominance of the cigarette and challenge the field on how the tobacco pandemic could be reversed if nicotine is decoupled from lethal inhaled smoke. ANDS may provide a means to compete with, and even replace, combusted cigarette use, saving more lives more rapidly than previously possible. On the basis of the scientific evidence on ANDS, we explore benefits and harms to public health to guide practice, policy, and regulation. A reframing of societal nicotine use through the lens of harm minimization is an extraordinary opportunity to enhance the impact of tobacco control efforts.

Young or adult users of multiple tobacco/nicotine products urgently need to be informed of meaningful differences in product risks

Previously, it has been argued that health information efforts need to inform the public about meaningful differential risks from tobacco/nicotine products. The fact of multiple product use by the same individual further supports this need. When the majority of youth, for example, who use smokeless tobacco are also current tobacco smokers, it makes little sense to mount a smokeless prevention campaign that fails to include clear messages about the much greater risks from smoking. In April 2016, The Food & Drug Administration (FDA) announced a $36 million campaign for youth that "smokeless doesn't mean harmless." Research shows the public (a) already knows that smokeless tobacco is not harmless, but are (b) also largely unaware that cigarettes are much more harmful than smokeless. Though not harmless, smokeless tobacco has been estimated to be over 90% less harmful than cigarettes. 'Gateway' fears are made moot by current use of multiple tobacco/nicotine products. When multi-tobacco product use is commonplace among users, usable information on significant differences in risk is crucial for both adult and younger users. The FDA and like campaigns and health information websites should follow established ethical principles and accepted communication methods to inform the public of less-harmful tobacco/nicotine products as well as the greater harms of smoking, in keeping with the Surgeon-General's advice that reductions in smoking in particular will bring about the greatest public health advances.

Obsolete tobacco control themes can be hazardous to public health: the need for updating views on absolute product risks and harm reduction

BACKGROUND

Leading themes have guided tobacco control efforts, and these themes have changed over the decades. When questions arose about health risks of tobacco, they focused on two key themes: 1) how bad is the problem (i.e., absolute risk) and 2) what can be done to reduce the risk without cessation (i.e., prospects for harm reduction). Using the United States since 1964 as an example, we outline the leading themes that have arisen in response to these two questions. Initially, there was the recognition that "cigarettes are hazardous to health" and an acceptance of safer alternative tobacco products (cigars, pipes, light/lower-tar cigarettes). In the 1980s there was the creation of the seminal theme that "Cigarettes are lethal when used as intended and kill more people than heroin, cocaine, alcohol, AIDS, fires, homicide, suicide, and automobile crashes combined." By around 2000, support for a less-dangerous light/lower tar cigarette was gone, and harm reduction claims were avoided for products like cigars and even for smokeless tobacco which were summarized as "unsafe" or "not a safe alternative to cigarettes."

DISCUSSION

The Surgeon General in 2014 concluded that by far the greatest danger to public health was from cigarettes and other combusted products. At the same time the evidence base for smokeless tobacco and alternative nicotine delivery systems (ANDS) had grown. Product innovation and tobacco/nicotine bio-behavioral, epidemiological and public health sciences demonstrate that low nitrosamine smokeless tobacco (e.g., Swedish snus), and ANDS have substantially lower harms than cigarettes. Going forward, it is important to sharpen themes and key messages of tobacco control, while continuing to emphasize the extreme lethality of the inhaled smoke from cigarettes or from use of any combusting tobacco product. Implications of updating the leading themes for regulation, policymaking and advocacy in tobacco control are proposed as an important next step. A new reframing can align action plans to more powerfully and rapidly achieve population-level benefit and minimize harm to eliminate in our lifetime the use of the most deadly combustible tobacco products and thus prevent the premature deaths of 1 billion people projected to occur worldwide by 2100.

Deficiencies in public understanding about tobacco harm reduction: results from a United States national survey

Background

Tobacco products differ in their relative health harms. The need for educating consumers about such harms is growing as different tobacco products enter the marketplace and as the FDA moves to regulate and educate the public about different products. However, little is known about the patterns of the public’s knowledge of relative harms.

Methods

Data were analyzed from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) 4 Cycle 2, a population-representative survey of US adults conducted between October 2012 and January 2013 (N = 3630). Participants reported their perceptions of the relative risks of e-cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, and different types of cigarettes compared to “traditional” cigarettes. Relative risk perceptions for each product type, as well as the consistency and accuracy of harm reduction beliefs, were analyzed.

Results

About 65 % of the respondents accurately reported that no cigarettes were less harmful than any others. Slightly more than half of US adults perceived e-cigarettes to be safer than regular cigarettes, a belief in line with current scientific evidence. By contrast, only 9 % of respondents perceived some smokeless tobacco products to be safer, a belief strongly supported by the evidence. Only 3.5 % of respondents had patterns of relative risk perceptions in line with current scientific evidence for all three modalities.

