Category: Print Edition

But while I regard myself as being cynical to the point of nihilism, I don’t buy such an argument, which leaves me with the above question hanging in the air. Why, for instance, would Cheeseman be happy to be quoted in a story with the sort of imagery described above as saying: “[w]e know smoking-related imagery can encourage people to try smoking. It is therefore plausible that these depictions of smoking might influence some young people to try a cigarette.” In fairness to Cheeseman, I should point out that when she refers to “these depictions of smoking,” she is probably referring to the story’s rather vague reference to social media use among young people, though the reference doesn’t specify smoking imagery nor depictions. However, looking at the story, it is the smoking imagery of the story’s pictures that stand out, and you cannot help but wonder whether Cheeseman and the other no-doubt well-meaning anti-tobacco professionals mentioned in the piece were happy to be associated with it.

My advice to them would be to refrain from panic. No matter the situation, it is always worthwhile giving yourself 20 seconds to think, and 20 seconds of thought is enough to tell you that the whims of celebrities are here today and gone tomorrow. Mostly, and not unreasonably given the way they make their livings, what they do is aimed at attracting publicity, which they have managed admirably in this case, partly because of the anti-tobacco professionals whose comments have allowed the story to run. If the anti-tobacco professionals have more than 20 seconds, they might like to research the number of times that celebrities have taken to fine cigars without causing any long-term increase in consumption of these products by either themselves or others.

I think that one minor reason why smoking imagery was so prominent in the story was because it was used to brighten up what was a double-page spread in which the smoking piece was squashed between two ill-health stories: “Majority of most popular takeaway dishes rated as unhealthy, study shows,” which sported only modest pictures of a pizza and a burger, and “Shortage of medicine for alcoholics ‘scandalous,’ says doctor,” which had no illustrations.

The Guardian has been banging the drum about unhealthy food for some time, and on Aug. 28 last year, it led with the story, “Ultra-processed foods causing a tidal wave of harm,” say experts. An interesting aspect of that story was a quote from one expert that said, “[t]here is now significant evidence that these products inflame the gut, disrupt appetite regulation, alter hormone levels and cause myriad other effects which likely increase the risk of cardiovascular and other diseases much in the same way that smoking does.”

One question this raises concerns the cause of death when somebody who smoked tobacco and ate ultra-processed food (UPF) dies of one of these diseases. Was the death caused by eating UPF, cigarette smoking or a combination of both and, perhaps, other factors? I assume that it is impossible to know, but I also assume the death would nevertheless be put down to smoking because, I believe, the death of a smoker from a “smoking-related” disease is automatically put down to smoking, no matter what other risky activities the smoker got up to during her life.

And you can also assume that this means that deaths from smoking have been and are exaggerated whereas deaths from UPF consumption, alcohol consumption, pollution, etc., have been underestimated. But things won’t change, because preventative medicine runs on the parallel rails of hypocrisy and inertia.