The Debate About Menthol Cigarettes

Menthol is a natural flavoring agent found in many commercially available products. Derived from peppermint oils, menthol imparts a minty flavor and a mouth-cooling sensation to cough syrup, throat lozenges, mouthwash and toothpaste. It is also found in numerous brands of cigarettes.

The most popular brand of menthol cigarettes--or just "menthols," as they are sometimes called--is Newport, made by Lorillard Tobacco Company, based in Greensboro, N.C. Other popular brands include Kool and Salem (both made by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company), as well as Marlboro Menthols and Marlboro Milds (made by Philip Morris USA). Roughly one out of every four U.S. smokers primarily smokes menthol cigarettes.

Statistics show that menthols are most popular among black smokers. African Americans comprise just 13% of the total smoking population in the U.S. However, approximately 80% of African-American smokers prefer menthol cigarettes to standard, nonmenthol brands. Theories abound as to why black smokers gravitate to menthols. Many experts believe that there are deep-rooted cultural reasons for their preference; others say it is simply because tobacco companies have historically geared their menthol-cigarette advertisements toward African-American consumers. Consequently, many anti-tobacco activists have reserved special scorn for menthol cigarettes, arguing that they unfairly target the black community. Some have suggested that menthol cigarettes should be banned completely.

In July 2008, the House passed a bill called the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. If signed into law, it would allow the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco products. The bill would also ban flavored cigarettes. Some tobacco companies, such as Lorillard and R.J. Reynolds, make cigarettes that use artificial and natural ingredients to impart flavors such as chocolate, wine and fruit. However, the bill specifically exempts menthol cigarettes from the flavored-cigarette ban. Should menthol cigarettes be banned?

Supporters of a ban say that because menthol cigarettes are disproportionately used by one specific ethnic group--African Americans--they should be taken off the market. They further maintain that the candy-like flavor of menthol cigarettes attracts young smokers, who run a great risk of becoming lifelong nicotine addicts. Proponents of a ban also point to evidence which they claim shows that menthol cigarettes are more harmful, and harder to give up, than nonmenthol brands.

Critics of a ban, meanwhile, say that it is unwarranted. The fact that one group of people prefers the taste of a certain cigarette does not mean that the type of cigarette should be made illegal, they contend. Those critics disagree with the assertion that tobacco companies have deliberately marketed menthol cigarettes to black consumers. They further contend that the so-called conclusive evidence that menthol is uniquely harmful is shaky at best.

A separate group of opponents assert that, while they would like to see menthol cigarettes banned, it is inadvisable to push for such a ban now because it would compromise the future of the Family Smoking Prevention Act. They argue that allowing the FDA to regulate tobacco is a more important long-term goal than imposing a ban on menthol cigarettes.
Developing and Marketing Menthol Cigarettes

The idea of adding menthol to cigarettes originated in the early 1920s. According to legend, Lloyd "Spud" Hughes, a resident of Mingo Junction, Ohio, accidentally mixed a batch of menthol crystals--which he had been taking to relieve a persistent cough--with some tobacco. In 1924, Hughes filed a patent for the process of "impregnating...tobacco with a solution of menthol and alcohol." In his patent application, Hughes claimed that, when smoked, mentholated tobacco was "cooling and soothing to irritated membranes of the mouth and throat of the smoker, and absolutely non-injurious and...pleasant to the taste." The patent was accepted the following year, and in 1926, Spud cigarettes debuted in the U.S.

Despite the presence of several evocatively named brands, including Snowball and Eucalyptus, menthol cigarettes remained a fringe player in the overall tobacco market for several decades. By the mid 1950s, menthols comprised just 3% of all U.S. cigarette sales, with 80% of menthol smokers preferring Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.'s Kool brand, introduced in 1933. (R.J. Reynolds acquired Brown & Williamson, and the Kool brand, in 2004.)

The popularity of menthol cigarettes soared, however, beginning in the latter half of the 1950s. In 1956, R.J. Reynolds introduced its Salem brand, the first filtered menthol cigarette. Within just nine months of its debut, Salem became the most-preferred menthol cigarette in the country. The following year, Lorillard debuted its Newport line of filtered menthol cigarettes. The introduction of those two filtered cigarette brands accounted for a good deal of the expansion of the menthol cigarette market, experts say.

