NOT PEER REVIEWED Prof. Ruth Malone is a real, well known catalyst in controlling use
of tobacco worldwide. Now her one very sharp weapon to control tobacco use
is to implement a policy in terms of rejecting tobacco industry funded
research manuscripts publication. There are currently hundreds of
thousands of journals including open access journals and are these
journals going to follow the steps of TC policy of TCJ?
If t...
NOT PEER REVIEWED Prof. Ruth Malone is a real, well known catalyst in controlling use
of tobacco worldwide. Now her one very sharp weapon to control tobacco use
is to implement a policy in terms of rejecting tobacco industry funded
research manuscripts publication. There are currently hundreds of
thousands of journals including open access journals and are these
journals going to follow the steps of TC policy of TCJ?
If the answer to this question is no, the tobacco industry funded research
and research articles could be published in journals other than TCJ. Even
if the answer to the above question is yes, assuredly not all medical
sciences journals will implement this TC ploicy. Therefore there remains a
strong possibility that the tobacco industry funded research will continue
and their findings, biased or unbiased, will be regularly published in a
multitude of journals across the world.
The tobacco business, from seedling to production to manufacturing, can not be
eradicated completely, but concerned people concerted efforts directed
towards controlling this slow fatal addiction should persist and continue
in future.
Dr. Naseem Akhtar Qureshi MD, PhD
Dr. Abdullah M. Al-Bedah MD
NOT PEER REVIEWED The decision to ban tobacco industry-funded research in the Journal
could be the opportunity for pointless byzantine discussions from the pros
and cons.(1) However, the issue is more concrete.
First, Ruth Malone acknowledged the editorial board for vigorous
discussions and I would like to know how many members opposed the ban.
Second, what is the definition of a tobacco industry for the Journal?
Cancer R...
NOT PEER REVIEWED The decision to ban tobacco industry-funded research in the Journal
could be the opportunity for pointless byzantine discussions from the pros
and cons.(1) However, the issue is more concrete.
First, Ruth Malone acknowledged the editorial board for vigorous
discussions and I would like to know how many members opposed the ban.
Second, what is the definition of a tobacco industry for the Journal?
Cancer Research UK has issued a Code of Practice on tobacco industry
funding to universities after the Nottingham University scandal.
(http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/science/funding/terms-conditions/funding-
policies/policy-tobacco/ssLINK/CR_016307) It provides precise definitions.
The scope is large with five possibilities, including "owning a tobacco
company". Accordingly, will the Journal ban research from Chinese
universities? Indeed, they are owned by China as China National Tobacco
Co. the largest tobacco company in the world, no less.
Last, what amount of resources will be provided and what procedures will
be implemented to check that papers submitted to the Journal are not
funded by the tobacco industry?
1 Malone RE. Changing Tobacco Control's policy on tobacco industry-
funded research
Tob Control 2013;22:1-2
Although I disagree with TC's policy to prohibit publication of
research from the tobacco industry, I do understand the rationale for this
decision. My concern is illustrated by the following scenario. Assume a
pharmaceutical company owned by a tobacco industry has truly developed a
safer tobacco/nicotine product; e.g. a nicotine inhaler, submits it to the
US FDA or the UK MHRA. Both of these agencies have stated they w...
Although I disagree with TC's policy to prohibit publication of
research from the tobacco industry, I do understand the rationale for this
decision. My concern is illustrated by the following scenario. Assume a
pharmaceutical company owned by a tobacco industry has truly developed a
safer tobacco/nicotine product; e.g. a nicotine inhaler, submits it to the
US FDA or the UK MHRA. Both of these agencies have stated they would use
industry data to decide on approval of such products. And assume the
product is approved. Then, assume the pharmaceutical company wants to
obtain independent replication of its own findings by reputable scientists
or wants to do post-marketing research to examine the safety of its
produce, and it offers a truly no-strings grant to a reputable scientist.
Now, assume the scientist declines because he/she knows TC and other
journals have stated any result from a tobacco-funded study is suspect,
and because he/she fears stigmatization for taking tobacco money.
