cigarettes

Smoking Scenes in Movies Have Increased … Why?

Source: www.healthline.com
Author: Shawn Radcliffe

After several years of decline, tobacco use depicted in movies is on the rise again. Does it matter? Where there’s smoke, there’s … probably a PG-13 rated movie.

A new study shows that tobacco incidents depicted in top-grossing movies in the United States are once again on the rise, breaking an earlier decline. This is true despite public health efforts outside theaters to reduce smoking by children and teens.

“If the progress that we had seen between 2005 and 2010 had continued, all of the youth-rated films would have been smoke-free in 2015,” said study author Stanton Glantz, PhD, professor of medicine, and director of the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education.

The July 7 study in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) found that the total number of tobacco incidents in top-grossing movies increased 72 percent between 2010 and 2016. It also increased 43 percent in PG-13 movies. Tobacco incidents are defined as use or implied use, by an actor, of cigarettes, cigars, pipes, hookah, smokeless tobacco products, or electronic cigarettes. This increase comes as the number of movies showing tobacco declined — meaning fewer movies account for a greater number of tobacco scenes.

In 2016, 41 percent of the top-grossing movies had tobacco incidents, down from 45 percent in 2010. In addition, 26 percent of youth-rated movies had tobacco incidents in 2016, a decline from 31 percent in 2010. Tobacco incidents in top-grossing movies peaked in 2005. The lowest number of tobacco incidents on record occurred in 1998. Tobacco depictions are now rare in PG and G movies — only four of these films in 2015 included tobacco use.

The study was a collaboration between UCSF, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and Breathe California of Sacramento-Emigrant Trails, which provided the data.

The potential harm:
Like on-screen violence, tobacco depicted in youth-rated movies can have a profound effect on children and teens.

“It’s very concerning because five years ago in 2012 the surgeon general concluded that exposure to smoking on-screen in movies causes kids to start smoking,” Glantz told Healthline.

There’s also a dose-response — the more often kids see tobacco use depicted in movies, the more likely they are to pick up the habit. According a National Cancer Institute (NCI) report, youths who are heavily exposed to smoking depicted in movies are two to three times more likely to start, compared with kids who have little exposure.

“An increase in the amount of exposure means that more kids are going to be smoking and dying from tobacco-induced diseases,” said Glantz.

Tobacco use is linked to lung cancer, mouth cancer, emphysema, and other diseases. The NCI report also cited studies showing that cigarette smoking in movies can influence adults’ and teens’ beliefs about smoking. For example, when stars are shown smoking, or when the health consequences of tobacco don’t show up in the film, viewers may develop pro-smoking beliefs and intentions.

What’s causing the increase?
The increase in the number of on-screen tobacco incidents since 2010 runs counter to overall smoking trends in the United States. According to the CDC, overall smoking rates in adults have been falling for decades, and in high school students since the late 1990s. The researchers write that starting in 2001 public health officials became more concerned about tobacco use in movies. This might account for the decline of tobacco incidents in youth-rated movies between 2005 and 2010.

So what has shifted in recent years?
Some public health experts put the blame squarely on the motion picture companies that continue to produce youth movies depicting smoking.

“I think the [public health] messaging is fine,” said Glantz. “It’s been the recalcitrance on the part of the media companies to act responsibly and protect kids.”

The major studios have policies to help reduce the amount of smoking in movies that they release, but all of the polices have what Glantz calls “loopholes.” Paramount Pictures “discourages” depiction of tobacco use in youth-rated films, but also takes into account the “creative vision of the filmmakers.” Universal Pictures “presumes that no smoking incidents should appear” in youth-rated films, but leaves it as an option if there is a “substantial reason for doing so.”

Modernizing movie rating system:
Currently, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), which rates movies in the United States, has a smoking “rating descriptor” that is supposed to alert viewers and parents to tobacco use in a film. However, this descriptor was missing from 89 percent of top-grossing, youth-rated movies that depicted tobacco use, according to a 2015 report by the UCSF Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education.

Public health experts are calling for a more consistent approach.

“The six studios that control the rating system through the MPAA need to modernize the rating system to reflect the science,” said Glantz, “and give an R-rating for smoking, which would get it out of all the youth-rated movies.”

A 2012 study in the journal Pediatrics estimated that this could reduce the number of teen smokers by 18 percent. A related CDC fact sheet estimated that this change would save the lives of a million youth. Advocacy group Smokefree Movies recently ran a two-page statement in The Hollywood Reporter and Variety demanding that MPAA update the rating system by June 1, 2018. The statement was signed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Heart Association, and other health organizations.

So far, the major studios have been unwilling to update the rating system to take into account on-screen tobacco use. Some health experts have proposed running anti-smoking messages before movies to counteract the effect of on-screen tobacco use. These are somewhat effective but would require much more effort than reducing children’s on-screen tobacco exposure.

