Explore the vast range of titles available.

The cigarette is the deadliest artifact in the history of human civilization. It is also one of the most beguiling, thanks to more than a century of manipulation at the hands of tobacco industry chemists. In Golden Holocaust, Robert N. Proctor draws on reams of formerly-secret industry documents to explore how the cigarette came to be the most widely-used drug on the planet, with six trillion sticks sold per year. He paints a harrowing picture of tobacco manufacturers conspiring to block the recognition of tobacco-cancer hazards, even as they ensnare legions of scientists and politicians in a web of denial. Proctor tells heretofore untold stories of fraud and subterfuge, and he makes the strongest case to date for a simple yet ambitious remedy: a ban on the manufacture and sale of cigarettes.

Context: The 5 major tobacco-growing states (Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia) are disproportionately affected by the tobacco epidemic, with higher rates of smoking and smoking-induced disease. These states also have fewer smoke-free laws and lower tobacco taxes, 2 evidence-based policies that reduce tobacco use. Historically, the tobacco farmers and hospitality associations allied with the tobacco companies to oppose these policies. Methods: This research is based on 5 detailed case studies of these states, which included key informant interviews, previously secret tobacco industry documents (available at http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu), and media articles. This was supplemented with additional tobacco document and media searches specifically for this article. Findings: The tobacco companies were particularly concerned about blocking tobacco-control policies in the tobacco-growing states by promoting a pro-tobacco culture, beginning in the late 1960s. Nevertheless, since 2003, there has been rapid progress in the tobacco-growing states' passage of smoke-free laws. This progress came after the alliance between the tobacco companies and the tobacco farmers fractured and hospitality organizations stopped opposing smoke-free laws. In addition, infrastructure built by National Cancer Institute research projects (COMMIT and ASSIST) led to long-standing tobacco-control coalitions that capitalized on these changes. Although tobacco production has dramatically fallen in these states, pro-tobacco sentiment still hinders tobacco-control policies in the major tobacco-growing states. Conclusions: The environment has changed in the tobacco-growing states, following a fracture of the alliance between the tobacco companies and their former allies (tobacco growers and hospitality organizations). To continue this progress, health advocates should educate the public and policymakers on the changing reality in the tobacco-growing states, notably the great reduction in the number of tobacco farmers as well as in the volume of tobacco produced.

In June 2019, Beverly Hills, California, became the first American city in the 21st century to pass an ordinance ending the sale of most tobacco products, including cigarettes, and it is unlikely to be the last. Knowledge of previous efforts to ban tobacco sales in the US, both successful and unsuccessful, may help inform tobacco control advocates' approach to future efforts. We retrieved and analyzed archival tobacco industry documents. We confirmed and supplemented information from the documents with news media coverage and publicly available state and local government materials, such as meeting minutes and staff reports, related to proposed bans. We found 22 proposals to end the sale of cigarettes or tobacco products from 1969-2020 in the US. Proposals came from five states, twelve cities or towns, and one county. Most came from elected officials or boards of health, and were justified on public health grounds. In opposing tobacco sales bans, the tobacco industry employed no tactics or arguments that it did not also employ in campaigns against other tobacco control measures. Public health groups typically opposed sales ban proposals on the grounds that they were not evidence-based. This changed with Beverly Hills' 2019 proposal, with public health organizations supporting this and other California city proposals because of their likely positive health impacts. This support did not always translate into passage of local ordinances, as some city council members expressed reservations about the impact on small businesses. Tobacco control advocates are likely to encounter familiar tobacco industry tactics and arguments against tobacco sales ban proposals, and can rely on past experience and the results of a growing body of retail-related research to counter them. Considering how to overcome concerns about harming retailers will likely be vital if other jurisdictions are to succeed in ending tobacco sales.

