Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22205885›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2011

The toxic effects of cigarette additives. Philip Morris' project mix reconsidered: an analysis of documents released through litigation.

Marcia S Wertz, Thomas Kyriss, Suman Paranjape, Stanton A Glantz

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Sociodemographic and Smoking Characteristics Associated With Low Perceived Harm of "Organic" and "Additive-Free" Tobacco Products Among US Adults.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2025
    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. Phenolic compounds in particles of mainstream waterpipe smoke.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2013
    Article
  20. Research required for the effective implementation of the framework convention on tobacco control, articles 9 and 10.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2013
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Marcia S WertzCenter for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Thomas Kyriss
Suman Paranjape
Stanton A Glantz
University of California, San Francisco · USKlinik Schillerhöhe · DE

Funding

ANALYSIS OF TOBACCO INDUSTRY DOCUMENTSR01CA087472 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI LING, PAMELA MAY · 2000 to 2018
$12.5M
NCI NIH HHS CA-87472NCI NIH HHS R01 CA087472
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2009, the promulgation of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) tobacco regulation focused attention on cigarette flavor additives. The tobacco industry had prepared for this eventuality by initiating a research program focusing on additive toxicity. The objective of this study was to analyze Philip Morris' Project MIX as a case study of tobacco industry scientific research being positioned strategically to prevent anticipated tobacco control regulations. METHODS AND

findingsWe analyzed previously secret tobacco industry documents to identify internal strategies for research on cigarette additives and reanalyzed tobacco industry peer-reviewed published results of this research. We focused on the key group of studies conducted by Phillip Morris in a coordinated effort known as "Project MIX." Documents showed that Project MIX subsumed the study of various combinations of 333 cigarette additives. In addition to multiple internal reports, this work also led to four peer-reviewed publications (published in 2001). These papers concluded that there was no evidence of substantial toxicity attributable to the cigarette additives studied. Internal documents revealed post hoc changes in analytical protocols after initial statistical findings indicated an additive-associated increase in cigarette toxicity as well as increased total particulate matter (TPM) concentrations in additive-modified cigarette smoke. By expressing the data adjusted by TPM concentration, the published papers obscured this underlying toxicity and particulate increase. The animal toxicology results were based on a small number of rats in each experiment, raising the possibility that the failure to detect statistically significant changes in the end points was due to underpowering the experiments rather than lack of a real effect.

conclusionThe case study of Project MIX shows tobacco industry scientific research on the use of cigarette additives cannot be taken at face value. The results demonstrate that toxins in cigarette smoke increase substantially when additives are put in cigarettes, including the level of TPM. In particular, regulatory authorities, including the FDA and similar agencies elsewhere, could use the Project MIX data to eliminate the use of these 333 additives (including menthol) from cigarettes.

Indexed as

Tobacco IndustryAnimalsEthics, ResearchFlavoring AgentsParticle SizeRatsResearchSample SizeSmokeSmokingToxicity TestsFlavoring AgentsSmoke

Identifiers

PMID22205885
PMCPMC3243707
OpenAlexW2155751996

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.