“It would cost nothing to [update the rating system],” said Glantz. “There’s no public health intervention that would be cheaper and have a bigger effect.”

Study reveals high environmental cost of tobacco

Source: www.cnn.com
Date: May 31st, 2017
Author: Jacopo Prisco

Details of the environmental cost of tobacco are revealed in a study released Wednesday by the World Health Organization, adding to the well-known costs to global health, which translate to a yearly loss of $1.4 trillion in health-care expenses and lost productivity.

From crop to pack, tobacco commands an intensive use of resources and forces the release of harmful chemicals in the soil and waterways, as well as significant amounts of greenhouse gases. Its leftovers linger, as tobacco litter is the biggest component of litter worldwide.

“Tobacco not only produces lung cancer in people, but it is a cancer to the lungs of the Earth,” said Dr. Armando Peruga, who previously coordinated the WHO Tobacco Free Initiative and now works as a consultant. He reviewed the new report for the WHO.

Commercial tobacco farming is a worldwide industry that involves 124 countries and occupies 4.3 million hectares of agricultural land. About 90% of it takes place in low-income countries, with China, Brazil and India as the largest producers.

Because tobacco is often a monocrop — grown without being rotated with other crops — the plants and the soil are weak in natural defenses and require larger amounts of chemicals for growth and protection from pests.

“Tobacco also takes away a lot of nutrients from the soil and requires massive amounts of fertilizer, a process that leads to degradation of the land and desertification, with negative consequences for biodiversity and wildlife,” Peruga said.

The use of chemicals directly impacts the health of farmers, 60% to 70% of whom are women. This is especially prominent in low- and middle-income countries, where some compounds that are banned in high-income countries are still used.

300 cigarettes = one tree

Farming also uses a surprisingly large amount of wood, rendering tobacco a driver of deforestation, one of the leading causes of climate change.

About 11.4 million metric tonnes of wood are utilized annually for curing: the drying of the tobacco leaf, which is achieved through various methods, including wood fires. That’s the equivalent of one tree for every 300 cigarettes, or 1.5 cartons.

This adds to the impact of plantations on forest land, which the study describes as a significant cause for concern, citing “evidence of substantial, and largely irreversible, losses of trees and other plant species cause by tobacco farming.”

Deadly gases

In 2012, 967 million daily smokers consumed approximately 6.25 trillion cigarettes worldwide, the WHO estimates.”That means about 6,000 metric tones of formaldehyde and 47,000 metric tonnes of nicotine are released into the environment,” Peruga said.

Tobacco smoke contains about 4,000 chemicals, at least 250 of which are known to be harmful. It also contains climate-warming carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxides. “The combination of greenhouse gases from combustion is equivalent to about 1.5 million vehicles driven annually,” Peruga said.

Secondhand smoke is particularly deadly: It contains twice as much nicotine and 147 times more ammonia than so-called mainstream smoke, leading to close to 1 million deaths annually, 28% of them children.

Some of these pollutants remain in the environment (and our homes) as “third-hand smoke,” accumulating in dust and surfaces indoors, and in landfills. Some, like nicotine, even resist treatment, polluting waterways and potentially contaminating water used for consumption, the study notes.

Non-biodegradable litter

Tobacco litter is the most common type of litter by count worldwide.

“We calculate that two-thirds of every cigarette ends up as litter,” Peruga said.

The litter is laced with chemicals including arsenic and heavy metals, which can end up in the water supply. Cigarette butts are not biodegradable, and tossing one on the ground is still considered a socially acceptable form of littering in many countries.

The WHO estimates that between 340 million and 680 million kilograms of tobacco waste are thrown away every year, and cigarette butts account for 30% to 40% of all items collected in coastal and urban clean-ups.

“In addition to that, there are 2 million tons of paper, foil, ink and glue used for the packaging,” Peruga said.

A way forward?

Even though smoking is declining globally, it is increasing in some regions, such as the eastern Mediterranean and Africa. China is a world leader both in production (44%) and consumption, with 10 times more cigarettes smoked than in any other nation.

Every stage of the production of a cigarette has negative effects on the environment and the people who are involved in manufacturing tobacco products, even before the health of smokers and non-smokers is affected.

Although governments worldwide already collect $270 billion in tobacco taxes a year, the WHO suggests that increasing tax and prices is an effective way of reducing consumption and help development priorities in each country, adding that by collecting 80 cents more per pack, the global tax revenue could be doubled.

“Tobacco threatens us all,” WHO Director-General Margaret Chan said in a note. “It exacerbates poverty, reduces economic productivity, contributes to poor household food choices, and pollutes indoor air.”

May, 2017|Oral Cancer News|

Beating HPV-positive throat cancer

Source: www.huffingtonpost.com
Author: Pamela Tom, Contributor

National Oral, Head, and Neck Cancer Awareness Week is April 12-18, 2017

For at least two years, 47 year-old Rob Clinton of Rochester, NY, would choke on post nasal drip in the shower. He knew something was wrong in his throat but he didn’t feel any pain.

