PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

L T Kozlowski

Publications and source records attributed to L T Kozlowski.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Relationship between constituent labelling and reporting of tar yields among smokers in four countries.

Countries have adopted different approaches to disseminating cigarette tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide (CO) levels to consumers, with some (e.g. EU member states, Canada, Australia, but not the United States) requiring disclosure of results from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) test method on packs. Cross-country comparisons can provide insight into how smokers use yields when information is presented differently. We examined whether smokers in four different countries could recall the tar yield of their brand of cigarettes, using data from the third wave of the International Tobacco Control Four Country Survey (ITC-4). Of current smokers in the United States, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom, 33.6% gave a numeric response when asked to report the tar yield of their brand, whereas 66.4% responded 'I don't know.' American participants (9.2%) were less likely than Canadian (28.0%), UK (36.5%) or Australian (68.2%) smokers to give an answer, even after controlling for sociodemographic and smoking behaviour factors. Constituent labelling policies can affect whether smokers report a tar yield for their cigarette brand. Pack labelling appears to be useful for conveying information about cigarettes to smokers; however, there is an urgent need to develop more meaningful information on toxic constituents of cigarette smoke.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2006

Maximum yields might improve public health--if filter vents were banned: a lesson from the history of vented filters.

Filter ventilation is the dominant design feature of the modern cigarette that determines yields of tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide on smoking machine tests. The commercial use of filter ventilation was precipitated by the 1964 United States Surgeon-General's report, further advanced by the adoption of an official Federal Trade Commission test in 1967, and still further advanced by the inclusion of a gas phase (carbon monoxide) measure in 1979. The first vented-filter brand on the market in the United States (Carlton) in 1964 and the second major vented-filter brand (True) in 1966 illustrate this. Ultimately, filter ventilation became a virtually required way to make very low tar cigarettes (less than 10 mg or, even more so, less than 5 mg tar). The key to the lower tar cigarette was not, in effect, the advanced selective filtration design characteristics or sophisticated tobacco selection or processing as envisioned by experts (although these techniques were and are used); the key to the very much lower tar cigarette was simply punching holes in the filter. We propose that the banning of filter vents, coupled with low maximum standard tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide yields, would contribute to making cigarettes much less palatable and foster smoking cessation or the use of clearly less hazardous nicotine delivery systems. It may be necessary to link low maximum yields with the banning of filter ventilation to achieve public health benefit from such maxima.

Carbon Monoxide↗
PubMed2005

"Not safe" is not enough: smokers have a right to know more than there is no safe tobacco product.

The right to health relevant information derives from the principles of autonomy and self direction and has been recognised in international declarations. Providing accurate health information is part of the basis for obtaining "informed consent" and is a recognised component of business ethics, safety communications, and case and product liability law. Remarkably, anti-tobacco and pro-tobacco sources alike have come to emphasise the message that there is "no safe cigarette" or "no safe tobacco product". We propose that the "no safe" message is so limited in its value that it represents a violation of the right to health relevant information. There is a need to go beyond saying, "there is no safe tobacco product" to indicate information on degree of risks. The "no safe tobacco" message does not contradict, for example, the mistaken belief that so called light or low tar cigarettes are safer choices than higher tar cigarettes. We encourage a kind of "rule utilitarian" ethical position in which the principle of truth telling is observed while trying to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Although harm reduction approaches to easing the burden of tobacco related diseases are founded on science based comparative risk information, the right to health information is independently related to the need to promote health literacy. This right should be respected whether or not harm reduction policies are judged advisable.

Attitude to Health↗
PubMed2005

An extremely compensatible cigarette by design: documentary evidence on industry awareness and reactions to the Barclay filter design cheating the tar testing system.

BACKGROUND: The Barclay cigarette (Brown & Williamson) was introduced in 1980 in the USA in the most expensive launch in history. In the USA and around the world, Barclay was later determined to have a grooved filter design that was compromised by human smokers in the normal act of smoking, but that was measured as ultra-low tar using the standard tar testing protocol. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether Brown & Williamson knew of the compensatability of Barclay during the design process and before it was released; to evaluate initial responses of competing tobacco companies to Barclay, before complaints were made to the Federal Trade Commission in 1981. METHODS: Internet databases of industry documents (Tobacco Documents Online, Legacy Tobacco Documents Library, Brown & Williamson Litigation discovery website, Guildford and major company websites) were searched using key words, key dates, and targeted searches. Documents related specifically to the development, evaluation and release of the Barclay cigarette and related to the responses by competing tobacco companies were examined. RESULTS: Documents indicate the manufacturer was aware of Barclay design problems and was planning, before release, to respond to criticism. Competing companies quickly detected the filter groove stratagem and considered developing their own similar filter, but eventually backed off. CONCLUSION: The design problems with Barclay were readily understood by cigarette manufacturers, including the maker of Barclay, before official governmental evaluations occurred. Testing involving measured exposures to human smokers may in the end be crucial to identifying problems with novel cigarette designs.

