Menthol Cigarettes Pose No Added Lung Cancer Risk: Study

The risk of lung cancer for people who smoke menthol cigarettes is no greater than that of those who prefer regular cigarettes, researchers report.

The findings echo those of a U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel that made headlines Friday when it said a ban on mentholated cigarettes might benefit the public health. While the panel concluded that menthols' minty flavor seems to help people take up smoking more readily, it added that there was no evidence menthols were any more dangerous than regular cigarettes in terms of risks for lung cancer or other respiratory ailments.

The new study, published online March 23 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, seems to agree with that notion. In fact, the researchers found that people who smoke menthol cigarettes might even have a somewhat lower risk of developing and dying from lung cancer than other smokers. a good example of Menthol cigs are Karelia menthol cigs.

But one expert said that no one should be misled by the findings into thinking menthols can keep lung cancer, emphysema and other respiratory diseases at bay.

"While this study finds no difference in lung cancer rates in smokers of menthol cigarettes versus non-menthol cigarettes, it is still inconveniently true that all cigarettes can cause lung cancer, as well as other cancers, heart disease, COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] and circulatory problems," said Dr. Len Horovitz, a pulmonary specialist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. "There is simply no safe smoking."

The U.S. team analyzed data from almost 86,000 people taking part in an ongoing multiracial study in 12 southern states. They identified 440 lung cancer patients and compared them with more than 2,200 healthy people.

Menthol cigarettes were associated with lower lung cancer incidence and fewer lung cancer deaths than regular cigarettes, according to the study. For example, among people who smoked 20 or more cigarettes a day, menthol cigarette smokers were about 12 times more likely to develop lung cancer than never-smokers while the risk was about 21 times higher for smokers of regular cigarettes.

Menthol cigarettes are no more, and perhaps less, harmful than regular cigarettes, concluded study author William J. Blot, of the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tenn., and the International Epidemiology Institute in Rockville, Md., and colleagues.

The study authors agreed with Horovitz, however, that there is no safe cigarette.

"Cigarette smoking remains the leading cause of premature death in the United States, but undue emphasis on reduction of menthol relative to other cigarettes may distract from the ultimate health prevention message that smoking of any cigarettes is injurious to health," Blot's team noted.

After looking over its advisory panel's report, the FDA will consider whether to ban or regulate menthol cigarettes. According to officials, the first response to the report is due from the agency within three months.

Room to raise state tobacco taxes

Amid the doom and gloom of budget shortfall talk, our legislators have an opportunity to offer some hope. Since 2004 or 2005 there hasn't been a tax hike on tobacco products in Alabama. As usual we find ourselves behind that tax as well.

Lawmakers can raise the current tax by 100 percent and still be behind the national average ($1.45) and behind 29 states, the District of Columbia and three territories which tax tobacco above $1.

Cigarettes have become more and more expensive and even the brands as Astra cigarettes or Beverlly cigarettes are too expensive now.

The increase would be a win-win situation. If people stop smoking, they will experience better health and the state would spend less on health care coverage and have fewer absentees from work due to smoking-related illnesses.

If not, the money could go toward stopping the educational bleeding caused by proration. It could provide books, supply money, lower pupil-teacher ratios, technology for the classroom and a solid investment in the future of our children. Lawmakers could also increase taxes on other recreational killers, such as alcohol. Anything else is illegal, but it is sold in Alabama.

It is time to put education and children first in funding. If there must be cuts in education, let it be after all else has failed.
Mary Hooks
Tuskegee

Words of warning about cigarettes

One shows a mother blowing smoke into her child's face - "Tobacco smoke can harm your children," the warning says. Another one shows a man exhaling smoke through his neck - "Cigarettes are addictive," the picture warns.

There is no difference between cigarettes like Astra brand or Dunhill cigarettes as they all influence our health.

A few even show corpses - one of them dressed in his Sunday's best in a coffin and the other wearing a toe tag - with the strongest warning of all: "Smoking can kill you."
These new labels, which will cover half of a pack and a fifth of an advertisement, may not get the nearly 50 million Americans who smoke to change their habits, said University of Georgia advertising professor Dean Krugman. But they are a step in the right direction.
"I think these will be a marked improvement over what is currently in place," Krugman said. "I think the (Food and Drug Administration) made a wise choice."
The new Tobacco Control Act gives the FDA the power to regulate the warnings on cigarette cartons and advertisements starting in June. It will take another 15 months for the nine new health warnings to take effect.
Krugman has followed the development of the new warnings closely.
He started studying the effectiveness of cigarette warnings in the 1980s and worked with the American Cancer Society and the U.S. Department of Justice to see if they could be better.
Krugman found that the current black and white warning labels, which take up just 5 percent of tobacco ads, weren't very effective at all.
"What we found is that, with black and white warnings, people don't tend to look," he said.
"No matter what the warning says, it's not going to be effective."
The new warning labels are much different and in line with the same used in Canada and several European countries, Krugman said. The FDA settled on nine warnings with a mix of photo and animated graphics.
Gone are warnings like "Cigarette smoke contains carbon monoxide" or "Smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and may complicate pregnancy."
They are replaced by labels that read, "Cigarettes cause fatal lung disease," "Cigarettes cause cancer" and "Tobacco smoke causes fatal lung disease in nonsmokers."
"What we've learned is that there is no room for subtlety," Krugman said. "You need to be direct because you don't have that much time and space."
The FDA still faces an uphill battle. Tobacco companies continue to spend billions of dollars every year on marketing campaigns, Krugman said.
Teenagers and young smokers may not heed the new warnings because they aren't thinking of consequences that can be decades ahead of them.
The new labels may not have an immediate effect, he said. But they will make a difference.
"It's not a matter of cause; it's a matter of influence," he said. "I believe this will be a huge step forward."