Posts

Deal reached on tobacco firm corrective statements

By MICHAEL FELBERBAUM, AP Tobacco Writer
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — The nation’s tobacco companies and the federal government have reached an agreement on publishing corrective statements that say the companies lied about the dangers of smoking and requires them to disclose smoking’s health effects, including the death on average of 1,200 people a day.
The agreement filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., follows a 2012 ruling ordering the industry to pay for corrective statements in various advertisements. The judge in the case ordered the parties to meet to discuss how to implement the statements, including whether they would be put in inserts with cigarette packs and on websites, TV and newspaper ads.
The court must still approve the agreement and the parties are discussing whether retailers will be required to post large displays with the industry’s admissions.
The corrective statements are part of a case the government brought in 1999 under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations. U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler ruled in that case in 2006 that the nation’s largest cigarette makers concealed the dangers of smoking for decades. The companies involved in the case include Richmond, Va.-based Altria Group Inc., owner of the biggest U.S. tobacco company, Philip Morris USA; No. 2 cigarette maker, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., owned by Winston-Salem, N.C.-based Reynolds American Inc.; and No. 3 cigarette maker Lorillard Inc., based in Greensboro, N.C.
Under the agreement with the Justice Department, each of the companies must publish full-page ads in the Sunday editions of 35 newspapers and on the newspapers’ websites, as well as air prime-time TV spots on CBS, ABC or NBC five times per week for a year. The companies also must publish the statements on their websites and affix them to a certain number of cigarette packs three times per year for two years.
Each corrective ad is to be prefaced by a statement that a federal court has concluded that the defendant tobacco companies “deliberately deceived the American public.” Among the required statements are that smoking kills more people than murder, AIDS, suicide, drugs, car crashes and alcohol combined, and that “secondhand smoke kills over 38,000 Americans a year.”
Tobacco companies had urged Kessler to reject the government’s proposed corrective statements; the companies called them “forced public confessions.” They also said the statements were designed to “shame and humiliate” them. They had argued for statements that include the health effects and addictive qualities of smoking.
A federal appeals court also rejected efforts by the tobacco companies to overrule Kessler’s ruling requiring corrective statements.
Representatives for Altria, R.J. Reynolds and Lorillard each declined to comment.
Several public health groups, including the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association and American Lung Association, intervened in the case. In a statement Friday, the groups said the corrective statements are “necessary reminders that tobacco’s devastating toll over the past 50-plus years is no accident. It stems directly from the tobacco industry’s deceptive and even illegal practices.”
The corrective statements include five categories: adverse health effects of smoking; addictiveness of smoking and nicotine; lack of significant health benefit from smoking cigarettes marked as “low tar,” ”light,” etc.; manipulation of cigarette design and composition to ensure optimum nicotine delivery; and adverse health effects of exposure to secondhand smoke.
Among the statements within those categories:
“Smoking kills, on average, 1,200 Americans. Every day.”
“Philip Morris USA, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, Lorillard, and Altria intentionally designed cigarettes to make them more addictive.”
“When you smoke, the nicotine actually changes the brain — that’s why quitting is so hard.”
“All cigarettes cause cancer, lung disease, heart attacks, and premature disease, heart attacks, and premature death — lights, low tar, ultra lights, and naturals. There is no safe cigarette.”
“Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer and coronary heart disease in adults who do not smoke.”
“Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, severe asthma, and reduced lung function.”
“There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.”
http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Deal-reached-on-tobacco-firm-corrective-statements-5131393.php

US is marking 50th anniversary of surgeon general report that turned the tide against smoking

