Disparities between Public Health Educational Materials and the Scientific Evidence that Smokeless Tobacco Use Causes Cancer

Waterbor, John W.; Adams, Rex M; Robinson, Joshua M; Crabtree, Forrest G; Accortt, Neil A.; Gilliland, Janice

doi:10.1207/s15430154jce1901_08

Cited by 20 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, respondents perceived ST as high risk for all health domains, and over 80% perceived it to be the same or higher risk than smoking for oral cancer. These perceptions are in stark contrast to the scientific evidence [5,6] and expert assessments [8][9][10]20]. At least half of the respondents in this study considered ST and cigarettes to be of equal risk for general health, all cancer and oral cancer, which is consistent with other surveys [21][22][23].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%

“…Another systematic review of over 48 medical brochures from some of the same organisations (e.g. NCI and ACS) found that the risk of oral cavity cancer and of other conditions associated with ST use was frequently overemphasised, 'reaching beyond the scientific data' [20]. This misinformation may have played a role in the risk perceptions of ST that we have observed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

“…Educational deficiencies may be reinforced by information in educational materials and the mainstream press by anti-tobacco advocates and organisations [20,34]. A 2005 review found that websites providing health advice and information tend to conflate the risks of ST with the risks associated with cigarettes, using either direct or implied statements [34].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

University faculty perceptions of the health risks related to cigarettes and smokeless tobacco

Peiper

Stone

Zyl

et al. 2010

Drug and Alcohol Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

University faculty perceptions of the health risks related to cigarettes and smokeless tobacco

Peiper

Stone

Zyl

et al. 2010

Drug and Alcohol Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, they did make many literally true misleading claims, including saying "not a safe alternative" [30-32], and lumping together attributable risk from ST for oral cancer with the (many times greater) attributable risk from cigarettes [32,33]. A particularly misleading conjunction is, "Smoking tobacco, using smokeless tobacco, and being regularly exposed to environmental tobacco smoke are responsible for one-third of all cancer deaths in the United States each year" [34]. Even the worst-case scenario for claims about the risk from ST would make it responsible for in the order of 1/1000 of this attributable risk.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

You might as well smoke; the misleading and harmful public message about smokeless tobacco

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Compared to smoking cigarettes, use of Western smokeless tobacco (ST) products is associated with a very small risk of life-threatening disease (with estimates in the range of a few percent of the risk from smoking, or even less). This means that smokers can realize substantial health benefits by switching to ST, an obvious substitute. But consumers and policy makers have little chance of learning that ST is much less dangerous than smoking because popular information provided by experts and advocates overstates the health risks from ST relative to cigarettes.

show abstract

“…In all of these studies ST use was not associated with a significant increase in mouth cancer risk. In 2004 a group of epidemiologists concluded that the evidence linking ST use and oral cancer was "not decisive" [94]. These investigators commented that many claims in the media "overemphasize the risk of oral cavity cancer [from ST use], reaching beyond the scientific data.…”

Section: Smokeless Tobacco Usementioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

Rodu

Godshall²

2006

Harm Reduct J

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 45 million Americans continue to smoke, even after one of the most intense public health campaigns in history, now over 40 years old. Each year some 438,000 smokers die from smoking-related diseases, including lung and other cancers, cardiovascular disorders and pulmonary diseases.Many smokers are unable – or at least unwilling – to achieve cessation through complete nicotine and tobacco abstinence; they continue smoking despite the very real and obvious adverse health consequences. Conventional smoking cessation policies and programs generally present smokers with two unpleasant alternatives: quit, or die.A third approach to smoking cessation, tobacco harm reduction, involves the use of alternative sources of nicotine, including modern smokeless tobacco products. A substantial body of research, much of it produced over the past decade, establishes the scientific and medical foundation for tobacco harm reduction using smokeless tobacco products.This report provides a description of traditional and modern smokeless tobacco products, and of the prevalence of their use in the United States and Sweden. It reviews the epidemiologic evidence for low health risks associated with smokeless use, both in absolute terms and in comparison to the much higher risks of smoking. The report also describes evidence that smokeless tobacco has served as an effective substitute for cigarettes among Swedish men, who consequently have among the lowest smoking-related mortality rates in the developed world. The report documents the fact that extensive misinformation about ST products is widely available from ostensibly reputable sources, including governmental health agencies and major health organizations.The American Council on Science and Health believes that strong support of tobacco harm reduction is fully consistent with its mission to promote sound science in regulation and in public policy, and to assist consumers in distinguishing real health threats from spurious health claims. As this report documents, there is a strong scientific and medical foundation for tobacco harm reduction, and it shows great potential as a public health strategy to help millions of smokers.

show abstract

Disparities between Public Health Educational Materials and the Scientific Evidence that Smokeless Tobacco Use Causes Cancer

Abstract: Communication of the health risks of using ST must be done accurately and should be data based. Broadening the message to include additional diseases for which the evidence is inadequate could cause the message about true risks, as well as the messenger, to be discounted.

Cited by 20 publications

References 51 publications

University faculty perceptions of the health risks related to cigarettes and smokeless tobacco

University faculty perceptions of the health risks related to cigarettes and smokeless tobacco

You might as well smoke; the misleading and harmful public message about smokeless tobacco

Untitled

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About