Advertisement

Cancer Causes & Control

, Volume 26, Issue 9, pp 1363–1364 | Cite as

Tobacco industry sponsored advocates have a different interpretation of science: a response to: Even anti-tobacco studies must be held to basic scientific standards

  • Sunday Azagba
  • Leia M. Minaker
  • David Hammond
  • Steve Manske
Letter to the editor

Dear Editor,

Our paper [1] reported that 32 % of smokers in grades 9–12 smoked menthol cigarettes, that youth who smoked menthol cigarettes smoked more cigarettes, and were more likely to intend to continue smoking than non-menthol smokers, which we concluded added to the evidence supporting the need to ban mentholated tobacco products.

Mr. Stier’s criticism of our conclusion ignores the fact that the evidence we present is consistent with the existing body of evidence on menthol. As we state in our paper, the limitations include the fact that it is a cross-sectional study, but our recommendation is not based solely on our study. Peer-reviewed evidence clearly documents tobacco industry market segmentation policy aimed at young and inexperienced smokers [2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. Youths have responded to tobacco industry marketing, as evidenced by a substantial body of research finding that youths are more likely to experiment with menthol cigarettes than with non-menthol cigarettes [7, 8, 9, 10...

Keywords

Peripheral Artery Disease Tobacco Industry Nicotine Addiction Menthol Cigarette Regular Cigarette 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Azagba S, Minaker LM, Sharaf MF, Hammond D, Manske S (2014) Smoking intensity and intent to continue smoking among menthol and non-menthol adolescent smokers in canada. Cancer Causes ControlGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lee YO, Glantz SA (2011) Menthol: putting the pieces together. Tob Control 20(Suppl 2):ii1–ii7PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kreslake JM, Wayne GF, Connolly GN (2008) The menthol smoker: tobacco industry research on consumer sensory perception of menthol cigarettes and its role in smoking behavior. Nicotine Tob Res 10(4):705–715CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anderson SJ (2011) Marketing of menthol cigarettes and consumer perceptions: a review of tobacco industry documents. Tob Control. 20(Suppl 2):ii20–ii28PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yerger VB. Menthol’s potential effects on nicotine dependence: a tobacco industry perspective. Tob Control. 2011;20 Suppl 2:ii29-36Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Klausner K (2011) Menthol cigarettes and smoking initiation: a tobacco industry perspective. Tob Control 20(Suppl 2):ii12–ii19PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Food and Drug Administration. Preliminary scientific evaluation of the possible public health effects of menthol versus nonmenthol cigarettes. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/PeerReviewofScientificInformationandAssessments/UCM361598.pdf. Updated 2013. Accessed 08/19, 2013
  8. 8.
    Nonnemaker J, Hersey J, Homsi G, Busey A, Allen J, Vallone D (2013) Initiation with menthol cigarettes and youth smoking uptake. Addiction 108(1):171–178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Giovino GA, Villanti AC, Mowery PD et al (2015) Differential trends in cigarette smoking in the USA: Is menthol slowing progress? Tobacco Control 24:28–37. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051159
  10. 10.
    Hersey JC, Wen Ng S, Nonnemaker JM et al (2006) Are menthol cigarettes a starter product for youth? Nicotine Tob Res 8(3):403–413CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Villanti AC, Giovino GA, Barker DC, Mowery PD, Sevilimedu V, Abrams DB (2012) Menthol brand switching among adolescents and young adults in the national youth smoking cessation survey. Am J Public Health 102(7):1310–1312PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mutti S, Hammond D, Borland R, Cummings MK, O’Connor RJ, Fong GT (2011) Beyond light and mild: cigarette brand descriptors and perceptions of risk in the international tobacco control (ITC) four country survey. Addiction 106(6):1166–1175Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wackowski OA, Delnevo CD, Lewis MJ (2010) Risk perceptions of menthol cigarettes compared with nonmenthol cigarettes among new jersey adults. Nicotine Tob Res 12(7):786–790CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fagan P, Moolchan ET, Hart A et al (2010) Nicotine dependence and quitting behaviors among menthol and non-menthol smokers with similar consumptive patterns. Addiction 105(Suppl 1):55–74CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hoffman AC, Miceli D (2011) Menthol cigarettes and smoking cessation behavior. Tob Induc Dis 9(Suppl 1):S6PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Minaker LM, Ahmed R, Hammond D, Manske SR (2014) Flavored tobacco use among canadian students in grades 9 through 12: prevalence and patterns from the 2010–2011 youth smoking survey. Prev Chronic Dis 11:E102Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jones MR, Tellez-Plaza M, Navas-Acien A (2013) Smoking, menthol cigarettes and all-cause, cancer and cardiovascular mortality: Evidence from the national health and nutrition examination survey (NHANES) and a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 8(10)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jones MR, Apelberg BJ, Samet JM, Navas-Acien A (2013) Smoking, menthol cigarettes, and peripheral artery disease in U.S. adults. Nicotine Tob Res 15(7):1183–1189PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Park SJ, Foreman MG, Demeo DL et al (2015) Menthol cigarette smoking in the COPDGene cohort: relationship with COPD, comorbidities and CT metrics. Respirology 20(1):108–114PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fallin A, Grana R, Glantz SA (2014) ‘To quarterback behind the scenes, third-party efforts’: the tobacco industry and the tea party. Tob Control. 23(4):322–331PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Apollonio Dorie E, Bero Lisa A (2007) The creation of industry front groups: the tobacco industry and “get government off our back”. Am J Public Health 97(3):419PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Samet JM, Burke TA (2001) Turning science into junk: the tobacco industry and passive smoking. Am J Public Health 91(11):1742–1744PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sunday Azagba
    • 1
    • 2
  • Leia M. Minaker
    • 1
  • David Hammond
    • 2
  • Steve Manske
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Propel Centre for Population Health Impact, Faculty of Applied Health SciencesUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.School of Public Health and Health SystemsUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations