Tobacco companies have also used research showing that women prefer flavors like spearmint and coconut to their advantage—they incorporate these types of flavors into cigarettes to appeal to female consumers. Tobacco companies strategically use the preferences of certain key demographics to target them for cigarette sales. When burned, some of these flavorings produce additional toxins in cigarette smoke , including carcinogens, which increase a person's risk of developing cancer as a result of smoking.
In addition, some of the sweeteners—like chocolate—contain bronchodilators. Bronchodilators expand the lungs so that cigarette smoke is inhaled more deeply but it feels less harsh.
Levulinic acid is a type of organic salt that also masks the harsh quality of nicotine and prevents a person's throat from feeling irritated while smoking. Levulnic acid also "desensitizes" the upper respiratory tract, which allows cigarette smoke to be inhaled more deeply. It also makes the brain more receptive to nicotine, which increases the risk of addiction. There is a lot of information about the physical effects of smoking, such as heart disease, stroke, lung diseases, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease COPD , and even premature death.
Smoking has negative mental health effects as well, and many of the additives in cigarettes make it much more likely for someone to become addicted to nicotine. Smoking is linked with poor mental health.
People who smoke cigarettes tend to have higher levels of anxiety and depression. Adolescents are found to be the most at-risk for nicotine addiction since their brains are still developing.
It's estimated that three out of four teenage smokers will continue smoking into adulthood, even if they want to quit. Research has linked smoking during adolescence with increased impulsivity and mood disorders.
Young people are also more at risk of depression and might be more at risk of developing a dependence on other drugs if they have a dependence on nicotine. Dependence on nicotine can lead to symptoms of withdrawal if a person stops smoking. Withdrawal includes many physical and mental effects such as:. If you want to quit smoking, you have options that can help. Talk to your doctor about what they recommend. They might suggest nicotine replacement therapy NRT , which comes in various forms including patches, lozenges, gum and administers small doses of nicotine without the other toxic additives that are in cigarettes.
NRT can help ween you off of smoking. It can be tough to quit smoking but know that you're not alone. Attending a support group either in person or online can help you stay motivated to quit.
You can even download a quit smoking app on your phone. Having other people and support systems to hold you accountable for your goal of staying smoke-free can make a huge difference.
For more mental health resources, see our National Helpline Database. There are many additives cigarette companies put into cigarettes, and they put people at risk for many physical and mental health consequences.
To avoid the effects of these toxic additives, talk to your doctor about the best way for you to quit smoking. It may feel challenging at first, but prioritizing your physical and mental health can motivate you to be smoke-free.
So you're ready to finally quit smoking? Our free guide can help you get on the right track. Sign up and get yours today. American Cancer Society. US tobacco companies tell the truth about additive products. Published November Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
Designed for addiction: How the tobacco industry has made cigarettes more addictive, more attractive to kids and even more deadly. Published June Chemicals in every cigarette. Updated December Knowledge and awareness of added sugar in cigarettes.
Nicotine Tob Res. Bronchodilators were added so that tobacco smoke can more easily enter the lungs. Sugars, flavors and menthol were increased to dull the harshness of smoke and make it easier to inhale. Ammonia was added so that nicotine travels to the brain faster.
Specifically, increasing the amount of nicotine was of paramount importance to tobacco company executives. Experts found that Big Tobacco companies genetically engineered their tobacco crops to contain two times the amount of nicotine and adjusted their cigarette design so that the nicotine delivered to smokers increased by The reason we know all of this is because tobacco companies were forced to publicly release scientific studies and internal documents in They have also been forced to publicly admit their strategies.
In November , tobacco companies began a court-ordered advertisement campaign admitting the variety of ways they manipulated the public, including that they designed cigarettes to be more addictive and lied about it. Full details are reported elsewhere [ 25 , 28 ]. Participants were recruited from the community through flyers, word of mouth, and a volunteer research participant registry. Focus group size averaged six participants with a range of three to ten.
Average age was Focus groups were stratified to reflect research about racial differences in concerns about genetic research [ 29 ] and the differential prevalence of tobacco use by education [ 25 , 28 , 30 ].
Participants first provided informed consent and verified demographic and tobacco history information. Focus groups were facilitated by a race-matched moderator and note-taker. Moderators followed a semi-structured interview guide that incorporated broad open-ended questions crafted to be sufficiently flexible to elicit beliefs related to the a priori constructs of interest while allowing novel themes to emerge.
Moderators probed for constructs of interest using a prepared script when these constructs failed to emerge organically. All questions and probes were phrased in non-academic language. The full interview guide has been published elsewhere [ 28 ]. Audiorecordings were transcribed by a professional transcriber and checked for accuracy by a research assistant. The original data analysis process occurred from October to December using NVivo software [ 28 , 32 ]. Instead, these discussions were examined in the present data analysis for reasons described previously.
This targeted analysis October to March used thematic analysis. SP listened to all audiorecordings and read all transcripts. SP and EW used an inductive and iterative process to develop, modify, and finalize an additive-specific codebook. After the codebook was finalized, SP coded the transcripts and EW verified that the quotes adequately represented the codes and that no possible codes were overlooked [ 33 ].