Did he have cancer? Clinton smoked cigarettes for 30 years and worked in an auto body shop where he was regularly exposed to carcinogens, but he wasn’t experiencing the typical symptoms of throat cancer. These include hoarseness or a change in the voice, difficulty swallowing, a persistent sore throat, ear pain, a lump in the neck, cough, breathing problems, and unexplained weight loss.

In November 2015, Clinton went to the dentist to have his teeth cleaned. His dentist felt Clinton’s swollen neck and recommended that he visit a medical doctor. Clinton heeded the advice and sought the opinion of an ear, nose, and throat specialist at Strong Memorial Hospital in Rochester, NY.

The ENT doctor sent Clinton to have a CAT scan and when he scoped Clinton’s throat, the doctor said, “I see something in there.”

What he saw was a tumor and there were a few other things going on too.

The Diagnosis
The biopsy showed that Clinton had Stage IVa oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) at the base of his tongue—and the cancer was HPV positive. HPV stands for the human papillomavirus and a recent survey found that more than 42% of Americans are infected with HPV. While most people’s bodies naturally clear HPV after two years, some people’s immune systems do not recognize the virus and consequently, HPV can harbor in the body for decades. HPV-related throat cancer has been linked to oral sex.

The Treatment
On December 4, 2015, Clinton underwent neck dissection surgery at Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, NY. Dr. Hassan Arshad, a head and neck cancer surgeon, removed 30 lymph nodes; two had cancer and one tumor was the size of a golf ball. One lymph node on the other side of neck and a tongue tumor would be treated with radiation.

The first of 35 radiation treatments began one month later in conjunction with Cisplatin chemotherapy infusions. That’s seven weeks of simultaneous radiation and chemo.

“I drove myself to treatment for the first five weeks. Up until the last week of treatment, it wasn’t too terrible,” Clinton says. “But then I started getting tired and my mother took me to the cancer center.”

Clinton had decided not to get a feeding tube prior to or during treatment and as the radiation and chemo attacked his cancer, he began to lose weight. The treatment reduced Clinton’s appetite because foods began to taste different. For two weeks, he also felt a burning sensation in his mouth and says his saliva tasted like hot sauce.

“It was excruciating and the worst thing I dealt with during treatment.”

Furthermore when radiation makes the throat feel tender and raw, it becomes nearly impossible to eat normally through the mouth.

Clinton was 215 pounds before treatment. After treatment, he weighed in at a mere 165 pounds. A loss of 50 pounds. In hindsight, Clinton wishes he had the feeding tube inserted while he was still strong.

“Don’t be afraid of the treatment. It’s manageable and you can get through it. I recommend a feeding tube because it’s a comfort knowing you have an option,” says Clinton.

The Recovery
While it took a month for Clinton to recover from the initial surgery, doctors say it takes at least a year for HPV+ throat cancer patients to find their “new normal”—regaining strength, adapting to lingering side effects.

Following chemo, Clinton experienced “chemo brain” or “chemo fog,” known as a cognitive impairment that can occur after chemotherapy. The patient may experience memory loss or dysfunction, and have difficulty concentrating or multi-tasking.

The radiation also took its toll on Clinton. He researched and found a salve made of calendula flowers, olive oil, beeswax, and Vitamin E oil to soothe his parched skin. Trying to gain weight was a bigger challenge. First, his taste went “totally upside down” and spicy foods were intolerable.

“A vanilla cookie tasted like black pepper,” Clinton says. “Only frozen peas and parsley tasted normal.”

And dry mouth is a common result of the radiation treatment. While both sides of Clinton’s neck received radiation, he had less saliva production on his left side. At night he would have to wake up every 40 minutes to drink water. Clinton must make certain not to become dehydrated because it causes the dry mouth to worsen. Now he chews gum almost non-stop.

In his search to combat dry mouth, Clinton says he researched solutions online and found ALTENS, or acupuncture-like transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. A study led by Dr. Raimond Wong, an associate professor of oncology at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, found evidence that ALTENS may reduce patient-reported xerostomia, the medical term for dry mouth.

Clinton joined Dr. Wong’s clinical trial to determine whether ALTENS for six weeks/four days a week would be as effective as treatment for 12 weeks/two times a week.

“Four days a week, the researchers put pads on the inside of my ankles, the outside of my knee, back of my hands, between my thumb and forefingers, and between my chin and bottom lip,” says Clinton.

Clinton says ALTENS felt like little shocks and the acupuncture-like stimulation improved his saliva production by 80 percent. “Even after I stopped ALTENS, my saliva kept improving,” says Clinton.

The Survivor
Two years after cancer treatment, regular PET scans show that Rob Clinton has no evidence of cancer. In fact, the prognosis for HPV-related throat cancer is 85 to 90 percent positive if caught early. In contrast, patients who battle advanced throat cancer caused by excessive smoking and alcohol have a five-year survival rate of 25 to 40 percent.