This scenario raises at least two questions. First, TC says one
should not rely on data from tobacco industry studies and doing so is
unethical; thus, is the FDA unethical for relying on tobacco industry data
to decide on approval? Is the FDA now saying the tobacco industry is
ethical enough to believe their data? If so, why does TC disagree with
the FDA?
Second, TC says the tobacco industry has been unethical in the past
(I totally agree); thus, should we assume they will be unethical for the
entire future? If we did this within the justice system, we would
recommend no-one ever hire an ex-felon. So what could the industry do to
prove that it no longer tries to influence the scientific process?
I bring up these issues, because I think that it is very unlikely
that we will ever have a world without nicotine products produced by the
tobacco industry. To me this is as likely as alcohol prohibition in the
US. If we will have the tobacco industry for the foreseeable future, then
a plan in which we can encourage/force the tobacco industry into ethical
practices is a better plan than one that tries to eliminate the tobacco
industry.
Conflict of Interest:
I have recieved grants and consulting fees from many for-profit and non-profit organizations that develop or sell smoking cessation products or services and organizations that engage in tobacco control activities.
We are grateful that the eLetter from Ms Cunnison provides an
opportunity for us to clarify some aspects of our work [1].
In the past there has been no authoritative guidance on the
protection of public health from risks from particulate matter (PM) in
indoor air. It is therefore a welcome development that the recent WHO Air
Quality Guidelines for Indoor Air [2] concluded that there is no...
We are grateful that the eLetter from Ms Cunnison provides an
opportunity for us to clarify some aspects of our work [1].
In the past there has been no authoritative guidance on the
protection of public health from risks from particulate matter (PM) in
indoor air. It is therefore a welcome development that the recent WHO Air
Quality Guidelines for Indoor Air [2] concluded that there is no
convincing evidence for a difference in the hazardous nature of PM from
indoor sources as compared with those from outdoors, and the document thus
goes on to recommend that the 2005 WHO outdoor air quality guidance for PM
should be applied to indoor environments [3]. Therefore, regardless of the
location of the sources, PM2.5 concentrations should be kept at levels
below 25 ?g/m3 averaged over a 24-h period and less than 10 ?g/m3
averaged over a year.
We acknowledge that car journeys are always much less than 24 hours
and in our paper we clearly stated that comparison of measurements with
the WHO PM2.5 guidance level should be done with some caution as this
health-based value is based on a 24-hour average. However, we also say it
is "important to consider that children who are exposed to SHS in cars may
also be exposed to SHS within their home setting and so, while we do not
have data here on 24 h average levels, it is reasonable to assume that the
time spent in the car will only be one of several micro-environments where
children may be exposed to SHS and hence elevated PM2.5 levels over the
course of the day."
To add to this point our group have also recently reported 24-hour
PM2.5 levels measured in over 100 homes in Scotland and Ireland [4]. It is
interesting to note that the concentrations in the 20 smoking homes in
that study averaged over 140 ?g/m3 compared to average of 10 ?g/m3 in the
80 non-smoking homes, both values averaged over 24-hours.
We consider that our data highlight that smoking in cars exposes
children to high levels of second-hand cigarette smoke. Steps to
discourage smoking in these semi-public spaces will, in our opinion,
increase public awareness of the dangers of exposing children to SHS
within indoor settings and encourage smokers to stop exposing children to
cigarette smoke in all situations.
Dr Sean Semple, Mr Andrew Apsley, Dr Karen Galea, Dr Laura MacCalman,
Mrs Brenda Friel, Ms Vicki Snelgrove.
References
1. Semple S, Apsley A, Galea KS, Maccalman L, Friel B, Snelgrove V.
Secondhand smoke in cars: assessing children's potential exposure during
typical journey conditions. Tob Control. 2012;21:578-83.
2. World Health Organisation. (2010). WHO Guidelines for Indoor Air
Quality. Selected Pollutants. ISBN 978 92 890 0213 4. Copenhagen,
Denmark,WHO. Available at
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/128169/e94535.pdf
[accessed 19th October 2012]
3. World Health Organisation. (2005) WHO Air Quality Guidelines.
Global update. Available at
http://www.who.int/phe/health_topics/outdoorair_aqg/en/ [accessed 19th
October 2012].
