Prevent Disease.com - Light Cigarettes as Deadly as Regulars



		Light Cigarettes as Deadly as Regulars Excerpt By Todd Zwillich, Reuters Health WASHINGTON (Reuters Health) - ``Light'' and ``low-tar'' cigarettes have done nothing to reduce the rates of smoking-related deaths since their introduction in the 1970s, and may have even contributed to a rise in illness rates among smokers, according to a US government report released Tuesday. Anti-smoking groups said that the marketing of low-tar and light cigarettes has deceived the public and policymakers into thinking that it is possible to smoke without a high risk of lung cancer and other diseases. Many public health authorities advocated the use of low-tar cigarettes throughout the 1980s as a means to reduce the health risk associated with tobacco. ``There's no safe cigarette. The only way to reduce your risk from smoking is not to start, or to quit,'' said Dr. David M. Burns, the senior scientific editor of the report, published by the National Cancer Institute. ``Smokers are being duped. They're being conned. It's a scam that's being put forward on the American public by the tobacco industry,'' said John L. Kirkwood, CEO of the American Lung Association. A statement issued by Phillip Morris USA, the maker of several popular cigarette brands including Marlboro Lights, said that tar levels in government tests are averages that show relative differences in toxin yields between brands, not risk differences to smokers. ``The tar and nicotine yield numbers that are reported for cigarette brands are not meant (and were never intended) to communicate the precise amount of tar or nicotine inhaled by any individual smoker from any particular cigarette,'' the statement read. ``Tar'' is a catch-all phrase used to describe levels of dozens of toxic chemicals in cigarettes. The Federal Trade Commission allows tobacco companies to tout ``low-tar'' and light cigarettes if tar and nicotine levels fall below a certain point in machine tests. Burns and others said that public health experts assumed starting in the 1960s that reducing tar levels would help smokers who did not quit to reduce their health risk. The assumption did not take into account a key fact that government sampling machines miss: smokers take deeper puffs or simply smoke more cigarettes to compensate for the lower nicotine in each cigarette. Results in the report show that people who smoked ``light,'' ''ultra light'' or low-tar cigarettes had the same overall tar exposure as those smoking regular cigarettes. They also show that the death rates from smoking-related illnesses such as lung cancer and heart disease were similar in the different groups. Some data, though still preliminary, even suggest that the widespread use of light cigarettes may have contributed to a rise in smoking-related illness. Overall death rates from lung cancer among women rose from 44 per 100,000 in the mid-1960s to 119 per 100,000 in the mid-1980s, according to the report. Similar trends were seen for men, and the rises correspond to a flood of light and low-tar cigarettes on the market. One possible culprit is that smokers may inhale smoke from light cigarettes deeper into the lungs to increase their nicotine dose. The deeper inhalations could increase the risk of certain deep lung cancers like adenocarcinoma, said Burns, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego. ``We can't say that for certain, but things didn't get any better'' with the advent of light cigarettes, he said. Activists attacked tobacco companies who promote new reduced-carcinogen cigarettes as a healthier way to smoke. One new product called Omni, sold by Liggett & Myers subsidiary Vector Tobacco, uses a chemical treatment to keep some toxic gasses out of smoke. Another product, RJ Reynolds' ``Eclipse,'' promotes the reduced-toxin cigarette as the safest alternative for people who choose to smoke. ``We have no more proof...that the products and claims being introduced today will produce any more of a reduction in disease risk than the products introduced by the tobacco industry 40 years ago,'' said Matthew L. Meyers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. Meyer and leaders from the American Cancer Society the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to regulate tobacco products. The Supreme Court barred the FDA from regulating tobacco in 1996 because the agency lacked the appropriate legal authority. ``Without FDA authority, the tobacco industry will continue to be free to use advertising and marketing gimmicks to portray their deadly product as safer and less harmful,'' said M. Cass Wheeler, CEO of the American Heart Association. In a statement, Phillip Morris said that the company sees ''FDA regulation as the best way to establish appropriate standards for determining what is a 'reduced risk' cigarette. This would include setting guidelines for any claims that could be made by manufacturers, including the type and manner of communication that should be provided to consumers.'' Reference Source 89 For more information on how to prevent other diseases, use PreventDisease.com's "Quick Prevention Resources".