Dr. Arshad, Clinton’s surgeon at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute, explained why.

“The majority of tonsil and tongue base (“throat”) cancers are HPV-positive, but smoking is still a major risk factor. Typically, non-smoking patients with HPV-positive tonsil/tongue base cancers present with a lump in the neck, implying that the cancer has already spread to lymph nodes. This used to mean that the patient would have a reduced chance of long-term survival,” Arshad says. “We now know that for nonsmokers who have HPV-positive cancers, metastasis to lymph nodes doesn’t carry the same poor prognosis. The newest staging system reflects that change, i.e. Some of those patients who were previously classified as stage IV are now at stage II if the cancer is HPV-positive.”

Clinton is not only faring well physically, surviving cancer changed his outlook and lifestyle.

“My life is pretty much back to normal. I get a little nervous each time I get a PET scan but so far, it shows I am free of cancer,” Clinton says. “I have a better appreciation of things. I live healthy in terms of diet and recreation. I don’t smoke or drink heavily.”

The Future of HPV+ Oropharyngeal Cancer
De-stigmatizing HPV is a key component to building public awareness and acceptance of HPV infection, and the ability to recognize the early symptoms of HPV-related throat cancer. As more and more people are diagnosed with HPV-related throat cancer, the social stigma surrounding the virus is a disturbing deterrent because HPV cancer patients are often reticent to disclose the HPV connection.

In a 2015 public service announcement, actor Michael Douglas who was treated HPV+ base of tongue cancer called for oral screenings but never said “HPV” by name. “A very common virus, one responsible for the vast majority of cervical cancers is now identified as the cause of this rapid rise in oral cancers,” said Douglas.

In the early years of the AIDS crisis, people associated infection with illness, fear, and death. It took a decade to generate a movement and begin to change the public sentiment. Now after continual education, AIDS is accepted and the focus centers on hope instead of ostracization.

Clinton hopes more people will accept that HPV infection is common—the most common sexually-transmitted infection in the U.S., according to the CDC. The American Society of Clinical Oncologists also found that by 2020, the annual number of HPV-related oropharyngeal in nonsmoking, middle-aged men will surpass the number of cervical cancer cases.

“HPV is not a shameful thing. It’s very common. It’s just that some people can’t clear the virus from their bodies,” Clinton says. “This type of cancer is the next epidemic. I feel fortunate every day that I came through it as well as I did.”

April, 2017|Oral Cancer News|

America’s Most Popular ‘Legal’ Drug is Responsible for 25% of ALL Cancer

Source: www.thefreethoughtproject.com
Author: John Vibes

There are many factors contributing to the massive rise in cancer cases in the US, but according to a new study from the American Cancer Society, cigarette smoke is by far the leading cause. The study found that roughly 25% of all cancer deaths could be attributed to cigarette smoking.

Although cigarette smoking has waned somewhat in recent years, nearly 40 million adults in the U.S. currently smoke cigarettes. The CDC says cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable disease and death in the U.S., responsible for more than 480,000 deaths annually.

According to the study:

We estimate that at least 167133 cancer deaths in the United States in 2014 (28.6% of all cancer deaths; 95% CI, 28.2%-28.8%) were attributable to cigarette smoking. Among men, the proportion of cancer deaths attributable to smoking ranged from a low of 21.8% in Utah (95% CI, 19.9%-23.5%) to a high of 39.5% in Arkansas (95% CI, 36.9%-41.7%), but was at least 30% in every state except Utah. Among women, the proportion ranged from 11.1% in Utah (95% CI, 9.6%-12.3%) to 29.0% in Kentucky (95% CI, 27.2%-30.7%) and was at least 20% in all states except Utah, California, and Hawaii. Nine of the top 10 ranked states for men and 6 of the top 10 ranked states for women were located in the South. In men, smoking explained nearly 40% of cancer deaths in the top 5 ranked states (Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Kentucky). In women, smoking explained more than 26% of all cancer deaths in the top 5 ranked states, which included 3 Southern states (Kentucky, Arkansas, and Tennessee), and 2 Western states (Alaska and Nevada).

Smoking is one of the leading causes of illness and death in the world. The use of tobacco has become more widespread than ever and the substance itself is far more dangerous than it has ever been before.

Today, cigarettes are mass produced and treated with thousands of additives and chemicals. Carcinogenic, poisonous chemicals and toxic metals can all be found in modern tobacco products. These chemicals are present for many reasons ranging from taste and preservation to being purposely addictive. There are over 4000 of these chemicals in cigarettes and all of them are not revealed to the public. They are protected under law as “trade secrets” — meaning they can add anything they want in there without our knowledge.

