Professor Joel Cohen Co-Authors

ARBITRATION UNDER THE

RULES OF THE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE

FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES

PHILIP MORRIS BRANDS SÀRL PHILIP MORRIS PRODUCTS S.A.

AND ABAL HERMANOS S.A.

ORIENTAL REPUBLIC OF URUGUAY,

ICSID CASE NO. ARB/10/7

THE SINGLE PRESENTATION REQUIREMENT: OVERCOMING THE ILLUSION OF A LESS HAZARDOUS CIGARETTE

Principal Author: Professor Joel Cohen

Co-Authors: Professor Timothy Dewhirst & Professor David Hammond

19 September 2014 Table of Contents

Page

I. Executive Summary ...... 1

II. Author Qualifications...... 5

A. Principal Author: Joel B. Cohen ...... 5

B. Co-Author: Timothy Dewhirst ...... 9

C. Co-Author: David Hammond ...... 12

III. The Marketing of Health Reassurance: The Tobacco Industry’s Two Prong Strategy .... 17

A. Prong One: Denying Evidence of Health Consequences and Addiction ...... 19

1. Health Concerns Emerge and are Undermined ...... 19

2. Addiction Denied ...... 22

B. Prong Two: Deceiving Health-conscious Consumers Via Health Reassurance Cigarettes ...... 24

1. Why “Lower Tar” Cigarettes are Not Lower in Tar: The Consequence of Compensation ...... 29

2. The Tobacco Companies’ Deceptive Marketing of “Perceived” Health Reassurance Brands ...... 33

3. Lower Delivery Cigarettes Misleadingly Communicate Lower Harm ...... 36

C. The Marketing of Health Reassurance in Uruguay...... 38

IV. Why the Tobacco Industry’s Health Reassurance Strategy Was So Effective: The Smokers’ Psychology...... 41

A. The Decision to Choose a “Healthier” Alternative ...... 42

B. Experiencing and Reducing Cognitive Dissonance ...... 48

V. The Single Presentation Requirement and the Psychology of Choice ...... 54

A. Uruguay’s Ban on Descriptors ...... 55

1. Misleading Marketing Tactics Not Addressed by the Descriptor Ban ...... 57

B. Uruguay’s Ban on Brand Extensions ...... 72

1. The Industry’s Strategy: Using Brand Extensions to Position Health Reassurance Brands ...... 72

2. The Consumer’s Response: The Effect of Anchoring ...... 77

VI. Conclusion ...... 86

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Uruguay’s implementation of a “single presentation” requirement prohibits tobacco

companies from extending their brands to market multiple sub-brands, referred to as brand variants, within the same brand family. This policy, together with other aspects of Uruguay’s tobacco control regimen, should be understood in the context of the tobacco industry’s decades long campaign to undermine health authorities’ efforts to inform people that smoking causes serious diseases and, in particular, their efforts to respond to the industry’s promotion of “health reassurance” cigarettes as a response to the public’s increasing awareness of cigarettes’ deadly health consequences.

2. This report begins by providing an overview of the tobacco industry’s two-prong

marketing strategy for convincing consumers to smoke despite its serious health consequences.

The first prong of this strategy involved disputing and denying evidence that smoking is a causal

factor in cancer and other diseases. The second prong entailed the development and marketing of

filtered and later low tar cigarettes that provided the illusion of reduced harm, an illusion that

lacked any substantive basis and which was intended to provide concerned smokers with “health

reassurance” so that they would keep buying and smoking cigarettes. The tobacco companies

marketed “health reassurance” brands that appeared to have lower tar and nicotine yields while

allowing smokers to ingest significantly more of these substances and kept health authorities and

regulators in the dark regarding how they managed to defeat the protocol for measuring tar in

cigarettes. These strategies were conducted without regard to the fact that the tobacco companies

knew that their efforts to deny and distort the evidence, both about the health consequences of

smoking and about addiction, were without merit. The report explains the steps taken by the

tobacco industry to enhance consumers’ perception of these as less allegedly hazardous

cigarettes such as by the use of misleading descriptors and packaging design.

3. Section IV of the report continues to examine the smoker’s decision to choose a

seemingly healthier cigarette from a psychological perspective. It explains how the presence of a

cigarette thought to provide highly desired health benefits influences purchase decisions, and is

more likely to mislead consumers into switching to such an alternative than attempting to quit

smoking. The marketing tactics that accompanied the development of “lower tar” cigarettes were

particularly harmful to addicted smokers and those who had difficulty quitting, where their

feelings of guilt and cognitive dissonance led them to be particularly susceptible to the health

reassurance message. Consistent with previous research in consumer psychology, the tobacco

industry’s promotion of “lower tar” cigarettes functions as a putative “remedy” by offering the

false promise of a pathway for smokers to avoid serious health problems and reducing health

concerns that would otherwise limit smoking initiation. In fact, these health reassurance brand

variants are likely to be an even worse calamity, as confirmed by the U.S. Surgeon General,

lower tar cigarettes may be more harmful than regular cigarettes, something suggested in an

internal tobacco industry document as early as 1972.

4. In Section V, the report examines steps taken by Uruguayan regulatory authorities to

respond to the tobacco industry’s attempts to promote the illusion of health reassurance

cigarettes. These measures include a ban on misleading descriptors, such as “light” and “mild.”

This led to the tobacco industry’s development of package designs and replacement descriptors

that are intended to circumvent the misleading descriptor ban by communicating to consumers that certain versions of a brand are safer than others. The effect was to limit the public health

impact of Uruguay’s prohibition on misleading descriptors, thus requiring additional regulation

to address the problem.

5. As a result, Uruguay took the further regulatory measure to prohibit brand

extensions/multiple brand variants. The cigarette industry uses such brand extensions as a way of

positioning and distinguishing health reassurance offerings from the parent brand. In Uruguay,

Philip Morris’ Marlboro Red is the parent brand of the Marlboro brand family, which it uses as

an anchor on a health concerns continuum. Parent brands, like Marlboro Red, were often the

brand’s original “full flavor” mainstay, and are strongly associated with high levels of tar and

nicotine. In this positioning, brand variants are distanced from the parent brand and each other

along this continuum of lower tar brand variants. Philip Morris, for example, has acknowledged

creating tar reassurance positioning using combinations of color and packaging within a brand

family.

6. Extensive research on anchoring shows that the presence of an anchor brand against

which brand variants can be compared (either physically or in people’s minds) leads to

distortions in perception and judgment. As one of the Claimants’ experts has pointed out

elsewhere, even a wolf will be seen as less ferocious when contrasted against a tiger, and the

presence of fried cheese bites as an anchor leads people to judge a cheeseburger as a more

healthy option because it benefits from a contrast effect. In this case, brand variants such as

Marlboro “Blue” and “Gold” are contrasted against the parent brand/anchor Marlboro “Red” and

are incorrectly seen as lower risk products. It is well-established that smokers assess not only relative tar levels but smoking risks using comparative criteria rather than the specific tar level information. Accordingly, the presence of a full flavor/higher tar parent brand together with its brand variants (positioned to be at lower risk on a health continuum) strongly promotes

3 increased, and false, health reassurance due to contrast-based distortions in perception and judgment.

7. The report concludes by explaining that Uruguay’s requirement of a single presentation for a given brand is reasonable in light of the importance of the parent brand as an anchor and the availability of brand variants that have historically been positioned against that brand on a health concerns continuum.

II. AUTHOR QUALIFICATIONS

A. Principal Author: Joel B. Cohen

8. I am Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus at the University of Florida, where I previously served as Distinguished Service Professor of Marketing and Adjunct Professor of

Anthropology, from 1988-2008. I served as chairman of the Marketing Department at the

University of Florida from 1974 until 1983 and created the Center for Consumer Research in

1975. From 1972-1974, I was Vice President and Director of Social Science Research at

National Analysts, a major survey research organization which became part of Booz, Allen &

Hamilton. Prior to that, I was a tenured member of the marketing faculty at the University of

Illinois.

9. I am a past president of the Association for Consumer Research and a member of the

American Psychological Association and the American Marketing Association. I was the editor of the Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, the American Marketing Association’s primary outlet for research and policy on regulation and consumer protection, from 2002 to 2006, as well as a member of the editorial board of the Journal of Consumer Research for over 30 years. I am currently a member of the editorial board of the Journal of Consumer Psychology as well as a peer reviewer for both Psychological Bulletin and Addictive Behaviors.

10. I have chaired or co-chaired 15 doctoral dissertations of students who have been members of the faculty at leading universities including Columbia, the University of

Pennsylvania, the University of California, UCLA, Ohio State, McGill, Rochester, Penn State,

Georgia, and Florida. In 1981, I received the Exxon Award from the American Assembly of

Collegiate Schools of Business, “For Educational Innovation in Graduate Education for Business

Administration and Management.”

11. My publications include a number of invited chapters including those in the Annual

Review of Psychology, The Handbook of Consumer Behavior, The Handbook of Consumer

Psychology, Affect and Social Behavior, Do Emotions Help or Hurt Decision Making? and

Social Marketing: Theoretical and Practical Perspectives. My research on psychological processes in attitude formation and judgment, cognitive dissonance, affect, personality, and interpersonal influences appear in a number of journals including the Journal of Consumer

Research, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, Journal of Applied Psychology, Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, as well as a number of edited volumes. My work on attitude formation and the relationship between attitudes and behavior was presented with the 2009 best paper award by the Journal of Consumer Research.

12. I have had active involvement in several public policy arenas including consumer protection, deceptive and misleading advertising, and the examination of cigarette industry marketing and advertising practices. I have served as a consultant on advertising, marketing and research design to the Federal Trade Commission on numerous occasions since 1972, participating in more than twelve regulatory actions. In the course of that work and the other professional activities listed above, I have reviewed hundreds of marketing and advertising plans and studies. I have also served as a consultant to the National Academy of Sciences Panel on the

Impact of Drug Use and Misuse and advised the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and

Alcoholism on mass media approaches to alcohol abuse prevention. My articles on these public

6 policy issues have appeared in the American Journal of Public Health, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing and a number of edited volumes.

13. In addition to my professional qualifications within the fields of marketing, psychology and consumer research, I have extensive knowledge of the cigarette industry, partially through my involvement in a number of FTC activities. For example, I served as the

FTC’s expert on marketing, advertising and consumer behavior in its investigation and case against R.J. Reynolds for its so called, “Joe Camel” campaign. After that case was terminated by the FTC (when it judged the newly signed agreement between the cigarette industry and state attorneys general to have achieved the same regulatory objectives), I summarized the results of my investigation in: “Playing to Win: Marketing and Public Policy at Odds Over ‘Joe Camel’,”

Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Fall 2000), pp. 155-167.

14. I also served as the principal witness on cigarette marketing and advertising and consumer behavior for the plaintiff in the case of Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504

(1992) and, on several occasions, assisted the Canadian government in evaluating and developing evidence pertaining to advertising effects, as well as the advertising and promotion practices of the Canadian cigarette industry, and consumers’ perceptions and beliefs concerning

“light” and “mild” cigarettes. I have testified at trial as an expert witness in the Miles/Price v.

Philip Morris case in Illinois state court and the Craft v. Philip Morris case in Missouri state court, and have provided reports and deposition testimony as an expert witness in a number of other cases, several dealing specifically with “Light” cigarettes. On behalf of the President’s

Cancer Panel, I carried out a national probability study of smokers’ understanding of advertised tar numbers, culminating in the American Journal of Public Health lead article, “Smokers’ knowledge and understanding of FTC tar numbers: Health policy implications,” published in

1996. This article is referred to in several chapters of the National Cancer Institute’s Smoking

and Tobacco Control Monograph 13: Risks Associated with Smoking Cigarettes with Low

Machine-Measured Yields of Tar and Nicotine, for which I also served as peer reviewer. My

previous work on cigarette marketing and advertising issues is also reflected in my report to the

Federal Trade Commission on information processing issues involved in communicating

cigarette warning information to smokers and subsequent invited testimony to the U.S. Senate

Commerce Committee and the U.S. House of Representatives (“The Protect Our Children from

Cigarettes” Act of 1989). I also served as a peer reviewer for a number of government-sponsored reports on smoking starting with the 1989 Surgeon General’s Report. Finally, I have been a consultant to the National Association of Attorneys General in their continuing scrutiny of advertising claims that may imply health advantages.

15. I have written a number of other articles relating to cigarettes, including the following:

“Charting a Public Policy Agenda for Cigarettes,” in P.E. Murphy and W.L. Wilkie (eds.), The Future of Marketing and Advertising Regulation: The Federal Trade Commission in the 1990s (University of Notre Dame Press, 1990), pp 234-254;

“The Dangers of Advertising Low Tar Cigarettes: Let’s Understand what Consumers Understand,” in M.E. Goldberg, M. Fishbein and S.E. Middlestadt (eds.), Social Marketing: Theoretical and Practical Perspectives (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997);

“Smokers’ Knowledge and Understanding of Advertised Tar Numbers: Health Policy Implications,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 86, No 1 (January 1996);

“Counting Advertising Assertions to Assess Regulatory Policy: When it Doesn’t Add Up,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 8 (1989), pp. 24-29;

“Research and Policy Issues in Ringold and Calfee’s Treatment of Cigarette Health Claims,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 11, No. 1 (May 1992);

“Information Processing issues Involved in the Communication and Retrieval of Cigarette Warning Information” (with Thomas K. Srull), Federal Trade Commission (1980);

“How Cigarette Advertising Affects Consumer Behavior,” in Tobacco Issues: Part I, pp. 187-1 99, U.S. Government Printing Office (Technical Report to Accompany Testimony) (1989).

