Thoughts on neologisms and pleonasm in scientific discourse and tobacco control

O’Connor, Richard J.; Durkin, Sarah; Cohen, Joanna E.; Barnoya, Joaquín; Henriksen, Lisa; Hill, Sarah; Malone, Ruth E.

doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056795

Cited by 10 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…138 Renormalisation has seen industry language integrated into common discourse (eg, promotion of ENDS to 'quit' rather than 'switch', wording that conveniently overlooks the burden of continuing nicotine dependence). 139 Philip Morris has framed its IQOS HTP as 'smoke-free' to capitalise on the reduced risk profile associated with ENDS, 140 despite evidence HTPs may carry similar risks to smoked tobacco and are almost certainly more harmful than ENDS. 141 This rhetorical chicanery reinforces claims the industry offers solutions, not problems, enables them to regain political capital and depicts them as legitimate stakeholders in tobacco control policy debates.…”

Section: Special Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Renormalisation has seen industry language integrated into common discourse (eg, promotion of ENDS to ‘quit’ rather than ‘switch’, wording that conveniently overlooks the burden of continuing nicotine dependence) 139. Philip Morris has framed its IQOS HTP as ‘smoke-free’ to capitalise on the reduced risk profile associated with ENDS,140 despite evidence HTPs may carry similar risks to smoked tobacco and are almost certainly more harmful than ENDS 141.…”

Section: Phase 5: Endgames and Social Normsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

From social accessory to societal disapproval: smoking, social norms and tobacco endgames

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Special Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Phase 5: Endgames and Social Normsmentioning

confidence: 99%

From social accessory to societal disapproval: smoking, social norms and tobacco endgames

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Corporations are adept at using deceptive framing and rhetoric to shape norms and beliefs, influence political and policy agendas and position themselves as part of the solution rather than being the problem. [13][14][15][16] The leading proponent of transformation, Philip Morris International (PMI), funds the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW) which recently embellished the transformation narrative by launching the 'Tobacco Transformation Index' (TTI). This 'index' purports to measure the degree to which leading tobacco companies are transforming.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating tobacco industry ‘transformation’: a proposed rubric and analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some tobacco companies claim they are ‘transforming’ by adopting harm reduction goals or even seeking to achieve a ‘smokefree’ world. What characterises transformation and whether companies can or are transforming is unclear. Nevertheless, such claims are gaining traction. We critically investigated tobacco industry transformation by exploring the definition and criteria for evaluating transformation, and assessed whether transformation is occurring and feasible.Companies’ transformation claims centre on increasing sales of new tobacco and nicotine products like e-cigarettes (‘new products’) with little attention to reducing sales of more hazardous smoked and oral products (‘conventional products’).We define a transforming tobacco company as one demonstrating substantial, rapid and verifiable progress towards eliminating the production and sale of conventional tobacco products within 5 years in all markets where it operates.We found no evidence any tobacco company is meeting the three essential criteria of rapidly progressing towards eliminating conventional products, ceasing to obstruct effective tobacco control measures and taking action to minimise smoking uptake and disparities. While some companies are developing new product portfolios, their actions are more consistent with profit maximisation than eliminating conventional product use. This approach is best described as ‘pseudo-transformation’, designed to delay implementation of effective tobacco control policies. In addition, our analysis suggests replacing conventional products with new nicotine products is unlikely to be a viable long-term business model.Public health practitioners should not rely on tobacco industry claims but should lead the transformation debate, establish credible definitions and criteria, and monitor and assess whether transformation is occurring.

show abstract

“…Whereas NVPs aerosolise a liquid containing nicotine but no actual tobacco leaf , HTPs heat actual tobacco leaf often in the form of manufactured sticks or capsules. Due to this nuance, we use the acronym NVP in place of the term electronic nicotine delivery system,4 so as to differentiate the two electronic product categories that we primarily discuss. Likewise, we use the acronym HTP for devices that heat actual tobacco leaf, as opposed to terms used interchangeably by manufacturers (see table 1) that suggest a complete lack of combustion (‘heat-not-burn’) despite evidence that charring does occur during HTP use 5…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing use of inhalable nicotine products within complex markets: the dilemma of heated tobacco products

Miller

Smith

et al. 2022

Tob Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The introduction of electronic inhalable products, such as nicotine vaping products (NVPs) and heated tobacco products (HTPs), has further diversified the nicotine market landscape. This poses unique challenges in measuring self-reported nicotine use behaviours, which have been the hallmark of tobacco surveillance systems. This paper raises concerns of potential measurement error for electronic inhalable product use in surveys due to similarities in product design between NVPs and HTPs, as well as changing trends in cannabis administration. We identify several strategies for addressing this issue (eg, including descriptive preambles in surveys that differentiate product classes from one another; incorporating survey questions that probe beyond an initial question regarding product use). In the absence of comprehensive validation studies, caution is warranted when interpreting survey results that rely on self-reported HTP use.

show abstract

Thoughts on neologisms and pleonasm in scientific discourse and tobacco control

Cited by 10 publications

References 7 publications

From social accessory to societal disapproval: smoking, social norms and tobacco endgames

From social accessory to societal disapproval: smoking, social norms and tobacco endgames

Evaluating tobacco industry ‘transformation’: a proposed rubric and analysis

Assessing use of inhalable nicotine products within complex markets: the dilemma of heated tobacco products

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About