Article by: MIKE STOBBE , Associated Press
ATLANTA — Fifty years ago, ashtrays seemed to be on every table and desk. Athletes and even Fred Flintstone endorsed cigarettes in TV commercials. Smoke hung in the air in restaurants, offices and airplane cabins. More than 42 percent of U.S. adults smoked, and there was a good chance your doctor was among them.
The turning point came on Jan. 11, 1964. It was on that Saturday morning that U.S. Surgeon General Luther Terry released an emphatic and authoritative report that said smoking causes illness and death — and the government should do something about it.
In the decades that followed, warning labels were put on cigarette packs, cigarette commercials were banned, taxes were raised and new restrictions were placed on where people could light up.
“It was the beginning,” said Kenneth Warner, a University of Michigan public health professor who is a leading authority on smoking and health.
It was not the end. While the U.S. smoking rate has fallen by more than half to 18 percent, that still translates to more than 43 million smokers. Smoking is still far and away the leading preventable cause of death in the U.S. Some experts predict large numbers of Americans will puff away for decades to come.
Nevertheless, the Terry report has been called one of the most important documents in U.S. public health history, and on its 50th anniversary, officials are not only rolling out new anti-smoking campaigns but reflecting on what the nation did right that day.
The report’s bottom-line message was hardly revolutionary. Since 1950, head-turning studies that found higher rates of lung cancer in heavy smokers had been appearing in medical journals. A widely read article in Reader’s Digest in 1952, “Cancer by the Carton,” contributed to the largest drop in cigarette consumption since the Depression. In 1954, the American Cancer Society announced that smokers had a higher cancer risk.
But the tobacco industry fought back. Manufacturers came out with cigarettes with filters that they claimed would trap toxins before they settled into smokers’ lungs. And in 1954, they placed a full-page ad in hundreds of newspapers in which they argued that research linking their products and cancer was inconclusive.
It was a brilliant counter-offensive that left physicians and the public unsure how dangerous smoking really was. Cigarette sales rebounded.
In 1957 and 1959, Surgeon General Leroy Burney issued statements that heavy smoking causes lung cancer. But they had little impact.
Amid pressure from health advocates, President John F. Kennedy’s surgeon general, Dr. Luther Terry, announced in 1962 that he was convening an expert panel to examine all the evidence and issue a comprehensive, debate-settling report. To ensure the panel was unimpeachable, he let the tobacco industry veto any proposed members it regarded as biased.
Surveys indicated a third to a half of all physicians smoked tobacco products at the time, and the committee reflected the culture: Half its 10 members were smokers, who puffed away during committee meetings. Terry himself was a cigarette smoker.
Dr. Eugene Guthrie, an assistant surgeon general, helped persuade Terry to kick the habit a few months before the press conference releasing the report.
“I told him, ‘You gotta quit that. I think you can get away with a pipe — if you don’t do it openly.’ He said, ‘You gotta be kidding!’ I said, ‘No, I’m not. It just wouldn’t do. If you smoke any cigarettes, you better do it in a closet,'” Guthrie recalled in a recent interview with The Associated Press.
The press conference was held on a Saturday partly out of concern about its effect on the stock market. About 200 reporters attended.
The committee said cigarette smoking clearly did cause lung cancer and was responsible for the nation’s escalating male cancer death rate. It also said there was no valid evidence filters were reducing the danger. The committee also said — more vaguely — that the government should address the problem.
“This was front-page news, and every American knew it,” said Robin Koval, president of Legacy, an anti-smoking organization.
Cigarette consumption dropped a whopping 15 percent over the next three months but then began to rebound. Health officials realized it would take more than one report.
In 1965, Congress required cigarette packs to carry warning labels. Two years later, the Federal Communications Commission ordered TV and radio stations to provide free air time for anti-smoking public service announcements. Cigarette commercials were banned in 1971.
Still, progress was slow. Warner recalled teaching at the University of Michigan in 1972, when nearly half the faculty members at the school of public health were smokers. He was one of them.
“I felt like a hypocrite and an idiot,” he said. But smoking was still the norm, and it was difficult to quit, he said.
The 1970s also saw the birth of a movement to protect nonsmokers from cigarette fumes, with no-smoking sections on airplanes, in restaurants and in other places. Those eventually gave way to complete smoking bans. Cigarette machines disappeared, cigarette taxes rose, and restrictions on the sale of cigarettes to minors got tougher.
Tobacco companies also came under increasing legal attack. In the biggest case of them all, more than 40 states brought lawsuits demanding compensation for the costs of treating smoking-related illnesses. Big Tobacco settled in 1998 by agreeing to pay about $200 billion and curtail marketing of cigarettes to youths.
In 1998, while the settlement was being completed, tobacco executives appeared before Congress and publicly acknowledged for the first time that their products can cause lung cancer and be addictive.
Experts agree the Terry report clearly triggered decades of changes that whittled the smoking rate down. But it was based on data that was already out there. Why, then, did it make such a difference?
For one thing, the drumbeat about the dangers of smoking was getting louder in 1964, experts said. But the way the committee was assembled and the carefully neutral manner in which it reached its conclusion were at least as important, said Dr. Tim McAfee, director of the Office on Smoking and Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
At the same time, he and others said any celebration of the anniversary must be tempered by the size of the problem that still exists.
Each year, an estimated 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, and 8.6 million live with a serious illness caused by smoking, according to the CDC.
Donald Shopland finds that depressing.
Fifty years ago, he was a 19-year-old who smoked two packs a day while working as a clerk for the surgeon general’s committee. He quit cigarettes right after the 1964 report came out, and went on to a long and distinguished public health career in which he wrote or edited scores of books and reports on smoking’s effects.
“We should be much further along than we are,” the Georgia retiree lamented.
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/238716101.html?page=all&prepage=1&c=y#continue