16. My curriculum vitae more fully reflects my academic qualifications and research

activities as well my studies of the cigarette industry.

B. Co-Author: Timothy Dewhirst

17. I am currently an Associate Professor (tenured) in the Department of Marketing and

Consumer Studies at the University of Guelph in Canada. I am in my twelfth year as a faculty

member, having been at the University of Saskatchewan’s Edwards School of Business for four

years (2003-2007), serving as a visiting Associate Professor in the Faculty of Medicine at the

University of California, San Francisco during 2004 (as a Canada-U.S. Fulbright Scholar), and

serving as a visiting scholar in the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Sydney in Australia

during 2013. I have been at the University of Guelph since 2007. I have taught courses pertaining

to basic principles of marketing, marketing and society, sports, arts and entertainment marketing,

and marketing communications at the undergraduate level, as well as research methods and marketing theory at the graduate level.

18. I attained my Ph.D. in Interdisciplinary Studies from the University of British

Columbia, with the marketing division of the Sauder School of Business serving as my home department. My Ph.D. dissertation examined Canadian tobacco industry practices that were responses to federal advertising regulations, with a specific focus on the role of sponsorship- linked marketing. I attained my M.A. from Queen’s University, and my M.A. thesis was a policy

analysis of Canadian federal legislation, the Tobacco Products Control Act, which was

implemented in 1988. I have been doing research, regarding tobacco marketing and public policy

subject matter, for more than 20 years.

19. Much of my research has analyzed internal tobacco industry documents, made public from litigation, to provide summary evidence of the marketing and research agendas of various tobacco firms. My research has pertained to topics such as brand strategy, market segmentation,

new product development, and advertising and promotion strategies, including public relations,

event sponsorship, and retail merchandising. The reviews of internal corporate documents have

often been supplemented with analyzing marketing communication efforts, in which semiotics

and content analysis have commonly been used as methodological approaches.

20. Perhaps my most recognized research to date relates to manuscripts, in collaboration

with Dr. Richard W. Pollay, that have revealed the deceptiveness of tobacco industry advertising

for reduced-yield products (i.e., so-called “Light” cigarettes). A few years ago, all authors

published in Tobacco Control since 2001 – as well as the journal’s advisory board and its senior

editors – were invited to nominate the most important and influential papers on tobacco control.

For the category, “Tobacco Advertising, Promotion, PR and Packaging,” our co-authored

publication entitled, “The Dark Side of Marketing Seemingly ‘Light’ Cigarettes: Successful

Images and Failed Fact,” was ranked in the top ten. Our paper has also been one of the most

cited articles from Tobacco Control; for example, during 2007, the article was identified as one

of the top ten in terms of citations. During 2011, the article was identified as one of the top ten in

terms of online access.

21. I have been an invited author for two U.S. National Cancer Institute monographs pertaining to tobacco advertising. The first contribution (Monograph No. 13) pertained to reviewing internal corporate documents and revealing the deceptiveness of tobacco industry advertising for reduced-yield products, and demonstrating that many consumers perceive filtered and low-tar delivery products as safer alternatives to regular cigarettes. Stemming from this work, I was asked in 2006 to speak to New Zealand parliamentary members and their Commerce

Commission about “light” and “mild” as (misleading) cigarette product descriptors. For the second contribution (Monograph No. 19), I was asked to write about tobacco advertising and promotion from a historical and theoretical standpoint as well as provide possible rationales for regulation. Based on my research and expertise, I have served as an invited consultant for the

Attorney General’s Office in the state of California, Health Canada, as well as the World Health

Organization (WHO), in which I was named as an expert for the elaboration of a template for a protocol on cross-border advertising, promotion, and sponsorship regarding Article 13 guidelines of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

22. I have served as a marketing expert in tobacco litigation in both Canada and the

United States. I prepared an expert report entitled, “Principles of Marketing and the Influence of

Promotion and Retail Merchandising on Tobacco Consumption” for the Government of Alberta and the Government of Nova Scotia, as policies regarding the display and advertisement of tobacco products were challenged in those jurisdictions on constitutional grounds. I provided expert testimony and the legislation was fully upheld in both cases. In the U.S., I have served as a marketing expert for the plaintiff’s counsel in tobacco litigation for multiple cases.

23. I am an Associate Editor for the journal Tobacco Control for manuscript submissions relating to “Product Marketing and Promotion.” I also serve on the editorial review board for the

Journal of Public Policy and Marketing. I review manuscripts for a variety of journals concerning the fields of marketing, advertising, public health, and public policy. I have been awarded a certificate of appreciation from Tobacco Control for providing the journal with reviews that are judged to be among the best they receive, as well from the Canadian Journal of

Public Health indicating that my reviews have been given the highest possible rating.

24. Additional advisory and service initiatives include serving as an expert consultant for the Institute for Global Tobacco Control, at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public

Health, for a tobacco product and packaging surveillance initiative in 14 Bloomberg initiative countries. I was also designated as an international tobacco control expert by the Australian

National Preventive Health Agency (an Australian Government agency) to generate a priority- driven research agenda for tobacco control. My qualifications are further detailed in my attached

Curriculum Vitae.

C. Co-Author: David Hammond

25. I am an Associate Professor (tenured) in the School of Public Health & Health

Systems at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada. I received my B.A. from the

University of British Columbia (Canada) and my M.Sc. and Ph.D. from the University of

Waterloo (Canada). In addition, I have served since 2005 as an Affiliated Scientist at the Propel

Centre for Population Health Impact (funded by the Canadian Cancer Society).

26. I serve on several prominent committees that help to steer cancer prevention and public health research in Canada, including the Prevention & Risk Reduction Committee for the

Canadian Cancer Society, as well as the Council on Mission for the Heart & Stroke Foundation of Canada. I also serve as Co-Chair of the Policy Committee for the Society for Research on

Nicotine & Tobacco—the leading scientific organization in the area of tobacco control. One

important function of this role is to coordinate submissions to the US Food & Drug

Administration “dockets,” which constitutes the evidence base relied on by the FDA when

drafting new regulations. I am an Assistant Editor of the journal Tobacco Control. I also serve on

the scientific team for the NIH/FDA funded Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health

(PATH) Study, which is one of the largest studies ever conducted to assess tobacco use and its

consequences.

27. I have served as an Advisor to the World Health Organization (WHO) for tobacco

packaging regulations under the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). In

this capacity, I had the opportunity to draft treaty guidelines that now influence regulatory

practice in countries throughout the world.1 I have also represented civil society in the FCTC

Working Group on tobacco product testing and regulations, which is tasked with establishing testing and regulatory guidelines for the 178 Parties that have ratified the treaty.2 I have also

served as a consultant on tobacco control regulations for a number of countries, including for

Health Canada, the UK Department of Health, the Commonwealth of Australia, the U.S. Centers

for Disease Control, the European Commission, and others. To date, my research has been cited

in regulatory reviews and consultation papers from over a dozen countries.3 For example, I

recently testified to the European Parliament on the development of the new tobacco products

1 World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), Guidelines for implementation of Articles 11: Guidelines on packaging and labelling of tobacco products. Available at: http://www.who.int/fctc/guidelines/adopted/article 11/en/. 2 World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), Guidelines for implementation of Articles 9 & 10: Regulation of the content of tobacco products and regulation of tobacco product disclosures. Available at: http://www.who.int/fctc/guidelines/adopted/article 9and10/en/. 3 E.g., World Health Organization, Sources used for the development of the guidelines for implementation of Article 11 of WHO FCTC: Reference material. Available at: http://www.who.int/fctc/guidelines/adopted/eleven/en/index.html.

directive, which established regulations for tobacco products in all 27 member states.4 Other recent examples include reports I prepared at the request of the government of Ireland and the

UK Department of Health.

28. I have published more than 140 peer-reviewed journal articles, including as lead author in journals such as The Lancet, the Canadian Medical Association Journal, and the

American Journal of Public Health. According to a recent review, my publications place me in the top 10 most-published authors in the field of tobacco control over the past 50 years.5 I have

also contributed to high-profile works for leading international health agencies. These include

chapters in a US Surgeon General’s Report, and monographs for the International Agency for

Research on Cancer (IARC), the World Health Organization, and the Institute of Medicine

(IOM).6,7,8 ,9

4 European Commission, Revision of the Tobacco Products Directive. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/health/tobacco/products/revision/index en.htm.

5 Kusma, B., et al., Tobacco Control: Visualisation of Research Activity Using Density-Equalizing Mapping and Scientometric Benchmarking Procedures, 6 Int J Environ Res Public Health (2009), pp. 1856-1869.

6 The Tobacco Industry’s Influences on the Use of Tobacco Among Youth and Young Adults (Contributing Author) in: Preventing tobacco use among youth and young adults: A report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health (2012);

7 World Health Organization and International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease, Warn about the dangers of tobacco: Packaging and labelling of tobacco products, Facilitators’ Guide. Available at: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789241501354 TP2 facilitators guide eng.pdf;

8 International Agency for Research on Cancer, Measures to assess the effectiveness of restrictions on tobacco product labelling policies in: IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention, Tobacco Control, Volume 12: Methods for Evaluating Tobacco Control Policies (Lyon, France; 2008); and

9 Institute of Medicine, Reducing Tobacco-Related Cancer Incidence and Mortality - Workshop Summary (Contributing author) (November 2012).

29. To date, I have been an Investigator on 50 research grants and contracts, totaling

more than $60 million. In the past five years, I have received grants as a Principal Investigator

from CIHR (three separate operating grants), the US National Institutes of Health (an RO1

grant), the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, and Health Canada. Currently, I hold

more than $37 million in active grant funding as Principal or Co-investigator, including more

than $5 million as Principal Investigator or Co-Principal Investigator.

30. My work has been recognized by several awards, including the Canadian Medical

Association Journal’s Top Canadian Achievements in Health Research Awards in 2009, for my work with Dr. Geoffrey Fong and Dr. Mary Thompson on the International Tobacco Control project, which consists of cohort studies in 20 low, middle and high income countries. I have also received the William E. Rawls Prize from the Canadian Cancer Society for important advances in cancer control, as well as the Lise Manchester award from the Royal Statistical

Society of Canada for statistical methods to study matters of relevance to society. I have also received prestigious awards from the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco—the leading society within my area of research— as well as Canada’s Premier Young Researcher

Award, from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. I currently hold the Applied Chair in

Public Health from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

31. Over the past three years, I have conducted more than 100 media interviews related to

my research program. Coverage of my work has been featured in international media outlets,

such as the New York Times, CNN, the BBC, China Daily, and others. For example, my Lancet

15 paper was covered in more than 20 countries and featured in high-profile publications such as

The Economist.

32. My research in the area of tobacco use involves collaborations with experts from a range of disciplines in over 20 different countries, including low and middle income countries. In

the course of my scholarly research, teaching, and consulting work, I have conducted research

on, among other things, cigarette packaging, smoking behaviour, compensation, product design,

cigarette emission testing, smoking cessation, and risk communication. My professional qualifications are described further in my curriculum vitae, attached at the end of this report.

III. THE MARKETING OF HEALTH REASSURANCE: THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY’S TWO PRONG STRATEGY

33. When the public began to be exposed to an increasing amount of publicity regarding

more serious health hazards related to smoking (not merely throat irritation and coughing) in the

early 1950s, the cigarette industry began to engage in a calculated strategy designed to counter

these emerging concerns. The industry, essentially, adopted a two-pronged strategy: first,

disputing and denying that the evidence was sufficient to conclude that smoking was addictive or

caused cancer and other diseases; and second, targeting the ever-increasing number of health- conscious consumers by convincing smokers and potential smokers that these harms could be avoided or lessened by smoking certain cigarettes.

34. The initial step of the second prong -- the product development and marketing campaigns -- focused on convincing the public that filtered cigarettes removed potentially harmful compounds. A subsequent step focused on the development and marketing of cigarettes that supposedly delivered lower amounts of tar and nicotine (referred to within the industry as

“health reassurance brands”). The development of lower-tar cigarettes, or “Light”/”Mild” cigarettes, was thus a continuation of the marketing of health reassurance or “health-oriented” cigarettes that the industry used in a cynical attempt to retain existing smokers (who otherwise might have quit smoking) as well as to attract new smokers.

35. This report will review that strategy with a particular focus on the second prong -- the use of “health reassurance brands.” It will look at both industry conduct (with special emphasis on the behavior of Philip Morris) and the reasons why the inventive mix of strategies employed were successful. The report concludes by explaining why the simultaneous marketing of an original (parent) brand and brand sub-variants positioned to be lower in tar and nicotine deceives

consumers into thinking that the latter is in fact less hazardous. Accordingly, an analysis of the

evidence regarding the tobacco companies’ practices as well as marketing and consumer

behavior theory demonstrates that denying a cigarette company the ability to go beyond a single

presentation (and to market multiple brands within the same brand family), such as the regulation

adopted by Uruguayan authorities, is a reasonable regulatory strategy.