The financial advantage alone should be enough of an argument to quit smoking. In most states, cigarettes are now over 6 dollars a pack, more than half of which is taxes. So people are literally paying the government and rich multinational corporations an average of 10 dollars every day, for a product that destroys their bodies. It is true that there are addictive chemicals in cigarettes but their strength and power has been blown way out of proportion.

The psychological addiction is always much stronger than the physical addiction even with harsh narcotics like heroin and especially with nicotine. All you have to do is stop and get through a few days without it. Soon enough the smell and taste will no longer be desirable to you and you will be happy to have that extra 6 dollars a pack in your pocket. It will be easier to breathe, you won’t get sick as often and you will overall be in better spirits. Quitting cigarettes is one decision that you can make that will drastically improve your life in a number of ways and it will give the elite less control of your money and your health.

*This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy.

October, 2016|Oral Cancer News|

Troisi: Raising age on tobacco purchases would protect Texas children

Source: www.mystatesman.com
Author: Catherine Troisi

Tobacco products are a known cancer-causing agent and responsible for one in three cancer deaths. Smoking kills more people than alcohol, AIDS, car crashes, illegal drugs, murders and suicides combined — and thousands more die from smoking-related causes such as fires caused by smoldering cigarettes. E-cigarettes, often touted as a safer alternative, have not been well-studied and may contain unknown poisons.

We are not protecting our children from this danger. Unlike alcohol sales, where you have to be 21 years to purchase legally, adolescents and young adults 18 and over can purchase tobacco products. While the Texas Legislature wisely raised the age to buy e-cigarettes from 14 to 18 years last year, it’s time to look at raising the legal age for all tobacco products to 21.

The problem is not just those age 18 and older smoking. This young legal age to purchase makes it easier for children under age 18 to get access to cigarettes and other products. Each year, 19,000 Texas children under the age of 18 start smoking. In Texas, almost one out of every six high school students smokes — and over their lifetime, half a million Texans who started smoking under age 18 will ultimately die of tobacco-related diseases.

Most of us have someone in our family or know someone who has been affected by a tobacco-related disease. A colleague lost both parents and his only sibling as a result of smoking that began when they were teens. Each relative suffered for over a decade before finally succumbing to the effects of tobacco. His brother was 46 when he was diagnosed with oral cancer. Cancer took his jaw, tongue, teeth and ability to speak clearly and swallow. He suffered for 13 years before it took his life.

There’s also an economic impact. Smoking by children under age 18 costs the state almost $9 billion dollars in direct costs and each Texan household’s federal tax is increased by $756 per year, according to reports from the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. Imagine what we could do with that money both as a state and as individuals rather than use it for tobacco-related medical costs.

The tobacco industry knows that nine out of 10 smokers start before age 18 — and each day 3,200 children smoke their first cigarette. An estimated $636 million is spent on marketing to sell their harmful products just in Texas. Children are twice as sensitive to tobacco advertising as adults and more likely to be influenced to start smoking by these marketing tactics than they are by peer pressure. Tobacco companies have to get children smoking by age 18 — otherwise the odds that they will start are small.

Would raising the legal age to purchase actually stop children from getting these products? The tobacco company Phillip Morris thought so in a 1986 report: “Raising the legal minimum age for cigarette purchaser to 21 could gut our key young adult market (17-20)” The Institute of Medicine agreed in a 2015 report predicting that were the minimum age for the sale of tobacco products 21, over time, the adult smoking rate would decline by about 12 percent and smoking-related deaths would decline by ten percent. The report also states, “Although changes in the minimum age … will pertain to individuals who are 18 and older, the largest proportionate reduction …. will likely occur among adolescents of ages 15 to 17 years.” Research shows that kids often turn to older friends as sources of cigarettes. Raising the sale age to 21 would reduce the likelihood that a high school student will be able to legally purchase tobacco products for other students and underage friends.

The legal age for the purchase of tobacco products is set by states and in some cases counties. Hawaii became the first state to raise the tobacco sale age to 21 and just last week California joined them. At least 135 localities in nine states have also raised the tobacco age to 21.

The U.S. Federal Drug Administration recently announced a “deeming rule,” which extends its authority to cover all tobacco products. However, the rule does not restrict online e-cigarette sales and marketing, including flavors such as “cotton candy” and “gummy bears” designed to entice youth.

As Texans, we want to protect our children and make sure they grow up healthy and safe. Raising the legal age to buy tobacco products to 21 years is a proven strategy to do this. Let’s make it a priority to protect our families and communities — while saving money — by starting this discussion.

Note: Catherine Troisi is an epidemiologist at the UT Health School of Public Health in Houston.

Costco Wholesale to stop selling tobacco products at hundreds of locations

Source: www.medicaldaily.com
Author: Jaleesa Baulkman

Sorry smokers, but you’ll have to go someplace other than Costco to get your cigarettes.

The New York Daily News reported the retailer has spent the past few years quietly phasing tobacco products out of nearly 300 stores; there are 488 in total. Tobacco smoke has been linked to adverse health effects, such as lung and oral cancer, though that’s not why Costco did it. Instead, the company said the decision was more about business than public health.

