{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018764659890539485, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003127443315089914, 'mean_word_length': 4.981308411214953, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Counting Advertising Assertions to assess Regulatory Policy: When it Doesn't Add Up

Public policy toward cigarette health claims should not be based on a “market effects“ premise that health claim competition will reinforce consumer fears. Many have been influenced to smoke a succession of heavily advertised higher filtration, lower yield cigarettes, relying in part on the implication these were safer. None of these have been shown to reduce risks of smoking-related heart disease and other pulmonary disorders, and they are clearly no substitute for quitting. The Ringold and Calfee content analysis of cigarette advertising is criticized for its limited focus on direct verbal assertions. This approach led them to code what was said rather than what was likely to be understood. For example, claims regarding unique properties of filters were viewed as cigarette construction claims. Despite the high regard I have for the authors’ professional work and their commitment to research in a difficult and important area, I find the Ringold and Calfee [1989] paper to be flawed in three important aspects. The net result, in my view, is that their analysis and evidence contributes little to the dialogue on this topic. I will discuss each of the three problem areas in turn.