36. The reasonableness of Uruguay’s regulatory approach follows directly from

conclusions reached after the most detailed judicial examination of cigarette industry conduct

relating to its marketing of health reassurance brands in the United States, which reflected the

industry’s strategy in countries across the globe. After reviewing several hundred thousand pages

of evidence regarding the tobacco companies’ actions in United States of America versus Philip

Morris USA et al, Judge Gladys Kessler, of the United States Court for the District of Colombia, determined in her comprehensive (1,700 pages long) final opinion in that case:

“As part of a scheme to intercept potential quitters and dissuade them from giving up smoking, Defendants developed and introduced filtered and purportedly ‘low tar and nicotine’ cigarettes. As their internal documents reveal, Defendants engaged in massive, sustained, and highly sophisticated marketing and promotional campaigns to portray their light brands as less harmful than regular cigarettes, and thus an acceptable alternative to quitting, while at the same time carefully avoiding any admission that their full-flavor cigarettes were harmful to smokers’ health. Defendants knew that by providing worried smokers with health reassurance, they could keep them buying and smoking cigarettes.”10

10 United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., Amended Final Opinion, Case No. 99-2496 (GK) (D.D.C. 2006), pp. 1514-1515 (emphasis added) (RL-171); Tobacco Control Legal Consortium, The Verdict Is In: Findings from United States v. Philip Morris, Light Cigarettes (2006) (RL-79).

A. Prong One: Denying Evidence of Health Consequences and Addiction

1. Health Concerns Emerge and are Undermined

37. As the public became increasingly aware of the mounting scientific evidence that

smoking cigarettes caused deadly diseases, the tobacco industry launched a campaign of denial

and obfuscation. In this way, the tobacco industry sought to convince the public that the evidence was flawed and that considerable doubt remained. This disinformation campaign took place on several levels. Beginning in 1954, the tobacco companies, including Philip Morris, created the

Tobacco Industry Research Committee, which was later renamed the Council for Tobacco

Research, as well as the Tobacco Institute in 1958. The tobacco industry heralded the formation of the Tobacco Industry Research Committee by publishing a full page ad, “A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers” in leading newspapers throughout the United States. The ad emphasized a lack of agreement among authorities regarding a link between cigarette smoking and cancer and stated “we believe the products we make are not injurious to health.”11 The ad went on to

describe the Tobacco Industry Research Committee, which was to be headed by “a scientist of

unimpeachable integrity” and composed of “a group of distinguished men from medicine,

science and education” that were said to be “disinterested in the cigarette industry.”12

38. The industry trade associations then published “studies” and issued press releases

disputing the fact that cigarettes cause disease or that cigarettes are harmful to health, including

issuing direct attacks not only on the Surgeon General (whose 1964 report presented the

scientific consensus and evidence that smoking was linked to serious diseases including cancer

and heart disease), but any scientist who said there is a causal connection with cigarettes and

11 Tobacco Industry Research Committee, A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers (1954), Bates No. 86017454 (JC-002). 12 Ibid.

disease.13 As described in a Tobacco Institute document highlighting the industry’s strategy of

attempting to forestall effective tobacco regulation through litigation, politics, and public

opinion:

“For nearly twenty years, this industry has employed a single strategy to defend itself on three major fronts - litigation, politics, and public opinion.

While the strategy was brilliantly conceived and executed over the years helping us win important battles, it is only fair to say that it is not – nor was it intended to be – a vehicle for victory. On the contrary, it has always been a holding strategy, consisting of

– creating doubt about the health charge without actually denying it

– advocating the public’s right to smoke, without actually urging them to take up the practice

– encouraging objective scientific research as the only way to resolve the question of health hazard.”14

39. While public statements by tobacco company officials as well as the Tobacco

Institute denied and often ridiculed the scientific evidence that cigarette smoking was a health hazard, company strategic planning documents as well as internal reports from company scientists that began to appear in the 1950s attest to their understanding of the effect of health concerns on cigarette smoking. At the same time that Philip Morris was publicly claiming that no

link to cancer or other diseases had been shown to exist (and even prior to the 1964 Surgeon

General’s report), a July 1958 memorandum written by C. Mace, head of research for Philip

Morris, stated that “the evidence . . . is building up that heavy cigarette smoking contributes to

13 See e.g. Tobacco Industry Research Committee, Statement from the Tobacco Institute (1972), Bates No. 1005099232 (“The Surgeon General’s Statement that ‘there is no honest disagreement’ among experts on effects of smoking is false. It is a gross insult to the scientific community. It ignores the work of researchers cited in his own report. It ignores the work of researchers which is misrepresented in his own report. It ignores the work of researchers which is inexplicably absent from his own report.”) (JC-020). 14 Panzer, F., Memorandum re the Roper Proposal (1 May 1972), Bates No. 3990078026-8029, p. 3990078026 (JC-024).

20 lung cancer either alone or in association with physical and physiological factors.”15 Though the industry publicly castigated the 1964 Surgeon General’s report, Philip Morris senior scientist,

Helmut Wakeham, admitted that there was “little basis for disputing the findings [of the 1964

Surgeon General’s Report] at this time.”16 Later, Wakeham informed Philip Morris executives that “[n]ow we have a study of the effect of smoking in pregnancy which supports previous conclusions that smoking mothers produce smaller babies,” and that the medical field recognized that “smaller babies suffer detrimental effects all through life,” including “lower intelligence test scores at age 10.”17 However, Philip Morris continued to maintain – for another thirty-five years

– its public position that the causal link between smoking and health was an open question.

40. Philip Morris was an industry leader in exploring the biological activity of tobacco smoke which leads to cancer and other illnesses. Peter Luchsinger, the director of their “Project

6900” (in which monkeys were forced to inhale smoke and were found to have a higher rate of emphysema than a control group), as early as 1966, noted that “cigarettes will most likely be implicated as one of the causative agents in these diseases [emphysema and bronchitis].”18 A

May 1967 report on “Project 6900” concluded that filtered smoke was “no less tumorigenic than nonfiltered smoke.”19

15 Mace, C., Memorandum re Brief comments on a program to produce a low delivery filter cigarette with flavor (24 July 1958), Bates No. 1000305086-5087, p. 1000305086 (JC-003). 16 Wakeman, H., Memorandum re Smoking and Health, Significance of the Report of the Surgeon General’s Committee to Philip Morris Incorporated (18 Feb. 1964), Bates No. 1000335612-5625, p. 1000335615 (JC- 007). 17 Wakeman, H., Memorandum re Smoking and Baby Weight (10 Jan. 1969), Bates No. 1000211305 (JC-014). 18 Project 6900 Physiological Studies: Semi Annual Report, 25 Oct. 1966, Bates No. 1000341400-1414, pp. 1000341402, 1000341406 (JC-010). 19 Project 6900 Physiological Studies: Semi Annual Report, 9 May 1967, Bates No. 1000342063-2073, p. 1000342065 (JC-011).

41. After reviewing the evidence of widespread and long-standing industry efforts to deceive and hide information from the public regarding the scientific evidence linking smoking to death and illness, Judge Kessler observed in the case brought by the U.S. Department of

Justice against Philip Morris, among others:

“Defendants’ efforts to deny and distort the scientific evidence of smoking’s harms are demonstrated by not only decades of press releases, reports, booklets, newsletters, television and radio appearances, and scientific symposia and publications, but also by evidence of their concerted, efforts to attack and undermine the studies in mainstream scientific publications such as the Reports of the Surgeon General.”20

2. Addiction Denied

42. On April 15, 1994, the top executives of the seven largest American tobacco companies testified in Congress that they did not believe that cigarettes were addictive. They did this despite the fact that the U.S. Surgeon General had warned in 1988 that nicotine was as addictive as heroin and cocaine in a 618 page report that synthesized the work of more than 50 scientists and which reviewed more than 2,000 scientific articles. Yet, until they were forced to do so by adding the warning label that smoking is addictive, the cigarette industry withheld its knowledge that nicotine made smoking cigarettes addictive. The industry’s denial without question led innumerable smokers to believe they would be able to quit smoking when they chose.

43. Internal documents reveal that the tobacco industry knew far more about the addictive properties of nicotine than did scientists or government officials. Philip Morris was an industry leader in carrying out research on pharmacological effects of inhaled smoke in the late 1970s and

20 United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., Amended Final Opinion, Case No. 99-2496 (GK) (D.D.C. 2006), p. 1506 (RL-171).

1980s: its “Nicotine Program” researched nicotine’s effects on the central and peripheral nervous

systems as well as the behavioral effects of nicotine.21 Numerous additional internal documents reconfirmed that the addiction to cigarettes was both real and intense. A memorandum by the

Director of Research at British American Tobacco stated,

“We now possess a knowledge of the effects of nicotine far more extensive than exists in published scientific literature . . . for good reasons the results of Battelle’s work have been kept at a high level of secrecy.” . . . “Thus we have already greatly increased our knowledge of the manifold ways in which nicotine affects the body and, in particular, have identified and studied separately the stress resisting mechanism and the other effect on the liver which we believe is responsible for addiction.”22

44. Similarly, a memorandum from a R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. scientist observed,

“Thus a tobacco product is, in essence, a vehicle for delivery of nicotine, designed to deliver the

nicotine in a generally acceptable and attractive form . . . Our industry is then based upon design,

manufacture and sale of attractive dosage forms of nicotine and our company’s position in our

industry is determined by our ability to produce dosage forms of nicotine which have more

overall value, tangible or intangible, to the consumer than those of our competitors.”23 The

predominant industry reaction to learning about the addictive properties of nicotine was to figure

out ways of enhancing nicotine delivery, not decreasing it. Perhaps nothing so aptly characterizes

the steps this industry has taken to engage in this blatant attack on public health than the

following admissions by the companies’ themselves:

21 The Nicotine Program, Bates No. 3990467652-7656, p. 3990467652 (JC-102). 22 British American Tobacco, The Effects Of Smoking, Proposal For Further Research Contracts With Battelle (13 Feb. 1962), Bates No. 301083820-3835, pp. 301083828, 301083830, 301083835 (JC-005). 23 Teague, C., Memorandum re The nature of the tobacco business and the crucial role of nicotine therein (14 Apr. 1972), Bates No. 511241932-1941, p. 511241934 (JC-023).

“Irrespective of the ethics involved, we should develop alternative designs (that do not invite obvious criticism) which will allow the smoker to obtain significant enhanced deliveries should he so wish.”24

“Consideration of nicotine delivery necessary to achieve long term use and satisfaction by the consumer dictate that we should continue to pursue the concept of nicotine enhancement.”25

Thus, despite their knowledge of the addictive and toxic nature of nicotine, the tobacco

companies have carried out research leading to enhanced nicotine deliveries that could only have

the effect of increasing the likelihood that smokers will become addicted to the companies’

products.

B. Prong Two: Deceiving Health-conscious Consumers Via Health Reassurance Cigarettes

45. The notion that cigarette smoking might be somewhat of a health concern received public attention in the 1940s. In response tobacco companies began to advertise that some cigarettes produced less throat irritation and coughing. Many of these claims cited medical doctors and studies to make them appear more legitimate. (for example, “Entirely safe for use in the mouth.” 1952 Philip Morris ad for Chesterfield cigarettes.26) This is easily seen in the 1952

advertisement for Camel cigarettes below.27

24 BAT Company, Memorandum re R&D Views on Potential Marketing Opportunities (9 Dec. 1984), Bates No. 109869437-109869440, p. 109869437 (JC-044). 25 Schultz, F., Memorandum re 2 mg Product (22 July 1977), Bates No. 01616651-6652, p. 01616651 (JC-031). 26 See Mills, K., Tobacco Cos. Pulled ‘50s Health Ads, Associated Press (28 Apr. 1998) (JC-066). 27 RJ Reynolds, Advertisement: More Doctors Smoke CAMELS than any other cigarette! (1952), Bates No. 502598504 (JC-001)

46. In 1964, the health concerns of smokers increased with the publication of the first

Surgeon General’s report on smoking and health, which established cigarette smoking as a cause of lung cancer. As a result of the 1964 Surgeon General’s report, Philip Morris recognized that

“health impact will surely be an important, perhaps the most important, basis for competition in the industry in the next few years.”28

47. Helmut Wakeham, VP and Director of Research and Development at Philip Morris, provided a particularly comprehensive analysis in the above cited report. He described the Philip

Morris strategy of how to respond, emphasizing that they must embrace the health area aggressively as an opportunity to compete with the market leaders and specifically to:

1) “[p]rovide a substantive basis for vigorous health advertising by publication of suitable

28 See Wakeman, H., Memorandum re Smoking and Health, Significance of the Report of the Surgeon General’s Committee to Philip Morris Incorporated (18 Feb. 1964), Bates No. 1000335612-5625, p. 1000335616 (JC- 007).

25 articles in the technical literature”; 2) develop cigarettes with very low total particulate matter

(less than 10mg per cigarette); and 3) work internally, as well as through the Tobacco Institute and third parties to communicate the filter message to consumers and to “show that its products, present and prospective, are not harmful.”29

48. The industry initially responded to the perceived need to produce a health-reassurance cigarette by proclaiming the benefits of filtered cigarettes. Wakeham explained:

“The health value of filters is undersold in the report and is the industry’s best extant answer to its problem. The Tobacco Institute obviously should foster the communication of the filter message by all effective means.”30

Tobacco companies marketed “high filtration” cigarettes with the implicit claim of removing harmful elements, including tar:

“In the meantime (we say) here is our triple, or quadruple or quintuple filter, capable of removing whatever constituent of smoke is currently suspect while delivering full flavor - and incidentally - a nice jolt of nicotine.”31

The following advertisement by Philip Morris in 1960 encapsulates this strategy.

29 Ibid., pp. 1000335620, 1000335622 (JC-007). 30 See Ibid., p. 1000335622 (JC-007). 31 Yeaman, A., et al., Implications of Battelle Hippo I & II and the Griffith Filter (17 July 1963), Bates No. 2023191000-1003, p. 2023191002 (JC-006).