Attitude to Health↗
PubMed2003

More on the regulation of tobacco smoke: how we got here and where next.

The modern cigarette is unnecessarily dangerous. Despite being lower in tar yield, and consequently in squamo-carcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbons such as benzo[a]pyrene, the nitrosamine yields are often higher than they need to be. Also, reductions in tar levels have not led to the consequential reductions in mortality that were anticipated several decades ago. The modern cigarette is also smoother, easier to smoke and to learn how to smoke, highly addictive and facilitates compensatory smoking. Compensatory smoking leads to excess inhalation of carcinogens and toxins in the hunt for nicotine. Its labelling is misleading in that supposedly low-yielding cigarettes may, due to compensation occurring as a result of cigarette design, lead to inhalation of much higher amounts of nicotine, carcinogens and toxins than the smoker is led to expect. Regulation of the product is needed to provide the persistent smoker with a cigarette lower in risk, accurately labelled, providing a relatively consistent and known dose of nicotine, and less likely to facilitate compensatory smoking. This will not produce a safe cigarette but should result in a reduction in harm if seriously implemented.

Carcinogens↗
PubMed2002

Cigarette filter ventilation is a defective design because of misleading taste, bigger puffs, and blocked vents.

OBJECTIVE: To review tobacco industry documents on filter ventilation in light of published studies and to explore the role of filter ventilation in the design of cigarettes that deliver higher smoke yields to smokers than would be expected from standard machine smoked tests (Federal Trade Commission (FTC), International Organization for Standardization (ISO)). DATA SOURCES: Searched from November 1999 to November 2000 internet databases of industry documents (www.pmdocs.com, www.rjrtdocs.com, www.lorillarddocs.com, www.bw.aalatg.com, www.cdc.gov/tobacco/industrydocs, www.tobaccodocuments.org, www.tobaccopapers.org, www.hlth.gov.bc.ca/Guildford, www.cctc.ca/ncth/Guildford, www.cctc.ca/ncth/Guildford2) for documents related to filter ventilation. Documents found dated from 1955 through 1994. STUDY SELECTION: Those documents judged to contain the most relevant information or data on filter ventilation related to cigarette taste and compensatory smoking, while also trying to avoid redundancy from various documents deriving from the same underlying data. DATA SYNTHESIS: Filter ventilation is a crucial design feature creating three main problems for lower tar cigarettes as measured by official smoking machine testing. Firstly, it misleadingly makes cigarettes taste lighter and milder, and, therefore, they appear less dangerous to smokers. Secondly, it promotes compensation mainly by facilitating the taking of larger puffs. Thirdly, for very heavily ventilated cigarettes (that is, > 65% filter air dilution), behavioural blocking of vents with lips or fingers is an additional contributor to compensatory smoking. These three effects are found in industry research as well as published research. CONCLUSIONS: Filter ventilation is a dangerous, defective technology that should be abandoned in less hazardous nicotine delivery systems. Health interested groups should test cigarettes in a way that reflects compensatory smoking. Lower tar (vented filter) cigarettes should be actively countermarketed.

Carbon Monoxide↗
PubMed2000

Massachusetts' advertising against light cigarettes appears to change beliefs and behavior.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined the effects of advertising directed against light cigarettes (lights). METHODS: In a quasi-experimental post-test-only design, smokers and ex-smokers (</=1 year) in Massachusetts (MASS) (N=500) and the continental United States (U.S. ) (N=501) took part in random-digit dialing telephone interviews. We used multiple logistic regression analyses to control for gender, education, and age effects. RESULTS: Compared with the U.S., the MASS sample contained more, recent ex-smokers (10% vs. 7% in the U.S.) and more smokers of higher tar cigarettes (44% vs. 35% smokers of regular cigarettes); more U.S. respondents thought lights had at least a slim chance of reducing the risk of health problems (49% vs. 32%). Within MASS, smokers who saw anti-light ads were less likely to think lights decreased the risk of health problems (26% vs. 44%) and more likely to know of filter vents (64% vs. 47%). These effects remained statistically reliable after adjusting for confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Amidst extensive anti-smoking efforts, the MASS campaign to counter-market light cigarettes appears to promote smoking cessation and to inform smokers of the risks of light cigarettes. Further counter-marketing efforts should be encouraged.

Adult↗
PubMed1999

Effect of filter vent blocking on carbon monoxide exposure from selected lower tar cigarette brands.