“Tobacco is a very low margin business, tends to have higher theft and is labor intensive in some cases (due to local municipality regulations) — further, we felt we could better use the space to merchandise other items,” a spokesman from Costco told The Street.

According to The Street, Costco officials first hinted at the ban during a call with analysts, where they said tobacco sales had fallen to a “low double digit.” The company hasn’t made an official announcement because “[press releases] are a waste of money.”

The retail giant’s move is another blow to the tobacco industry, which has seen a significant drop in the percentage of Americans who smoke in the past 50 years. In 2014, the smoking rate hit an all-time low of 17.8 percent, and the rate is still dropping, The Huffington Post reported. Not to mention other retailers have quit selling these kinds of products, too.

In 1996, Target was the first large retail store to stop selling cigarettes, citing costs related to efforts to keep cigarettes out of the hands of minors, The New York Times reported. In 2014, CVS also stopped selling cigarettes in its 7,600 of its pharmacies nationwide. However, unlike Costco and Target, CVS said its decision was an effort to “help people on their path to better health.”

“CVS Caremark is continually looking for ways to promote health and reduce the burden of disease,” CVS Caremark Chief Medical Officer Dr. Troyen A. Brennan previously said in a statement. “Stopping the sale of cigarettes and tobacco will make a significant difference in reducing the chronic illnesses associated with tobacco use.”

Cigarette use is responsible for the deaths of more than 480,000 people each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Despite the many studies and graphic anti-smoking ads shedding light on the cancers and diseases associated with the habit, more than 20 percent of men and more than 15 percent of women in the United States still light up.

CVS’ ban did lead to a 1 percent decrease in cigarette sales, so who’s to say Costco’s elimination won’t have a similar effect?

March, 2016|Oral Cancer News|

e-Cigarette Use Tied to Tobacco Use in Teenagers

Source: www.Medscape.com
Author: Diana Swift
 

e-Cigarette smoking appears to promote progression to traditional cigarette smoking and may be helping form a new population of smokers, according to a prospective study published online September 8 in JAMA Pediatrics.

Brian A. Primack, MD, PhD, from the Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine in Pennsylvania, and colleagues analyzed data on 694 young nonsmokers who were attitudinally nonsusceptible to smoking at baseline. The very small proportion (2.3%) who already used e-cigarettes at baseline proved more likely to progress to smoking or to being open to it.

The cohort, which was more than 75% non-Hispanic white, consisted of 374 females. The mean age of the 16 baseline e-cigarette users was 19.5 years compared with 20 years for nonusers.

Study data came from waves 2 and 3 of the US-based Dartmouth Media, Advertising, and Health Study, a national survey of adolescents and young adults aged 16 to 26 years who were recruited via random digit dialing using landline (66.7%) and cellular (33.3%) telephone numbers.

The survey, conducted from October 1, 2012, to May 1, 2014, started tracking e-cigarette use at wave 2 (2012 – 2013), which served as the baseline, whereas wave 3 (2013 – 2014) served as follow-up for the current study.

Eligible participants had to be never-smokers and attitudinally nonsusceptible to smoking at baseline. This was assessed with these questions: “If one of your friends offered you a cigarette, would you try it?” and “Do you think you will smoke a cigarette sometime in the next year?” Response options included “definitely yes,” “probably yes,” “probably no,” and “definitely no.” Those who responded “definitely no” to both measures were considered nonsusceptible nonsmokers.

After a year, 11 of 16 baseline e-cigarette users (68.8%) and 128 of 678 participants nonusers (18.9%) progressed to traditional combustible cigarette smoking. After controlling for demographic covariates such as age, sex, and maternal education level, baseline e-cigarette use was independently associated with both progression to smoking (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 8.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.2 – 58.6) and progression to susceptibility (AOR, 8.5; 95% CI, 1.3 – 57.2) among initially nonsusceptible nonsmokers.

“These findings support regulations that decrease the accessibility and appeal of e-cigarettes to nonsmoking adolescents and young adults,” Dr Primack and associates write.

Conceding that some might see the small percentage of baseline e-smokers as not translating into a substantial public health risk, the researchers caution that e-cigarette use is on the rise. “[D]ata published in 2015 suggest that large numbers of youth are initiating e-cigarette use and that as many as half of these individuals do not smoke traditional combustible cigarettes. Therefore, it will be important to continue surveillance among youth of both e-cigarette use and overlap with use of other tobacco products.”

Noting that many youth may be dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes, the authors say nicotine exposure may drive initial e-cigarette users to use cigarettes as a more efficient nicotine delivery device. In addition, nicotine content aside, “e-cigarettes may behaviorally accustom individuals to powerful cigarette smoking cues such as inhalation, exhalation, and holding the cigarette.”

