Sabeeh A Baig1, M Justin Byron2, Allison J Lazard3, Noel T Brewer1. 1. Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. 2. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. 3. School of Media and Journalism, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The US Tobacco Control Act restricts advertising or labeling that suggests one tobacco product is less harmful than another. We sought to examine how "organic," "natural," and "additive-free" advertising claims and corresponding disclaimers affect perceptions of cigarettes' harm. METHODS: Participants were a national probability sample of adults in the United States (n = 1114, including 344 smokers). We conducted a 5 (claim) × 2 (disclaimer) between-subjects factorial experiment. Participants viewed a Natural American Spirit cigarettes ad claiming they were "organic," "natural," "additive-free," "light," or "regular;" and with or without a corresponding disclaimer. The outcome was perceived harm of the advertised cigarettes. Among smokers, we also assessed interest in switching within their current brand to cigarettes with this characteristic (eg, "additive-free"). RESULTS: Claims in the ad had a large effect on perceived harm (Cohen's d = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.47 to 1.29). Claims of cigarettes being "organic," "natural," or "additive-free" reduced perceived harm from the advertised cigarettes, as compared with "regular" and "light" claims. Disclaimers had a small effect, increasing perceived harm (d = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.08 to 0.41). The problematic claims also increased smokers' interest in switching. Disclaimers had no effect on smokers' interest in switching. CONCLUSIONS: "Organic," "natural," and "additive-free" claims may mislead people into thinking that the advertised cigarettes are less harmful than other cigarettes. Disclaimers did not offset misperceptions of harm created by false claims. The US Food and Drug Administration should restrict the use of these misleading claims in tobacco advertising. IMPLICATIONS: "Organic," "natural," and "additive-free" cigarette advertising claims decrease perceptions of harm among the public and increase interest in switching to such cigarettes among smokers. Disclaimers do not counteract the reduced perceptions of harm or increased interest in switching to these cigarettes. The US Food and Drug Administration should restrict the use of "organic," "natural," and "additive-free" claims in tobacco marketing.
INTRODUCTION: The US Tobacco Control Act restricts advertising or labeling that suggests one tobacco product is less harmful than another. We sought to examine how "organic," "natural," and "additive-free" advertising claims and corresponding disclaimers affect perceptions of cigarettes' harm. METHODS:Participants were a national probability sample of adults in the United States (n = 1114, including 344 smokers). We conducted a 5 (claim) × 2 (disclaimer) between-subjects factorial experiment. Participants viewed a Natural American Spirit cigarettes ad claiming they were "organic," "natural," "additive-free," "light," or "regular;" and with or without a corresponding disclaimer. The outcome was perceived harm of the advertised cigarettes. Among smokers, we also assessed interest in switching within their current brand to cigarettes with this characteristic (eg, "additive-free"). RESULTS: Claims in the ad had a large effect on perceived harm (Cohen's d = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.47 to 1.29). Claims of cigarettes being "organic," "natural," or "additive-free" reduced perceived harm from the advertised cigarettes, as compared with "regular" and "light" claims. Disclaimers had a small effect, increasing perceived harm (d = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.08 to 0.41). The problematic claims also increased smokers' interest in switching. Disclaimers had no effect on smokers' interest in switching. CONCLUSIONS: "Organic," "natural," and "additive-free" claims may mislead people into thinking that the advertised cigarettes are less harmful than other cigarettes. Disclaimers did not offset misperceptions of harm created by false claims. The US Food and Drug Administration should restrict the use of these misleading claims in tobacco advertising. IMPLICATIONS: "Organic," "natural," and "additive-free" cigarette advertising claims decrease perceptions of harm among the public and increase interest in switching to such cigarettes among smokers. Disclaimers do not counteract the reduced perceptions of harm or increased interest in switching to these cigarettes. The US Food and Drug Administration should restrict the use of "organic," "natural," and "additive-free" claims in tobacco marketing.
Authors: Kenji Shibuya; Christina Ciecierski; Emmanuel Guindon; Douglas W Bettcher; David B Evans; Christopher J L Murray Journal: BMJ Date: 2003-07-19
Authors: Noel T Brewer; Alice R Richman; Jessica T DeFrank; Valerie F Reyna; Lisa A Carey Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-10-01 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Marissa G Hall; Allison J Lazard; Anna H Grummon; Jennifer R Mendel; Lindsey Smith Taillie Journal: Prev Med Date: 2020-01-23 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Jessica L King; Allison Lazard; Beth A Reboussin; Leah Ranney; Jennifer Cornacchione Ross; Kimberly G Wagoner; Erin L Sutfin Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 4.244
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: Ana Paula C Richter; Emily W Duffy; Lindsey Smith Taillie; Jennifer L Harris; Jennifer L Pomeranz; Marissa G Hall Journal: J Acad Nutr Diet Date: 2021-08-13 Impact factor: 4.910
Authors: Erin L Sutfin; Allison J Lazard; Eric K Soule; Caroline M Kimes; Jessica King; Desmond Jenson; Jennifer Cornacchione Ross Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 4.244