Reader comments are listed below. Comments are currently closed and new comments are no longer being accepted.
Is the data presented here meaningful at all?
If non-tobacco deaths are very different between countries, this may be a bad form of comparison. For example, if a billion people in a given country die to to a war or disaster, then the percent who die due to tobacco will be tiny even if everyone smokes. So, the statistic does not solely reflect tobacco habits. (unless I am misunderstanding/misinterpreting something of course)
extanjero and zod:
There are certainly a lot of deaths from tobacco in south america and africa, but these numbers are 'percentages of deaths'. So many people die in africa from diseases, war, poor living conditions, etc. that the percentage that die from tobacco are lower, but the actual raw number of deaths may still be higher. Its not a great way of comparison
cornishjack noted that France isn't a country of little smoking, and I've learned from the exchanges above that people in poorer countries tend to die from something else first before tobacco related illness. It makes one wonder then what the french are dying of instead if it's not tobacco related?
I'd be interested to see the figures for France. They smoke a tonne yet few of them die from tobacco, how does that work?
Also @ Extranjero,
We also have to remember that in the US smokers live long enough to die of smoking-related causes. Something that is not necessarily true in less developed countries where the average age of death is lower.
It really shows that you must have good health care to die of smoking.
If you analyze the map, poorer countries have better results as to death by smoking. They don't live long enough.
Is this article correct? Are the numbers right? Claim 1 is that 1 in 5 deaths are tobacco related. Claim 2 is that tobacco related deaths claim 1 in 8 of the over-30 adults. Therefore, the under-30's must be responsible for more that 1 in 5 deaths to push the average from 1 in 8 to 1 in 5. Remarkable! (We need to stop the youngsters smoking)
However if there are say 7 billion people on the planet, with an average life expectancy of 70 years, then around 100 million people die every year. The 5.1 Million deaths would be about 5% of all deaths. Is this what the opening sentence should claim?
According to this analysis, France has one of the lowest rates of tobacco-related death in the world. I find this difficult to believe. I assume that much of this analysis is based on cause-of-death statistics reported to the WHO by the countries' own Health Departments. There are gross inaccuracies in how deaths are reported - a person who died of lung cancer can be truthfully classified as having died from respiratory failure. An analyst trying to extract the rate of lung cancer (which is overwhelmingly correlated with tobacco) therefore would be easily misled. Respiratory failure, on the other hand, is secondary to any number of non-tobacco related diseases as well as lung cancer, thereby precluding an analyst from teasing out those that were related to tobacco and those that were not. Additionally, countries may not choose to report accurately for political reasons. The classic example is that there is no cholera in Bangladesh if one goes by WHO statistics - a move that is thought to be related to the country wanting to play down a negative reputation. In reality, Bangladesh has major biannual epidemics with tens of thousands of cases - the most of any country in the world.
Remember that the people who are dying from smoking are the people who were smoking in the past - not necessarily current smokers.
If the U.S. is currently smoking less than Europe, I suspect their smoking-related deaths will go down in the future.
You know that the tobacco companies are already depolying sales and marketing people to the blue and light blue area. Obvious places that need more smokers. Watching the blue go to red over the years should be an admission of guilt.
How many of the deaths in developing countries are NOT tested for tobacco related issues? It is easy to imagine a good portion go untested or undiagnosed.
Interesting to see France so much lower than other European countries. Anyone know why this? Hvaing been to Franmce quite a few times i wouldn't say that they are a country of little smoking. Could it be a better healthcare system?
Its interesting (And refreshing) to see Africa on the other end of such statistics. They have other problems to deal without than having to worry about cancer from smoking.
Interesting that the U.S. rate is so high, though people certainly smoke much more, on average, in several other countries.
Wikipedia has a nice article on "Prevalence of Tobacco Consumption," which says (haven't looked into sources here) that "In 2005, it was estimated that 20.9% (or 45.1 million) of all U.S. adults were current cigarette smokers" (I know this number used to be higher), yet *over* 20% of American deaths are caused by smoking, which makes me wonder--
When exactly is a death "caused by smoking" anyway? If I die a few days earlier than I would have died if I never smoked, has my death been "caused by smoking"? At the least, a clarification here would be nice.
The graph was 'tobacco related deaths' rather than 'caused by smoking'.
Several forms of cancer and cardiovascular disease are 'related' to tobacco (i.e. risks of suffering form them are increased by smoking). However that does not mean that smoking is the only, or even most important factor. I would guess that the tobacco related deaths avarage in the USA and Europe are substantially increased by smokers dieing of cardiovascular diseas, even if a fatty diet and lack of excersise where the main culprits. Perhaps whoever assembled the data added in all deaths from cardiovascular disease, ostensibly to legislate for passive smoking. That would obviously be nonsense, but I wouldn't but it past anti-smoking campaigners.
i gave up smoking thirty years ago. i am now 71, but i have never recovered from the damage i did to my lungs. this smoking is a curse on our so-called developed world.
Isn't it also possible that people in developing countries are too busy dying of other things to wait around until old age and die of tobacco-related illnesses?
cornishjack, I think the Europeans have a longer life expectancy than us in the U.S. In England I think its somewhere between 79 to 80 years, and in the U.S. we live to be around 77 or 78.
I heard a report on cigarettes that in the United States our cigarettes are much more dangerous than other countries because we produce them in a certain way that puts dangerous chemicals in ours that other countries don't have.
my question is the same as cornishjack's: why is France so low?
Wow I always thought other countries besides the U.S. had more deaths. The culture in the United States on banning smoking everywhere barely allows me to find other smokers out there, verses other countries like Latin America, Europe and the Middle East, its a lot easier to find a cigarette from anyone on the street.
Have you listened to The Economist Radio on Facebook?
The Economist Radio is an on-demand social listening platform that allows you to listen, share and recommend The Economist audio content
Test your EQ
Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines
In Other Words
Try our new audio app and website, providing reporting and analysis from our correspondents around the world every weekday
Want more from The Economist?
Visit The Economist e-store and you’ll find a range of carefully selected products for business and pleasure, Economist books and diaries, and much more