Smoke from E-Cigs Still Poses Some Second-Hand Risk

By  @acsifferlin , TIME Health & Family
It’s not real tobacco smoke, but the emissions from electronic cigarettes can still contain harmful ingredients.
A new study published in the journal Nicotine and Tobacco Research shows that e-cigarettes generate enough nicotine emissions that they can be inhaled by those near a smoker. The researchers conducted two studies on three brands of e-cigarettes that investigated what the devices emitted into the surrounding air.
In the first study, the scientists used a smoke machine to “smoke” the cigarettes and then measure the concentrations of nicotine and other volatile organic compounds such as carbon monoxide released. They compared these emissions to those of standard cigarettes. Then, the team asked five male participants to smoke both tobacco and e-cigarettes in a room that measured contaminant exposure.
The found that e-cigarettes are a source of second-hand exposure to nicotine, but not of other compounds released when tobacco is burned. And the nicotine exposure was 10 times less than that from tobacco smoke.
However, another recent study from New York University researchers reported that e-cigarette smokers may not be spared such exposures. They inhale more nicotine because they puff more often and tend to breathe in more deeply than regular cigarette smokers. So higher nicotine consumption may be a risk for e-cig smokers.
Both studies suggest there’s much still to be learned about the health risks of e-cigarettes, including their effect not just on smokers but on those around them. The Food and Drug Administration currently does not regulate e-cigarettes, but has proposed a rule that would give the agency more regulatory power over the devices.
http://healthland.time.com/2013/12/13/smoke-from-e-cigs-still-poses-some-second-hand-risk/#ixzz2nfw3Jckr

Tobacco Myths Persist 50 Years After US Surgeon General Warned Americans of Smoking Dangers