4. Semple S, Garden C, Coggins M, Galea KS, Whelan P, Cowie H,
S?nchez-Jim?nez A, Thorne PS, Hurley JF, Ayres JG. Contribution of solid
fuel, gas combustion, or tobacco smoke to indoor air pollutant
concentrations in Irish and Scottish homes. Indoor Air. 2012;22:212-23.
NOT PEER REVIEWED In this interesting study by Cheah et al,1 the authors have raised
several safety issues concerning electronic cigarettes. The majority of
them were based either on the finding that nicotine content was
inconsistent or that chemical constitution (for example glycols) may be
hazardous to health.
There is some inconsistency in characterizing polypropylene glycol as
"a known irritant when inhaled o...
NOT PEER REVIEWED In this interesting study by Cheah et al,1 the authors have raised
several safety issues concerning electronic cigarettes. The majority of
them were based either on the finding that nicotine content was
inconsistent or that chemical constitution (for example glycols) may be
hazardous to health.
There is some inconsistency in characterizing polypropylene glycol as
"a known irritant when inhaled or ingested" in introduction section and as
"a non-toxic chemical" in discussion section. This substance has been
"generally recognized as safe" (GRAS) by FDA for ingestion, however, only
few studies have evaluated the long term inhalation risk. A study by
Robertson et al2 found that in experimental animals inhaling large
quantities of propylene glycol for 12-18 months no lung, kidney, liver,
spleen or bone marrow irritation or disease was observed, while others
have used it on a daily basis as a vehicle for drug administration without
finding any significant irritant effects on the respiratory tract. There
are also no reports from electronic cigarette users that propylene glycol
has caused any significant irreversible damage besides some throat
irritation and cough, that has been resolved by using liquids not
containing propylene glycol.
Concerning the production of carbonyls, it should be mentioned that
electronically heated cigarettes that are mentioned in the study are in no
way similar to electronic cigarettes. The temperature in electrically
heated cigarettes is 600oC.3 Glycerol has a boiling point of 290oC, and
diluting it with 10% water (usually, for electronic cigarette liquids
glycerol is diluted with 15-20% water) the boiling point is 138oC,4
significantly lower than the 250oC needed to produce acrolein. These
theoretical concepts have been backed up by data provided by Schripp et
al,5 who found traces of formaldehyde not attributed to electronic
cigarette use, and Romagna et al,6 who found no acrolein or formaldehyde
in the air after electronic cigarette use for several hours.
An important finding of the study was the absence of nitrosamines.
This has been somewhat underestimated by the authors. Nicotine in
electronic cigarette liquids (and in other products, including
pharmaceutical products) is derived from tobacco. Therefore, there is a
possibility that nitrosamines may be present; in fact, they have been
detected in approved nicotine gum and patch products.7 We think that the
absence of nitrosamines is an important finding of this study and should
have been further discussed, since they are major causes of lung disease
including cancer.
Quality control during the production process is a major issue in
electronic cigarette industry. Unfortunately, the fact that no regulation
has been implemented by public health authorities allows low-quality
products to be available to the market. This may raise safety issues like
the presence of nitrosamines mentioned above. In addition, this is also
the reason for the inadequate labeling of these products. We think that
regulation standards should include proper labeling not only about the
contents but also about the risks of accidental exposure to the liquids,
similarly to other consumer products used daily in every home. However, we
believe that the nicotine content discrepancies that the authors have
found do not represent a major health risk, since it is well known that
smoking is a dynamic process and changes in response to the yield
characteristics of the cigarette.8 Most probably, the users would have
adjusted their smoking pattern to the nicotine levels obtained by the use
of these liquids. In fact, this has been a problem of tobacco cigarettes,
with FTC protocol levels of nicotine significantly underestimating
nicotine doses to smokers.8 This is accompanied by an underestimation of
doses of carcinogens obtained by smokers, like nitrosamines, which were
not found in electronic cigarettes tested in this study. Thus, it is not
the nicotine that poses a health risk but other chemicals that are
released during the smoking process.
