Study finds ‘light’ is just as cancer heavy

The Washington Post And Associated Press

WASHINGTON – People who switch from regular cigarettes to brands marketed as “low tar” or “light” do not reduce their chances of getting smoking-related diseases, the National Cancer Institute said Tuesday.

Although in theory low-tar cigarettes are less hazardous, that characteristic is generally offset by smokers’ tendency to consume more cigarettes, or inhale deeper or faster, the research shows. Whether people who smoke low-tar cigarettes from the start will have lower cancer rates is uncertain.

“Clearly, smokers have bought into the illusion of harm reduction and the deception of low tar,” said David Burns, a physician at the University of California at San Diego, who oversaw the analysis. “The sad result is millions of smokers who have lost the opportunity to quit.”

While some previous research questioned the relative safety of low-tar cigarettes, Tuesday’s report from the National Cancer Institute amounts to a turnabout for federal public health officials.

The U.S. Public Health Service in the 1960s encouraged tobacco companies to produce low-tar cigarettes. As early as 1966, and as late as 1981 when the subject was last officially addressed, the surgeon general said that smokers might be able to reduce their risk by switching to low-tar brands.

“This study shows us conclusively that there are no benefits of smoking a cigarette that the industry labels – or mislabels – a low-tar cigarette,” said C. Everett Koop, a former surgeon general and an anti-tobacco crusader, who attended a news conference in Washington, D.C., where the report was unveiled. “This is a wake-up call not only to smokers but also to policymakers. There is only one public health message – quit smoking.”

The 236-page report is the most comprehensive review of the effects of “low-yield” cigarettes, which are lower in tar and nicotine. Tar is a carcinogen produced when tobacco is burned. It helps deliver nicotine to smokers.

The authors reanalyzed existing data on cancer rates and mortality in the decades that span the introduction of filtered cigarettes and the rise in popularity of low-tar brands. They did not collect new data.

Among the report’s conclusions is that tobacco companies knew decades ago that low-tar cigarettes have little effect on tar intake, and consequently on the cancer risk, of many smokers. The authors – most of them academic scientists working under contract to the National Cancer Institute – reached this conclusion after reviewing numerous industry memos that are part of the more than 1 million documents made public by anti-tobacco lawsuits in recent years.

Tobacco companies Tuesday denied some of the report’s conclusions, while acknowledging others.

“We have never claimed that low-tar cigarettes are any safer than any other cigarettes, and we agree that the only sure way to reduce the risks of smoking is to quit,” said Seth Moskowitz, a spokesman for R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

“Philip Morris does not imply in its marketing – and smokers should not assume – that lower-yielding brands are safe, or safer, than full-flavor brands,” said Brendan McCormick, a spokesman for Philip Morris USA. He denied the accusation made by the report’s authors that low-tar cigarettes were promoted in a way that led smokers to draw the conclusion they were less hazardous, even if such a statement was not explicitly made.

Some health advocates want to do away with the “light” labels entirely.

“There is no significant difference in health risks for smokers who smoke lower-tar cigarettes than for smokers who smoke full-flavored cigarettes,” said Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. “It’s time to ban the terms ‘light’ and ‘low-tar,’ because they are misleading consumers.”