SP and EW met regularly throughout the coding process to identify and discuss major themes, to develop preliminary models describing the findings, and to refine the models based on re-examination of the codes, themes, and their interrelationships.
EW provided feedback during all stages of the data analysis and interpretation process. Specific examples included chemicals e. In addition to specific examples, three broad themes emerged: 1 navigating the conceptual link between smoking and genetics, 2 providing an alternative mechanism of addiction, and 3 providing an alternative mechanism by which cigarette smoking exacerbates physical harm. The themes, described in detail below, did not seem to differ in content by education or race.
Additive comments occurred at different times in each focus group. Nearly all additives discussions were characterized by a pervasive and persistent tone of mistrust. In five groups 2 HA, 1 LA, 1 HW, 1 LW , additive discussions seemed to serve as a mechanism for navigating and understanding the conceptual link between smoking and genetics. Quotations related to this theme also demonstrate the tone of mistrust that was interwoven throughout the spontaneous discussions of additives.
One discussion began before the video was shown, in response to the moderator asking participants about their understanding of genetic risk and its relation to smoking:. So they could put something in there to make a risk to the genetics.
After watching the news story, that participant and another group member continued to process the novel genetic information by directly linking genetic risk to additives inserted into cigarettes by tobacco companies:.
Other participants contextualized the smoking-genetic link through additives in the environment and other consumer products. So it just makes you wonder sometimes. They instead considered it to be a mutation spurred by the substances that tobacco companies, who participants mistrusted greatly, add to cigarettes.
According to this view, in the absence of additives, there would be no genetic link to nicotine addiction. These discussions were also steeped in mistrust:.
One group extended this idea, asserting that tobacco companies add substances for the express purpose of preventing people from quitting:. Not all participants who attributed addiction to additives mentioned nicotine by name. Do not extract [and reintroduce altered levels of] nicotine, do not put [in]…all them extra products…[T]he products they put in cigarettes, I believe, is the addiction.
Participants in seven groups 2 HA, 2 LA, 1 HW, 2 LW partially attributed specific negative health consequences of smoking to additives, rather than to tobacco itself. The tone of mistrust was less pronounced here than in other themes:. Because if you are going to [smoke], I mean maybe there are ways that we could make it healthier or not as harmful. These quotes demonstrate that most additive comments were grounded in the idea that additives and tobacco manufacturers — rather than tobacco itself — are the main culprits of intensifying the harms associated with cigarettes.
Participants spontaneously mentioned additives and other unknown substances in the context of discussing the smoking-genetic link. Additive comments appeared to serve various functions, including navigating the genetic link to smoking and blaming additives for the harms of tobacco use. Identifying specific well-known additives such as formaldehyde illustrated why additives were harmful and why tobacco companies should not be trusted.
Participants navigated the conceptual smoking-genetic link by citing additives as the perpetrator of genetic changes and contextualizing this link through additives in the environment and other consumer products. They imagined that smoking has a genetic component but felt that it is the substances added by tobacco companies that results in the genetic risk —not an inherent genetic element. Some participants argued that the presence of additives actually disproves the connection between genetics and smoking.
For them, additives are the addictive substance and their existence in cigarettes demonstrates that addiction cannot be genetic. These comments may suggest that some participants minimize the influence of genes on smoking behavior by asserting that external sources e. Participants used these statements to explain their behavior and, perhaps, deflect some responsibility for their addiction onto tobacco companies.
For some participants, accepting that their inherited DNA an internal characteristic out of their control may contribute to their behavior means diminished personal autonomy [ 25 , 28 , 34 ]. However, if genetic mutations are caused by additives an external element out of their control rather than inherited, they retain autonomy and validate their assertions that quitting only requires sufficient willpower an internal characteristic within their control [ 25 ].
This is consistent with research suggesting that people simultaneously seek to reduce feelings of personal blame and maintain a sense of control over their lives [ 35 ]. However, not all participants felt this way. Future research is needed to determine the extent to which smokers believe this connection. In our study, blaming additives for addiction might have helped participants to self-justify continued smoking despite acute awareness of the health consequences.
However, there was insufficient data to determine if participants entirely attributed their continued smoking to additives, so additional research is needed. Overall, participants were generally aware of the presence of additives in cigarettes and were able to name a few specific examples, but acknowledged many unknown substances are added to cigarettes. Participants in our focus groups also used their knowledge and beliefs about additives to interpret new health information.
This may lead to the use of ineffective harm reduction strategies e. Such studies could inform communication strategies for intervention programs aimed at smoking cessation, which have shown great promise [ 37 ]. This distinction can help further scientific understanding about how smokers think about the harms of smoking and their smoking behaviors.
Additionally, smoking cessation campaigns could be designed to discuss additives and their actual role in smoking behavior and ability to quit.
This makes the results applicable to two demographic groups that disproportionately face difficulty quitting and have higher morbidity and mortality from smoking-related illnesses, especially cancer [ 38 , 39 ]. This study should be interpreted in light of potential limitations. In groups where additive discussions occurred, no one provided contradictory views about these themes.
Future studies could target these beliefs within other contexts, which could inform design of marketing and health communication campaigns.
0コメント