By 1975, menthols comprised 27% of the overall cigarette market. Although certain brands have risen in popularity and fallen out of favor since then--with Newports now the most popular menthol cigarettes by a wide margin--menthol's market share has for decades consistently remained at around one quarter of the entire cigarette market.

The experience of smoking menthols is manifestly different from that of smoking standard cigarettes. Aside from their minty flavor and aftertaste, menthol cigarettes are known for their cooling effect. Menthol does not actually lower one's body temperature. Rather, researchers attribute its cooling sensation to the way it stimulates so-called cool receptors in the nose, throat and lungs. Menthol smokers often report an icy feeling in the back of their throats when they smoke.

Experts say that the cool menthol sensation masks the harshness of the tobacco smoke. (Most nonmenthol cigarette brands contain a small portion of menthol for exactly that reason.) Some research indicates that, due to that cooling effect, menthol smokers hold smoke in their lungs for longer periods of time. Consequently, those smokers prolong their exposure to tar, as well as to various other carcinogens found in tobacco smoke.

The perception of coolness imparted by menthol was central to many early menthol cigarette advertisements. Early ads attempted to link that cooling sensation to a feeling of healthiness and invigoration. One print ad for Spud suggested smoking Spud menthol cigarettes "whenever you develop smoker's cough," "whenever your voice is hoarse," or "whenever you have a cold." "Thousands switch to Spuds at the first sign of taste-dulling colds!" proclaimed the ad, which was first run in the early 1940s. "Spuds' exhilarating menthol seems to cut right through that cold-clogged taste and bring you old-time smoking pleasure."

(That ad--as well as more than 5 million other tobacco-related documents, including news reports and internal tobacco-company memoranda--can be found at tobaccodocuments.org, a Web site established as part of the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement between state attorneys general and the four largest U.S. tobacco companies.)

In 1964, the U.S. Surgeon General's office issued its landmark Report on Smoking and Health, which, for the first time, explicitly linked cigarette smoking to heart disease, emphysema and various types of cancer. Consequently, tobacco companies could no longer claim in advertisements that their cigarettes had any salutary effects. Internal memos show that tobacco companies were hesitant to place references to health in their ads, "because even the mention of health in advertising copy was believed to trigger associations between smoking and cancer in the public's mind," write Charyn Sutton and Robert Robinson in the science journal Nicotine & Tobacco Research.

Cigarette companies began creating ads replete with soothing outdoor scenes: waterfalls, forests, icebergs, streams, snow-covered mountaintops. Words such as "cool," "clean," "fresh" and "icy" appeared regularly. Many of the ads featured attractive couples smoking together while relaxing under a tree, or lying in a verdant field. Ads for Salem, in particular, were known for using such imagery, often accompanied by the tagline "Salem refreshes naturally!" According to Sutton and Robinson, those ads, with their "distinctly feminine aura," appealed directly to women, who then comprised the bulk of the menthol market.

Menthol Cigarettes and African Americans

In the mid 1960s, market research indicated that more African-American smokers were switching to menthol brands. Kool replaced nonmenthol Pall Mall cigarettes as the favorite cigarette brand among African Americans by the end of the decade. Cigarette companies noticed the trend and began advertising directly to black consumers.

Print advertisements depicting attractive African-American couples with menthol cigarettes wedged between their fingers started appearing frequently in black-oriented publications such as Ebony, Jet and Essence, as well as the black newspapers commonly found in most major metropolitan areas. The ads linked cigarette smoking to African-American youth culture by appropriating common slang phrases of the era. For instance, a Newport campaign claimed, "Newport is a whole new bag of menthol smoking," echoing the James Brown hit song "Papa's Got a Brand New Bag."

The targeted advertising worked: The number of African-American menthol smokers doubled between 1960 and 1979. Seeking to further that growth, tobacco companies made a series of widely publicized contributions to organizations such as the United Negro College Fund and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Throughout the 1980s, tobacco companies created numerous music festivals, including the Superband Series, the World Beat concert series (both sponsored by Philip Morris) and the Kool Jazz Festival. The festivals featured leading African-American musicians and mainly promoted menthol cigarette brands.

