Hua-Hie Yong1, Ron Borland1, K Michael Cummings2, Eric N Lindblom3, Lin Li1, Maansi Bansal-Travers4, Richard J O'Connor4, Tara Elton-Marshall5,6,7, James F Thrasher8, David Hammond9, Mary E Thompson10, Timea R Partos11. 1. Nigel Gray Fellowship Group, Cancer Council Victoria , Melbourne , Australia. 2. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina , Charleston, SC. 3. O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, Georgetown University Law Center , Washington, DC. 4. Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute , Buffalo, NY. 5. Social and Epidemiological Research, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, London, ON, Canada. 6. Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 7. School of Health Studies, Western University, London, ON, Canada. 8. Department of Health Promotion, Education and Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina , Columbia, SC. 9. School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo , Waterloo, ON , Canada. 10. Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science, University of Waterloo , Waterloo, ON , Canada. 11. Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London , London , UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In December 2008, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) took action that prompted the removal of nicotine and tar listings from cigarette packs and ads. As of June 2010, the US Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act prohibited the use of explicit or implicit descriptors on tobacco packaging or in advertising that convey messages of reduced risk or exposure, specifically including terms like "light," "mild," and "low" and similar descriptors. This study evaluates the effect of these two policy changes on smokers' beliefs, experiences and perceptions of different cigarettes. METHODS: Using generalized estimating equations models, this study analyzed survey data collected between 2002 and 2013 by the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Study regarding US smokers' beliefs, experiences, and perceptions of different cigarettes. RESULTS: Between 2002 and 2013, smoker misperceptions about "light" cigarettes being less harmful did not change significantly and remained substantial, especially among those who reported using lower-strength cigarettes. After the two policy changes, reported reliance on pack colors, color terms, and other product descriptors like "smooth" to determine cigarette strength style trended upward. CONCLUSIONS: Policies implemented to reduce smoker misperceptions that some cigarettes are safer than others appear to have had little impact. Because of pack colors, color terms, descriptors such as "smooth," cigarette taste or feel, and possibly other characteristics, millions of smokers continue to believe, inaccurately, that they can reduce their harms and risks by smoking one cigarette brand or sub-brand instead of another, which may be delaying or reducing smoking cessation. IMPLICATIONS: What this study adds: This study confirms that US policies to reduce smoker misperceptions that some cigarettes are less harmful than others have not been successful. Following the removal of light/low descriptors and tar and nicotine numbers from cigarette packs and ads, pack colors, color words, other descriptors (eg, smooth), and sensory experiences of smoother or lighter taste have helped smokers to continue to identify their preferred cigarette brand styles and otherwise distinguish between which brands and styles they consider "lighter" or lower in tar and, mistakenly, less harmful than others. These findings provide additional evidence to support new enforcement or regulatory action to stop cigarettes and their packaging from misleading smokers about relative risk, which may be reducing or delaying quit attempts.
INTRODUCTION: In December 2008, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) took action that prompted the removal of nicotine and tar listings from cigarette packs and ads. As of June 2010, the US Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act prohibited the use of explicit or implicit descriptors on tobacco packaging or in advertising that convey messages of reduced risk or exposure, specifically including terms like "light," "mild," and "low" and similar descriptors. This study evaluates the effect of these two policy changes on smokers' beliefs, experiences and perceptions of different cigarettes. METHODS: Using generalized estimating equations models, this study analyzed survey data collected between 2002 and 2013 by the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Study regarding US smokers' beliefs, experiences, and perceptions of different cigarettes. RESULTS: Between 2002 and 2013, smoker misperceptions about "light" cigarettes being less harmful did not change significantly and remained substantial, especially among those who reported using lower-strength cigarettes. After the two policy changes, reported reliance on pack colors, color terms, and other product descriptors like "smooth" to determine cigarette strength style trended upward. CONCLUSIONS: Policies implemented to reduce smoker misperceptions that some cigarettes are safer than others appear to have had little impact. Because of pack colors, color terms, descriptors such as "smooth," cigarette taste or feel, and possibly other characteristics, millions of smokers continue to believe, inaccurately, that they can reduce their harms and risks by smoking one cigarette brand or sub-brand instead of another, which may be delaying or reducing smoking cessation. IMPLICATIONS: What this study adds: This study confirms that US policies to reduce smoker misperceptions that some cigarettes are less harmful than others have not been successful. Following the removal of light/low descriptors and tar and nicotine numbers from cigarette packs and ads, pack colors, color words, other descriptors (eg, smooth), and sensory experiences of smoother or lighter taste have helped smokers to continue to identify their preferred cigarette brand styles and otherwise distinguish between which brands and styles they consider "lighter" or lower in tar and, mistakenly, less harmful than others. These findings provide additional evidence to support new enforcement or regulatory action to stop cigarettes and their packaging from misleading smokers about relative risk, which may be reducing or delaying quit attempts.
Authors: G T Fong; K M Cummings; R Borland; G Hastings; A Hyland; G A Giovino; D Hammond; M E Thompson Journal: Tob Control Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Seema Mutti; David Hammond; Ron Borland; Michael K Cummings; Richard J O'Connor; Geoffrey T Fong Journal: Addiction Date: 2011-04-12 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Tara Elton-Marshall; Geoffrey T Fong; Hua-Hie Yong; Ron Borland; Steve Shaowei Xu; Anne C K Quah; Guoze Feng; Yuan Jiang Journal: Tob Control Date: 2014-11-04 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Richard J O'Connor; Rosalie V Caruso; Ron Borland; K Michael Cummings; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Brian V Fix; Bill King; David Hammond; Geoffrey T Fong Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2013-08-13 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Min-Ae Song; Neal L Benowitz; Micah Berman; Theodore M Brasky; K Michael Cummings; Dorothy K Hatsukami; Catalin Marian; Richard O'Connor; Vaughan W Rees; Casper Woroszylo; Peter G Shields Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jennifer L Pearson; Meghan Moran; Cristine D Delnevo; Andrea C Villanti; M Jane Lewis Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2019-06-21 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Carla J Berg; Geoffrey T Fong; James F Thrasher; Joanna E Cohen; Wasim Maziak; Harry Lando; Jeffrey Drope; Raul Mejia; Joaquin Barnoya; Rima Nakkash; Ramzi G Salloum; Mark Parascandola Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2018-07-17 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Joseph G L Lee; Tiffany M Blanchflower; Kevin F O'Brien; Leslie E Cofie; Kyle R Gregory; Paige E Averett Journal: Health Promot Pract Date: 2020-01
Authors: Bill King; Ron Borland; Michael Le Grande; Richard O'Connor; Geoffrey Fong; Ann McNeill; Dorothy Hatsukami; Michael Cummings Journal: Tob Control Date: 2021-06-15 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Joseph G L Lee; Paige E Averett; Tiffany Blanchflower; Nunzio Landi; Kyle R Gregory Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2017-10-17 Impact factor: 3.390