49. The tobacco industry then turned to developing new health reassurance brands perceived as delivering lower tar. Along with its competitors, Philip Morris devoted itself to targeting health conscious consumers with these new lines of cigarettes:

“I know this sounds like a wild program, but I’ll bet that the first company to produce a cigarette claiming a substantial reduction (say 50% less than the present Parliament and Kent) in tars and nicotine, or an ersatz cigarette whose smoke contains no tobacco tars, and with good smoking flavor, will take the market.”32

32 Mace, C., Memorandum re Brief comments on a program to produce a low delivery filter cigarette with flavor (24 July 1958), Bates No. 1000305086-5087, p. 1000305087 (JC-003).

50. This same memo shows how the two prongs of the tobacco industry’s strategy worked together. While Philip Morris was researching ideas for health targeted cigarettes, it did not want to make any public admissions that smoking was hazardous:

“Of course, we would have to be careful to infer that the reason for the change in dress was the continuing evidence linking cigarette smoking with health, and that although the evidence is not altogether irrefutable, we have decided upon this course of action in the public interest. In this way, we have protected our bridges behind us because we have not admitted there is a direct relation between smoking and health, and we are building new bridges ahead which we will need if there is a flood, but which we will not need if there is no flood.”33

51. On the contrary, the tobacco industry continued to make public statements suggesting that anti-cigarette advocates, scientists, and government officials had yet to prove that cigarettes were harmful:

“Over the years you’ve heard so many negative reports about smoking and health, and so little to challenge these reports, that you may assume the case against smoking is closed.

But this is far from the truth.

Studies which conclude that smoking causes disease have regularly ignored significant evidence to the contrary. . . .”34

52. What is clear from internal documents collected from U.S. litigation is that Philip

Morris’ focus in developing health reassurance brands was on marketing the perception of health, rather than actually developing a healthier cigarette. Two years after the Surgeon

General’s report, a 1966 Philip Morris report on the market potential for a health-image cigarette included the following conclusions:

33 Ibid., p. 1000305087 (JC-003). 34 R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Advertisement: Can we have an open debate about smoking? (1984), Bates No. 88053393 (JC-042). This was published in Better Homes and Garden, Newsweek, People, Red Book, Time, TV Guide, USA Today, U.S. News & World Report, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and the Washington Post. It was discussed in the Minnesota Trial on March 31, 1998. Minnesota v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al., Case No. C1-94-8565 (Minnesota District Court), Trial Transcript, 31 Mar. 1998, pp. 94-95 (JC-064).

“1) a large proportion of smokers are concerned about the relationship of cigarette smoking to health;…

9) the mere reduction in nicotine and TPM [total particulate matter] deliveries by conventional methods of filtration would not be a sufficient basis for launching a new cigarette, and to attempt it would be to court disaster;

10) the illusion of filtration is as important as the fact of filtration;

11) therefore, any entry should be by a radically different method of filtration but need not be any more effective.35

53. One reason for this approach was the danger that a healthier cigarette might not deliver sufficient amounts of nicotine to maintain the smoker’s habit. Philip Morris economist,

Myron Johnson’s market analysis recognized that:

“. . . any health cigarette must compromise between health implications on the one hand and flavor and nicotine on the other. . . . A cigarette that does not deliver nicotine cannot satisfy the habituated smoker and cannot lead to habituation, and would therefore almost certainly fail.”36

Thus, lower tar cigarettes proved to be a myth. Because of smokers’ needs for specific levels of

nicotine, cigarettes marketed as delivering lower levels of tar and nicotine did no such thing, as

smokers compensated for the lower nicotine levels by smoking more intensely, as described

below.

1. Why “Lower Tar” Cigarettes are Not Lower in Tar: The Consequence of Compensation

54. The tobacco industry understood early on that smoking health reassurance cigarettes

would not actually result in lower tar and nicotine delivery for two main reasons. First, filters

that provided acceptable taste to consumers were not effective. Second, smokers smoke

cigarettes in order to achieve a desired delivery of nicotine (a process referred to as

35 Johnson, M., Special Report No. 248: Market potential of a health cigarette (June 1966), Bates No. 1000338644-8669, pp. 1000338648-8649 (JC-009). 36 Ibid., p. 1000338652 (JC-009).

29 compensation), regardless of the type of cigarette smoked. This has been well understood by

Philip Morris for the past 45 years. As early as 1961, an internal Philip Morris report acknowledged “As we know, all too often the smoker who switches to a hi[gh]-fi[ltration] cigarette winds up smoking more units in order to provide himself or herself with the same delivery which he had before.”37

55. Following a tumultuous period of competing tar and nicotine claims by various tobacco companies (which became known as the “Tar Derby”) and in response to increasing concern over the effects of smoking on health, there was an effort to provide consumers with standardized and comparative tar and nicotine level information.38 In 1966 the United States

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) adopted a testing method that used a multiport smoking machine and authorized tobacco companies to rely on it. Thus, any presentation of tar and nicotine information, and claims to consumers by tobacco companies, was required to conform to tests conducted using this machine.39

56. Unfortunately, neither the FTC nor public health officials more generally realized that their assumption that the standardized testing method would permit valid comparisons between different types of cigarettes (i.e., full flavor and “health reassurance”) was incorrect because the

“health reassurance” cigarettes were engineered to deliver higher levels of nicotine and tar for smokers than indicated by their test results. For these “flexible” delivery cigarettes, smokers

37 Wakeham, H., Memorandum re Trends of Tar and Nicotine Deliveries over the last 5 Years (24 Mar. 1961), Bates No. 1000861953 (JC-004). 38 Cohen, J., Smokers’ Knowledge and Understanding of Advertised Tar Numbers: Health Policy Implications, 86(1) American Journal of Public Health (Jan. 1996), pp. 18-24 (JC-062). 39 Tobacco companies falsely used this requirement to argue that “the FTC . . . required that cigarette manufacturers disclose tar and nicotine yields” and that the FTC has condoned representations of those yields through the use of light or low tar descriptors. A United States Supreme Court ruling confirmed the fact that neither assertion was true. Altria Group, Inc. v. Good, 550 U.S. 70, 80 (2008) (JC-084).

could compensate for the lower machine-measured tar yields in order to ingest the amount of nicotine needed to satisfy their addiction, which also meant ingesting higher levels of tar. Philip

Morris and its competitors were content to market cigarettes as having lower FTC tar and nicotine yields, even though they understood that FTC yields do not translate into less tar and nicotine consumption by smokers.

57. For example, by 1969, the Board of Philip Morris knew that: “[i]t would appear that smokers do modify their smoking habits in order to maintain a preferred [nicotine] intake level.”40 As another Philip Morris research report stated in 1971 (the same year “Marlboro

Lights” were introduced to the market):

“As tar delivery decreased from that to which the smokers were accustomed (19.8 mg), cigarette consumption increased. This resulted in a tendency for the smokers’ daily intake of tar to remain constant even though the tar deliveries of the cigarettes he smoked differed markedly.”41

58. The same report recognized reverse compensation by noting that “When nicotine

increased from that to which the smokers weren’t accustomed (1.3 mg), cigarette consumption

decreased.”42 The report reached the conclusion that “the smoker does have daily intake quotas

for tar and/or nicotine; and that he titrates his smoke intake to meet his quotas.”43 Though this

study concluded that smokers maintain a constant nicotine level regardless of wide variations in

40 Philip Morris, Ryan/Dunn alternate - third version of Board presentation (1969), Bates No. 2023063286-3296, p. 2023063290 (JC-013). This conclusion was based on a study in which smokers were given cigarettes delivering 20 mg of total particulate matter for two weeks, after which time half were switched to cigarettes with 25 mg deliveries and half were switched to cigarettes with 15 mg deliveries. The subjects smoked these cigarettes for another four weeks. The study showed that after a brief transition period, the smokers all returned toward their original intake level, despite the different deliveries of the cigarettes. 41 Schori, T., Tar, nicotine and smoking behavior (Nov. 1971), Bates No. 3990441229-1256, p. 3990441231 (JC- 019). 42 Ibid., p. 3990441231 (JC-019). 43 Ibid., p. 3990441232 (JC-019).

31 machine-measured tar and nicotine yields of cigarettes smoked, the industry continued to market cigarettes based on lower FTC smoking machine yield numbers.44

59. Thus, Philip Morris knew that promoting “light” and “lower tar” cigarettes as a way for most smokers to reduce their tar intake misrepresented what would actually happen.

60. Although some would expect this to have created a moral dilemma, Philip Morris did not think so. In 1974, Helmut Wakeham, a Philip Morris vice president, addressed whether the company had any moral obligation to reveal to the FTC that smokers were inhaling more tar than the FTC rating of the cigarette:

“some concern has been expressed concerning the moral obligation of Philip Morris (and perhaps the tobacco industry) to reveal to the FTC the fact that some cigarette smokers may be getting more tar than the FTC rating of that cigarette. . . . I believe that there need be no such concern, at least from a position of morality.”45

61. In addition to denying any moral obligation to reveal to the FTC that the testing procedure used to inform consumers of tar and nicotine levels was, in fact, misleading, Philip

44 In January 1972, another Philip Morris study of compensation, based on their own research requiring 49 smokers to smoke cigarettes with various nicotine yields, reached the same conclusion: “. . . smokers develop a daily nicotine intake quota thus when smoking cigarettes which deliver different amounts of nicotine than do those to which they are accustomed, they tend to modify their consumption rate in order to maintain their quotas.”

Schori, T. and Dunn, W., Tar, nicotine and cigarette consumption (Jan. 1972), Bates No. 3990501490-1503, p. 3990501497 (JC-021). In June 1974, the Philip Morris research laboratory conducted a controlled experiment with a group of some 150 smokers and reached what it considered a quite obvious conclusion: “analytical smoke yields cannot be used to estimate the smoke up-take by the smoker, and, analytical smoking conditions are not indicative of the smoking parameters used by the human smoker.”

Wakeham, H., Human smoking habits (June 1974), Bates No. 3990584619-4621, p. 3990584621 (JC-027). 45 Wakeham, H., Memorandum re Moral Issue on FTC Tar (7 Mar. 1974), Bates No. 3990584616-4618, p. 3990584617 (JC-026).

Morris’ memorandum to the FTC concealed what it actually knew about compensation when

people smoked cigarettes rated as lower in tar:

“While it is well known that the FTC smoking machine is not intended to simulate human smoking, it had always been the case that cigarette brands with similar FTC ‘tar’ deliveries delivered similar levels of particulates to any given smoker, and in particular that brands with comparatively low FTC ‘tar’ deliveries delivered comparatively low levels of particulates.”46

Accordingly, Philip Morris continued to capitalize on the failings of this FTC methodology by

marketing cigarettes whose real-world yields substantially exceeded the machine-measured tar numbers.

2. The Tobacco Companies’ Deceptive Marketing of “Perceived” Health Reassurance Brands

62. Based on what they knew about smokers’ needs for a certain amount of nicotine and their resulting compensation, the challenge faced by the industry was to create the illusion of greater safety while not compromising the addictive aspects of smoking or increasing the difficulty of extracting nicotine:

“[T]his is a group who would be highly motivated to modify their smoking behaviour in terms of switching to brands which they perceived as ‘safer’ yet meet their requirements, whatever they might be.”47

63. Philip Morris and the other tobacco companies met this challenge by designing a

strategy to market products that were intended to be perceived as lower risk or even substitutes

for quitting rather than cigarettes that were actually lower risk.

46 Philip Morris Research Center, Memorandum to the Federal Trade Commission from Philip Morris Incorporated concerning Barclay cigarettes and a proposed change in the apparatus used in the Commission’s laboratory for testing “tar” delivery (10 July 1981), Bates No. 3001126-1157, p. 3001130 (JC-039). 47 Weaver, M., Cigarette Smoking, Health, and Dissonance (Project Libra): IV. Further Analysis, Conclusions and Recommendations (25 Aug. 1981), Bates No. 105664955-5102, p. 105665020 (JC-040).

64. British American Tobacco’s strategy was “providing consumer reassurance about

cigarettes” by creating the “perception of low deliveries”:

“All work in this area should be directed towards providing consumer reassurance about cigarettes and the smoking habit. This can be provided in different ways, e.g., by claimed low delivery, by the perception of low deliveries and by the perception of ‘mildness.’ Furthermore, advertising for low delivery on traditional brands should be constructed in ways so as not to provoke anxiety about health, but to alleviate it, and enable the smoker to feel assured about the habit and confident in maintaining it over time.”48

65. Two decades after the 1966 Philip Morris strategy report quoted above, calling for the

company to focus on the “illusion” of health benefits rather than the actual design of a healthier

cigarette, the company’s main strategy had remained constant. A 1987 strategy report confirms

that marketing health reassurance brands that smokers would “perceive” as healthier remained

their current and future strategy. An “Analysis of Future Factors” for Philip Morris’ profitability

listed “social and health pressures” as the first factor and discussed the need for “cigarettes

which would be perceived by the consumer as ‘safer’, and the desire for reduced tar cigarettes

which retain full flavor.”49 In order to meet the goal of increasing sales by decreasing consumer

“health” concerns, the report points to the company’s “considerable commitment at this time to development of a product which addresses consumer health concerns. The low tar (or zero tar)/high taste program and Project ART (low nicotine) can be marketed to the consumer in such a way to convince them that they are indeed receiving a product which would be perceived as

‘safer’.”50

48 British American Tobacco Internal Document, P. Short, Smoking & Health Item 7: The Effect on Marketing (28 Apr. 1977), Bates No. 100427791-7800, p. 100427794 (R-102). 49 1987-1992 R&D strategic plan (Dec. 1987), Bates No. USX1082780, p. USX1082802 (JC-048). 50 Ibid., p. USX1082802 (JC-048).

