The Case for Requiring Graphic Warning Labels on Smokeless Tobacco Product Packages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On November 10, 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved, for the first time, the sale of smokeless tobacco products authorized under the new premarket tobacco application pathway. This Food and Drug Administration regulatory decision draws attention to the growing worldwide use of smokeless tobacco products in general. Use of these tobacco products is particularly popular in low- and middle-income countries of Asia. Due to aggressive and strategic marketing to children, young adults, and current smokers, rates of smokeless tobacco use in men of all ages are on the rise in United States and elsewhere. The tobacco industry also continues to market these products to current cigarette smokers for use in the growing number of "smoke-free environments." Smokeless tobacco products are associated with cancers of the upper aerodigestive tract, particularly the oral cavity, esophagus, and pancreas; cardiovascular diseases; small-for-gestational-age infants; premature births; increased risk of apnea; and stillbirth. There is no convincing evidence regarding the efficacy of smokeless tobacco, including snus, to promote smoking cessation. Rather, studies from Europe and the United States demonstrate that smokeless tobacco use may facilitate regular cigarette smoking by acting as a gateway drug, especially for children. Caution is warranted before proposing smokeless tobacco as a harm-reduction strategy, in part because of the potential for further promoting smokeless tobacco in low- and middle-income countries where use is already widespread. Continued vigilance through comprehensive surveillance is warranted. We strongly recommend the use of graphic warning labels as a "no regrets" strategy for all smokeless tobacco products marketed globally.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.051 | 0.163 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.066 | 0.045 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.019 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".