IntroductionRegulatory imbalances exist in the treatment of cigarettes and non-cigarette tobacco products in the USA. We assessed whether declines in cigarette consumption during 2002–2012 were offset by increased use of non-cigarette tobacco products—cigars, pipes, roll-your-own (RYO) and smokeless tobacco.MethodsIndustry-reported taxable removals (actual sales) were converted into packs for cigarettes and cigarette pack equivalents (CPEs) for loose tobacco (RYO plus pipe tobacco) and moist snuff. Cigars were not converted to CPEs because of their heterogeneity in size/tobacco content. Per capita sales were calculated for the US adult population aged ≥18 years based on the US Census Bureau data. Self-reported data on current (past 30-day) tobacco use among US adults aged ≥18 years were from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). Joinpoint and logistic regression were used to assess linear trends during 2002–2012.ResultsDuring 2002–2012, cigarette sales declined from 96.91 to 59.85 cigarette packs per capita; increases occurred for sale of cigars (30.51–57.42 cigars per capita), loose tobacco (2.50–5.63 CPEs per capita) and moist snuff (10.64–14.58 CPEs per capita; all p<0.05 for trend). Self-reported current cigarette smoking declined during 2002–2012 (27.4–23.6%); increases were noted for current RYO (2.6–3.6%) and smokeless tobacco use (3.5–3.7%; all p<0.05 for trend).ConclusionsThe increase in non-cigarette tobacco consumption is a public health concern because all tobacco products are harmful. Eliminating imbalances in tax structure and regulations between cigarettes and non-cigarette tobacco products may help reduce aggregate tobacco consumption.

Background While cigarette consumption in the USA continues to decline, promotion for and consumption of smokeless tobacco (SLT) is growing. However, little research has explored what product features are driving SLT growth, despite awareness that product-level factors may be important in SLT use. This study analyses national sales data to better understand the impact of product features on SLT sales. Methods Data on sales of SLT in US convenience stores from 2005 to 2011 were obtained from Nielsen Research Company. Each listed product was coded for attributes such as type, brand, flavouring and form to calculate their respective total sales, market share and contribution to overall SLT growth. Results Sales of moist snuff products (including snus) increased by 65.6% between 2005 and 2011. Sales of pouched and flavoured forms of moist snuff increased by 333.8% and 72.1%, respectively, and contributed to 28% and 59.4% of the total growth in the moist snuff category, respectively. Value/discount brands accounted for 42% of moist snuff sales in 2011 among the top 10 selling brands, largely driven by Grizzly. After 2 years on the national market, Camel Snus was also one of the top 10 selling moist snuff brands. Conclusions Sales of moist snuff, both overall and for particular styles, are increasing. Growing pouch use may be attributed to new SLT users, which may include cigarette smokers using them as starter SLT products. Increased sales of flavoured and discounted snuff raise concerns about use and appeal to youth. Continued surveillance of SLT sales trends is warranted.

Objectives Describe tobacco companies' marketing strategies targeting low socioeconomic status (SES) females in the USA. Methods Analysis of previously secret tobacco industry documents. Results Tobacco companies focused marketing on low SES women starting in the late 1970s, including military wives, low-income inner-city minority women, ‘discount-susceptible’ older female smokers and less-educated young white women. Strategies included distributing discount coupons with food stamps to reach the very poor, discount offers at point-of-sale and via direct mail to keep cigarette prices low, developing new brands for low SES females and promoting luxury images to low SES African-American women. More recently, companies integrated promotional strategies targeting low-income women into marketing plans for established brands. Conclusions Tobacco companies used numerous marketing strategies to reach low SES females in the USA for at least four decades. Strategies to counteract marketing to low SES women could include (1) counteracting price discounts and direct mail coupons that reduce the price of tobacco products, (2) instituting restrictions on point-of-sale advertising and retail display and (3) creating counteradvertising that builds resistance to psychosocial targeting of low SES women. To achieve health equity, tobacco control efforts are needed to counteract the influence of tobacco industry marketing to low-income women.