Tobacco misconceptions prevail in the United States despite the dramatic drop in smoking rates since the release of the first Surgeon General’s Report on smoking and health in January 1964. Experts at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center dispel common myths and share new educational resources to address this persistent challenge.
“Since 1964, smoking rates have dropped by more than half as a result of successful education, legislative and smoking cessation efforts,” said Lewis Foxhall, M.D., vice president for health policy at MD Anderson. “Still, lung cancer remains the number one cancer killer and the leading preventable cause of death in the United States.”
With the approaching 50th anniversary of the Surgeon General’s Report, Foxhall and other MD Anderson experts urge the public to take a proactive stance against this pervasive health issue by gaining insight on current tobacco issues including information that disproves the following myths.
Tobacco Myth #1: Almost no one smokes any more.
Fact: About 43.8 million people still smoke. That’s almost one in five people in the United States.
“The current percentage of smokers is 19%. That’s significantly lower than the 42% in 1965,” Foxhall said. “However, the actual number of people smoking today is close to the same.” About 50 million people smoked in 1965. “Because our population is much larger, it just seems like we have a lot fewer smokers,” Foxhall explained.
“We have a lot of work ahead to prevent new smokers and help existing smokers quit,” said Ellen R. Gritz, Ph.D., professor and chair of behavioral science at MD Anderson. “Thanks to programs like the American Legacy Foundation’s truth national anti-smoking campaign, we have been able to achieve fewer youths smoking,” Gritz said, a previous vice chair on the Legacy board. “But funding for these campaigns is limited and unable to compete with the exorbitant and seemingly unlimited advertising dollars spent by tobacco companies.”
Tobacco Myth #2: e-Cigarettes, cigars and hookahs are safe alternatives.
Fact: All tobacco products, including e-cigarettes and hookahs, have nicotine. And it’s nicotine’s highly addictive properties that make these products harmful.
In 2008, the five largest cigarette companies spent $9.94 billion dollars on advertising and marketing products like e-cigarettes, flavored cigars, cigarillos and hookahs.
“The tobacco industry comes up with these new products to recruit new, younger smokers,” said Alexander Prokhorov, M.D., Ph.D., director of the Tobacco Outreach Education Program at MD Anderson. “And, they advertise them as less harmful than conventional cigarettes. But once a young person gets acquainted with nicotine, it’s more likely he or she will try other tobacco products.”
“While e-cigarettes may contain less harmful substances than combustible tobacco, they’re presently unregulated so quality control over the nicotine content and other components is left to the manufacturer,” said Paul Cinciripini, Ph.D., professor and deputy chair of behavioral science and director of the Tobacco Treatment Program at MD Anderson.
“At this time, it’s far too early to tell whether or not e-cigarettes can be used effectively as a smoking cessation device,” Cinciripini said.
Tobacco Myth #3: Infrequent, social smoking is harmless.
Fact: Any smoking, even social smoking, is dangerous.
“Science has not identified a safe level of smoking, and even a few cigarettes here and there can maintain addiction,” said David Wetter, Ph.D., chair of health disparities research at MD Anderson. “If you are a former smoker, data suggests that having just a single puff can send you back to smoking.”
Tobacco Myth #4: Smoking outside eliminates the dangers of secondhand smoke.
Fact: There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Even brief secondhand smoke exposure can cause harm. Exposure to secondhand smoke at home or work increases a person’s risk of heart disease by 25 to 30% and lung cancer by 20 to 30%. That’s because the amount of cancer-causing chemicals is higher in secondhand smoke than in the smoke inhaled by smokers. Families that prohibit smoking in and around the home are on the right path, said Wetter.
Stay informed and take action
“Being educated and sharing this knowledge with others are ways to action,” said Ernest Hawk, M.D., vice president of cancer prevention and population sciences at MD Anderson. “For smokers, it’s never too late to quit smoking and reap health benefits.”
As part of MD Anderson’s Moon Shot program to end cancer, Hawk and other experts have developed a comprehensive plan that addresses the burden of tobacco use in institutions, communities, states and nations.
“The End Tobacco plan recommends more than 100 actions in the areas of policy, education and community-based services that MD Anderson can lead to end tobacco at the institutional, local, regional, state national and international levels,” Hawk said. “As a leader in the field of tobacco research, it’s vital we take a leadership role to confront the use of tobacco in any form.”
More than 200,000 people are diagnosed with lung cancer each year in the United States and about 150,000 people die as a result of this disease. Smoking contributes to almost 90% of lung cancer deaths and 30% of all cancer deaths.
Story Source:
The above story is based on materials provided by University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center.
Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131107142436.htm

Costly cigarettes and smoke-free homes: Both effectively reduce tobacco consumption

Researchers at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine say high-priced cigarettes and smoke-free homes effectively reduce smoking behaviors among low-income individuals – a demographic in which tobacco use has remained comparatively high.

Writing in the October 17, 2013 issue of theAmerican Journal of Public Health, principal investigator John P. Pierce, PhD, professor and director of population sciences at UC San Diego School of Medicine, and colleagues found that expensive cigarettes – $4.50 or more per pack – were associated with lower consumption across all levels.

