Study: Tobacco companies changed design of cigarettes without alerting smokers
June 19, 2009As President Obama prepares to sign a bill giving the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversight of the tobacco industry, a new study from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) researchers shows that tobacco manufacturers have continually changed the ingredients and the design of their cigarettes over time, even if those changes have exceeded acceptable product variance guidelines. The result, say the researchers, is that consumers who buy the same brand of product are not made aware of how that product has been altered and what effect those alterations might have on their levels of addiction or harm.
"I hope the FDA requires disclosure of any changes made to tobacco products and that the changes are disallowed if shown to increase appeal, addiction and harm," said Greg Connolly, director of the Tobacco Control Research Program at HSPH.
The study appears in the "Online First" section of the Journal of Tobacco Control and will appear in an upcoming print issue of the journal.
For their study, Connolly and lead author Geoffrey Ferris Wayne, an HSPH researcher, studied internal tobacco company documents released following the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement. These documents describe significant changes made to commercial products over time, including blend, processing, casing, flavoring and physical design features. For example, new methods were developed to process tobacco, altering the smoke chemistry and the form of nicotine delivery, and the levels of processed tobaccos were regularly adjusted within brands.
Despite the constant innovation of tobacco products, which in many cases have exceeded the levels of acceptable variance established within the tobacco industry, for the most part, these changes were not disclosed to consumers, say the researchers.
"Even incremental changes that occur over a period of years can result in significant design differences. The resulting product may have altered chemistry or delivery, yet the smoker is largely unaware of these changes. This underscores the need for industry transparency and accountability," said Ferris Wayne.
The study builds on earlier research done at HSPH on how products are designed to enhance appeal and addiction. At Senate hearings on the FDA bill last year, Connolly discussed that research, including how tobacco companies have increased nicotine content over time, manipulated menthol and added candy-like flavors to enhance appeal to children.
Until regulators have a system in place for assessing product revisions, Connolly and Ferris Wayne advise that all changes to tobacco products be reported to the FDA and that no changes be allowed until they have been scientifically shown to reduce addiction or harm.
More information: "Regulatory Assessment of Brand Changes in the Commercial Tobacco Product Market," Geoffrey Ferris Wayne, Greg Connolly, Journal of Tobacco Control, online June 14, 2009. Read the abstract: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/tc.2009.030502v1
Source: Harvard School of Public Health (news : web)
Jul 16, 2008 |
not rated yet |
0
Not just that they changed.
Cheers!
And who, exactly, decides what constitutes, "ACCEPTABLE PRODUCT VARIANCE GUIDLELINES"? Especially for a product that has been widely used for 500 years?
The pertinent information is widely available. In a free society that would be all that is necessary.
GreyMouser is correct. Tell me beer hasn't changed, wildly since the 70's?
The FDA failed its mission but are now being rewarded with more responsibilities. Its not about cigarettes, its that they are impotent to monitor the safety and standards in the pharmaceutical industry whose products are either made overseas without standards/oversight or the ingredients are imported without standards/oversight.
60-80% of our fruits and vegetables are imported now, according to the 2009 GAO report. Medium and small scale farmers cannot compete and are losing it all to this globalization of everything. Apple growers in Washington state are disappearing.
The incentives now in attaching food production to fuel production means we rely more on importation for our food sources instead of producing on our own soil as growing corn for ethanol is far more rewarding.
Everyone better get used to a new invasion of your private lives in exchange for health care access. BC/BS already spending money to provide patient 'guidance' in leading a healthy lifestyle while they suspend coverage of people who become seriously and critically ill. We're on our own.
I guess the FDA et. al. think we aren't paying attention.
To the earlier comment, "Who cares? Smokers wants to die anyway."
Agreed - people should have the freedom to make that personal choice. The problem is second-hand smoke. I think the tobacco industry should be required to formulate cigarettes without harmful second-hand smoke. Then they could be free to add heroin to the cigarettes after that and nobody should care.
Does nobody else produce inevitably-lethal products?
Does nobody else produce highly (deliberately) addictive products?
Does nobody else produce products which directly damage others besides the user?
If they are held to the same standards as those who grow apples or those who manufacture glass, that is woefully inadequate, so needs to be changed.
"Processing" tobacco might imply adding chemicals but it could also indicate other things such as the way it was washed or how it was dried - even different natural ingredients might have been added, all of which could significantly alter the chemicals produced when smoking.
The addictive part of tobacco is the nicotine - natural tobacco still has this material and even when smoking natural tobacco in simple rolling paper, quitting will still be difficult for most people
Of course, we could not eat the windfalls, and we dared not spray within a month of picking...
One thing was for sure-- Even masked and gloved, we always got a nicotine hit and dump. We were never, ever tempted to smoke...
The thing that bothers me about these kinds of statements is that there is a lot of other things people die from, guns for example, should every gun maker be thrown in jail for mass murder? (that would actually make more sense than the tobacco people) or alcohol, or people that just eat way too much and get diabetes, or die of a heart attack from eating hohos and drink ten two liter bottles of pepsi everyday.
Obviously smoking anything is a dumb idea and you have a nice big chance of it leading to your death.
But so is skydiving. Or cars!! Cars kill you, and the people around you way faster than smoking does.
If every single thing was safe and healthy, life would be boring, or we would just have an even worse population problem. I think they should outlaw having sixteen kids before they outlaw smoking. But that's a whole other subject.
Anyway, if your pregnant and you smoke you're more of an idiot than a normal smoker, by far, and it's your own dumb fault the baby is messed up, not the tobacco industry.
Besides, you can't smoke in pretty much any public place anymore, some places you can't smoke while walking down the street, and you can't smoke in bars!! Come on, that's a pretty big victory for you people.
All that being said, I don't think this is a bad thing, they can't make tobacco worse, they can only make it not as bad for you, which probably won't happen so it will most likely just stay the same, or get rid of some of the non essential chemicals that in the end are pointless.
When it really comes down to it, there are way more important things out there to spend energy on thinking about, screw cigarettes. All the major smoking nazis out there put so much time and energy into it, imagine what would happen if they spent that time on things that really matter, or why not spend time and come up with an effective way of getting people to not be addicted. I don't know, but the people that aren't going to smoke won't, the people that do ignore you.
So that's where your problem starts I would say.
Ahh isn't it wonderful to live in a free society.
better explanation?
jimee-they are not mass murderers because we smoke of our own free will. guns kill people, but gun manufacturers are not responsible because people by their product and use it as they will.
now i will say, the purposeful addition of chemicals and such to cigarettes over time to get people addicted, then these changes mentioned here are another example, are inexcuseable.
BUT, it makes business sense you have to amdit....but more along the lines of a crack selling business :)
http://www.scienc...0400.htm
-sounds pretty serious, eh? Especially for babies.
-hey physorg, miss this one?