E-cigarettes and vaping are
transforming tobacco use in the U.S. and worldwide. The innovative products are being used almost
exclusively by smokers looking for substitutes for more harmful conventional
combustible tobacco. This revolution is
progressing despite widespread opposition from public health officials and tobacco
prohibitionists, some of whom are combating the products with linguistics.
They’re trying to label e-cigs “electronic nicotine delivery systems,” or ENDS
(here).
Carl Phillips (here)
traced the beginning of ENDS to a World Health Organization report in 2010 (here). To be fair, it is common for researchers to
invent terminology and acronyms as shorthand to communicate efficiently; Dr.
Philip Cole and I used ANDS – alternative nicotine delivery systems – in a 1999
professional article describing safer nicotine substitutes for smokers (here).
Still, obfuscating popular
terms as a form of social engineering is not appropriate, as two recent
publications in Tobacco Regulatory
Science (here) and Nicotine & Tobacco Research (here) demonstrate.
In the first study, staff at
RTI International and the FDA in 2014 interviewed 12 focus groups of vapers. They found that “participants understood the
umbrella term ‘e-cigarettes’ to refer to a variety of device types,” that
“vaper” was an acceptable term among e-cigarette users, and that “‘vapor’ was
generally well-known overall.” More
importantly, they wrote that “conceptual clarity, including using specific and
familiar terminology and descriptions of products for users and nonusers alike,
is crucial,” but they concluded that ENDS did not meet that standard.
The second study, by
researchers at the American Legacy Foundation and several universities, was
more critical of ENDS. Examining the
public posts of 1,023 users of a Legacy quit-smoking website, they found “that
‘e-cigarette’ and ‘vape’ are recognizable terms among US treatment-seeking smokers.
Conversely, terms such as ‘ENDS,’ commonly employed by researchers and public
health advocates, are not used by smokers and may be an impediment to tobacco
control research.”
FDA and tobacco
prohibitionists: When you talk to smokers and vapers, use the right terms. End the ENDS.
Note: This isn’t the first
time anti-tobacco forces have attempted to abuse linguistics in order to change
behavior. In 2010, I advised the
American Cancer Society and federal agencies that their use of the term “spit
tobacco” instead of “smokeless tobacco” was disrespectful, unprofessional and
perjorative (here and here). All agreed to discontinue the practice (here).
2 comments:
These people still haven't changed the name of their conference. https://www.facebook.com/NSSTsummit/
Judging by the grotesque image at that link, these people are incapable of feeling shame over the mere use of "spit tobacco."
I started a post about this, but probably will not finish it. So some thoughts here:
It is truly hilarious that they ever thought anyone else bought into "ENDS" at all. That shows just how deep their insularity goes.
As I pointed out in the linked post, this fails as a made-up technical term because it is wrong. Your "ANDS" could serve a useful technical purpose of defining a category that does not have a natural name. But "ENDS" always just mean "e-cigarette", a category that already had a natural name. They used it to refer to e-cigarettes that did not contain nicotine, so the N was wrong. The literal meaning of the E would mean that an electronic injection pump, or perhaps a cigarette vending machine, would qualify. At the same time, the E exclude a few (not yet marketed) versions of e-cigarettes that presumably they meant to include. Thus, the *only* apparent reason for the made-up term was to denigrate.
Post a Comment