Writing in the October 17, 2013 issue of theAmerican Journal of Public Health, principal investigator John P. Pierce, PhD, professor and director of population sciences at UC San Diego School of Medicine, and colleagues found that expensive cigarettes – $4.50 or more per pack – were associated with lower consumption across all levels.
“Living in a state where the average price paid for cigarettes is low ($3.20 or less per pack) means that all , regardless of income, will smoke a lot more than those who live in a state with higher prices,” said Pierce. “This is the case for those living below the  as well as for the wealthy.”
When smokers agreed to a smoke-free home, not only were they more likely to reduce their smoking but, in addition, if they quit, they were less likely to relapse.
“Price is a deterrent to smoking,” said Pierce, “but successful quitting (90 or more days) was associated in this study only with a smoke-free home.”
The challenge to anti-smoking groups is that low-income smokers are less likely to adopt a smoke-free home environment. Pierce offered several possible explanations: “First, there’s a higher prevalence of smoking in people with lower incomes, which means that there will be more spouses who smoke as well. When both adults smoke, there is much lower motivation to introduce a smoke-free home. Also, social norms against smoking have historically been lower in those with lower incomes.
“No one is mandating a smoke-free home,” Pierce continued. “We are telling people that if they really want to quit, then introducing a smoke-free home will help them be successful. This study supports the current policy of increasing (cigarette) prices and building social norms that protect against secondhand smoke. These policies will reduce consumption among all smokers – reducing potential harm – and the ensuing smoke-free homes will help smokers quit successfully.”
The findings are derived from the 2006-2007 Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey, a monthly nationally representative cross-sectional survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. The researchers analyzed three sets of supplement data containing responses from more than 150,000 participants aged 18 and older who self-reported both income and smoking habits.
Maya Vijayaraghavan, MD, assistant clinical professor in the Department of Family and Preventive medicine and the study’s first author, said one potential avenue for intervention was to increase regulation of  in public housing.
“This may change norms around smoking among low-income populations living in public housing,” Vijayaraghavan said. “What is important is that clinicians need to emphasize  concerning tobacco use and should encourage and discuss strategies for adopting smoke-free homes among all smokers. Additionally, there is a lot of interest in raising cigarette price to reduce smoking. While we have evidence that moderate increases reduce  behavior in all income groups, it is important to match such a policy with support to help lower income smokers to quit successfully.”
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-costly-cigarettes-smoke-free-homes-effectively.html

Check Up: Study of casinos raises alarm on secondhand smoke

By Don Sapatkin, Inquirer Staff Writer
A half-century after a U.S. Surgeon General’s report raised the alarm on tobacco, most Americans know that smoking may eventually cause lung cancer. Far less appreciated is what can happen just minutes – 60 seconds, according to some research – after taking in a breath of smoke, even secondhand.
In the bloodstream, platelets are activated and become sticky. They clump together to form clots that can cause a heart attack or stroke. They stick to artery walls, ripping the lining when blood flow increases and interfering with the vessels’ ability to expand and contract as needed.
“I’m sure you’ve heard, ‘If you’re having a heart attack, take an aspirin,’ ” said Stanton Glantz, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. “Aspirin is an anti-platelet agent. And what the smoke is doing is exactly the opposite.”
His latest research, analyzing ambulance calls from casinos, illustrates the point.
Smoke-free laws in most of the country, including Pennsylvania and New Jersey, partly or completely exempt casino floors. Colorado’s law changed in the middle of the 13-year study period, offering what Stanton calls “a natural experiment” in secondhand smoke’s short-term effects.
On July 1, 2006, the state implemented a smoking ban in all workplaces, public spaces, restaurants, and bars; casinos were exempt. Ambulance calls in rural Gilpin County dropped 23 percent from locations other than its two dozen casinos, where they were unchanged.
Gambling floors were added to the law effective Jan. 1, 2008. Ambulance calls from casinos (and their parking lots) swiftly dropped 19 percent; every place else remained the same.
Numerous studies have found declines of roughly 20 percent in hospitalizations for various conditions after comprehensive smoking bans, Glantz said. That is likely due to a mix of short- and long-term factors: less secondhand smoke, more smokers quitting, and a snowball effect that further reduces smoking rates.
By focusing on emergency calls from casinos, which players visit for specific time periods, the new study was better able to isolate the near-instantaneous effects of exposure to secondhand smoke.
The study, published last month in the journal Circulation, did not track outcomes or reasons for the calls. Instances of wheezing, runny eyes, and elevated blood pressure weren’t recorded either, noted Jennifer Ibrahim, an associate professor of public health at Temple University, who studies tobacco and public health law.
“It is probably 10 times that for people who are experiencing symptoms, but might not need a trip to a hospital,” she said.
Tobacco companies have worked for years to exempt casinos from smoke-free laws, said Glantz and Ibrahim, who have each examined the links.
Delaware bans smoking in casinos. New Jersey exempts them, but defers to localities, and Atlantic City restricts smoking to 25 percent of the floor. Pennsylvania allows smoking in up to 50 percent of the casino floor and preempts all local smoke-free laws except Philadelphia’s – but supersedes it specifically for the gaming floor, where the city would prohibit smoking.
Glantz argues that lawmakers who say they are concerned about costs ought to read the research. “A heart attack is a lot of money,” he said, much of it paid by taxpayers.
http://articles.philly.com/2013-09-15/news/42083527_1_casinos-secondhand-smoke-smoking-rates

Is Second-hand Smoke Dangerous to Pets?

