Science1 distinct publisher3 min readUpdated
Nearly half the menthol form letters trace to Reynolds and Altria campaigns. Raw comment volume, uncorrected for duplication, is not a measurement of public sentiment.
The Scientist · Science desk

Compiled by The ScientistSomething wrong?How this is made
A Rutgers Health team read every one of the 246,808 comments filed on the FDA's 2022 proposals to ban menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars, and found that 97% of the menthol comments and 93% of the cigar comments were form letters [1][2]. The volume of that response was a stated reason for delay, so the composition of it is a policy fact, not a curiosity [3][6].
According to the account published by phys.org, nearly 250,000 comments arrived and the record response led the Biden administration to delay a final decision [3]. The study, in JAMA Network Open, reports that roughly 46% of the menthol form letters contained content traceable to tobacco companies, naming Reynolds American's "Own It, Voice It" campaign and Altria's "Voices for Consumer Choice" campaign [4]. Two percent of all comments were unique [5]. Combining the two figures, campaign-traceable text accounts for something on the order of 45% of all menthol comments filed [14].
The method is unglamorous and reproducible. The researchers downloaded the public comments, used statistical software to find recurring phrases, and matched submissions to 17 distinct form-letter templates [7]. Stripping form letters and near duplicates left 3,342 unique menthol comments and 1,432 unique cigar comments [8] - together about 1.9% of the docket [15]. That is the number a rulemaker would want if the question is how many people wrote something of their own.
The de-duplicated remainder does not flip the direction of opinion: 96% of unique menthol comments opposed the ban and 99% opposed the cigar rule [9]. What changes is the content. The leading arguments were economic, covering lost revenue and sales, an illicit market, and education as a substitute for prohibition, while only 3% to 5% of unique comments engaged the health evidence behind the rules [10]. Lead author Andrea Villanti of the Rutgers School of Public Health said the sheer volume was used as a reason to delay a policy that would have saved lives, and that how few submissions were unique, and how much industry shaped both volume and content, was not considered [6].
The pipeline was documented separately. An earlier study in the same Rutgers project, led by Ollie Ganz, analyzed direct-to-consumer emails sent to customers during the comment period that urged recipients to "take action" and routed them to company-run sites, which assembled personalized anti-ban letters from menus of prewritten arguments and filed them with the FDA [11]. That design defeats naive duplicate detection: the strings differ, the argument set does not.
For scale on what the delay covers: menthol cigarettes are more than a third of the U.S. cigarette market and a majority of cigarettes smoked by Black Americans, and researchers have estimated 378,000 U.S. premature deaths attributable to them between 1980 and 2018 [12]. A third study in the project, led by Olivia Wackowski, found that 75% of 122 news articles cited the rule's potential to reduce disease and save lives, with opposition coverage centered on policing in Black communities [13].
Watch whether dockets start publishing unique-comment counts alongside totals, and whether the 17-template matching approach is applied to other high-volume rulemakings. Until then, a comment count is a measure of campaign capacity.
Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
When the FDA proposed banning menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars in 2022, nearly 250,000 public comments were filed, a record response that led the Biden administration to delay a final decision.
A Rutgers Health study published in JAMA Network Open examined all 246,808 comments submitted to the FDA dockets on the proposed menthol cigarette and flavored cigar rules.
The study found that 97% of comments on the menthol rule and 93% of comments on the cigar rule were form letters.
Roughly 46% of the menthol form letters contained content traceable to tobacco companies, including Reynolds American Inc.'s "Own It, Voice It" campaign and Altria Group Inc.'s "Voices for Consumer Choice" campaign.
Andrea Villanti, professor at the Rutgers School of Public Health, deputy director of the Rutgers Institute for Nicotine and Tobacco Studies and lead author, said: "The sheer volume of comments was used as a reason to delay a public health policy that would have saved lives" and "What wasn't considered was how few of those submissions were unique or how much tobacco company influence had shaped both the volume and the content of the comments."
Evidence-backed comparisons of source perspectives and observed adoption signals. Read the methodology
Which Builder, Operator, and Investor concerns the observed source mix emphasized—not a truth score.
Evidence, demonstrated adoption, hype gap, incentives, and confidence are assessed independently, each on its own current evidence. How these are measured.
Peer-reviewed full census, but described only through one institutional relay
The core numbers are strong in kind: a complete population census of all 246,808 docket comments, published in JAMA Network Open with a DOI, reporting internally consistent figures (97%/93% form letters, 2% unique, 3,342 + 1,432 retained texts = about 1.9% of filings). Two companion studies in the same project independently trace the mechanism (industry emails to auto-submission sites) and the surrounding press framing. What holds the score down is that everything reaches us through a single institutional write-up: no clustering thresholds, no misclassification rates, no definition of 'near duplicate,' and no independent replication of the 46% industry-traceable figure.
The manufactured-volume mechanism is documented in the world; correction of it is not
Real-world footprint is well attested on one side: nearly 250,000 comments were actually filed, industry campaigns actually ran email-to-auto-submission funnels, and the rules were in fact postponed in April 2024 and withdrawn in January 2025. That is uptake of the influence technique, not uptake of the study's finding. The supplied source shows no agency, docket system, or rulemaking process that has adopted duplication correction or provenance disclosure in response, and no third party citing or acting on the paper. Scored low to reflect a documented phenomenon with no observed institutional response.
Counts are solid; the causal story about the delay outruns them
The quantitative claims are proportionate to the evidence and the headline share is stated accurately. The overstatement is causal and rhetorical: the framing that companies 'helped flood the federal comment process that stalled' the ban, and the quote that volume 'was used as a reason to delay,' assert a decision mechanism the source never documents — no FDA or White House statement on how volume was weighted appears, and the April 2024 postponement and January 2025 withdrawal had a political context the article does not examine. Coverage also carries a one-sided incentive profile with no industry reply. Mildly positive rather than large, because the numbers themselves are not inflated.
Named commercial sponsors on one side, an advocacy-adjacent research release on the other
Incentives are unusually legible here and they point in opposite directions. Reynolds American and Altria had a direct commercial stake — menthol is over a third of the U.S. cigarette market — and are documented running campaigns that generated the comment volume. The countervailing incentive is that the only source is an institutional release from the research group whose policy position is that the withdrawn rules should have been finalized, quoted advocating for that outcome, with no industry response and no dissenting expert. High score reflects strong, identifiable interest on both sides shaping what is measured and how it is framed.
Credible peer-reviewed core, single-publisher and single-perspective sourcing
Confidence is moderate. The underlying study is peer-reviewed, census-based, DOI-identified, and internally consistent, and three related studies in the same project converge on the same mechanism. But the cluster has exactly one publisher, one item, and one institutional viewpoint; the method is not verifiable from the material; the causal delay claim is unverified; and no named company was given a chance to respond. Enough to rely on the descriptive counts, not enough to treat the causal narrative as settled.
product
Enhanced Games' $62M quarter puts a price on buying legitimacy1 distinct publisher
science
An FDA panel wants unapproved peptides sold by prescription. That is deregulation, not wellness.1 distinct publisher
product
Vivodyne says the AI drug bottleneck is human tissue data, not model capability1 distinct publisher
product
Fatal crashes rise 15% on big album release days. That is a media-selection design problem.1 distinct publisher
Distinct publishers with included, body-backed reporting in this cluster.
1 article · August 20, 2026