References
1. Cheah NP, Chong NWL, Tan J, Morsed FA, Yee SK. Electronic nicotine
delivery systems: regulatory and safety challenges: Singapore perspective.
Tob Control, 2012. Dec 1 [Epub ahead of print]
2. Robertson OH, Loosli CG, Puck TT, Wise H, Lemon WM, Lester W Jr.
Tests for the chronic toxicity of propylene glycol and triethylene glycol
on monkeys and rats by vapor inhalation and oral administration. J
Pharmacol Exper Ther 1947;91:52-76.
3. Patskan G, Reininghaus W. Toxicological evaluation of an
electrically heated cigarette. Part 1: overview of technical concepts and
summary of findings. J Appl Toxicol 2003;23:323-8
4. Flick EW. Industrial solvents handbook, 5th edition, 1998. ISBN 0-
8155-1413-1 Noyes Data Co, 1998
5. Schripp T, Markewitz D, Uhde E, Salthammer T. Does e-cigarette
consumption cause passive vaping? Indoor Air 2012. Jun 2 [Epub ahead of
print]
6. Romagna G, Allifranchini E, Bocchieto E, Todeshi S, Esposito M,
Farsalinos K. Cytotoxicity of electronic cigarette vapor extract on
cultured mammalian fibroblasts (ClearStream-Life project): comparison with
tobacco smoke extract [abstract].
[http://www.srnteurope.org/assets/Abstract-Book-Final.pdf] Poster RRP17.
14th Annual Meeting of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco
Europe, Helsinki, 2012. (accessed December 2012).
7. Cahn Z, Siegel M. Electronic cigarettes as a harm reduction
strategy for tobacco control: a step forward of a repeat of past mistakes?
J Public Health Policy 2011;32:16-31.
8. Djordjevic MV, Stellman SD, Zang E. Doses of nicotine and lung
carcinogens delivered to cigarette smokers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:106
-11.
I am a lay person, but curious as to how these conclusions are reached. How is it possible to describe 25 ug/m3 as a WHO _indoor_ air quality standard, when it seems to have been designed as an outdoor standard?
More importantly how is it possible to apply the standard to journeys lasting under half an hour, when the standard specifically directs how to deal with short exposure times (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/pmf...
I am a lay person, but curious as to how these conclusions are reached. How is it possible to describe 25 ug/m3 as a WHO _indoor_ air quality standard, when it seems to have been designed as an outdoor standard?
More importantly how is it possible to apply the standard to journeys lasting under half an hour, when the standard specifically directs how to deal with short exposure times (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/pmfinal.pdf), and in all cases described in this study they would have been discounted. The statement, 'PM2.5 concentrations in cars where smoking takes place are high and greatly exceed international indoor air quality guidance values', in this context is false: according to the guidance, peaks that rise well above the standard are not in themselves considered hazardous to health. The authors declare that opening windows produced high values 'at some point in the measurement during all the smoking journeys': this does not indicate a health risk either.
Are we to understand that non-smoking journeys never measured above 25 ug/m3?
This study seems to reinvent the guidance for EPA guidelines.
Most of us know the people who control Hollywood. Well, the Movie
Industry is controlled in a similar manner, by their Cousins. They assist
in the production of the films by, having their cancer causing product
portrayed as a natural thing that your favorite stars do, so why aren't
you?
Films should have NO tobacco products in them whatsoever!!!
If I had my way, I'd stop all tobacco production. If You want to smoke,
grow...
Most of us know the people who control Hollywood. Well, the Movie
Industry is controlled in a similar manner, by their Cousins. They assist
in the production of the films by, having their cancer causing product
portrayed as a natural thing that your favorite stars do, so why aren't
you?
Films should have NO tobacco products in them whatsoever!!!
If I had my way, I'd stop all tobacco production. If You want to smoke,
grow it, cut it & wrap it, & you don't sell it to anyone!!
Smith et al provides us with a remarkable review of tobacco industry
efforts to influence tobacco tax which deserves several comments.(1)
First, such efforts can be quite successful as in France: From
February 2004 to September 2012 there was no increase in tobacco taxes,
accordingly cigarette sales remained unchanged and smoking prevalence of
the youngest increased during Sarkozy's presidency, an exception amon...