66. To meet this end, the industry chose the term “Lights” as a cigarette descriptor to convey a message of reduced constituents and thus reduced harm:

“The choice of a name for a low delivery line extension should be carefully considered. In America, ‘lights’ or ‘ultra lights’ are generic words meaning low delivery. Elsewhere either ‘lights’ or ‘milds’ seem to work. Through careful pre- testing of communication it may be found that the consumer will accept over time ‘lights’ as a generic term. The terms ‘mild’ or ‘mildness’ can have different meanings dependent on the awareness of the S&H [smoking and health] controversy in a local market.”51

67. This connection between “lights” and “lower tar” had soon become so entrenched that:

68. “Perceptually, category consumers do not currently seem to differentiate between

‘Lights’ and ‘Low Tars’ as product modifiers. Each appears to communicate that the ‘brand’ is lower in tar than cigarettes in another sub-category, e.g., full-flavor menthol brands. It should be noted that smokers seem to use the word ‘light’ and ‘low tar’ interchangeably. The two words are thought of as synonyms.52R.J. Reynolds had concluded by 1979 that “the word ‘light’ alone seem[ed] enough of an indication of low tar” that its Lights cigarettes no longer needed the explicit “low tar” wording to convey a healthier message.53

69. In the case of Philip Morris, James Morgan, the former CEO, testified in 2002,

“The word Lights meant lower in tar. What the consumer then took from lower in tar - I don’t believe the word Lights was ever used to say better for you . . . Through information, persuasion, communication external to the cigarette industry regarding low tar, low tar’s relationship to smoking and health, it is, yes.

51 Conference on Marketing Low Delivery Products: January 1982, Marketing News Supplement (Apr. 1982), Bates No. 690120722- 756, p. 690120732 (JC-041). 52 RJ Reynolds Internal Document, Abby Ellison Qualitative Research, Inc., A Qualitative Analysis of the Light/Low Tar Category with Particular Emphasis on Consumer Reactions to Advertising Language and Prototype Concepts for Salem Lights (Nov. 1977), Bates No. 501226743-501226772, p. 501226753 (R-104). 53 Duffy, D., Memorandum re Camel Lights 100’s Exploratory Focus Group Summary (29 Jan. 1979), Bates No. 501429361-9363, p. 5014293613 (JC-034).

The answer is yes, the consumer was perceiving in the 1970s lower tar as tied to less hazardous. We will use that phrase. And yes, we were aware of that.”54

3. Lower Delivery Cigarettes Misleadingly Communicate Lower Harm

70. The tobacco companies’ strategy worked. The public believed that these health reassurance brands were actually healthier. A market research report prepared for Philip Morris in 1976 concluded that:

“The low tar brands have cornered opinion that to the extent any brands are better for your health, they are. All smokers were asked whether they thought particular brands were better for your health than others, and if so, which brands. Three in ten of all smokers said some brands were better for health than others, and almost half of the low tar brand smokers said this. The brands named were almost exclusively low tar brands (Vantage, True and Carlton) getting most mentions. . . .[I]t is the lower tar content of these brands that make people say they are better for health. When asked why the brands they named were better for your health, answers overwhelmingly were concerned with lower tar content.”55

Although Philip Morris was aware that its lower tar cigarettes carried no health benefits, it

continued to capitalize on the public’s perception of lower tar cigarettes as a “healthier” choice.

71. Internal documents from the tobacco industry show that smokers chose lower tar

cigarettes for their perceived health benefits and the tobacco companies continued to exploit

these false perceptions:

“Almost all smokers agree that the primary reason for the increasing acceptance of low ‘tar’ brands is based on the health reassurance they seem to offer.”56 [Brown & Williams contractor]

54 Philip Morris Internal Document, Deposition of the Defendant, Philip Morris Companies, Inc., by James Morgan (5 June 2002), Bates No. 3990011501-3990011677, pp. 3990011561, 3990011565 (R-154). 55 The Roper Organization Inc., A Study of Smokers’ Habits and Attitudes with Special Emphasis on Low Tar Cigarettes (May 1976), Bates No. 1002476257-6426, pp. 1002476277 (JC-029). 56 Hawkings, McCain & Blumenthal, Inc., Low “Tar” Satisfaction Step 1. Identification of perceived and unperceived consumer needs (25 July 1977), Bates No. 775036039-067, p. 775036047 (JC-032).

“Reasons for Smoking Low Tar Cigarettes … By changing to a lower tar cigarettes [sic], they felt less guilty about continuing to smoke and eventually hoped to stop smoking completely. Many panelists had switched from a high tar cigarette to a low tar cigarette bearing the same name. Marlboro smokers switched to Marlboro Lights, Winston smokers switched to Winston Lights, etc. … All switched because they felt that low tar cigarettes are healthier than high tar cigarettes.”57 [American Tobacco Co. contractor]

“Health concerns are the usual reasons for switching to a low T&N [Tar & Nicotine] brand. Such cigarettes are ‘better for you’ – milder and less irritation (now) as well as less likely to cause serious problems (later).”58 [Lorillard contractor]

“The new approach to marketing, supported by suitable strategies, offers distinct opportunities to create brands and products which reassure consumers, by answering to their needs.”59 [British American Tobacco]

72. As a result of this evidence and more, and after hearing voluminous testimony on both sides and reading countless documents, Judge Kessler reached the following conclusions regarding the tobacco industry’s deceptive practices promoting low tar cigarettes, which, while long deserve full review:

“It is clear, based on their internal research documents, reports, memoranda, and letters, that Defendants have known for decades that there is no clear health benefit from smoking low tar/low nicotine cigarettes as opposed to conventional full-flavor cigarettes. It is also clear that while Defendants knew that the FTC Method for measuring tar and nicotine accurately compared the nicotine/tar percentages of different cigarettes, they also knew that that Method was totally unreliable for measuring the actual nicotine and tar any real-life smoker would absorb because it did not take into account the phenomenon of smoker compensation. Defendants also knew that many smokers were concerned and anxious about the health effects of smoking, that a significant percentage of those smokers were willing to trade flavor for reassurance that their brands carried lower health risks, and that many smokers who were concerned and anxious about

57 American Tobacco Internal Document, Fay Ennis Creative Research Services, An Exploration of Two Cigarette Approaches: ‘Laser Technology’ and ‘No Fake Flavors’ (11 Nov. 1976), Bates No. 968362940-968362954, p. 968362950 (R-99). 58 The Nowland Organization, Inc., SHF Cigarette Marketplace Opportunities Search and Situation Analysis Volume II Management Report (Dec. 1976), Bates No. 84053709-3744, p. 84053712 (JC-030). 59 British American Tobacco Internal Document, P. Short, Smoking & Health Item 7: The Effect on Marketing (28 Apr. 1977), Bates No. 100427791-100427800, p. 100427792 (R-102).

the health risks from smoking would rely on the health claims made for low tar cigarettes as a reason, or excuse, for not quitting smoking.”

“Despite this knowledge, Defendants extensively—and successfully—marketed and promoted their low tar/light cigarettes as less harmful alternatives to full- flavor cigarettes. Moreover, Defendants opposed any changes in the FTC Method which would more accurately reflect the effects of compensation on the actual tar and nicotine received by smokers, denied that they were making any health claims for their low tar/light cigarettes, and claimed that their marketing for these cigarettes was based on smokers’ preference for a ‘lighter,’ ‘cleaner’ taste.”

“By engaging in this deception, Defendants dramatically increased their sales of low tar/light cigarettes, assuaged the fears of smokers about the health risks of smoking, and sustained corporate revenues in the face of mounting evidence about the health dangers of smoking.”60

73. Similarly, the 2014 report of the Surgeon General of the United States castigated the tobacco industry’s “extensive campaign” that resulted in misleading the public on the issue of less risk to health associated with lower-yield cigarettes:

“Despite the conclusive evidence of the harms of cigarette smoking presented in the 1964 report, as evaluated by an objective group of experts, the process of changing public beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors took decades, and the implementation of effective policies involved a lengthy process of intervention, evaluation, and surveillance. The tobacco industry’s extensive campaign to counteract these forces through marketing, public relations, political influence, and creation of doubt about the scientific evidence on tobacco is now well documented through the industry’s internal documents. The industry used its influence to thwart public health action at all levels and fraudulently misled the public on many issues, including whether lower-yield cigarettes conveyed less risk to health and whether exposure to secondhand smoke harmed nonsmokers. Undoubtedly, these actions slowed progress in tobacco control.”61

C. The Marketing of Health Reassurance in Uruguay

74. Concerns about the health risks of smoking in Uruguay have followed a similar

trajectory to health concerns among consumers in the United States and other Western markets.

60 United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., Amended Final Opinion, Case No. 99-2496 (GK) (D.D.C. 2006), p. 971, ¶¶ 2627-2629 (RL-171). 61 U.S. Surgeon General, The Health Consequences of Smoking: 50 Years of Progress (2014), p. 34 (R-285).

Philip Morris business documents show the historical rise of health concerns among Uruguayan smokers and the extent to which these concerns shaped the development of lower tar brand variants in Uruguay. For example, Philip Morris conducted an extensive consumer survey in

1984 to characterize the Uruguayan market.62 The need for reassurance about the health risks of smoking was identified as a primary consumer “need.” Philip Morris’ research identified

“Mildness and Health Concerned” as the second largest consumer segment in Uruguay:

“This segment wants a mild cigarette with lower tar and nicotine, that will not harm their health; ideally, this cigarette should be fresh and provide good taste as well. This segment is not concerned with price, packaging, status or advertising. . . . Not surprisingly, they have the highest degree of concern about the effects of smoking on their health.”63

75. Philip Morris categorized consumers of each brand based on their level of health concern, with a majority of consumers categorized in the “somewhat” and “very” concerned categories across all brands.64 The document goes on to describe how brands are targeted to each segment. For example: “We are currently well represented within the Mildness/Health segments with Galaxy and Fiesta Lights.”65

76. Similarly, a 1989 document summarized “consumer directions” in Uruguay, classifying three of the four target segments as concerned about health:

“The 4 target segments of consumers show the directions of consumer smoking motivations:

• Segment I, Responsible & Concerned, 29%, are interested in LTNs [Low Tar & Nicotine cigarettes] and controlling consumption.

62 See Philip Morris Internal Document, E. Finch, Uruguayan General Consumer Survey (June 1984), Bates No. 2500022896-2982 (R-115). 63 Ibid., pp. 2500022902-2903. 64 Ibid., p. 2500022920. 65 Ibid., p. 2500022908.

• Segment II, Compulsive & Family Oriented, 30%, are heavy local brand full flavor smokers.

• Segment III. Mild & Cost Concerned, 20%, are cost concerned smokers looking for mild products.

• Segment IV, Young Active International Quality, 21%, are looking for American international brands for smoking pleasure.”66

The document proceeded to identify “light” as the primary direction for the market.67

77. A 1994 summary of Philip Morris research findings on the state of the Uruguayan market identified the primary consumer trend as follows: “Health concern is growing, principally among young-adult smokers” and indicates that Fiesta Lights “fulfills consumers’ needs” with respect to this trend.68 Several documents note the difficulty of Marlboro “Red” in gaining market share in the Uruguayan market due to its perception as a strong/harsh product, which was inconsistent with growing health concerns:

“Marlboro currently has a weak position in the market and has the perception of being a strong, harsh product. These perceptions need to be changed. However, Lights perceived products (i.e. Marlboro Lights, Marlboro Medium, Casino Lights and L&M Azul) may offer better development opportunities together with Fiesta Lights continued development.”69

78. A subsequent Philip Morris document in 1999, notes “strength”—a euphemism for higher tar/nicotine products—as a limitation: “Despite perceived strength, Marlboro is highly ranked in terms of quality.”70 These documents illustrate a strategy in which the targeting of

66 Philip Morris Internal Document, Summary of Main Findings (Dec. 1989), Bates No. 2040125501-5527, p. 2040125519 (R-123). 67 Ibid. 68 Philip Morris Internal Document, Abal Hnos S.A.-Uruguay, 1994, Bates No. 2503024025-4038, p. 2503024028 (R-128). 69 Philip Morris Internal Document, Summary of Main Findings (Dec. 1989), Bates No. 2040125501-5527, p. 2040125516 (R-123). 70 Hendrys, P., Submission to Corporate Productions Committee (June 1999), Bates No. 2073945934-5948, p. 2073945942 (JC-068).

“light” brands to health concerned smokers was a primary motivation for the development of

new brand variants.

79. More recent data, from a cohort study of adult smokers in Uruguay, highlight the continued importance of health concerns among smokers. Over three waves of survey data

collected between 2006 and 2012, concern about the health risks of smoking was consistently the

most common motivation to quit cited by current and former smokers. Eight out of 10

Uruguayan smokers identified “concern for personal health” as a reason to quit: a significantly

greater proportion than any other reason to quit, including price.71

80. Overall, findings from Philip Morris business documents and independent evidence

identify health concerns as a fundamentally important issue for Uruguayan smokers when deciding between brands and deciding to quit smoking altogether. Internal documents from

Philip Morris reveal the strategy to provide reassurance to consumers through the creation of different brand variants that were associated with less harm, using the product and marketing techniques also observed in the U.S. and other markets.

