Cargando…
Review of industry reports on EU priority tobacco additives part B: Methodological limitations
The Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) defines enhanced reporting obligations applying to 15 priority additives added to cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco. A consortium of 12 international tobacco companies submitted 14 reports that were reviewed by an independent scientific body within the Joint A...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
European Publishing on behalf of the European Network for Smoking and Tobacco Prevention (ENSP)
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9255286/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35860505 http://dx.doi.org/10.18332/tpc/150361 |
_version_ | 1784740892411691008 |
---|---|
author | Bolling, Anette K. Mallock, Nadja Zervas, Efthimios Caillé-Garnier, Stéphanie Mansuy, Thibault Michel, Cécile Pennings, Jeroen L. A. Schulz, Thomas Schwarze, Per E. Solimini, Renata Tassin, Jean-Pol Vardavas, Constantine Merino, Miguel Pauwels, Charlotte G. G. M. van Nierop, Lotte E. Lambré, Claude Havermans, Anne |
author_facet | Bolling, Anette K. Mallock, Nadja Zervas, Efthimios Caillé-Garnier, Stéphanie Mansuy, Thibault Michel, Cécile Pennings, Jeroen L. A. Schulz, Thomas Schwarze, Per E. Solimini, Renata Tassin, Jean-Pol Vardavas, Constantine Merino, Miguel Pauwels, Charlotte G. G. M. van Nierop, Lotte E. Lambré, Claude Havermans, Anne |
author_sort | Bolling, Anette K. |
collection | PubMed |
description | The Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) defines enhanced reporting obligations applying to 15 priority additives added to cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco. A consortium of 12 international tobacco companies submitted 14 reports that were reviewed by an independent scientific body within the Joint Action on Tobacco Control (JATC). The reports were evaluated in accordance with the TPD with regard to their comprehensiveness, methodology and conclusions. Here we present their significant identified methodological limitations. The toxicological and chemical evaluation in the industry reports was mainly based on comparative testing, which lacks discriminative power for products with high toxicity and variability, like cigarettes. The literature reviews were biased, the comparative chemical studies did not assess previously identified pyrolysis products, the toxicological evaluation did not include the assessment of inhalation toxicity, and pyrolysis products were not assessed in terms of toxicity, including their genotoxic and carcinogenic potential. For both chemistry and toxicity testing, the statistical approach applied to test the difference between test and additive-free control cigarettes resulted in a high chance of false negatives. The clinical study for inhalation facilitation and nicotine uptake had limitations concerning study design and statistical analysis, while addictiveness was not assessed. Finally, the methodology used to assess characterizing flavors was flawed. In conclusion, there are significant limitations in the methodology applied by the industry. Therefore, the provided reports are of insufficient quality and are clearly not suitable to decide whether a priority additive should be banned in tobacco products according to the TPD. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9255286 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | European Publishing on behalf of the European Network for Smoking and Tobacco Prevention (ENSP) |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-92552862022-07-19 Review of industry reports on EU priority tobacco additives part B: Methodological limitations Bolling, Anette K. Mallock, Nadja Zervas, Efthimios Caillé-Garnier, Stéphanie Mansuy, Thibault Michel, Cécile Pennings, Jeroen L. A. Schulz, Thomas Schwarze, Per E. Solimini, Renata Tassin, Jean-Pol Vardavas, Constantine Merino, Miguel Pauwels, Charlotte G. G. M. van Nierop, Lotte E. Lambré, Claude Havermans, Anne Tob Prev Cessat Methodology Paper The Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) defines enhanced reporting obligations applying to 15 priority additives added to cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco. A consortium of 12 international tobacco companies submitted 14 reports that were reviewed by an independent scientific body within the Joint Action on Tobacco Control (JATC). The reports were evaluated in accordance with the TPD with regard to their comprehensiveness, methodology and conclusions. Here we present their significant