Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Health Professionals Who Disrespect Smokeless Tobacco Users
When I started conducting research on tobacco harm reduction in the early 1990s, I noticed a disturbing trend: replacement of the term “smokeless tobacco” with the demeaning and disrespectful term “spit tobacco.”
This degrading term was not only used by extremists at the margin of tobacco control; by 1994, health professionals were using it in medical journals. The first instances were in the Journal of the American Medical Association (citation here) and the Journal of the American Dental Association (abstract here). The latter article was the first of 10 by Margaret Walsh, a professor of dentistry at the University of California/San Francisco; her most recent publication was in 2009 (abstract here).
Other professionals who have used this terminology include John Ebbert and Lowell Dale of the Mayo Clinic (here, here and here) and Dorothy Hatsukami at the University of Minnesota (here and here). Dr. Hatsukami’s adoption of the loaded term is especially troublesome since she now sits on the FDA tobacco products advisory panel.
The most egregious use of the spit terminology has been by the American Cancer Society and the CDC. The Cancer Society published research studies in 2005 and 2007, prominently using “spit” (here and here). The CDC institutionalized the practice in a 2006 federal report in collaboration with the National Center for Health Statistics (here).
The 2006 CDC report was especially deplorable, because it treated smokeless tobacco use differently than three other adult health risk behaviors -- cigarette smoking, cigar use and alcohol consumption.
On February 19, 2007, I wrote to CDC Director Julie Gerberding and NCHS Director Edward Sondik (available here). I pointed out that “the report’s use of [‘spit’ tobacco] is clearly inconsistent with its use of other terms relating to tobacco use and drinking behaviors. Furthermore, I believe that the use of ‘spit’ tobacco violates NCHS and CDC guidelines for ensuring the quality of information disseminated to the public. The NCHS and CDC guidelines are identical with respect to this matter, as it is each agency’s policy to ‘ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information that it disseminates to the public.’”
I strongly urged “CDC and NCHS to issue a corrected version of the Advance Data Report Number 378. Furthermore, I am asking that CDC/NCHS officials and staff to avoid the use of the term ‘spit’ tobacco in future official government publications, and to remove the term from existing web pages. This term is inappropriate because it is inaccurate, biased and unobjective. In addition, its use is inconsistent with the fully appropriate and non-pejorative terms ‘cigarettes,’ ‘cigars’ and ‘alcohol’ used in this and other government documents.”
In April, I received a response from Dr. Gerberding (read it here). She acknowledged that “an inappropriate term was used in this report. We agree that the term ‘smokeless tobacco’…would provide a better description of the information and we will take swift action to make that change. A revised version of [the report] will be posted on NCHS’ website. The printed version of this report will be changed should we reprint in the future.”
In May 2007, I wrote to John Seffrin, CEO of the American Cancer Society. I included a copy of Dr. Gerberding’s decision, and I listed several specific publications in which Cancer Society officials had used “spit tobacco”. I made the following key points:
“In a March 27 Wall Street Journal article, American Cancer Society Vice President Dr. Michael Thun summarized a growing consensus among tobacco research and policy experts regarding the vast difference in risk between smoked and smokeless products: ‘There's no question that switching to spit tobacco and quitting tobacco altogether are both far less lethal than continuing to smoke.’ Recognizing these differential risks is consistent with the American Cancer Society mission, which includes ‘preventing cancer, saving lives, and diminishing suffering from cancer.’ Describing all tobacco products in objective and professional terms would enhance the essential humanity of your mission by treating all tobacco users with dignity and respect.
“I believe that the American Cancer Society strives for high standards in its professional reports and communications, and I request that Society officials describe tobacco use in a non-pejorative, unbiased and objective manner consistent with the change made by the CDC. Specifically, I ask that Cancer Society officials and staff not use the term ‘spit tobacco’ in future reports and communications, and that the term be removed from existing web pages and other electronic reports and documents.”
In July 2007, Dr. Seffrin wrote back: “Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the use of the term ‘spit tobacco’ by health and policy professionals at the American Cancer Society. I have forwarded your letter to the appropriate staff for further review and any appropriate action.”
I don’t believe that Cancer Society officials at the national level have used “spit tobacco” since that time.
Use of the phrase “spit tobacco” shows that anti-tobacco extremists are completely out of touch with contemporary use of smokeless products. The “Swedish miracle” has shown the world that smokeless tobacco can be an effective substitute for cigarettes, resulting in population-level health improvement. Swedes have also shown how to use smokeless tobacco without spitting. They place smokeless products in the upper lip, reducing or eliminating the need to spit.
Modern dissolvable products (here and here), which are about the size of small breath mints, can also be used invisibly in any social situation. No tobacco juices are produced when these products are used, so spitting is as unnecessary as the derogatory terminology.