Monday, October 22, 2007

Anti-Smoking Group Claims that 340 Young People Die Each Day from Seeing Smoking in Movies

According to the web site, 340 young people die every day from seeing smoking in movies. is a web site dedicated to the effort to get smoking out of movies seen by young people, and is run by Breathe California of Sacramento-Emigrant Trails.

At the bottom left corner of the home page, you'll see a statistic given in the form of a movie ratings label. The label is "SK-340." It reads: "Viewers Strongly Cautioned. Smoking Kills About 340 Young People A Day. Smoking in Movies is Not Cool, Healthy Nor Needed."

Presumably, what the statistic intends to communicate is that 340 young people die each day from the depiction of smoking in the movies. It appears that the support for this statistic comes directly from a paper by Dr. Stanton Glantz which was published in the journal The Lancet in July 2003 ("Smoking in movies: a major problem and a real solution").

According to that article: "In the USA, about 2050 adolescents (age 12–17) start smoking every day and about 32% of these people—660 a day—will die prematurely because of smoking. Assuming that the 52·2% attributable risk observed by Dalton and colleagues applies to this whole group, smoking in movies is responsible for addicting 1080 US adolescents to tobacco every day, 340 of whom will die prematurely as a result."

So according to this paper, 340 young people become addicted to smoking each day due to seeing smoking in movies and will eventually die prematurely as a result.

The Rest of the Story

On its face, the claim by this anti-smoking group is absurd. There are not 340 deaths among young people each day due to smoking, much less due to smoking that was caused by exposure to smoking in movies.

In fact, according to the CDC, there are no (ZERO) deaths attributable to smoking among persons under age 35. The reason is quite simple: it is rare for young people to die from smoking.

Now of course one could argue about what is meant by "young people." If one argues that anyone under age 65 is a "young" person (a definition that becomes increasingly appealing to me each year), then perhaps this claim is no longer absurdly false. But it would then be terribly misleading, because I doubt that anyone reading the web page is thinking of 40 and 50 and 60-year-olds when they read that "Smoking [in Movies] Kills 340 Young People A Day."

For the purposes of its smoking-attributable death calculations, the CDC defines middle-age as starting at age 35. I've never heard public health scientists referring to an age group above age 35 as representing what they mean when they talk about "young people."

Now I've already explained why I don't believe it is accurate even to claim that exposure to smoking in movies causes 340 young people to eventually die prematurely from smoking. But to state that 340 young people die each day because of exposure to smoking in movies is ludicrous. And patently false.

I really don't understand this need to lie to the public, or to stretch the truth beyond recognition, in order to make a point to the public. Forgetting about my argument that there is no valid scientific support for the claim that smoking in movies kills 120,000 people each year, if wanted to accept this statistic from this one author, then what would the problem have been in stating that 340 young people will eventually die prematurely due to smoking in movies?

The problem, as far as I can see, is that it would not have been sensational enough. Apparently, it is no longer enough to tell the truth in tobacco control. It is not good enough to accurately represent the science.

You need to lie in order to sensationalize your message. You need to misrepresent the facts. Otherwise I guess you're not doing your job.

By the way, have you ever wondered what those movie theater ushers do during the ten minutes in between movie showings? They're not just cleaning up spilled popcorn and candy. They're picking up the dead bodies of the young people who died from seeing the smoking in those movies. No wonder that job never appealed to me.

(Thanks to James Austin for the tip).

No comments: