Womens Health Magazine Articles & Resources

Epidemiologists estimate that of the 2 million deaths in the United States each year, 1 million are preventable in the sense that they could have been postponed. Cigarette smoking accounts for approximately 500,000 of these preventable deaths and the misuse of alcohol an additional 100,000.

A smaller but still significant number of premature deaths can be attributed to the failure to use seat belts or smoke detectors and the failure to take advantage of medical-screening techniques that can identify diseases in their more treatable early stages. While our knowledge of the specific role of diet in causing early death still is evolving, there is a growing consensus that lower fat intake and increased consumption of fruits and vegetables also may help us extend both our lives and our good health.

But just how did the women's magazines do in reporting these health facts - especially those related to cigarettes?

The magazines dedicated many pages of copy to health matters and how to avoid disease. They offered sound advice, for example, on the importance of early detection of breast, cervical, colon and ovarian cancers. Furthermore, all of them stressed the role that excessive exposure to sunlight plays in causing various forms of skin cancer.

But in all this intensive coverage of health topics, there were some striking omissions: During the five-month period, there were no features on lung cancer, now the leading cause of cancer deaths in women. Neither was there any feature coverage of the proven contribution of smoking to cervical, pancreatic, bladder and other malignancies - or of the prominent role smoking plays in heart disease.

In fairness, I must note that 10 or more years ago when I first conducted these magazine surveys I found no references whatsoever to the dangers of smoking. In contrast, in this year's issues there were a number of strong statements about smoking hazards. Although there still is much room for improvement, substantial progress has been made.

Of course, now that these publications have lifted their total black-out on smoking as a topic, it is fair to ask, when evaluating their coverage of smoking, "How much is enough?" This is a matter of judgment, but suffice it to say smoking and cigarette-induced diseases received minimal coverage in the issues surveyed. After reading these magazines, our martian wouldn't have a clue that cigarette smoking is the leading cause of premature death in America.

On the other hand, discussions of hypothetical risks abounded. The magazines warned readers of the dangers of cheese addiction of the toxic effect of displaced anger and of the alleged dangers (the risks remain unproved) of breast implants. They also discussed the "hazards" of grilled meat, dioxins in tampons, trace levels of hormonelike substances in the environment and "deadly" red dye No. 3, which Harper's Bazaar described as a "complete carcinogen."

Similarly, in the "tips for improved health" department, the magazines contained a good deal of hypothetical "how to avoid" advice: To avoid strokes, drink black tea, to stave off prostate cancer, eat tomatoes; to avoid ovarian cancer, stay away from talc-treated condoms; to prevent heart disease, eat raspberries. And considerable (probably too much) attention was given to such topics as protecting against snake bites, the dangers of allergens in bio-engineered foods, E. coli food poisoning, food allergies, cystitis, "madcow disease" and the risks of antibiotics.

A number of articles purported to give comprehensive health advice but omitted any reference to cigarette smoking - almost as if an invisible editorial censor had been at work. Family Circle listed "41 Ways to Live Longer" but, incredibly, left "not smoking" off the list (there was a passing reference to not smoking under tip No. 35, which touched on a variety of lifestyle factors).Glamour discussed the causes of infertility - speculating about hot tubs, marijuana and excessive drinking - but made no mention of an obvious threat to both male and female fertility: cigarettes.

Some publications actually promoted smoking in their pages. Mademoiselle commented that "smoking is hardly a crime," and several publications showed their models smoking cigarettes. The most egregious of these was Vogue, which used packs of Marlboros as props in its photo shoots.

What could possibly motivate editors to downplay the most common cause of preventable death? Perhaps the editors do not want to present themselves to their readers as "health nannies." Or perhaps those who sell magazines think "novelty," however speculative, is more exciting than the same old basic facts.

We certainly can't overlook one basic fact: In five months, these magazines carried nearly 300 ads for cigarettes. Many of the ads contained subtle pleas for female liberation or declarations of the "right" to smoke. One ad announced, "I've gone to Capri [a brand of a cigarette] and I'm not coming back."

It's obvious that cigarette-advertising revenues contribute substantially to the economic survival of these magazines; how, then, can the same magazines' editors afford to tell the truth about tobacco? There's something incompatible and hypocritical about these publications' purporting to be sources of information on women's health while continuing to tout the sexiness, femininity and glamor of the leading cause of premature death in women.

What is the solution to this absurd, health-threatening situation? President Clinton proposes, among other ideas, to ban or restrict cigarette advertising in magazines that primarily are read by young people. But a glance through the May issue of Elle reveals why this regulatory solution won't work: In May, Elle ran an ad for an Elle cigarette case "to carry your favorite brand." Is this a cigarette ad? No. But it is a surrogate for one, and if cigarette ads ever are banned we will see thousands more like it taking up where the old-style ads leave off. There will be increasing numbers of promotions for Virginia Slims clothing, Camel candles, Marlboro hats - the possibilities are endless.

When it comes right down to it, aren't America's womens magazines actually working openly with the tobacco companies to encourage young women to take up smoking? Perhaps the readers of Vogue, Elle and the rest will reflect upon this and stop buying the publications until the editors reject cigarette advertisements - even if the resulting drop in revenues means that the newsstand prices of the magazines have to be increased.