Conclusions

The discrepancy between current evidence and public perceptions of relative risk of various tobacco/nicotine products was marked; for most tobacco types, a large proportion of the population held inaccurate harm reduction beliefs. Although there was substantial awareness that no cigarettes were safer than any other cigarettes, there could be benefits from increasing the percentage of the public that appreciates this fact, especially among current smokers. Given the potential benefits of tobacco risk reduction strategies, public health education efforts to increase understanding of basic harm reduction principles are needed to address these misperceptions.

Assessing the TARES as an ethical model for antismoking ads

This study examines the ethical dimensions of public health communication, with a focus on antismoking public service announcements (PSAs). The content analysis of 826 television ads from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Media Campaign Resource Center is an empirical testing of Baker and Martinson's (2001) TARES Test that directly examines persuasive messages for truthfulness, authenticity, respect, equity, and social responsibility. In general, the antismoking ads score highly on ethicality. There are significant relationships between ethicality and message attributes (thematic frame, emotion appeal, source, and target audience). Ads that portrayed smoking as damaging to health and socially unacceptable score lower in ethicality than ads that focus on tobacco industry manipulation, addiction, dangers of secondhand smoke, and cessation. Emotion appeals of anger and sadness are associated with higher ethicality than shame and humor appeals. Ads targeting teen/youth audiences score lower on ethicality than ads targeting adult and general audiences. There are significant differences in ethicality based on source; ads produced by the CDC rate higher in ethicality than other sources. Theoretical implications and practical recommendations are discussed.

Effect of smokeless tobacco product marketing and use on population harm from tobacco use policy perspective for tobacco-risk reduction

This article presents policy perspectives on the marketing of smokeless tobacco products to reduce population harm from tobacco use. Despite consensus that smokeless tobacco products as sold in the United States are less dangerous than cigarettes, there is no consensus on how to proceed. Diverse factions have different policy concerns. While the tobacco industry is exempted from U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversight, the pharmaceutical industry whose nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) medicines compete with smokeless tobacco as noncombustible nicotine-delivery systems are regulated by the FDA. Some public health experts support smokeless tobacco use to reduce population harm from tobacco; other public health experts oppose promoting smokeless tobacco for harm reduction. Adult consumers can freely purchase currently-marketed smokeless tobacco products and even more-deadly cigarettes. Concerns with and advantages of smokeless tobacco products are discussed. In that noncombustible medicinal nicotine-delivery systems have been proven to be effective smoking-cessation aids, smokeless tobacco, as another source of psychoactive doses of nicotine, could be used similarly, in a dose-response fashion as a smoking-cessation aid (consistent with FDA principles for evaluating generic versions of drugs). Price measures should be used on tobacco products to make costs to consumers proportional to product health risks (which would make smokeless tobacco much cheaper than cigarettes), and smokeless tobacco should be encouraged as an option for smoking cessation in adult smokers, particularly for those who have failed to stop smoking using NRT or other methods.

Public health implications of smokeless tobacco use as a harm reduction strategy

Harm reduction strategies involve promoting a product that has adverse health consequences as a substitute for one that has more severe adverse health consequences. Smokeless tobacco low in nitrosamine content offers potential benefits in reducing smoking prevalence rates. Possible harm arises from the potential for such products to serve as a gateway to more harmful tobacco products, public misinterpretation of "less harmful" as "safe," distraction from the public health goal of tobacco elimination, and ethical issues involved in advising those marketing these harmful products. We offer a research agenda to provide a stronger basis for evaluating the risks and benefits of smokeless tobacco as a means of reducing the adverse health effects of tobacco.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Most smokeless tobacco use is not a causal gateway to cigarettes: using order of product use to evaluate causation in a national US sample

AIMS

To evaluate non-causal and causal patterns of smokeless tobacco (SLT) and cigarette use; to assess the prevalence of 'non-gateway' and possible 'gateway' patterns of SLT use.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Data from the Cancer Control Supplement to the 1987 National Health Interview Survey, a representative survey of non-institutionalized adults in the United States. From reported age at first use, participants were categorized by type and sequence of tobacco product use. SUDAAN 8.0.1 was used for statistical analyses.

PARTICIPANTS

Males aged 18-34 (n = 3454), weighted to provide estimates of the US population. A subsample of males aged 23-34 (n = 2614) was analyzed to minimize the possibility of future product switching.

MEASUREMENTS

Smoking status, smokeless tobacco (snuff, chewing tobacco, both) use status, age at regular use of cigarettes, age at first use of smokeless tobacco.

FINDINGS

Of those 23-34-year-olds who had ever used SLT with or without cigarettes, 77.2% (95% CI: 71.3, 83.3) were classifiable as non-gateway users in that 35.0% (95% CI: 29.9, 40.1) had only used SLT and 42.2% (95% CI: 36.8, 47.7) had used cigarettes first. Cigarette use in younger cohorts was less common, despite increased SLT use. Those who used cigarettes before moist snuff were 2.1 times more likely to have quit smoking (95% CI 1.21,6.39) than cigarette-only users.

CONCLUSIONS

The large majority of SLT users are non-gateway users. Causal gateway effects should be of minor concern for policy. SLT may be more likely to prevent smoking than cause it.