“I always thought they were all pure tobacco”: American smokers’ perceptions of “natural” cigarettes and tobacco industry advertising strategies

McDaniel, Patricia A.; Malone, Ruth E.

doi:10.1136/tc.2006.019638

Cited by 43 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We found that some people attribute a health benefit to cigarettes labelled as ‘natural’, ‘organic’, or ‘additive-free’, a finding also noted in previous studies 11–15. Additionally, the scepticism and confusion we encountered about cigarettes with these descriptors were similar to findings from documents of tobacco industry FGs 15. This study adds numerous possible reasons disclaimers do not fully negate the impact of cigarette descriptors.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Adolescents’ and adults’ perceptions of ‘natural’, ‘organic’ and ‘additive-free’ cigarettes, and the required disclaimers

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives We sought to investigate adolescents’ and adults’ perceptions of an American Spirit advertisement with “natural,” “organic,” and “additive-free” descriptors and related disclaimers. Methods We conducted 9 focus group discussions in the Southern US, with 59 participants ages 13 to 64 (30 male, 29 female), stratified by age, smoking status, and susceptibility to smoking. We conducted thematic content analysis of the transcripts. Results Many participants were skeptical or confused about the “natural,” “organic,” and “additive-free” descriptors. Many participants viewed American Spirit cigarettes as being less harmful or possibly less harmful than other cigarettes, even though the ad contained disclaimers explicitly stating that these cigarettes are not safer. Some participants said that people tend to ignore disclaimers, a few expressed doubt that the disclaimers were fully true, and others did not notice the disclaimers. A few smokers said they smoke American Spirit cigarettes because they think they are not as bad for them as other cigarettes. Conclusions Disclaimers intended to prevent consumers from attributing a health benefit to cigarettes labeled as “natural,” “additive-free,” or “organic” may be insufficient. A ban on these descriptors may be a more appropriate remedy than disclaimers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Adolescents’ and adults’ perceptions of ‘natural’, ‘organic’ and ‘additive-free’ cigarettes, and the required disclaimers

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The tobacco industry has invested heavily in promoting ‘additive-free’ cigarettes 29. We speculate that exposure to this advertising may have contributed to the finding that people believe added chemicals, not chemicals inherent to the tobacco leaf and burning of cigarettes, are responsible for cigarettes' toxicity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Public understanding of cigarette smoke constituents: three US surveys

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction The Tobacco Control Act requires public disclosure of information about toxic constituents in cigarette smoke. To inform these efforts, we studied public understanding of cigarette smoke constituents. Methods We conducted phone surveys with national probability samples of adolescents (n=1125) and adults (n=5014) and an internet survey with a convenience sample of adults (n=4137), all in the USA. We assessed understanding of cigarette smoke constituents in general and of 24 specific constituents. Results Respondents commonly and incorrectly believed that harmful chemicals in cigarette smoke mostly originate in additives introduced by cigarette manufacturers (43–72%). Almost all participants had heard that nicotine is in cigarette smoke, and many had also heard about carbon monoxide, ammonia, arsenic and formaldehyde. Less than one-quarter had heard of most other listed constituents being in cigarette smoke. Constituents most likely to discourage respondents from wanting to smoke were ammonia, arsenic, formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide, lead and uranium. Respondents more often reported being discouraged by constituents that they had heard are in cigarette smoke (all p<0.05). Constituents with names that started with a number or ended in ‘ene’ or ‘ine’ were less likely to discourage people from wanting to smoke (all p<0.05). Discussion Many people were unaware that burning the cigarette is the primary source of toxic constituents in cigarette smoke. Constituents that may most discourage cigarette smoking have familiar names, like arsenic and formaldehyde and do not start with a number or end in ene/ine. Our findings may help campaign designers develop constituent messages that discourage smoking.

show abstract

“…PMI is using the same playbook in marketing IQOS around the world by promoting IQOS as sophisticated and aspirational, 7 emphasising the themes of cleanliness, customisation and sociability 6 . Based on what we have learnt from marketing of light cigarettes and natural tobacco, 42 – 44 as well as the results of PMI’s own research, it is likely that these claims will also be understood by consumers as reduced risk claims 34 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Light and mild redux: heated tobacco products’ reduced exposure claims are likely to be misunderstood as reduced risk claims

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Heated tobacco products (HTPs) are being marketed in several countries around the world with claims that they are less harmful than combusted cigarettes, based on assertions that they expose users to lower levels of toxicants. In the USA, Philip Morris International (PMI) has submitted an application to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2016 seeking authorisation to market its HTPs, IQOS, with reduced risk and reduced exposure claims. Methods We examined the PMI’s Perception and Behavior Assessment Studies evaluating perceptions of reduced risk claims that were submitted to the FDA and made publicly available. Results Qualitative and quantitative studies conducted by PMI demonstrate that adult consumers in the USA perceive reduced exposure claims as reduced risk claims. Conclusion The data in the PMI modified risk tobacco product IQOS application do not support reduced risk claims and the reduced exposure claims are perceived as reduced risk claims, which is explicitly prohibited by the FDA. Allowing PMI to promote IQOS as reduced exposure would amount to a legally sanctioned repeat of the ‘light’ and ‘mild’ fraud which, for conventional cigarettes, is prohibited by the US law and the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

show abstract

“I always thought they were all pure tobacco”: American smokers’ perceptions of “natural” cigarettes and tobacco industry advertising strategies

Cited by 43 publications

References 35 publications

Adolescents’ and adults’ perceptions of ‘natural’, ‘organic’ and ‘additive-free’ cigarettes, and the required disclaimers

Adolescents’ and adults’ perceptions of ‘natural’, ‘organic’ and ‘additive-free’ cigarettes, and the required disclaimers

Public understanding of cigarette smoke constituents: three US surveys

Light and mild redux: heated tobacco products’ reduced exposure claims are likely to be misunderstood as reduced risk claims

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About