Two studies were conducted to determine the effect of blocking filter vents on carbon monoxide (CO) exposure under ad lib smoking conditions. In Study 1, 12 daily cigarette smokers smoked cigarettes from the brands Now (1 mg tar by the FTC Method) and Marlboro Lights (10 mg tar) under each of two vent-blocking conditions (unblocked and finger blocked). Blocking filter vents with fingers led to an 85% increase in CO for the brand Now, but had no added effect on CO exposure from the Marlboro Lights. In Study 2, another 12 daily cigarette smokers smoked cigarettes from each of four additional brands: Carlton (1 mg tar), Now (2 mg tar), Virginia Slims Ultra-lights (5 mg tar), and Virginia Slims Lights (8 mg tar). Blocking filter vents with the lips caused all four brands to produce equal CO exposures. Blocking vents increased smokers' exposure to CO by 239% when smoking Carltons and by 44% when smoking Nows. No significant increases in CO with blocking were found for either of the Virginia Slims brands. These results suggest that the degree to which a brand is ventilated determines whether that brand is susceptible to increased CO yields as a result of vent blocking.

Administration, Inhalation↗
PubMed1999

Smoker reactions to a "radio message" that Light cigarettes are as dangerous as Regular cigarettes.

The purpose of this study was to examine in a systematic, controlled fashion the reactions of smokers to scientifically correct information about the risks of smoking Light cigarettes (about 6-15 mg tar by the FTC method). Random-digit dialing, computer-assisted telephone interviews were used to locate daily smokers of Light cigarettes. In an experimental design, smokers were randomly assigned to listen (n = 293) or not (n = 275) to a persuasive simulated radio message on the risks of Light cigarettes; 108 of those who did not listen to the message in the first part of the interview were played the message in the second part, to evaluate some repeated-measures effects. Those who heard the message were more likely to report that one Light cigarette could give a smoker the same amount of tar as one Regular cigarette and that Light cigarettes were more dangerous: 55% said the message made them think more about quitting and 46% said the message increased the amount they wanted to quit; 42% said that after hearing the message they thought Light cigarettes were more dangerous. Using the Theory of Planned Behavior, structural equation modeling analysis indicated that the message acted to increase intention to quit smoking by increasing the desire to quit smoking. Seventy-three per cent of the smokers agreed that it was important to play such messages widely on the radio; 77% agreed that there should be a warning on packs that vent blocking increases tar; 61% agreed that the location of filter vents should be marked. The majority of smokers of Light cigarettes seem to value being informed that Light cigarettes are as dangerous for them as Regular cigarettes, and this information increases their intentions to quit smoking.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

Blocking filter vents increases carbon monoxide levels from ultralight, but not light cigarettes.

Effect of vent blocking on carbon monoxide (CO) exposure from a best-selling light cigarette was examined in 12 daily cigarette smokers. Mean CO boosts were not different from each other with (a) 0% filter vents blocked (5.0 ppm), (b) vents covered with lips (4.9 ppm), (c) 50% of vents covered with tape (4.8 ppm), and (d) vents covered with a pinch of the fingertips (4.9 ppm). A second study in another 12 smokers was conducted to replicate these findings as well as earlier findings that blocking vents doubles CO intake from 1-mg tar cigarettes. While blocking half the vents with fingers significantly increased CO boost from ultralight cigarettes (2.8 vs. 5.4 ppm, p < 0.001), it did not influence boosts from light cigarettes (6.3 vs. 6.5 ppm, p = 0.8). The lowest yield cigarettes (1 mg tar) may be special. Smoking machine simulations provide poor models of human smoke intake. It is unclear whether tar and nicotine intake from light cigarettes was influenced by vent blocking.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

Smokers' misperceptions of light and ultra-light cigarettes may keep them smoking.

INTRODUCTION: This study examined smokers' understanding of the relative tar deliveries of Ultra-light, Light, and Regular cigarettes, reasons for smoking Ultra-light/Light cigarettes, and the likelihood of both quitting smoking and switching to Regular cigarettes if they came to learn that one Ultra-light/Light cigarette gave the same amount of tar as one Regular cigarette. DESIGN: Ten- to fifteen-minute random-digit-dialed, computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI) were conducted with both a national probability sample (n = 788) and a state random sample (n = 266) of daily smokers over the age of 18. RESULTS: Less than 10% of smokers in the national sample and only 14% of smokers in the state sample knew that one Light cigarette could give the same amount of tar as one Regular cigarette. Less than 10% of smokers in the state sample knew that one Ultra-light cigarette could give the same amount of tar as one Regular cigarette. Thirty-two percent of the Light and 26% of the Ultra-light smokers in the national sample, and 27% of Light and 25% of Ultra-light smokers in the state sample, said they would be likely to quit smoking if they learned one Light/Ultra-light equaled one Regular. CONCLUSION: Many Light and Ultra-light smokers are smoking these cigarettes to reduce the risks of smoking and/or as a step toward quitting. However, these smokers are unaware that one Ultra-light/Light cigarette can give them the same amount of tar and nicotine as one Regular cigarette. Many of the Ultra-light/Light smokers sampled in this study stated that they would be likely to quit if they knew this information. Mistaken beliefs about low-yield brands are reducing intentions to quit smoking.

Adult↗