Eventually, tobacco companies drew criticism for allegedly marketing menthol cigarettes to black consumers in an overly aggressive manner. In 1990, R.J. Reynolds announced plans to test-market a new menthol cigarette, called Uptown, aimed primarily at urban blacks. The test marketing was scheduled to begin in February--Black History Month--in Philadelphia, Pa., a city with a significant African-American population. R.J. Reynolds acknowledged that the new brand was likely to appeal "most strongly" to African Americans, and it planned to heavily advertise Uptown in black newspapers and magazines throughout the country.

After the announcement of the planned test marketing, activists criticized R.J. Reynolds for targeting black smokers. Most prominently, Louis Sullivan, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), spoke out against the Uptown brand, denouncing its "slick and sinister advertising" and its "message [of] more disease, more suffering and more death for a group already bearing more than its share of smoking-related illness and mortality." The speech marked the first time a sitting cabinet member had publicly criticized a specific cigarette brand. Shortly thereafter, R.J. Reynolds called off its planned test marketing and shelved Uptowns indefinitely, citing the "unfair and biased attention the brand had received."
The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act

The current debate over menthol cigarettes has its origins in a 2000 Supreme Court ruling. In the case Food and Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson, the court ruled, 5-4, that the FDA had no authority to regulate tobacco products. The case was a response to proposed FDA regulations of the promotion and sale of cigarettes and chewing tobacco. For example, the FDA wanted to require all print advertisements for tobacco products to be black-and-white and include no pictures, only text. The FDA also proposed that a label bearing the phrase "A Nicotine-Delivery Device for Persons 18 or Older" be affixed to all tobacco products. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that such regulations could be enacted only by Congress, not the FDA.

Since that decision, several lawmakers in Congress have attempted to do just that. The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act would grant the FDA the power to restrict tobacco advertisements, sales and labeling standards. First introduced in 2000, the bill was initially ignored. It reappeared in 2002, 2004 and 2005, but in each of those years Congress again neglected to vote on it. However, in 2008, the bill--sponsored by Reps. Henry Waxman (D, Calif.) and Tom Davis (R, Va.)--passed the House by a vote of 326 to 102. The Senate version of the bill, which is sponsored by Edward Kennedy (D, Mass.) and John Cornyn (R, Texas), has not yet been voted on as of November 2008.

In addition to allowing the FDA to regulate tobacco, the Family Smoking Prevention Act would also ban the sale of flavored cigarettes. Several big tobacco companies, including R.J. Reynolds, market cigarettes that contain a wide range of artificial and natural flavors: fruit, vanilla, licorice, coffee, chocolate and more. Anti-smoking activists have long argued that such cigarettes are more appealing to young smokers than to adults; they suggest that tobacco companies make them specifically to get people hooked on smoking at an early age.

There is one cigarette flavor that would not be banned under the proposed legislation, however: menthol, which is by far the most widely used flavor additive in tobacco products. Supporters of the bill in its current form say that exempting menthol was a compromise between lawmakers and tobacco companies. Mike DeWine, a former Republican senator from Ohio who supported early versions of the Family Smoking Prevention Act, said, "My recollection is that we were able to eliminate the use of flavored cigarettes, strawberry, mocha, and all this stuff that is clearly targeted at young kids.... Where the compromise was made as I recall was on menthol."

In other words, supporters of the bill argue that it is politically impossible for Congress to ban menthol cigarettes; menthols comprise far too large a percentage of the overall tobacco market to be banned outright. Critics of the law, meanwhile, argue that the menthol exemption is a cowardly concession to big tobacco companies such as Philip Morris, whose Marlboro Menthol brand is the second-most popular menthol cigarette in the U.S.

Partisans in the menthol-cigarette controversy have not ignored the racial component surrounding the debate over the Family Smoking Prevention Act. For example, the Congressional Black Caucus--an organization comprising African-American members of Congress--is "split" over the issue, says Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D, Mich.), the organization's chair. Although all of the caucus's members say they would like menthol banned, some fear that insisting on a ban would "be a killer for the bill," Kilpatrick says.

Meanwhile, libertarian opponents of a menthol-cigarette ban say that such a ban would represent an unnecessary government intrusion into the tobacco market. It would be wrong to ban a product that so many people enjoy legally, those critics assert. Should menthol cigarettes be banned?
Supporters of a Ban Call Menthols Uniquely Dangerous

Proponents of a menthol-cigarette ban maintain that menthol presents a unique threat to young U.S. smokers. They argue that menthol's candy-like mint taste appeals most strongly to teenagers. Sullivan, the former head of HHS, argues that menthol should not be added to cigarettes because it is used "as an inducement, an enabler, to induct young people to smoke." After trying menthols, many young smokers graduate to standard cigarettes and become lifelong nicotine addicts, supporters assert.

