Correspondence to: Howard K. Koh, M.D., M.P.H., Massachusetts Department of Public Health, 250 Washington St., Boston, MA 02108-4619.
Envision our society without tobacco addiction: cleaner lungs breathing cleaner air and rare, if any, lung cancer; heart disease deaths plummeting to a shadow of their current level and virtually no emphysema; and children having a fighting chance to reach their full potential for health.
Contrast that dream with the current nightmare we have come to endure as our national cancer profile. Tobacco, packaged in all its different shapes and sizes, has condemned our nation to a grimy sea of preventable cancer. As a society, we have been forced to accept the unacceptable and to tolerate the intolerable. The exhaustive annual report to the nation by Wingo et al. (1) in this issue of the Journal documents again that lung cancer, whose meteoric rise was triggered by the introduction of cigarettes into U.S. society at the turn of the 20th century, continues its dominance as the premier cancer killer. In the late 1980s, the rise of lung cancer to surpass breast cancer as the number one cancer killing women marked a dismal national milestone. Lung cancer now contributes to more than one fourth of all cancer-related deaths each year (1). Future medical historians will undoubtedly recall the 1900s as the "tobacco and cancer" century.
To complicate matters further, Boffetta et al. (2) conclude from a pooled analysis of seven case-control studies that European cigars, cigarillos, and pipe tobacco carry lung cancer risks comparable to those of cigarettes. Since the elevated odds ratios that they documented are greater than those previously reported (3), these troubling conclusions clearly need confirmation in follow-up studies. If confirmed, the European results have international ramifications. Of note, cigar consumption in the United States (which had steadily declined from the mid-1970s to the early 1990s) has surged again, prompting calls for warning labels (4) and other control measures.
Current trends in youth tobacco use portend an even more ominous future. It is astonishing that almost half of all high school-age children in the United States currently use some form of tobacco (1,5,6). National cigarette smoking rates for high school students have recently risen by an astronomical 32% (from 1991 through 1997). Overt and covert marketing by the tobacco industry successfully lures droves of new adolescent customers to replace the nearly 2 million customers lost each year, to death or quitting (7,8). Capitalizing on the vulnerability of adolescence, the industry dangles smoking as a forbidden fruit to serve as a badge of rugged independence. The end result, of course, is the exact oppositepreventable illness and, ultimately, total dependence on our health care system. In this way, our children are being systematically seduced and abandoned.
The silver lining in this report card is that cancer incidence and mortality rates have turned the corner (1). Overall, incidence rates that peaked in 1992 are now decreasing (by about 2% a year), predominantly for men (around 4% a year). Male lung cancer incidence has been dropping steadily since 1984 (1). Resisting a decline is cutaneous melanoma (9), another thoroughly preventable cancer. Cancer death rates for all 10 leading sites have also begun a decline, except for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and female lung cancer. While these declines certainly reflect steady advances in cancer research and treatment, the halving of male smoking rates over the past three decades and the resultant drop in male lung cancer incidence and mortality show that cancer prevention works. We need, but so far have not seen, a similar decline in lung cancer deaths for women.
Further declines will only come from acceleration of national antitobacco efforts that are finally changing the social norm. National strategies that previously focused solely on smoking cessation for individuals now stress the power of prevention for populations (10). These themes include preventing minors' access to tobacco, reducing environmental tobacco smoke exposure, raising prices to serve as an economic disincentive, and product regulation (10). On the national level, a core question swirls around the fundamental authority of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco (11), an issue that should soon reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
While these federal discussions continue, states have galvanized public health action at the local level. In the past decade, health coalitions in four statesCalifornia (1988), Massachusetts (1992), Arizona (1994), and Oregon (1996)successfully passed citizen-backed tobacco tax initiatives that have served to deter consumption while generating millions of new dollars to fund tobacco control programs (7,12). Such programs include smoking education as part of school health programs, community and workplace smoking cessation and prevention efforts, and statewide smoking cessation quitlines. Also, new antitobacco counteradvertising on television and radio denormalizes and deglamorizes the addiction, to reveal it for what it is"slow-motion suicide." The states' programs have produced stunning results: California now boasts the second lowest adult smoking prevalence in the country (1,13), while Massachusetts' and Oregon's adult per capita cigarette consumption has dropped many times faster than the national decline (14,15).
The 1998 blockbuster national tobacco settlement presents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. This multistate master settlement agreement (MSA) ended an avalanche of state attorney general lawsuits initially launched to recoup Medicaid dollars spent for smoking-related illness. Public health advocates had hoped that these lawsuits would land a knockout blow to the tobacco industry. They had to settle for an industry bruised (16) but that remains essentially intact to proceed with business as usual. Nevertheless, the tobacco industry must now provide $246 billion over the next 25 years to all 50 states and some cities and territories (17). It is unclear whether the federal government will waive some (or all) of their claims to the settlement dollars, but state lawmakers must decide now how to spend the windfall. While some states have already announced their intention to direct these funds to civic projects (ranging from prison construction to sidewalk repairs) (17), Americans everywhere deserve a vigorous, open debate that recognizes that the lawsuits were initially launched for reasons of health. The MSA (18) expressly states that parties "have agreed to settle their respective lawsuits and potential claims pursuant to terms which will achieve for the Settling States and their citizens significant funding for the advancement of public health, the implementation of important tobacco-related public health measures, including the enforcement of mandates and restrictions related to such measures, as well as funding for a national foundation dedicated to significantly reducing the use of tobacco products by youth. . . ." Meanwhile, the steady drumbeat of ongoing tobacco litigation (19) in the nation and worldwide may bring not only more resources to bear but also, ultimately, a sense of justice.