Smith et al provides us with a remarkable review of tobacco industry
efforts to influence tobacco tax which deserves several comments.(1)
First, such efforts can be quite successful as in France: From
February 2004 to September 2012 there was no increase in tobacco taxes,
accordingly cigarette sales remained unchanged and smoking prevalence of
the youngest increased during Sarkozy's presidency, an exception among
developed countries.(2) The WHO must scrutinize the implementation of
Article 5.3 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control which requires
protecting public health policies from the influence of the tobacco
industry. Indeed, the French example of the influence of the tobacco
industry on a government is not unique.(3)
Second, the 16th point of industry tactics (Table 2 in 1) which is
"trying to undermine tobacco control experts" can be harder and damaging,
eg. slapping and sacking.(4) In November 2009, one of us (GD) was sued for
libel by the French tobacconists' Union, because he stated on television that cigarettes kill two smokers each
year for every tobacconist. In December 2009 as a tenured senior
consultant in GD's unit, I (AB) was sacked by the Ministry of Health, even
against the advice of the National Statutory Committee. Both of us won in
court, the tobacconists' claim was rejected in 2011 by the Appeal Court
and the sacking was cancelled in 2012 by the Administrative Court of Paris
on the grounds that it was illegal.(5) However, none of us received
compensation for the damages.
Third, even low and middle income countries can successfully resist
tobacco industry efforts to influence tobacco control. Uruguay's tobacco-
control campaign is associated with a substantial, unprecedented decrease
in tobacco use of 4*3% per year during 2005-11.(6) We must keep in mind
that the little Uruguay (GDP $31 billion) has been even sued in 2009 by
the giant Philip Morris ($25 billion in total revenues for a market
capitalization of $95 billion) before the World Bank's International
Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes.(7)
Integrity, courage and mainly enduring efforts are needed against the
tobacco industry.
References
1 Smith KE, Savell E, Gilmore AB. What is known about tobacco
industry efforts to influence tobacco tax? A systematic review of
empirical studies. Tob Control 2012, Online First August 12. DOI:
10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050098
2 Braillon A, Mereau AS, Dubois G. [Tobacco control in France:
effects of public policy on mortality].Presse Med. 2012;41:679-81.
3 Arnott D, Berteletti F, Britton J et al. Can the Dutch Government
really be abandoning smokers to their fate? Lancet 2012;379:121-2.
4 Dubois G. Abuse of libel laws and a sacking: The gagging of public
health experts in France. Tobacco Control Blog November 8th, 2010.
Available at http://blogs.bmj.com/tc/2010/11/08/
5 Witton J and O'Reilly J. Tobacco scientist win against illegal
sacking. Addiction 2012;107:1714-5
6 Abascal W, Esteves E, Goja B et al. Tobacco control campaign in
Uruguay: a population-based trend analysis. Lancet 2012, Early Online
Publication, 14 September. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60826-5
7 Lencucha R. Philip Morris versus Uruguay: health governance
challenged. Lancet. 2010;376:852-3.
Omid Fotuhi,1 Geoffrey T Fong,1,2 Mark P Zanna,1 Ron Borland,3 Hua-
Hie Yong,3 K Michael Cummings4
1. Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo,
Ontario, Canada
2. Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
3. The Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
4. Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo,
New York, USA
Omid Fotuhi,1 Geoffrey T Fong,1,2 Mark P Zanna,1 Ron Borland,3 Hua-
Hie Yong,3 K Michael Cummings4
1. Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo,
Ontario, Canada
2. Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
3. The Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
4. Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo,
New York, USA
Email for lead author, Omid Fotuhi: ofotuhi@uwaterloo.ca
NOT PEER REVIEWED
Response to letter:
In our recent study--using a large set of nationally representative
samples of smokers from Canada, the US, the UK, and Australia--we reported
on the longitudinal patterns of smoking-related beliefs and how these
beliefs vary with changes in smoking status. We found a consistent pattern
of attitude-behaviour congruence: smokers highly endorsed risk-minimizing
beliefs (e.g., "I have the genetic make-up that allows me to smoke without
any health problems") and functional beliefs (e.g., "Smoking helps me
concentrate"). But the most interesting finding was the longitudinal
pattern of how these justifications for smoking changed over time as their
smoking status changed: smokers endorsed these beliefs the least when they
had quit; and again endorsed these beliefs to their pre-quit levels if
they relapsed back to smoking, whereas the levels of endorsement of these
beliefs stayed low among those smokers who had quit smoking and were able
to stay quit in the long-term. We proposed that the waxing and waning of
these smoking-related beliefs as a function of smoking status were driven
by motivations to reduce cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957)--a
fundamental human motivation to maintain consistency between one's
attitudes and one's behaviours.