Furthermore, e-cigarettes, which expose users to potentially harmful aerosolized substances other than nicotine, are not subject to regulations limiting cigarette smoking, such as age limits for sale, flavoring and marketing restrictions, clean air laws, taxes, and labeling requirements, which may increase their accessibility to youth. “For example, e-cigarettes are marketed on television, representing the first time in more than 40 years that a smoking-related device is advertised on this medium,” the investigators write.

In an accompanying editorial, Jonathan D. Klein, MD, MPH, an adolescent medicine specialist and an associate executive director of the American Academy of Pediatrics in Elk Grove Village, Illinois, noted that a recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report found that e-cigarette use in the National Youth Tobacco Survey increased from 4.5% in 2011 to 13.4% in 2014, affecting more than 2.2 million students. “The article by Primack et al is one more piece of evidence that the effect of e-cigarettes on youth is happening now in real time,” he writes, adding that “these data provide strong longitudinal evidence that e-cigarette use leads to smoking, most likely owing to nicotine addiction.”

Dr Klein also points to mounting concerns among health experts that e-cigarettes will also renormalize smoking, delay or prevent cessation, and cause former smokers to become re-addicted. He says the evidence suggests that e-cigarette users are less likely to quit smoking traditional cigarettes than nonusers In spite of such data and evidence of harm from e-smoking devices. He states that the US Food and Drug Administration has failed to assert authority and oversight over these alternative products.

“We do not need more research on this question; we have the evidence base, and we have strategies that work to protect nonsmokers from e-cigarettes and other forms of tobacco,” Dr Klein writes. “What we still need is the political will to act on the evidence and protect our youth.”

This study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The authors and Dr Klein have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

JAMA Pediatr. Published online September 8, 2015. Article full text, Editorial full text

*This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy.

February, 2016|Oral Cancer News|

FDA Clears First Tobacco Product for Marketing

For the first time since it was given the power to regulate tobacco, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized marketing of a new product.

The agency said that eight new smokeless snus products, to be sold in the United States under the “General” brand name by Stockholm-based Swedish Match AB, are now authorized under the premarket tobacco application pathway, which was established by the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Snus cannot be marketed as “FDA-approved,” however.

“Today’s action demonstrates that the premarket tobacco application process is a viable pathway under which products can be marketed, as long as the public health can be protected,” said Mitch Zeller, director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, in a statement.

This is the first time any tobacco maker has completed the rigorous premarket tobacco application review process at the agency; others have had products approved by proving they are substantially equivalent to what is already on the market.

The agency said that Swedish Match provided evidence that “these products would likely provide less toxic options if current adult smokeless tobacco users used them exclusively.” The agency also agreed with the company that snus’ availability would not result in substantial new use, delay quit attempts, or attract ex-smokers.

Swedish Match had been seeking separately to remove warnings that snus is harmful, but the agency has not yet ruled on that request.

In that separate application, Swedish Match was seeking to have the 10 types of snus it already sells in the United States designated as modified-risk tobacco products. The agency accepted the company’s application in August 2014 and held a meeting of its advisory panel to review the evidence in April 2015.

The company wanted to remove warnings that snus could cause gum disease and tooth loss or mouth cancer. It also sought to label its products with the statement that reads, “No tobacco product is safe, but this product presents substantially lower risks to health than cigarettes.” The advisory committee could not reach consensus on whether snus was a safer alternative to smoking, and also was not convinced that the product would not attract new users. At that meeting, Dennis Henigan, director of legal and policy analysis for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said Swedish Match had failed to show that users would not use both cigarettes and snus, or that young people would not initiate use.

Snus, which is ground tobacco, salt, and water, comes in a pouch that users place under their upper lip. It can be used for up to 30 minutes, according to the company. It is popular in Sweden, but less so in the United States. Swedish Match says its General brand accounts for 11% of American convenience store snus sales. The 60 million cans it sells annually in the United States are dwarfed by the billion cans of smokeless tobacco sold.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that less than 4% of adults use smokeless tobacco, with rates highest among men aged 18 to 25 years (10%). A 2014 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey of high school students found that 5.5% of overall used smokeless tobacco, and an additional 1.9% reported current use of snus.

This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy.

November, 2015|Oral Cancer News|

Researchers Find Hookah Smoking Can Lead to Serious Oral Conditions – Equivalent To Smoking 100 Cigarettes

Source: www.multivu.com
Author: PR Newswire
 
e3ead314-ce94-429b-9664-5c475f1c4d80.HR

CHICAGO, Oct. 28, 2015 /PRNewswire/ — According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2.3 million Americans smoke tobacco from pipes, and many of those who smoke waterpipes, or hookahs, believe it’s less harmful than cigarettes. However, research published in The Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA) suggests hookah smoking is associated with serious oral conditions including gum diseases and cancer.

“We found that waterpipe smoking is associated with serious health problems affecting the head and neck region,” said study author Teja Munshi, B.D.S., M.P.H of Rutgers University. “The public needs to know they are putting themselves at risk. They should be made aware of the dangers of smoking hookahs.”

