Writing in Slate, Jack Shafer disputes last week's report that the tobacco industry increased nicotine in brands favored by minorities and kids — he argues that it's more likely that the testing methodology has changed. He goes on to state that since low-nicotine cigarettes aren't better for you, then high-nicotine cigs aren't worse for you, and cites some plausible-sounding research to this effect:
If tobacco companies are consciously boosting nicotine yields, by what strange logic would they also trim them some years? Could it be that 1) the methodology behind the Massachusetts results isn't consistent; or 2) the mix of cigarette brands tested changes sufficiently from year to year to alter average nicotine yields?
The tobacco industry knows that tobacco consumers adapt their smoking techniques to extract the dose of nicotine they crave. If that's the case, what incentive do they have to boost nicotine yields? Wouldn't it be in their interests to produce low-nicotine cigarettes in hopes that smokers purchase and consume more of them in their pursuit of nicotine?