In response to these findings, Gould, Clough, and McEwen have offered
a thoughtful commentary. In addition to writing about the importance for
public health measures to target smokers' erroneous beliefs that smoking
reduces stress, they agreed with our view that smokers are driven to
modify their risk-minimizing beliefs because of their motivation to reduce
dissonance.
However, Gould et al. suggest that an alternate mechanism is
responsible for the longitudinal pattern of functional beliefs that we
report in our study. Rather than being driven by dissonance-reducing
motivations, they suggest that higher endorsements of functional beliefs
among smokers are "representations of smokers' genuine experiences of
nicotine withdrawal 'in between' cigarettes or on quitting."
We, on the other hand, do not see a contradiction between their
interpretation and ours. Rather, we suggest that the physiological
reactions to withdrawal and dependence are the starting point for the
cognitive dissonance process. This is a view that has long been shared by
dissonance researchers (e.g., Zanna, Cooper, & Taves, 1978; Croyle
& Cooper, 1983).
So the Gould et al. account does not, at the core, differ from our
account. They are pointing out the nature of the reasons for the
justifications, which is the whole point of our argument: the fact that
smokers are addicted and that they suffer withdrawal symptoms leads to the
search for justifications for their smoking (rather than saying that "I am
addicted"). The physiological symptoms of dependence and withdrawal can,
therefore, lead to effects far outside the realm of the physiology of the
smoker.
Thus, their account is not an alternative explanation--it may well be
the starting point for what then become biases in cognitions to justify
smoking.
In addition, when looking at the data from our study, we note that
non-quitters endorsed both risk-minimising and functional beliefs more,
compared to successful and failed quitters, at all three waves--even at
times when all three groups were smoking (wave 1). Because it is unlikely
that the pattern of risk-minimizing beliefs (e.g., "You've got to die
someday, so why not enjoy yourself and smoke") is driven primarily by
withdrawal symptoms--and given the strikingly similar pattern for both
functional and risk-minimizing beliefs--we suggest that, at least in part,
similar dissonance-reducing processes may also be responsible for the
shifting of functional beliefs as smokers vacillate between smoking and
having quit.
Furthermore, let us be clear that we do not claim that all smokers'
smoking-related beliefs are distortions that serve only to reduce
dissonance. We fully acknowledge that there may, in fact, be unique and
genuine physiological experiences of nicotine consumption and withdrawal.
We propose, however, that these experiences can more effectively be
captured by specific measures that tap into the visceral aspects of
nicotine addiction. For instance, the Hughes (1992) article cited by Gould
and colleagues nicely captures these physiological experiences among
quitters at various time points (e.g., increased irritability, hunger,
restlessness, and cravings to smoke). These items are more directly
representative of physiological responses to nicotine consumption and
withdrawal than some of our functional beliefs measure (e.g., "Smoking is
an important part of your life" or "Smoking makes it easier to
socialize").
In fact, we would even argue that in comparison to risk-minimizing
beliefs, functional beliefs are more readily employed in the service of
dissonance reduction because they are less likely to be countered by
reality constraints (Kunda, 1990). Specifically, we think that the
functional beliefs in our study [(1) "You enjoy smoking too much to give
it up"; (2) "Smoking calms you down when you are stressed or upset"; (3)
"Smoking helps you concentrate better"; (4) "Smoking is an important part
of your life"; and (5) "Smoking makes it easier for you to socialize"] are
exactly the kind of malleable beliefs that smokers commonly employ--more
so than the risk-minimizing beliefs which may be countered by rational
thought (e.g., "The medical evidence that smoking is harmful is
exaggerated")--to rationalize a behaviour that they know is harmful to
their health.
