In the journal Pediatrics,
University of Vermont’s Maria Parker, Ph.D., and 11 coauthors from four other
institutions report that “Youth [age 12-17 years] who believed that
noncombustible tobacco products posed ‘no or little harm’ at [wave 1 of the FDA
Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study, PATH] were more likely to
have tried those products at wave 2.” (here)
This finding is not particularly surprising. It shows that, despite a relentless campaign
against vastly safer smoke-free tobacco products, some youth recognize the
truth: It’s the smoke that’s harmful. Dr.
Parker found that 85% of youth thought cigarettes conferred “a lot of harm,”
while only 27% thought the same of e-cigarettes. On the other hand, only 51% thought e-cigarettes
were less harmful than cigarettes, 44% assessed them as equally harmful, and 5%
believed them to be more harmful.
Skewing their findings against smoke-free products, Parker
et. al. used “ever trying” the products between survey waves as their outcomes. This is much less meaningful than “currently
using”, which was not reported and might have produced negligible results.
The take-away from the article is that youth who [correctly]
believe that smoke-free tobacco products are less harmful than cigarettes are more
likely to try the former. Parker et al. imply
that trying can be prevented by disabusing teens of their “inaccurate beliefs.”
Even though the study's findings are inconsequential,
its 12 authors use them to justify aggressive intervention by authorities “across
local, state, and national levels…to convey accurate information on and address
inaccurate beliefs about the absolute and relative harms of tobacco products in
an effort to reduce youth tobacco use.”
They highlight the FDA’s Real Cost Campaign, which conveys “accurate
information” by depicting e-cigarette worms invading teen brains and bodies (here).
Speaking of real costs, this study was supported by $62.3 million in NIH grants.
Speaking of real costs, this study was supported by $62.3 million in NIH grants.
The article’s recommendation was endorsed by the journal’s
editor (here),
who previously acted contrary to editorial standards for professional medical
journals after publishing a flawed e-cigarette gateway study (here
and here).