Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21504917›Full record

ArticleTobacco control2011

The intractable cigarette 'filter problem'.

Bradford Harris

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readHistorical Article
In one paragraph

Article in Tobacco control, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03749876 (A Randomized Cross-over Clinical Trial of Unfiltered Cigarettes), which is not on this map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03749876 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

A Randomized Cross-over Clinical Trial of Unfiltered Cigarettes

TypeinterventionalSponsorSan Diego State UniversityRan2019 to 2020Enrolled37ConditionsCigarette Smoking, Tobacco SmokingArmsUnfiltered Cigarettes, Filtered Cigarettes
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bradford HarrisStanford University, 714 Hayes Street, San Francisco, CA 94102, USA. bch@stanford.edu
Stanford University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhen lung cancer fears emerged in the 1950s, cigarette companies initiated a shift in cigarette design from unfiltered to filtered cigarettes. Both the ineffectiveness of cigarette filters and the tobacco industry's misleading marketing of the benefits of filtered cigarettes have been well documented. However, during the 1950s and 1960s, American cigarette companies spent millions of dollars to solve what the industry identified as the 'filter problem'. These extensive filter research and development efforts suggest a phase of genuine optimism among cigarette designers that cigarette filters could be engineered to mitigate the health hazards of smoking.

objectiveThis paper explores the early history of cigarette filter research and development in order to elucidate why and when seemingly sincere filter engineering efforts devolved into manipulations in cigarette design to sustain cigarette marketing and mitigate consumers' concerns about the health consequences of smoking.

methodsRelevant word and phrase searches were conducted in the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library online database, Google Patents, and media and medical databases including ProQuest, JSTOR, Medline and PubMed.

results13 tobacco industry documents were identified that track prominent developments involved in what the industry referred to as the 'filter problem'. These reveal a period of intense focus on the 'filter problem' that persisted from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s, featuring collaborations between cigarette producers and large American chemical and textile companies to develop effective filters. In addition, the documents reveal how cigarette filter researchers' growing scientific knowledge of smoke chemistry led to increasing recognition that filters were unlikely to offer significant health protection. One of the primary concerns of cigarette producers was to design cigarette filters that could be economically incorporated into the massive scale of cigarette production. The synthetic plastic cellulose acetate became the fundamental cigarette filter material. By the mid-1960s, the meaning of the phrase 'filter problem' changed, such that the effort to develop effective filters became a campaign to market cigarette designs that would sustain the myth of cigarette filter efficacy.

conclusionsThis study indicates that cigarette designers at Philip Morris, British-American Tobacco, Lorillard and other companies believed for a time that they might be able to reduce some of the most dangerous substances in mainstream smoke through advanced engineering of filter tips. In their attempts to accomplish this, they developed the now ubiquitous cellulose acetate cigarette filter. By the mid-1960s cigarette designers realised that the intractability of the 'filter problem' derived from a simple fact: that which is harmful in mainstream smoke and that which provides the smoker with 'satisfaction' are essentially one and the same. Only in the wake of this realisation did the agenda of cigarette designers appear to transition away from mitigating the health hazards of smoking and towards the perpetuation of the notion that cigarette filters are effective in reducing these hazards. Filters became a marketing tool, designed to keep and recruit smokers as consumers of these hazardous products.

Indexed as

Harm ReductionAdvertisingDeceptionEthics, BusinessFiltrationHistory, 20th CenturyHumansManufactured MaterialsResearchSmokeSmokingTobacco IndustrySmoke

Identifiers

PMID21504917
PMCPMC3088411
OpenAlexW2148027358

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.