Oh, no. As if smoking weren't dangerous enough, now comes tobacoo genetically-modified to entrap and sicken us more effectively.
The new effort by the Liggett Group to peddle a high-concept cigarette called "Vector" as some new, improved product would make me laugh, except that it's about as funny as the plague. I have no environmental objection to Liggett growing genetically-engineered tobacco, since any respectable scientist will confirm that genetic engineering technology holds no special dangers when used to enhance agricultural productivity. But I object to those friendly folks from the tobacco industry who bring you lung cancer and emphysema claiming that by engineering the nicotine levels down to next-to-nothing in their plants, they've developed a cigarette that's safer for users.
Think about it for a moment: Why, of all the potentially dangerous ingredients in tobacco, did the Liggett geniuses decide to modify the content of nicotine? The only reason I can come up with is: It's a good marketing ploy.
Nicotine happens to be a very well-studied chemical, uniquely so among cigarette components. We know it has essentially no role in the health havoc caused by tobacco but is at least somewhat responsible for the addictive power of smoking. Thus, removing nicotine from tobacco will have little or no effect on the health toll of smoking. It may, however, make cigarettes a bit less addictive which in itself would be a good thing, if it proved to be true but it won't reduce the lung cancer-producing effects of all those other chemicals in tobacco smoke. And here's the sneakiest part, the part that boosts cigarette sales: Smokers may actually smoke more and impair their health more because each reduced-nicotine cigarette will not satisfy the smoker's nicotine craving as easily.
Only time will tell, and in that time, how many will sicken and die while we collect the information? Worse, how many will take up this destructive habit under the false impression of "safety" perhaps many who would otherwise have made the wise decision to pass it by? Remember those wonderful filter-tip brands and ultra-lights? Those were also promoted as somehow safer. Millions of deaths and much suffering later, we know this is not true. Never was, never will be.
Given the seriousness of this topic, I'll try to overlook the potentially absurd effect of genetically-engineered tobacco on activist groups. I mean, what will anti-g.e. advocates who smoke and who fall for the new ads' "safer" claims do? Will they betray their core beliefs about the evils of tampering with nature, in hopes of kicking their tobacco habit? If so, will they be summarily thrown out of their particular NGO (Greenpeace, say)? Who knows, but it should inject a little bit of self-doubt and complexity into the anti-g.e. groupthink, providing some fun for observing third parties. Activists who smoke may find themselves trying to decide which they fear more: tobacco, with its well-documented record of premature death and disability, or g.e. agriculture, which has never been shown to harm animal or vegetable.
Ideally, of course, they'd see through the g.e. tobacco ads _and_ see through their own groups' anti-g.e. propaganda. Abandoning their anti-g.e. campaign is unlikely, but they've got multiple incentives (some more rational than others) to see through the new g.e. tobacco ads.
Gilbert Ross, M.D.
Medical/Executive Director
American Council on Science and Health