IV. WHY THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY’S HEALTH REASSURANCE STRATEGY WAS SO EFFECTIVE: THE SMOKERS’ PSYCHOLOGY

81. Cigarettes have persisted in the marketplace for so long because they provide various

types of gratifications from the symbolic to the physiological. Once people become addicted to

cigarettes, their ability to initiate and sustain quitting faces serious obstacles. Thus the tobacco

companies’ marketing strategy and the health authorities’ regulatory response is centered on how

the smoker forms his/her decision about whether to initiate or continue smoking.

71 International Tobacco Control (ITC) Policy Evaluation Project, ITC Uruguay National Report: Findings from the Wave 1 to 4 Surveys (2006-2012) (Aug. 2014), p. 52 (R-313).

A. The Decision to Choose a “Healthier” Alternative

82. When making any purchasing decision, it is well-established that consumers are

impacted by negative as well as positive attributes (and their associated benefits and

consequences) for each product under consideration.72

83. This analysis represents the standard scientific paradigm in marketing and consumer

psychology for understanding consumers’ actions and it is typically discussed as either an

“expectancy-value” or “multi-attribute” framework. Economists typically discuss this process in

less psychological terms, emphasizing a similar “bundle of benefits” analysis. Thus, in every

consumer’s “bundle,” the reduced harm/increased safety attribute of a cigarette product would be

a positive benefit, thereby increasing the utility of the product and the likelihood of its selection.

Essentially, behavior (i.e., smoking cigarettes) becomes more likely to the degree a product is

seen as possessing desired attributes (or providing desired benefits), each of which is “weighted”

by the perceived value of those attributes/benefits to the consumer. These value-weighted positive and negative attributes, taken together, can be thought of as a “field of forces” that influences consumers’ purchase decisions.

84. Specific taste and flavor characteristics as well as a brand’s “image” can be positive

“forces” (therefore leading toward purchase) for some consumers and negative “forces”

(therefore leading away from purchase) for others. In fact, because of individual differences in preferences, every attribute of a product can function as a positive or negative force for different segments of the population, with one important exception in the cigarette context.

72 E.g., Cohen J., et al., The nature and uses of expectancy-value models in consumer attitude research, 9 Journal of Marketing Research (Nov. 1972), Bates No. 3990247873-7878 (JC-025). Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I., Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research (1975) (JC-028).

85. Since all consumers -- indeed all rational human beings -- view being healthy and

experiencing improved health (or, put more starkly, avoiding death and disease) as a favorable

outcome, the attribute “healthier/safer/less harmful” must have a positive weight for any

cigarette product communicating such an association. Thus, communicating this information to

consumers (such as by creating health reassurance associations or by contrasting a purportedly

lower delivery brand against another “higher delivery” brand variant in the brand family) will

produce a positive directional force toward purchasing that cigarette product. That is why the

marketing of health reassurance cigarette brands and the illusion of greater safety (discussed at

length above) are so important. While it is difficult to determine the magnitude and resulting

impact of this force on any given person (because of individual differences in value-weighting), the positive association would be the same in every case. A 2006 paper in the flagship journal for the field of consumer behavior, said the following about how this relates to smokers’ decisions about health reassurance brands:

“Whenever some aspects of a behavior (e.g., peer approval of smoking) are seen as attractive and behavior is held in check by perceived risks (e.g., dying of smoking related illnesses), promoting an alternative as “reduced risk” can shift the balance of approach-avoidance forces. Interestingly, our conceptualization suggests that the presence of a brand that is promoted in this way can lead people into a product category they otherwise might not have entered.”73

86. Therefore, no matter how a consumer views the other attributes of any cigarette

product, to the extent a cigarette product is thought to possess a positive health attribute/benefit

(in the form of reduced harm), that will be a universally positive force for consumers in their

decision making process.

73 Bolton, L., et al, Does marketing products as remedies create “Get Out of Jail Free” cards? 33 Journal of Consumer Research (2006), p. 72 (emphasis added) (JC-079).

87. Professors Chernev (Claimants’ expert in this matter) and Gal have documented a judgment bias that occurs when people consider vices (something leading to an unhealthy outcome) together with virtues (something leading to a healthy outcome). Though their work focuses on foods that people consider to be vices or virtues on a “healthiness” dimension, the analysis is applicable to the cigarette industry’s continuing efforts to add a virtue (i.e., a cigarette feature such as low tar or light) to what is generally regarded as a vice (i.e., smoking cigarettes because they are unhealthy). The authors explicitly extend their analysis to product types perceived to have virtuous (i.e., healthier) features: “For example, reduced-fat milk can be represented as a virtue when compared with whole milk…. Similarly, light salad dressing can be viewed as a virtue when compared with regular dressing….”74

88. They point out that people frequently err in their judgments when they try to combine assessments of an added virtue (whose effects they overestimate) to something they understand to be a vice (and whose effects they now underestimate). As in the quote above, this not only applies to adding a salad to an unhealthy meal but when making a product more virtuous as in reduced-fat milk. In both cases the added virtue leads to an underestimate of the unhealthiness of their behavior. “The current research identifies calorie underestimation as a potential cause for overconsumption. In particular, we show that consumers tend to underestimate the calorie content of combinations of healthy (virtues) and indulgent (vices) products. This finding casts a shadow on recent attempts by many fast-food restaurants to add healthy options to their menus.

While the introduction of healthier options provides an alternative to people who are interested in a healthier lifestyle, ironically it can lead to overconsumption stemming from underestimation of

74 Chernev, A. and Gal, D., Categorization Effects in Value Judgments: Averaging Bias in Evaluating Combinations of Vices and Virtues, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 67 (Aug. 2010), p. 739 (JC-093).

44 the calorie content of the considered meals.”75 The reasoning advanced by Chernev and Gal suggests that adding a virtue that translates to perceived “lower risk” for a category of products

(cigarettes) known to be a vice (and quite unhealthy), would likewise lead to overconsumption of such cigarettes. This follows because, just as in their “underestimation of the calorie content” example, people would then underestimate their ingestion of harmful constituents. That is exactly what happened when people were asked to compare relative levels of risk/safety in cigarettes.76 The Chernev-Gal formulation provides further theoretical support for why allowing cigarette manufacturers to convey any illusory health benefit is dangerous and should be avoided.

89. As indicated above, due to individual differences in the weighting of the benefits and risks, assessing the magnitude of the health reassurance benefit for any given individual’s smoking decision is challenging. Given the fact that the industry has always competed on the basis of having “a better tasting cigarette,” it stands to reason that this “better taste” benefit is important. Since we know that smokers who chose “lights” did so in spite of what they perceived to be an inadequate taste, this indicates that the health reassurance benefit must have been a dominant influence on these smokers’ behavior. In fact, marketing of lower tar cigarettes often noted the two separate qualities of the cigarette: their low tar content and their taste.

75 Ibid., p. 745 (JC-093). 76 Cohen, J., Smokers’ Knowledge and Understanding of Advertised Tar Numbers: Health Policy Implications, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 86, No. 1 (Jan. 1996), pp. 18-24 (JC-062).; Kozlowski L. T. & Pillitteri J. L., Beliefs about ‘lights’ and ‘ultra light’ cigarettes and efforts to change those beliefs: an overview of early efforts and published research, Tobacco Control, Vol. 10 (2001), (JC-071); Shiffman, S., et al., Smokers’ beliefs about ‘light’ and ‘ultra light’ cigarettes, Tobacco Control Vol. 10 (2001) (R-150); Hammond, D. & Parkinson, C., The impact of cigarette package design on perceptions of risk, Journal of Public Health (2009) (R-39); Hammond, D., et al., Cigarette pack design and perceptions of risk among UK adult and youth: evidence in support of plain packaging, European Journal of Public Health, Vol. 19 (2009) (R-40); Bansal-Travers, M., et al., The Impact of Cigarette Pack Design, Descriptors, and Warning Labels on Risk Perception in the U.S., American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 40, No. 6 (June 2011) (R-240).

90. James Morgan – the Marlboro brand manager at the time of the launch of Marlboro

Lights – testified that a majority of those who switched to Marlboro Lights did so for health reasons and not for taste:

“There were, I believe a significant number of people who were switching to low tar for the reasons that you stated, which is the continued and increasingly publicized issues of smoking and health. There were probably also some people who switched because they in fact liked a less harsh taste, but I would agree that the majority of people smoking low tar were doing it surrounding their perceptions of the health issues with cigarettes.”77

91. The executives at Leo Burnett – the advertising agency responsible for the marketing of Marlboro Lights – acknowledged this flavor obstacle as well in their depositions:

“Q. In your opinion, why did people move to this product [Marlboro Lights]? […]

A. Because the [. . .] whole area of light, lighter cigarettes was being positioned as something that was better for them. It took some people longer than others to get used to the taste or to develop a taste for it. [. . .]

Q. So the reason it took a long time for this market to develop in your opinion is because of the taste, overcoming the different taste, is that correct?

A. To get used to the taste, yes. Some people got with it more quickly than others.

Q. And the reason the lights market grew as a category was because smokers thought that it was better for them, is that correct? [. . .]

A. This whole area had been positioned for smokers as something that was better for them. . . .”78

* * *

“Q. Was Marlboro Lights advertised as a better-tasting cigarette than Marlboro Reds?”

A. No. [. . .]

77 Philip Morris Internal Document, Deposition of the Defendant, Philip Morris Companies, Inc., by James Morgan (5 June 2002), Bates No. 3990011501-1677, pp. 3990011544-1545 (R-154). 78 Deposition of Hall Adams (31 May 2002), Bates No. 3990698237-8372, pp. 3990698324-8325 (JC-073).

Q. At the time of the launch of Marlboro Lights, was Leo Burnett aware of a negative taste connotation with respect to Marlboro Lights?

A. Yes.”79

92. Numerous Philip Morris marketing studies also confirmed that smokers “are willing to compromise taste expectations for health reassurance.”80 Since some smokers, however, were less willing to make this compromise, the tobacco companies later extended their lower tar offering from low/light to medium/mild cigarettes, providing another possibility for health- concerned smokers who were less willing to give up taste.

93. Thus, when faced with the decision to smoke or not, overcoming health concerns has played an overriding role, making the deceptive marketing of lower tar cigarettes particularly egregious since it misled smokers into believing that some cigarettes were healthier than others.

For such consumers, taste became an important factor to consider for the subsequent choices among various brands available within the health reassurance options.

94. Although the positive reaction to a perceived health benefit is universal, its magnitude can increase because people who smoke (especially those who have tried to quit--often repeatedly--and have failed) are particularly receptive to health reassurances to help them avoid feelings of anxiety, fear, and guilt. The tobacco industry was well-aware of this phenomenon.

79 Deposition of Thomas Dudreck (19 June 2002), Bates No. 3990698677-8791, pp. 3990698725, 3990698755 (JC-074). 80 Hawkings, McCain & Blumenthal, Inc., Low “Tar” Satisfaction Step 1, Identification of perceived and unperceived consumer needs (25 July 1977), Bates No. 775036039-6067, p. 775036052 (“The 1976 Brand Image Study shows that low tar brands are perceived as having significantly less taste and flavor than full flavor brands . . . They are willing to compromise taste expectations for health reassurance.”) (JC-032). See also The Research Centre, Project Magic (June 1985), Bates No. 2501008130-8154, p. 2501008140 (“Everyone we spoke to was informed about the equation low tar = least damage to one’s health, high tar = most damage. Yet many people made mistakes in their judgment of the tar levels of different brands because they judged that the stronger the taste of the cigarette, the higher the tar level must be.”) (JC-046).

Philip Morris: “Peace of Mind’ is provided [by low tar cigarettes]:*feel safer, have less concern about longer-term health issues *feel less guilty about smoking *reduction of psychological and social pressures from family and peers.”81

RJ Reynolds: “[L]ow ‘tar’ and nicotine cigarettes were introduced by several tobacco companies as an alternative for smokers concerned about smoking, but who were unable to or did not wish to quit smoking.”82

Brown & Williamson contractor: “Almost all smokers agree that the primary reason for the increasing acceptance of low ‘tar’ brands is based on the health reassurance they seem to offer.”83

95. Thus, smokers engage in mood and emotion management in an effort to alleviate the threat and restore beliefs in their own competence and self-worth.84 This typically entails some

type of motivated reasoning (including wishful thinking, rationalization, denial, and distortion),

including a willingness to rely on information that an uninvolved person might well discount, in

order to reduce the perceived danger. This report now turns to why smokers are so likely to rely

on this type of wishful thinking.

B. Experiencing and Reducing Cognitive Dissonance

96. A classic analysis of the interaction between motivational and cognitive processes in

a smoker’s experience can be found in cognitive dissonance theory, something well understood

by the cigarette industry and its consultants:85

81 Review of Low Tar Category (22 May 1979), Bates No. 1002617983-7999, p. 1002617998 (JC-035). 82 Leber Katz Partners, Vantage 1972 Advertising Plan (Sept. 1971), Bates No. 500752303-2369, p. 500752316 (JC-018). 83 Hawkings, McCain & Blumenthal, Inc., Low “Tar” Satisfaction Step 1. Identification of perceived and unperceived consumer needs (25 July 1977), Bates No. 775036039-6067, p. 775036047 (JC-032). 84 E.g., Cohen, J., et al, The nature and role of affect in consumer behavior, in C. Haugtvedt, P. Herr, & F. Kardes (eds.), Handbook of Consumer Psychology (2008), pp. 297-348 (JC-085). 85 “These executions are built on an expanded strategy which includes an understanding of the target audience and the need to create a maximum ease or comfort level that addresses the concept of ‘cognitive dissonance.’” Hawkins, McCain & Blumenthal, Conference Report #7 (18 Mar. 1980), Bates No. 660026713-6718, p. 660026718 (JC-037).

