J B Cohen1. 1. Center for Consumer Research, College of Business Administration, University of Florida, Gainesville 32611-7150, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This article examines health policy implications of providing smokers with numerical tar yield information in cigarette advertising. METHODS: Results of a national probability telephone survey regarding smokers' knowledge and understanding of numerical tar yields and deliveries are reported. RESULTS: Few smokers knew the tar level of their own cigarettes (the exception being smokers of 1- to 5-mg tar cigarettes), and a majority could not correctly judge the relative tar levels of cigarettes. Smokers were unsure whether switching to lower-tar cigarettes would reduce their personal health risks. Many smokers relied on absolute numbers in making trade-offs between number of cigarettes smoked and their tar levels, thus confusion machine-rated tar-yields with actual amounts ingested. CONCLUSIONS: The wisdom of the present method of providing tar and nicotine numbers in ads and recommendations for modifying the test protocol are now under discussion. This research indicates that these tar numbers and their implications are poorly understood. The paper recommends revisions in tar ratings to make them more useful and a required statement on cigarette packages to more explicitly relate tar levels to major health risks.
OBJECTIVES: This article examines health policy implications of providing smokers with numerical tar yield information in cigarette advertising. METHODS: Results of a national probability telephone survey regarding smokers' knowledge and understanding of numerical tar yields and deliveries are reported. RESULTS: Few smokers knew the tar level of their own cigarettes (the exception being smokers of 1- to 5-mg tar cigarettes), and a majority could not correctly judge the relative tar levels of cigarettes. Smokers were unsure whether switching to lower-tar cigarettes would reduce their personal health risks. Many smokers relied on absolute numbers in making trade-offs between number of cigarettes smoked and their tar levels, thus confusion machine-rated tar-yields with actual amounts ingested. CONCLUSIONS: The wisdom of the present method of providing tar and nicotine numbers in ads and recommendations for modifying the test protocol are now under discussion. This research indicates that these tar numbers and their implications are poorly understood. The paper recommends revisions in tar ratings to make them more useful and a required statement on cigarette packages to more explicitly relate tar levels to major health risks.
Authors: Kathryn E Moracco; Jennifer C Morgan; Jennifer Mendel; Randall Teal; Seth M Noar; Kurt M Ribisl; Marissa G Hall; Noel T Brewer Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2015-12-17 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: R Borland; G T Fong; H-H Yong; K M Cummings; D Hammond; B King; M Siahpush; A McNeill; G Hastings; R J O'Connor; T Elton-Marshall; M P Zanna Journal: Tob Control Date: 2008-04-21 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Lauren R Pacek; F Joseph McClernon; Rachel L Denlinger-Apte; Melissa Mercincavage; Andrew A Strasser; Sarah S Dermody; Ryan Vandrey; Tracy T Smith; Natalie Nardone; Dorothy K Hatsukami; Joseph S Koopmeiners; Rachel V Kozink; Eric C Donny Journal: Tob Control Date: 2017-07-22 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Catalin Marian; Richard J O'Connor; Mirjana V Djordjevic; Vaughan W Rees; Dorothy K Hatsukami; Peter G Shields Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.254