Author: Written by: Ontario SPCA
With all the research that’s been done on the effects of second-hand smoke on people, we all know what dangerous and potentially deadly effects could come from inhaling second-hand smoke. But did you know that second-hand smoke can be deadly even to pets?
Studies involving dogs have shown that dogs who were exposed to large amounts of second-hand smoke have showed significant changes in their lung tissue over time. The changes range from fibrosis, or scarring of the lung tissue, to precancerous and even cancerous lesions.
Studies involving cats have shown that second-hand smoke may double their risk of lymphoma development.
If your cat or dog suffers from respiratory diseases such as asthma or bronchitis, quitting smoking, or not smoking around your pets, may significantly improve their symptoms.
If you’re not ready to kick the habit just yet, it’s best to smoke when you’re not around your pets and to make sure you wash your hands before handling them.
More findings from these studies can be found on Modern Dog Magazine’s website.
Concerned that your cat or dog may be suffering from a tobacco-related issue?  Schedule an appointment with your veterinarian immediately.
http://www.northumberlandview.ca/index.php?module=news&type=user&func=display&sid=24207#.UjcWDGRUM0N
 

Secondhand Smoke, Asthma Link Remains

By Cole Petrochko, Staff Writer, MedPage Today
Children with asthma were more likely to be exposed to secondhand smoke than those without the disease, researchers found.
From 1999 to 2010, the overall rate of exposure to secondhand smoke among children without asthma declined from 57.3% to 44.2%, but the exposure rate remained nearly constant over the same time period for children with asthma, only declining from 57.9% to 54%, according to Kenneth Quinto, MD, of the National Center for Health Statistics in Hyattsville, Md, and colleagues.
And the latest statistics, from 2007 to 2010, show that children with asthma who were female, Mexican-American, from families with income below 350% of the federal poverty line, and ages 6 to 11 had greater exposure to environmental tobacco smoke than those without asthma, they wrote in a National Center for Health Statistics data brief.
Past research has tied secondhand smoke exposure to exacerbated asthma symptoms in children and increased risk of mental illness in healthy adults. Other research has also tied neonatal smoke exposure from smoking mothers to hearing loss and behavior problems in the child.
Quinto and co-authors also cautioned that secondhand smoke exposure in all children was associated with risks of middle ear infection, bronchitis, pneumonia, coughing and wheezing, worse lung function, and the development of asthma. They added that in 2007 to 2010, one in 10 children had asthma.
The authors gathered data from the NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) from 1999 to 2010 to measure trends in environmental tobacco smoke exposure in children with and without asthma, and to stratify rates of exposure by sex, race, income, and age group. Income was broken down by earnings 350% or greater than the poverty line, 185% to less than 350% of the poverty line, and less than 185% of the poverty line.
Exposure to secondhand smoke was classified as serum cotinine levels between 0.05 ng/mL and 10 ng/mL in children who didn’t smoke themselves. Children were considered smokers if they were 12 to 19 years old and answered “yes” when asked if they had used tobacco in the 5 days prior to the survey or if their serum cotinine levels were greater than 10 ng/mL. “Serum cotinine is a breakdown product of nicotine,” the authors noted.
Children were considered to have asthma if a parent affirmed on the survey that a healthcare professional had diagnosed them with asthma and if they still had asthma.
By age group, there was no significant difference in secondhand smoke exposure for children with and without asthma ages 3 to 5 and 12 to 19 in the 2007 to 2010 data. However, children ages 6 to 11 with asthma were exposed to secondhand smoke significantly more often than those without asthma in that time (58.8% versus 44.7%, P<0.05).
In families with household incomes lower than 350% of the poverty line, children with asthma were significantly more likely to be exposed to environmental tobacco smoke than those without asthma (P<0.05 for both groups). There was no significant difference in smoke exposure in families earning 350% or more above the poverty line.
Mexican-American children with asthma were significantly more likely than those without asthma to have been exposed to secondhand smoke (38.2% versus 27.4%, P<0.05). White, black, and other race children had no significant differences in exposure between those with and without asthma.
Additionally, girls with asthma were more likely than girls without asthma to have been exposed to secondhand smoke (57.6% versus 43.6%, P<0.05), while there was no significant difference seen in boys.
The authors cautioned that future research should look to explain the reasons for group differences.