“…the typical smoker, no longer able to tolerate the dissonance between his health concern and his smoking behavior, acts to relieve himself of conflict. As the credibility of the message gains in the mind of the smoker, if by nothing more than its mere repetition, the number of smokers acting to reduce this conflict will increase. The evidence at hand suggests that few will go so far as to discontinue smoking entirely…the smoker intent upon acting has several other less traumatic options from which to choose.”86

“Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance (1957) is intuitively useful in making predictions about the strategies smokers adopt to deal with social pressures.”87

97. Dissonance occurs when opposing ideas are concurrently held. For the typical smoker, cognitive dissonance stems from the following two contradictory ideas: (1) I smoke and

(2) My smoking is bad for me.88 Decades of research on cognitive dissonance89 tells us, first, that dissonance is psychologically uncomfortable and motivates the person to reduce dissonance and achieve consonance among cognitive elements. This was well known and well exploited by the tobacco industry:

“...the individual smoker seeks to reduce the tension arising from the perceived incompatibility between his health concern and continuing to smoke by making various psychological and behavioural adjustments. For some the tension will only be sufficiently reduced by quitting. For others, an adequate discharge will be achieved by reducing the number of cigarettes smoked and, for yet others, a switch to lower delivery cigarettes is the appropriate modification. In all cases, the model would suggest, the individual makes only that change in his smoking behaviour which is sufficient to offset to a tolerable level the tension arising from the perceived conflict between smoking and his health concern.”90

86 Ketchum, MacLeod & Grove, Inc., Untitled (1978), Bates No. 666044166-4173 (JC-033). 87 Jones, J., Memorandum re Statement of Position on the Social Pressures Construct (20 June 1988), Bates No. 3990261612-1630, p. 3990261624 (R-122). 88 Kassarjian, H. and Cohen, J., Cognitive Dissonance and Consumer Behavior: Reactions to the Surgeon General’s Report on Smoking and Health, California Management Review, Vol. 8 (1965), pp. 55-64 (JC-008). 89 E.g., Olson, J. and Stone, J., The influence of behavior on attitudes, in D. Albarracín, B. Johnson and M. Zanna (eds.), The Handbook of Attitudes (2005), pp. 223-271 (JC-077). 90 Oldman, M., Memorandum re Low Delivery Cigarettes and Quitting (28 Apr. 1981), Bates No. 105399687- 9689, pp. 105399687-9688 (JC-038).

98. When dissonance is present, the individual not only attempts to reduce it, but may actively avoid or discount competing information that is likely to increase it (e.g., warning information), especially if the latter information is challenged or undermined (which, as discussed above and in Judge Kessler’s report characterized the cigarette industry’s efforts to keep people smoking). The tobacco industry spent nearly the entire latter half of the twentieth century assuaging smokers’ health concerns by casting doubt on the notion that smoking was harmful. Accordingly, this massive campaign almost certainly reduced smokers’ dissonance and allowed them to continue smoking.

99. Further, the industry expended significant effort in promoting “remedies” -- to the problem it also refused to acknowledge existed -- through the introduction of “lower tar” cigarettes, though they knew such remedies were nonexistent. When consumers adopt such a remedy their dissonance is reduced because they are able to justify their new behavior as being less risky or possibly as “a step in the right direction.”

100. It is important to recall that the individual tobacco companies understood, from the time they began providing the health reassurance implicit in “Lights,” that they had no basis for these representations. First, they had no adequate basis for making any health reassurance claims because no proven reductions in illness had been established for cigarettes at these lower levels of machine-measured tar delivery. Second, their own internal research revealed that these health reassurance cigarettes did not result in lower deliveries of tar and nicotine because smokers adjust their smoking profile in order to achieve a desired delivery regardless of the type of cigarette smoked:

“Therefore, there is no scientific basis for assuring the smoker that cigarettes with less nicotine are somehow ‘safer’.”91

101. Over time, the tobacco industry became aware that not only were “lower tar” cigarettes not “safer,” but in fact they were potentially more dangerous. They understood that the health reassurance brands reduced smokers’ incentive to make the only safe choice of quitting, in favor of an alternative that continued to expose them to serious illness. Perhaps more insidious, the specific design of the “lower tar” cigarettes and the way in which they were smoked actually increased the smoker’s ability to compensate by covering the filter and inhaling more deeply, increasing their likelihood of illness. The 1972 comments by the Director of Research at R.J.

Reynolds below are particularly chilling, given the evidence only recently presented in the 2014

U.S. Surgeon General’s report that suggests these lower tar cigarettes may even be more harmful, especially given the scientific knowledge uniquely possessed by the industry:

“If, as claimed by some anti-tobacco critics, the alleged health hazard of smoking is directly related to the amount of ‘tar’ to which the smoker is exposed per day, and the smoker bases his consumption on nicotine, then a present ‘low tar, low nicotine’ cigarette offers zero advantage to the smoker over a ‘regular’ filter cigarette, but simply costs him more money and exposes him to substantially increased amounts of allegedly harmful gas phase components in obtaining his desired daily amount of nicotine.”92

102. In short, despite dissenting reports from their own scientists as well as the most authoritative medical researchers, and lacking any reasonable scientific substantiation, tobacco companies disseminated information to persuade smokers that there was, in fact, still a controversy as to whether smoking was harmful to human health. This continuing disinformation campaign was intended to cast doubt on anti-smoking findings and create an information

91 Tobacco Institute, Statement of Position (22 May 1967), Bates No. CORTI0003741-3814, p. CORTI0003757 (JC-012). 92 Teague, C., Research Planning Memorandum on a New Type of Cigarette Delivering a Satisfying Amount of Nicotine With a Reduced “Tar” -to-Nicotine Ratio (28 Mar. 1972), Bates No. 500915670-5679, pp. 500915677- 5678 (JC-022).

51 environment that would attract smokers to health reassurance products. The information environment created by this disinformation campaign allowed smokers of “lower tar” cigarettes to continue to smoke because: (1) they could persuade themselves that there was still a controversy, (2) while at the same time doing something good for themselves by smoking

“Lights” - just in case. By manufacturing a controversy over whether smoking causes cancer while also introducing purportedly less harmful cigarettes, the tobacco industry provided smokers with powerful support for their motivated reasoning and helped to reduce their cognitive dissonance.93

103. In trying to reduce dissonance one cognitive element is typically more “locked in” or resistant to change.94 So, for a smoker it would be harder to deny the reality of smoking than it would be to modify the thought that “my smoking is bad for me.” This creates substantial motivation to accept the industry’s health reassurance and the appeal of a category of “safer” cigarettes that are marketed as having lower tar and nicotine. Further, due to the difficulty of quitting, such smokers are also motivated to give less weight to information that undermines or contradicts the efficacy of “light” cigarettes as a means of reducing health risks, especially if it is made to appear that there is an ongoing “controversy” over health risks. Wishful thinking leads smokers to at least hope that such cigarettes are less hazardous, since they (1) experience the lighter feel of smoke in their mouths, and (2) have been exposed to information on cigarette packaging indicating that such cigarettes are seemingly lower in tar and nicotine and/or that they are filtered.

93 Kunda, Z., The case for motivated reasoning, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108, No. 3 (1990), Bates No. 3990450304-0322 (JC-052). 94 E.g., Cohen, J. & Goldberg, M., The dissonance model in post-decision product evaluation, Journal of Marketing Research (1970), Bates No. 2018017742-7748 (JC-016).

104. It is important to emphasize that many choices are made despite considerable

uncertainty, because the needed information is not available at the time, or the person does not

have the expertise or confidence to assess the information or because there is a substantial

emotional basis for the decision.95 Dissonance has been established to be a state of arousal and as

such is uncomfortable, often leading people to make wishful or hopeful choices to eliminate the

discomfort.

105. Some smokers have chosen their “lower tar” brands based on the hope that these

products may be less harmful without confronting their health options in a more carefully

reasoned manner, or fearing (another) failure if they tried to quit. Philip Morris has referred to

this category of smoker as the “uncomfortable smoker.”96 The company understood the

consequences of marketing illusory health reassurance to such smokers: the “Light” cigarette

enables smokers to achieve a certain “peace of mind” and reduce the guilt associated with

smoking while at the same time not having to directly acknowledge their health concerns.97 The success of the industry’s efforts in creating the desire of smokers to consider “lower tar” cigarettes as a less risky alternative was summarized in Philip Morris’ business analysis:

“The government has recently taken the position that all cigarettes are harmful regardless of tar content.... (Note: The alleged benefits associated with smoking low tar products is so engrained in the minds of smokers that the government’s recent position on cigarettes should not reduce the appeal of this approach).”98

95 E.g., Pham, M., et al., Affect-Monitoring and the Primacy of Feelings in Judgment, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 28 (Sept. 2001), pp. 167-188 (JC-072); Cohen, J., et al., The nature and role of affect in consumer behavior in C. Haugtvedt, P. Herr & F. Kardes (eds.), Handbook of Consumer Psychology (2008), pp. 297-348 (JC-085). 96 Philip Morris/Jordan, McGrath, Case & Taylor, Merit Agenda (7 Apr. 1993), Bates No. 2048838219-8255, p. 2048838219 (JC-057). 97 Review of Low Tar Category (22 May 1979), Bates No. 1002617983-7999, p. 1002617998 (JC-035). 98 Now 1985 Business Analysis - Summary Analysis (8 Aug. 1984), Bates No. 503610884-0907, p. 503610892 (emphasis added) (JC-043).

V. THE SINGLE PRESENTATION REQUIREMENT AND THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CHOICE

106. This report has shown the tobacco industry’s demonstrated ability to create an

integrated product design and marketing strategy involving multiple components (including

brand creation and differentiation through package design, advertising, product promotion, and

public relations) to create the illusion of a less hazardous cigarette. As Judge Kessler put it:

“The totality of the evidence proves Defendants’ [including Philip Morris’] wide reaching and pervasive scheme to defraud consumers and potential consumers of cigarettes. As established at trial and explained below, Defendants coordinated their public relations, research, cigarette design and marketing efforts in order to advance their overarching scheme to defraud by:

(1) denying the adverse health effects of active smoking;

(2) denying the addictiveness of nicotine and cigarette smoking;

(3) denying their manipulation of the nicotine content of cigarettes;

(4) misrepresenting the health risks attached to light and low tar cigarettes;

(5) denying their marketing to youth;

(6) denying the adverse health effects of secondhand smoke; and

(7) suppressing, concealing, and destroying information and documents related to the adverse health effects of smoking.”99

107. Uruguay has responded to this history of deception through a combination of tobacco control reforms aimed at restricting the tobacco industry’s various methods of deceiving the public (e.g., advertising bans, bans on deceptive descriptors, the single presentation requirement) and by better informing the public of the real risks (such as improved warning labels). Uruguay’s ban on descriptors, followed by the single presentation requirement’s ban on

99 United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., Amended Final Opinion, Case No. 99-2496 (GK) (D.D.C. 2006), p. 1505 (RL-171).

brand extensions, are aimed at getting to the crux of the “lower tar” cigarette deception discussed

at length above.

108. Uruguay has done this within the context of an international movement to adopt

further tobacco control measures, which crystallized in the form of the World Health

Organization’s (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). That treaty is

legally binding for the 178 Parties that have ratified it, including Uruguay. Through the adoption

of the Punta del Este Declaration and the Seoul Declaration, Parties have also “declared their

firm commitment to prioritize the implementation of health measures designed to control tobacco

consumption in their respective jurisdictions, and their determination not to allow tobacco

industry interference to slow or prevent the development and implementation of tobacco control

measures in the interests of public health and in accordance with the Convention.”100 Uruguay’s

single presentation requirement was led by Article 11 of the WHO FCTC, which requires parties to implement “effective measures to ensure that: (a) tobacco product packaging and labelling do not promote a tobacco product by any means that are false, misleading, deceptive or likely to create an erroneous impression about its characteristics, health effects, hazards or emissions.”