Nonetheless, we appreciated the comments by Gould et al. because they
encouraged us to take a closer look at our data and, consequently, to
further think about our original interpretation of the findings.
We hope that further research continues to explore the role of
attitudes in the domain of health behaviour, and specifically addictive
behaviours, such as smoking. Experimental studies that more clearly
determine causality and studies that examine the taxonomy of
rationalizations commonly used by smokers would be especially useful for
the advancement of this research topic. These findings would also have the
important potential of informing policies to more effectively help save
lives.
References
Croyle, R. T., & Cooper, J. Dissonance arousal: Physiological
evidence. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1983;45:782-791.
Festinger L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row,
Peterson, 1957.
Hughes JR. Tobacco withdrawal in self-quitters. J Consult Clin
Psychol. 1992;60(5):689-97.
Kunda Z. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol Bull.
1990;108:480e98.
Zanna, M. P., & Cooper, J. Dissonance and the pill: An
attribution approach to studying the arousal properties of dissonance. J
Pers Soc Psychol 1974;29:703-709.
NOT PEER REVIEWED Prof. Ruth Malone is a real, well known catalyst in controlling use of tobacco worldwide. Now her one very sharp weapon to control tobacco use is to implement a policy in terms of rejecting tobacco industry funded research manuscripts publication. There are currently hundreds of thousands of journals including open access journals and are these journals going to follow the steps of TC policy of TCJ? If t...
NOT PEER REVIEWED The decision to ban tobacco industry-funded research in the Journal could be the opportunity for pointless byzantine discussions from the pros and cons.(1) However, the issue is more concrete. First, Ruth Malone acknowledged the editorial board for vigorous discussions and I would like to know how many members opposed the ban. Second, what is the definition of a tobacco industry for the Journal? Cancer R...
Although I disagree with TC's policy to prohibit publication of research from the tobacco industry, I do understand the rationale for this decision. My concern is illustrated by the following scenario. Assume a pharmaceutical company owned by a tobacco industry has truly developed a safer tobacco/nicotine product; e.g. a nicotine inhaler, submits it to the US FDA or the UK MHRA. Both of these agencies have stated they w...
Dear Editor,
We are grateful that the eLetter from Ms Cunnison provides an opportunity for us to clarify some aspects of our work [1].
In the past there has been no authoritative guidance on the protection of public health from risks from particulate matter (PM) in indoor air. It is therefore a welcome development that the recent WHO Air Quality Guidelines for Indoor Air [2] concluded that there is no...
NOT PEER REVIEWED In this interesting study by Cheah et al,1 the authors have raised several safety issues concerning electronic cigarettes. The majority of them were based either on the finding that nicotine content was inconsistent or that chemical constitution (for example glycols) may be hazardous to health.
There is some inconsistency in characterizing polypropylene glycol as "a known irritant when inhaled o...
Most of us know the people who control Hollywood. Well, the Movie Industry is controlled in a similar manner, by their Cousins. They assist in the production of the films by, having their cancer causing product portrayed as a natural thing that your favorite stars do, so why aren't you? Films should have NO tobacco products in them whatsoever!!! If I had my way, I'd stop all tobacco production. If You want to smoke, grow...
Smith et al provides us with a remarkable review of tobacco industry efforts to influence tobacco tax which deserves several comments.(1)
First, such efforts can be quite successful as in France: From February 2004 to September 2012 there was no increase in tobacco taxes, accordingly cigarette sales remained unchanged and smoking prevalence of the youngest increased during Sarkozy's presidency, an exception amon...
Omid Fotuhi,1 Geoffrey T Fong,1,2 Mark P Zanna,1 Ron Borland,3 Hua- Hie Yong,3 K Michael Cummings4
1. Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada 2. Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada 3. The Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 4. Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, USA
Email for l...
Pages