The authors conducted a literature review that focused on waterpipe smoking and head and neck conditions. They found waterpipe smoking to be associated with gum diseases, dry socket, oral cancer and esophageal cancer among other conditions. According to the World Health Organization, smoking a hookah is the equivalent of smoking 100 cigarettes, based on the duration and number of puffs in a smoking session.

“This study sheds light on the common misconception that smoking from a waterpipe is somehow safer than smoking a cigarette,” said JADA Editor Michael Glick, D.M.D. “Whether you are smoking a cigarette, an e-cigarette, a cigar, or tobacco from a waterpipe, smoking is dangerous not only to your oral health but to your overall health.”

The American Cancer Society is hosting The Great American Smokeout on November 19, 2015, an annual event that encourages smokers of all kinds to give up the habit. The event asks smokers to quit even for just one day to take a step toward a healthier life.

Millions of Americans still use traditional methods of smoking, but emerging trends in the smoking industry, such as hookah smoking and e-cigarettes pose dangers as well. E-cigarettes are devices that turn liquid into a vapor containing nicotine. In an editorial in the September 2015 issue of JADA, authors warned readers of the potential dangers of e-cigarettes, indicating that oral health effects of their use has been inadequately investigated.

“Additional research is needed on the impact smoking has on overall health, but it’s clear that smoking of all kinds has the potential to be dangerous,” said Dr. Glick.

Dentists have an important role in advising patients of the dangers of smoking. The American Dental Association has long been a proponent of educating the public about its hazards and has urged for continued research into the adverse health effects of tobacco use. For more information on smoking and its oral health effects, visit MouthHealthy.org.

a6f163f2-97e1-485c-849b-0b19dbcef848.HR

This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy.

October, 2015|Oral Cancer News|

Alternative Tobacco Products as a Second Front in the War on Tobacco

Source: www.jamanetwork.com
Authors: Samir Soneji, PhD; James D. Sargent, MD; Susanne E. Tanski, MD, MPH; Brian A. Primack, MD, PhD

Associations Between Initial Water Pipe Tobacco Smoking and Snus Use and Subsequent Cigarette Smoking: Results From a Longitudinal Study of US Adolescents and Young Adults

Importance Many adolescents and young adults use alternative tobacco products, such as water pipes and snus, instead of cigarettes.

Objective To assess whether prior water pipe tobacco smoking and snus use among never smokers are risk factors for subsequent cigarette smoking.

Design, Setting, and Participants We conducted a 2-wave national longitudinal study in the United States among 2541 individuals aged 15 to 23 years old. At baseline (October 25, 2010, through June 11, 2011), we ascertained whether respondents had smoked cigarettes, smoked water pipe tobacco, or used snus. At the 2-year follow-up (October 27, 2012, through March 31, 2013), we determined whether baseline non–cigarette smokers had subsequently tried cigarette smoking, were current (past 30 days) cigarette smokers, or were high-intensity cigarette smokers. We fit multivariable logistic regression models among baseline non–cigarette smokers to assess whether baseline water pipe tobacco smoking and baseline snus use were associated with subsequent cigarette smoking initiation and current cigarette smoking, accounting for established sociodemographic and behavioral risk factors. We fit similarly specified multivariable ordinal logistic regression models to assess whether baseline water pipe tobacco smoking and baseline snus use were associated with high-intensity cigarette smoking at follow-up.

Exposures Water pipe tobacco smoking and the use of snus at baseline.

Main Outcomes and Measures Among baseline non–cigarette smokers, cigarette smoking initiation, current (past 30 days) cigarette smoking at follow-up, and the intensity of cigarette smoking at follow-up.

Results Among 1596 respondents, 1048 had never smoked cigarettes at baseline, of whom 71 had smoked water pipe tobacco and 20 had used snus at baseline. At follow-up, accounting for behavioral and sociodemographic risk factors, baseline water pipe tobacco smoking and snus use were independently associated with cigarette smoking initiation (adjusted odds ratios: 2.56; 95% CI, 1.46-4.47 and 3.73; 95% CI, 1.43-9.76, respectively), current cigarette smoking (adjusted odds ratios: 2.48; 95% CI, 1.01-6.06 and 6.19; 95% CI, 1.86-20.56, respectively), and higher intensity of cigarette smoking (adjusted proportional odds ratios: 2.55; 95% CI, 1.48-4.38 and 4.45; 95% CI, 1.75-11.27, respectively).

Conclusions and Relevance Water pipe tobacco smoking and the use of snus independently predicted the onset of cigarette smoking and current cigarette smoking at follow-up. Comprehensive Food and Drug Administration regulation of these tobacco products may limit their appeal to youth and curb the onset of cigarette smoking.

JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(2):129-136. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.2697

*This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy.

 

October, 2015|Oral Cancer News|