Literature DB >> 17130630

Potential reduced exposure products (PREPs) in industry trial testimony.

Geoffrey Ferris Wayne1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To identify patterns in trial testimony that may reflect on the intentions or expectations of tobacco manufacturers with regard to the introduction of potential reduced exposure products (PREPs).
DESIGN: Research was conducted using the Deposition and Trial Testimony Archive (DATTA) collection of trial testimony and depositions housed online at Tobacco Documents Online (www.tobaccodocuments.org). Relevant testimony was identified through full-text searches of terms indicating PREPs or harm reduction strategies. The role and function of PREPs in testimony were classified according to common and contrasting themes. These were analysed in the context of broader trial arguments and against changes in time period and the market.
RESULTS: Analysis of testimony suggests that the failure of PREPs in the market tempered initial industry enthusiasm and made protection of the conventional cigarette market its major priority. The "breakthrough" character of PREPs has been de-emphasised, with trial arguments instead positioning PREPs as simply another choice for consumers. This framework legitimises the sale of conventional brands, and shifts the responsibility for adoption of safer products from the manufacturer to the consumer. Likewise, testimony has abandoned earlier dramatic health claims made with regard to PREPs, which had undermined industry arguments regarding efforts to reduce harm in conventional products. More recent testimony advocates the broad acceptance of independent guidelines that would validate use of health claims and enable the industry to market PREPs to consumers.
CONCLUSION: Trial testimony reflects the changing role and positioning of PREPs by the tobacco industry. The findings are of particular importance with regard to future evaluation and potential regulation of reduced harm products.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17130630      PMCID: PMC2563586          DOI: 10.1136/tc.2004.009787

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Tob Control        ISSN: 0964-4563            Impact factor:   7.552


  14 in total

1.  The low tar lie.

Authors:  N R Leavell
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 7.552

2.  Beliefs about "Light" and "Ultra Light" cigarettes and efforts to change those beliefs: an overview of early efforts and published research.

Authors:  L T Kozlowski; J L Pillitteri
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 7.552

Review 3.  Cigarette filter ventilation is a defective design because of misleading taste, bigger puffs, and blocked vents.

Authors:  L T Kozlowski; R J O'Connor
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 7.552

Review 4.  The dark side of marketing seemingly "Light" cigarettes: successful images and failed fact.

Authors:  R W Pollay; T Dewhirst
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 7.552

5.  Smoker and ex-smoker reactions to cigarettes claiming reduced risk.

Authors:  S Shiffman; J L Pillitteri; S L Burton; M E Di Marino
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 7.552

6.  Low-risk cigarettes: a prescription.

Authors:  G B Gori
Journal:  Science       Date:  1976-12-11       Impact factor: 47.728

7.  Health impact of "reduced yield" cigarettes: a critical assessment of the epidemiological evidence.

Authors:  M J Thun; D M Burns
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 7.552

Review 8.  The Tobacco Deposition and Trial Testimony Archive (DATTA) project: origins, aims, and methods.

Authors:  Ronald M Davis; Clifford E Douglas; John K Beasley
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 7.552

9.  Failed promises of the cigarette industry and its effect on consumer misperceptions about the health risks of smoking.

Authors:  K M Cummings; C P Morley; A Hyland
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 7.552

10.  Comparative study of smoke condensates from 1R4F cigarettes that burn tobacco versus ECLIPSE cigarettes that primarily heat tobacco in the SENCAR mouse dermal tumor promotion assay.

Authors:  Daniel R Meckley; Johnnie R Hayes; K R Van Kampen; Paul H Ayres; Arnold T Mosberg; James E Swauger
Journal:  Food Chem Toxicol       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 6.023

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Surveillance methods for identifying, characterizing, and monitoring tobacco products: potential reduced exposure products as an example.

Authors:  Richard J O'Connor; K Michael Cummings; Vaughan W Rees; Gregory N Connolly; Kaila J Norton; David Sweanor; Mark Parascandola; Dorothy K Hatsukami; Peter G Shields
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 2.  Methods used in internal industry clinical trials to assess tobacco risk reduction.

Authors:  Vaughan W Rees; Jennifer M Kreslake; Richard J O'Connor; K Michael Cummings; Mark Parascandola; Dorothy Hatsukami; Peter G Shields; Gregory N Connolly
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 3.  Lung deposition analyses of inhaled toxic aerosols in conventional and less harmful cigarette smoke: a review.

Authors:  Clement Kleinstreuer; Yu Feng
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2013-09-23       Impact factor: 3.390

4.  [The challenge of electronic cigarettes].

Authors:  Rodrigo Córdoba García
Journal:  Aten Primaria       Date:  2014-04-03       Impact factor: 1.137

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.