Many proponents of a ban point to a July 2008 study which they say confirms that tobacco companies deliberately manipulate menthol levels in order to hook young smokers. The survey, conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, Mass., examined more than 500 internal tobacco-company memoranda dating as far back as 1985. According to the study, tobacco companies determined that new smokers (or "starters" in industry parlance) prefer a milder menthol taste, and older smokers enjoy a more intense flavor. Tobacco companies used that information to market their menthol cigarettes, the study asserts. Supporters of a menthol-cigarette ban argue that the study proves that tobacco companies cynically target young smokers with low-menthol cigarettes, then push higher-menthol brands on them as they get older.

Proponents of a ban also argue that menthol cigarettes may be more dangerous than the nonmenthol variety. In 1998, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) expressed concern that menthol "may increase the absorption of harmful smoking constituents." Additionally, studies show that certain menthol brands contain more nicotine--and are therefore more addictive--than nonmenthol cigarettes, supporters contend. A 2006 study by the Massachusetts Department of Health found that nicotine levels in Newport cigarettes increased 20% between 2000 and 2006, proponents of a ban point out.

Yet another study seems to show that menthol smokers are less likely to quit, supporters note. Specifically, they point to a 2006 study published in the journal Archives of Internal Medicine. The study followed a large group of menthol and nonmenthol smokers. After a 15-year period ending in 2000, just 31% of the menthol smokers had quit, compared with 46% of those who smoked standard cigarettes. "Menthol smokers appear to have a harder time quitting and may need extra encouragement," says Mark Pletcher, a professor of epidemiology at the University of California at San Francisco and a lead author of the study.

Supporters of a ban further argue that tobacco companies have cruelly targeted African Americans with advertisements for menthol cigarettes--"a strategy that has proven disturbingly effective," write Sullivan, Joseph Califano Jr. and William Robinson. (Califano is a former secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the predecessor to HHS. Robinson is the executive director of the National African American Tobacco Prevention Network.)

The three writers allege that tobacco companies continue to target black smokers, pointing to a new menthol cigarette brand called Camel Crush, marketed by R.J. Reynolds. The cigarette's tagline includes the word "change," which the writers argue "is reminiscent of language being used by a Democratic presidential candidate especially popular among young African Americans," a reference to now-president-elect Barack Obama. "Subliminal marketing, to say the least," they call the strategy.

The overwhelming popularity of menthol cigarettes among African Americans has had numerous negative effects on their overall health, supporters of a ban say. Blacks are more likely than any other ethnic group in the U.S. to get lung cancer, heart disease, cerebral vascular disease, esophageal cancer and oral cancer--all diseases attributable to rampant menthol cigarette use in the black community, proponents of a ban assert. "We experience more deaths and disease, and that alone to me should warrant the immediate banning of menthol," Robinson says.

Robinson's organization has pulled its support from the Family Smoking Prevention Act because of its menthol exemption. Indeed, many supporters of a ban say that the bill as currently drafted represents a cowardly concession to tobacco companies. In a letter faxed to various senators and representatives, Sullivan, Califano and Robinson argued that the bill "caves to the financial interests of tobacco companies and discriminates against African Americans. It sends a message that African American youngsters are valued less than white youngsters."
Critics Argue That a Ban Is Unjust and Unwarranted

Critics of a ban on menthol cigarettes say that black people are not the "targets" of cigarette ads. Michael Robinson (no relation to William Robinson), a spokesman for Lorillard, denies that ads for menthol cigarettes are disproportionately aimed at African Americans. Like any other tobacco company, Robinson says, "Lorillard wants the widest customer base as possible among adults." Although Robinson acknowledges that some of his company's ads are designed to appeal to blacks, the vast majority of them are intended to have a broad, multiracial appeal. Robinson says that focusing on black customers would not make financial sense for Lorillard, since approximately four out of five Newport smokers are white.

Opponents of a menthol ban also say that many of the claims about menthol made by proponents of a ban are false. Tobacco-company representatives adamantly disagreed with the results of the 2008 Harvard study, which alleged that tobacco companies manipulated menthol levels to attract young smokers. "We disagree with the conclusions that menthol levels in our products were manipulated to gain market share among adolescents," said David Sylvia, a Philip Morris spokesman. Robinson, the Lorillard spokesman, issued a similar denial.