Abstract Introduction Direct-to-consumer tobacco marketing, including direct mail and email coupons, is a potentially influential marketing strategy. We examined the associations between receipt of tobacco direct mail/email coupons and trajectories of smoking behavior among US adults. Methods Data were from the US Population Assessment on Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study adult sample (n = 32160) collected during 2013–2014. Participants self-reported their smoking status (every day, some days, not at all) 12 months prior to the survey (T0) and at the time of the survey (T1). Three smoking trajectories were identified: nonsmokers progressing to current smokers, current smokers continuing to smoke, and among current smokers at T0, progressing to or continuing with daily smoking. Participants also reported receipt of direct mail/email tobacco coupons in the 6 months preceding T1 (yes/no). Weighted multiple logistic regression models were used to test the associations between receiving direct mail/email tobacco coupons and different smoking trajectories adjusted for demographic characteristics. Results One in eight (12.4%) US adult nonsmokers and 36.2% adult smokers at T0 reported receiving tobacco coupons. Receipt of tobacco coupons was negatively associated with poverty status. Receipt of tobacco coupons was associated with increased odds of progression to current smoking (AOR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.45 to 2.12), continuation of smoking (AOR = 1.34, 95% CI = 1.09 to 1.65), and current smokers’ progression to or continuation with daily smoking (AOR = 1.70, 95% CI = 1.50 to 1.91). Conclusions Direct-to-consumer tobacco coupons may promote progression of smoking among nonsmokers, and continuation of smoking and progression to daily smoking among smokers in US adults. Implications Distributing direct mail coupons is a strategy employed by tobacco companies to promote their products. We found, in a US national study, that many adults received tobacco coupons, and receiving these coupons was associated with subsequent progression of smoking among nonsmokers, and continuation of smoking and daily smoking among smokers. Scrutiny over the use of direct mail coupons and its effects on population health is warranted. Future research is needed to evaluate the effect of different interventions to reduce the impact of these coupons on smoking behaviors.

BackgroundOral nicotine products (ONPs) are increasing in sales, availability and flavours. In April 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) obtained regulatory authority over non-tobacco nicotine products, which include many ONPs. Advertising practices for ONPs need monitoring to understand marketing strategies and inform FDA marketing authorisation decisions.MethodsONP advertisement (ad) expenditure data (January 2016–June 2023) were purchased (print, TV, radio, online video, online display and mobile; N=125 236) and adjusted to 2023 dollars. Descriptive statistics examined expenditures by ONP brand and media outlet over time.ResultsVelo spent the most on ONP advertising (89.8%), followed by Zyn (5.7%) and Black Buffalo (1.2%). Velo encompassed the majority of TV (98.1%), radio (99.9%) and mobile ad spend (87.3%); Zyn was the leader for online display (46.2%) and online video (71.1%); and Black Buffalo accounted for 100% of print ads. In 2023, (January–June), Zyn accounted for 88.0% of ad expenditures and Velo spent $0, though the total amount spent by Zyn was far less than Velo in prior years. TV ads (98.1% Velo) aired primarily on prime time/late night or 09:00–17:00 on weekends. Radio ads (99.9% Velo) aired primarily from 06:00 to 10:00, 12:00 to 14:00 and 15:00 to 19:00 on weekdays. Overall, expenditures focused on reaching a national audience, though print ads indicated potential male-targeted marketing.ConclusionsFollowing FDA’s regulatory authority over non-tobacco nicotine products, ad expenditures for Velo dropped to $0. Ongoing surveillance of ONP ad trends can inform FDA marketing authorisation decisions by revealing brand-specific marketing strategies that may be targeted toward populations at increased risk of tobacco use.

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is recommended for tobacco cessation on the basis of pharmaceutical industry research showing its effectiveness when combined with counseling. The tobacco industry opposed NRT when it first appeared in the 1980s but by 2016 was marketing its own NRT products. We used internal tobacco industry documents dated 1960 through 2010 to identify the industry’s perceptions of NRT. As early as the 1950s, tobacco companies developed nonsmoked nicotine replacements for cigarettes, but they stopped out of concern that marketing such products would trigger Food and Drug Administration regulation of cigarettes. In the 1990s, after pharmaceutical companies began selling prescription NRT, tobacco companies found that many smokers used NRT to supplement smoking rather than to quit. In 2009, once the Food and Drug Administration began regulating tobacco, tobacco companies restarted their plans to capture the nicotine market. Although the tobacco industry initially viewed NRT as a threat, it found that smokers often combined NRT with smoking rather than using it as a replacement and began marketing their own NRT products.