As our nation's public health future is a multicultural future, Wingo's report card (1) appropriately highlights disparities in cancer outcomes by racial/ethnic group. Attempts to explain the disproportionate impact of certain cancers (such as melanoma and leukemia in whites, pancreatic and oropharyngeal cancer in African Americans, and liver cancer in Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders) raise burning questions about underlying differences in cancer susceptibility as well as cultural, linguistic, socioeconomic, and other barriers to optimal health behavior (1,20). Nevertheless, all people deserve cancer prevention, especially tobacco control, a conclusion reached by Dr. David Satcher's Surgeon General's Report (21) "Tobacco Use Among U.S. Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups."
A healthier 21st century will come only through a full commitment to eradicating tobacco addiction from the face of our planet. National health report cards in the future must relegate lung cancer back down to the "rare" category where it belongs. May the next century bring the freedom from tobacco addiction that our children and future generations so richly deserve.
REFERENCES
1
Wingo PA, Ries LA, Giovino GA, Miller DS, Rosenberg HM,
Shopland DR, et al. The annual report to the nation on the status of cancer 1973-1996 with a
special section on lung cancer and tobacco smoking. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:675-90.
2
Boffetta P, Pershagen G, Jockel KH, Forastiere F, Gaborieau V,
Heinrich J, et al. Cigar and pipe smoking and lung cancer risk: a multicenter study from Europe. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:697-701.
3 National Institutes of Health. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph 9. Cigars. Heath Effects and Trends, 1998.
4 HHS calls for warning labels on cigars, says teen use high. Cancer Lett 1999;25:6-7.
5 Kann L, Kinchen SA, Williams BI, Ross JG, Lowery R, Hill CV, et al. Youth risk behavior surveillanceUnited States, 1997. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep CDC Surveill Summ 1998;47:1-89.
6 Tobacco use among high school studentsUnited States, 1997. MMWR 1998;47:1229-33.
7 Koh HK. Kids, cancer and the Joe Camel connection. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:2181-2.[Medline]
8
King C 3rd, Siegel M, Celebucki C, Connolly GN. Adolescent
exposure to cigarette advertising in magazines: an evaluation of brand-specific advertising in
relation to youth readership. JAMA 1998;279:516-20.
9 Koh HK. Cutaneous melanoma. N Engl J Med 1991;325:171-82.[Medline]
10 Tobacco Research Implementation Group. Tobacco research implementation plan. Priorities for tobacco research beyond the year 2000. National Cancer Institute; November 1998.
11 Kessler DA, Barnett PS, Witt A, Zeller MR, Monde JR, Schultz WB. The legal and scientific basis for FDA's assertion of jurisdiction over cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. JAMA 1997;277:405-9.[Abstract]
12 Pierce-Lavin C, Geller AC. Creating statewide tobacco control programs after passage of a tobacco tax: executive summary. Cancer 1998;83(12 Suppl Robert):2659-65.[Medline]
13 Pierce JP, Gilpin EA, Emery SL, Farkas AJ, Zhu SH, Choi WS, et al. Tobacco control in California: who's winning the war? An evaluation of the tobacco control program 1989-1996. La Jolla, California: University of California, San Diego; 1998. World Wide Web: http://ssdc.ucsd.edu/tobacco/reports.
14 Cigarette smoking before and after an excise tax increase and an antismoking campaignMassachusetts, 1990-1996. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1996;45:966-70.[Medline]
15 Pizacani B, Mosbaek C, Hedberg K, Bley L, Stark M, Moore J, et al. Decline in cigarette consumption following implementation of a comprehensive tobacco prevention and education programOregon 1996-1998. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1999;48:140-3.[Medline]
16 Hays C. RJR Nabisco splits tobacco ventures and food business.New York Times 1999 Mar 10.
17 Meier B. Tobacco windfall begins tug-of-war among lawmakers. New York Times 1999 Jan 10.
18 Multistate Master Settlement Agreement November 23, 1998. National Association of Attorneys General website. http://www.naag.org/cigmsa.rtf.
19 Daynard R, Kelder G. The many virtues of tobacco litigation. Trial 1998;34:34-43.
20 Chen M, Koh H. Introduction to the Proceedings for the Cancer Concerns for Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders Conference. Asian American and Pacific Islander Journal of Health 1998;6:67-76.
21 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Tobacco use among U.S. racial/ethnic minority groups. A report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta (GA): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; 1998.
This article has been cited by other articles in HighWire Press-hosted journals:
![]() |
||||
|
Oxford University Press Privacy Policy and Legal Statement |