Additionally, critics of smoking bans say that there is no proof that menthol-flavored tobacco is more harmful than standard tobacco. "Bottom line, the scientific publications to date have not concluded that menthol cigarettes are more hazardous or addictive than nonmenthol cigarettes," Robinson said in May 2008. Indeed, critics note that in 2007, scientists working for Philip Morris published a paper in the scientific journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, asserting that there is little evidence that menthol cigarettes are worse than the standard variety.

Meanwhile, many libertarian critics of a potential menthol ban argue that such a ban would be an unwarranted government intrusion into the cigarette market. Consumers should have the right to decide whether they want to smoke menthol cigarettes, critics say; the government should not be in a position to make that choice for them. Many opponents caution that a menthol ban could create a slippery slope leading to a ban on all tobacco products, or anything that the government deems harmful. "The American people deserve to understand that if the anti-tobacco establishment convinces Congress to first ban menthol and then eventually outlaw all tobacco, other powerful groups will follow to impose their idea of what is good for us to eat, drink and think," writes Martin Orlowsky, the president and chief executive office of Lorillard.

Critics also say it would be patently unfair for the government to ban a legal product enjoyed by millions. Menthol is "an ingredient and a flavor preference that is widely preferred by more than a quarter of adult smokers out there, and it's got a long history of use," says Brendan McCormick, a Philip Morris spokesman. Essentially, by banning menthol, the government would be punishing millions of people simply because they enjoy a minty taste with their cigarettes, critics assert.

Additionally, some opponents wonder why the government would try to ban a product used by so many black people. James Heath, an African-American songwriter and record producer based in Los Angeles, says that he does not like the idea of the government taking away his menthols. "It feels unconstitutional," he says. "To cut out just one segment [of smokers] seems a little fishy."

Members of a completely different group of menthol-ban critics, meanwhile, argue that although they would like to see menthol cigarettes outlawed, such a drastic step would likely prevent the Family Smoking Prevention Act from ever being signed into law. The menthol exemption is a necessary compromise with the tobacco industry, those critics maintain. "I would have been in favor of banning menthol," says Sen. Judd Gregg (R, N.H.). "But as a practical matter that simply wasn't doable."

Meanwhile, Gregory Connelly, a Harvard researcher who co-authored the 2008 study on menthol-level manipulation, says that a menthol ban could create chaos among long-time users who find themselves suddenly cut off from menthol cigarettes. "It would be like a repetition of Prohibition," he says. Rather, Connelly says that menthol levels should be gradually lowered over a span of several years.
Future of Family Smoking Prevention Act in Doubt

In November 2008, it appeared unlikely that the Senate would vote on the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. The bill seems to have enough support to pass--it is formally supported by Sens. Kennedy, Cornyn and 57 other co-sponsors--but it has been ignored since being referred to a committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions in August 2007. Even if the bill is passed by the Senate during the current Congress, President Bush (R) has vowed to veto it. He argues that the FDA is too busy to assume the additional responsibility of regulating tobacco. Additionally, he says that FDA oversight of the tobacco industry could give the impression that some cigarettes are safer than they actually are.

The debate surrounding menthol cigarettes, meanwhile, shows no signs of abating. Opponents of the ban maintain that it makes little sense to eliminate menthol cigarettes from the U.S. market. Supporters, however, contend that banning menthols could go a long way toward reducing the 440,000 yearly deaths caused by cigarette smoking--especially, they argue, the 47,000 African-American cigarette-related deaths each year.

Sources:

Gardiner, Phillip. "The African Americanization of Menthol Cigarette Use in the United States." Nicotine & Tobacco Research, February 2004, S55.

"Lorillard Tobacco Company Issues Letter to the New York Times After Paper Refuses to Share It with Readers." Yahoo! Finance, August 26, 2008, biz.yahoo.com.

Nagourney, Eric. "Consequences: Study Says Menthol Makes Habit Tougher to Kick." New York Times, October 10, 2006, www.nytimes.com.

Navarro, Mireya. "Take Away Their Menthols? Is That Cool?" New York Times, August 3, 2008, www.nytimes.com.