identified methodological limitations. The toxicological and chemical evaluation in the industry reports was mainly based on comparative testing, which lacks discriminative power for products with high toxicity and variability, like cigarettes. The literature reviews were biased, the comparative chemical studies did not assess previously identified pyrolysis products, the toxicological evaluation did not include the assessment of inhalation toxicity, and pyrolysis products were not assessed in terms of toxicity, including their genotoxic and carcinogenic potential. For both chemistry and toxicity testing, the statistical approach applied to test the difference between test and additive-free control cigarettes resulted in a high chance of false negatives. The clinical study for inhalation facilitation and nicotine uptake had limitations concerning study design and statistical analysis, while addictiveness was not assessed. Finally, the methodology used to assess characterizing flavors was flawed. In conclusion, there are significant limitations in the methodology applied by the industry. Therefore, the provided reports are of insufficient quality and are clearly not suitable to decide whether a priority additive should be banned in tobacco products according to the TPD. European Publishing on behalf of the European Network for Smoking and Tobacco Prevention (ENSP) 2022-07-05 /pmc/articles/PMC9255286/ /pubmed/35860505 http://dx.doi.org/10.18332/tpc/150361 Text en © Bolling A. K. et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
spellingShingle | Methodology Paper Bolling, Anette K. Mallock, Nadja Zervas, Efthimios Caillé-Garnier, Stéphanie Mansuy, Thibault Michel, Cécile Pennings, Jeroen L. A. Schulz, Thomas Schwarze, Per E. Solimini, Renata Tassin, Jean-Pol Vardavas, Constantine Merino, Miguel Pauwels, Charlotte G. G. M. van Nierop, Lotte E. Lambré, Claude Havermans, Anne Review of industry reports on EU priority tobacco additives part B: Methodological limitations |
title | Review of industry reports on EU priority tobacco additives part B: Methodological limitations |
title_full | Review of industry reports on EU priority tobacco additives part B: Methodological limitations |
title_fullStr | Review of industry reports on EU priority tobacco additives part B: Methodological limitations |
title_full_unstemmed | Review of industry reports on EU priority tobacco additives part B: Methodological limitations |
title_short | Review of industry reports on EU priority tobacco additives part B: Methodological limitations |
title_sort | review of industry reports on eu priority tobacco additives part b: methodological limitations |
topic | Methodology Paper |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9255286/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35860505 http://dx.doi.org/10.18332/tpc/150361 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bollinganettek reviewofindustryreportsoneuprioritytobaccoadditivespartbmethodologicallimitations AT mallocknadja reviewofindustryreportsoneuprioritytobaccoadditivespartbmethodologicallimitations AT zervasefthimios reviewofindustryreportsoneuprioritytobaccoadditivespartbmethodologicallimitations AT caillegarnierstephanie reviewofindustryreportsoneuprioritytobaccoadditivespartbmethodologicallimitations AT mansuythibault reviewofindustryreportsoneuprioritytobaccoadditivespartbmethodologicallimitations AT michelcecile reviewofindustryreportsoneuprioritytobaccoadditivespartbmethodologicallimitations AT penningsjeroenla reviewofindustryreportsoneuprioritytobaccoadditivespartbmethodologicallimitations AT schulzthomas reviewofindustryreportsoneuprioritytobaccoadditivespartbmethodologicallimitations AT schwarzepere reviewofindustryreportsoneuprioritytobaccoadditivespartbmethodologicallimitations AT soliminirenata reviewofindustryreportsoneuprioritytobaccoadditivespartbmethodologicallimitations AT tassinjeanpol reviewofindustryreportsoneuprioritytobaccoadditivespartbmethodologicallimitations AT vardavasconstantine reviewofindustryreportsoneuprioritytobaccoadditivespartbmethodologicallimitations AT merinomiguel reviewofindustryreportsoneuprioritytobaccoadditivespartbmethodologicallimitations AT pauwelscharlotteggm reviewofindustryreportsoneuprioritytobaccoadditivespartbmethodologicallimitations AT vannieroplottee reviewofindustryreportsoneuprioritytobaccoadditivespartbmethodologicallimitations AT lambreclaude reviewofindustryreportsoneuprioritytobaccoadditivespartbmethodologicallimitations AT havermansanne reviewofindustryreportsoneuprioritytobaccoadditivespartbmethodologicallimitations |