A. Uruguay’s Ban on Descriptors

109. In 2005, Uruguay implemented a ban on misleading descriptors in an effort to reduce the false beliefs associated with these brands. Uruguay is one of more than 50 countries that have prohibited terms like “light” (associated with low tar cigarettes) and “mild” (associated with medium tar cigarettes), as part of the prohibitions on deceptive packaging under Article 11

100 WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), Trade and investment issue. Available at: http://www.who.int/fctc/trade_and_investement/en/ (JC-103).

of the WHO FCTC’s Framework Convention.101 Although the removal of misleading descriptors

in Uruguay was associated with a slight reduction in false beliefs, approximately one-quarter of

all smokers continued to believe that “light” cigarettes would be less harmful in the year

following the ban.102 The persistence of false beliefs in Uruguay following the descriptor ban is consistent with evidence from other countries: significant proportions of adult smokers and youth in countries like the UK continue to report false beliefs about the relative risk of leading cigarette brands after descriptor bans were implemented.103 For example, in a population-based survey of

adult smokers in the UK, significant proportions continued to believe that light cigarettes were

less harmful than regular cigarettes after a ban on “light” and “mild” descriptors was

implemented in 2003 under the European Tobacco Product Directive.104 One in five smokers

continued to believe that some brands were less harmful than others and almost 90% of UK

smokers continued to incorrectly believe that the tar numbers on packs were related to the tar

taken in by smokers.105 Similar patterns of false beliefs have been observed in Australia

following a ban on light/mild descriptors in 2005/6.106 Indeed, one of the primary objectives of

101 Hammond, D., Tobacco labeling toolkit: A guide to implementing FCTC Article 11 (Feb. 2009) (R-32). 102 International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project, ITC Uruguay National Report (Aug. 2012), p. 41 (C- 133). 103 Yong H., et al., Impact of the removal of misleading terms on cigarette pack on smokers’ beliefs about Light/Mild cigarettes: Cross-country comparisons, Addiction, Vol. 106, No. 12 (2011), p. 6 (JC-094); R. Borland, et al., What happened to smokers’ beliefs about light cigarettes when “light/mild” brand descriptors were banned in the UK? Findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey, Tobacco Control, Vol. 17, No. 4 (Aug. 2008) (R-199); Hammond, D., et al., Cigarette pack design and perceptions of risk among UK adult and youth: evidence in support of plain packaging, European Journal of Public Health (2009); 19(6):631-7. (R-40). 104 Yong, H., et al., Impact of the removal of misleading terms on cigarette pack on smokers’ beliefs about Light/Mild cigarettes: Cross-country comparisons, Addiction, Vol. 106, No. 12 (2011) (JC-094). 105 Mutti, S., et al., Beyond light and mild: cigarette brand descriptors and perceptions of risk in the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey, Addiction, Vol. 106, No. 6 (June 2011), p. 1173 (R-62). 106 Yong, H., et al., Impact of the removal of misleading terms on cigarette pack on smokers’ beliefs about Light/Mild cigarettes: Cross-country comparisons, Addiction, Vol. 106, No. 12 (2011) (JC-094); Mutti, S., et al., Beyond light and mild: cigarette brand descriptors and perceptions of risk in the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey, Addiction, Vol. 106, No. 6 (June 2011), p. 1173 (R-62).

Australia’s Plain Packaging regulations, implemented in 2013, was to “reduce the ability of the tobacco product packaging to mislead consumers about the harms of smoking”107 based on findings of research conducted on behalf of the Australian government.108

110. Overall, there is ample evidence that, although light/mild bans help to reduce false beliefs about the relative risks between brands, significant proportions of smokers continue to hold these beliefs after light/mild descriptors were prohibited from packs, as the tobacco companies have continued to use other design features on the package to perpetuate these same beliefs.

1. Misleading Marketing Tactics Not Addressed by the Descriptor Ban

111. Although the descriptor ban eliminated the most explicit identifiers associated with brands perceived to be less harmful, it did not address the range of other product attributes associated with reduced harm.

a. “Replacement” Descriptors

112. Tobacco companies in Uruguay replaced terms prohibited under the ban, such as

“light,” with terms that sustained the false beliefs associated with these brands. For example,

Marlboro Light was renamed Marlboro Gold following the 2005 ban. The use of color descriptors is among the most common name “replacement” descriptors used by tobacco companies for countries with a “light/mild” descriptor ban.109 In Australia, for example, more

107 Australian Department of Health and Ageing, Consultation Paper: Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011: Exposure Draft (7 Apr. 2011) (JC-096). 108 Parr, V., et al., Market Research to Determine Effective Plain Packaging of Tobacco Products (Aug. 2011) (JC- 097). 109 See Hammond, D. & Parkinson, C., The impact of cigarette package design on perceptions of risk, Journal of Public Health, Vol. 31 (2009), p. 346 (R-39).

than half of all variants for leading cigarette brands include specific colors as names; another

20% of variants feature names with color connotations (e.g., Ice, Frost, Night, Dawn).110 The

Salem brands, shown below, demonstrate how the descriptors “gold” and “silver” were substituted for “light” and “mild” following descriptor bans in the United States.

113. Shaping consumer perceptions about a product’s attributes by using color is a well-understood marketing tool across a range of product domains.111 Indeed, the effect of color on consumer perceptions have been documented in fields as diverse as pharmaceutical products.

For example a systematic review published in the British Medical Journal concluded that:

110 Greenland, S., Cigarette brand variant portfolio strategy and the use of colour in a darkening market, Tobacco Control (2014) (C-237). 111 Madden, T.J., et al., Managing Images in Different Cultures: A Cross-National Study of Color Meanings and Preferences, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 8 (2000) (JC-070); Garber, L.L. & Hyatt, E.M., Color as a Tool for Visual Persuasion, in L.M. Scott & R. Batra, eds., Persuasive Imagery: A Consumer Response Perspective (2003) (JC-076); Miller, E.G. & Kahn, B.E., Shades of Meaning: The Effect of Color and Flavor Names on Consumer Choice, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 32, 2006, (JC-080); Skorkino, J.L., et al., A Rose by Any Other Name…: Color-Naming Influences on Decision Making, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 23 (2006) (JC-082); Labrecque L.I., et al., The Marketers’ Prismatic Palette: A Review of Color Research and Future Directions, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 30 (2013), p. 197 (JC-100).

“Colours affect the perceived action of a drug and seem to influence the effectiveness of a

drug.”112 In providing a general overview of color research in marketing, one source referred to

tobacco products in particular, and observed that, “In a controversial move, tobacco companies

recently lightened their package colors to connote the concepts of ‘light’ and ‘mild’ in

anticipation of a governmental ban against using such words on their packages.… These

companies are thus relying on the fact that consumers will be able to infer the product concepts

of ‘light’ and ‘mild’ from these colors and differentiate them from the regular packages of

cigarettes.”113

114. Tobacco companies have also engaged in marketing activities to maintain associations between the “old” descriptor (e.g., Light) and the new descriptor (e.g., Gold). For example, the image below shows materials provided by Philip Morris to retailers, indicating that

“gold” and “silver” have been used to replace “light” and “ultra light,” respectively, and “blue”

has been used to replace “mild.”

112 de Craen, A.J., et al., Effect of colour of drugs: systematic review of perceived effect of drugs and of their effectiveness, British Medical Journal, Vol. 313, 1996 (JC-061). 113 Labrecque, L, et al., The Marketers’ Prismatic Palette: A Review of Color Research and Future Directions, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 30, No. 2 (2013), p. 197 (JC-100).

Another booklet distributed by Philip Morris’ Canadian subsidiary, JTI Macdonald, similarly describes the replacement descriptors following the ban in Canada.114 The page seen below described how the banned term “Lights” on the Camel and Winston brands would be replaced by

“Blue.”

115. Philip Morris business documents highlight the importance of these marketing practices to their brand strategy for brand variants such as Marlboro Light.115 In 2010, the U.S.

Food & Drug Administration (FDA) obtained documents from Philip Morris USA regarding marketing practices that deliberately replaced Marlboro Lights with Marlboro Gold, following

114 See JTI-Macdonald Corp., JTI Descriptor Reference Guide (JC-105). 115 See, e.g., Altria Sales & Distribution, Memorandum re Philip Morris USA Packaging Conversion Schedule (15 Mar. 2010), Bates No. 3104476876 (JC-088); Altria Sales & Distribution, Memorandum re Philip Morris USA Packaging Updates: Consumer Awareness Onserts and Inserts (15 Mar. 2010), Bates No. 5027680432 (JC- 089); Altria Client Services, Memorandum re Marlboro Pack Identifier Qualitative Research (26 Mar. 2010), Bates No. 3104473670 (JC-090); Altria Client Services, Memorandum re FDA Monitor Qualitative—AS Rendezvous Quick Observations (18 June 2010), Bates No. 3104474100 (JC-092).

60 the ban on light/mild descriptors in the US. The Philip Morris documents obtained by the FDA depict a comprehensive research program and marketing strategies that were intended to minimize the effect of renaming Marlboro Light and to ensure that consumer perceptions of the brand changed as little as possible. The same strategies were used by tobacco companies across the various countries that have prohibited “light” and “mild” descriptors, like Uruguay.

116. Tobacco companies have also used a range of other descriptors to circumvent the prohibition of “light” and “mild,” including the descriptor “smooth”, “rich”, “ultra” or “extra.”116

This is also clearly depicted in the excerpt of JTI Macdonald’s informational booklet, below.

116 See Pollay, R. and Dewhirst, T., Marketing cigarettes with low machine measured yields, in Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph 13: Risks Associated with Smoking Cigarettes with Low Machine-Measured Yields of Tar and Nicotine (2001), pp. 199-233 (R-11); Hammond, D., Tobacco labeling toolkit: A guide to implementing FCTC Article 11 (Feb. 2009) (R-32); B. King & R. Borland, What was “light” and “mild” is now “smooth” and “fine”: new labelling of Australian cigarettes, Tobacco Control, Vol. 14, No. 3 (June 2005), p. 214 (R-172).

117. “Extra” and “Ultra” remain commonly used as variant descriptors to report sequentially lower (or the lowest) yields of tar. These designations reflect the common definitions of extra as “going beyond and being better than what is normal, regular, usual, expected, or necessary” and ultra conveying “going beyond others.”117 In Australia, in

anticipation of a “light” and “mild” descriptor ban, cigarette brands were labeled “full flavour,”

“smooth flavour,” and “fine flavour” (with a corresponding color coding) to communicate

variants of notional “strength” or tar deliveries.118 In Canada, following a settlement between the

major tobacco companies and the Competition Bureau in Canada during 2006, the “light” and

“mild” cigarette product descriptors were removed from packaging, consequently Export ‘A’

117 J. Hoek & T. Dewhirst, The Meaning of “Light” and “Ultralight” Cigarettes: A Commentary on Smith, Stutts, and Zank, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 31, No. 2 (Fall 2012), p. 223 (R-261). 118 B. King & R. Borland, What was “light” and “mild” is now “smooth” and “fine”: new labelling of Australian cigarettes, Tobacco Control, Vol. 14, No. 3 (June 2005), p. 214 (R-172).

Mild became Export ‘A’ Rich, while Export ‘A’ Light, Extra Light, and Ultra Light became

Export ‘A’ Smooth, Extra Smooth, and Ultra Smooth, respectively.119

118. Legal testimony from a senior tobacco executive who oversaw strategy and product development reveals that “smooth” is meant to convey “reduced irritation” (i.e., alleviating the harshness or burning sensation often experienced at the back of the throat when smoking).120 “Smooth” appears nearly synonymous with “mild,” as market research reveals that consumers associated mildness with a lack of harshness, resulting in less irritation being experienced while smoking.121 According to Philip Morris’ Canadian subsidiary, “This and other studies have consistently indicated that ‘light’ is viewed as a signal of strength while ‘mild’ is viewed as a signal of smoothness.”122 A marketing consultancy firm, the Institute for Analytical

Research Inc., in its submission of motivation research findings, stated “the majority of respondents indicate that they see ‘mildness’ as synonymous with a ‘safer’ product and reveal that mildness is a criterion for brand selection which takes on additional significance in the present smoking climate.”123

119. Brand names consisting of numbers have also been used on cigarette packaging to communicate supposed tar yields of brand variants and to facilitate comparisons within a brand

119 Dewhirst, T., Gender, extreme sports, and smoking: A case study of Export ‘A’ cigarette brand marketing in Fuller, L. (ed.), Sexual Sports Rhetoric: Global and Universal Contexts (2010), pp. 263-275 (JC-087). See also JTI-Macdonald Corp., JTI Descriptor Reference Guide (JC-105). 120 Pollay RW, Dewhirst T. (2003), A Premiere example of the illusion of harm reduction cigarettes in the 1990s, Tobacco Control, 12 (3), p. 325 (R-16). 121 Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Matinée - 1971 Marketing Plans (1971), Bates No. 566628084-8106 (JC-017). 122 Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., STARR: Qualitative Research (Apr. 1998), Bates No. TA23078-3112, p. TA-23089 (JC-065). 123 Institute for Analytical Research Inc., Contemporary consumer attitudes toward cigarettes, smoking and health, Prepared for Imperial Tobacco Ltd. (Aug. 1969), Bates No. 696000226 (JC-015).

63 family.124 Vantage is a brand that has been positioned to offer reassurance to health concerned smokers in both Canada and the U.S.125 As seen below, the Vantage brand family in Canada consisted of the parent filter brand (designated with number 9), Light variants (designated with number 5), Extra Light and Slims variants (designated with number 4 and number 3), and Ultra

Light (designated with number 1) for marketing purposes during the late 1990s. Each lower number was thereby associated with the perception of a lower level of tar. Following the removal of “light” and “mild” descriptors from Canadian packs in 2006, the numbers on Vantage packs become even more prominent, as depicted below.

124 Dewhirst, T. and Lee, W.B., Cigarette advertising in the Republic of Korea: A case illustration of The One, Tobacco Control, Vol. 21, No. 6, 2012, pp. 584-588 (JC-098). 125 Anderson, S., et al, Taking ad-Vantage of lax advertising regulation in the USA and Canada: Reassuring and distracting health-concerned smokers, Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 63, 2006, pp. 1973-1985 (JC-078).

120. These “replacement” descriptors continue to signal “light” or “mild” brand variants to consumers, which are perceived as synonymous with a “safer” product and a potentially important criterion for brand selection given health concerns among smokers. By using such modifying descriptors within one brand family, one product is signaled as a “lighter” or “milder” version than another. A consumer could immediately recognize, albeit erroneously, that if they liked Marlboro but wanted a “healthier” version, they could instead select Marlboro

Gold or Blue. With each different presentation within the same brand family, these already meaningful descriptors created perceptions that each descriptor variation reflected a “lighter” or

“healthier” version of their preferred brand.

121. In Uruguay, following the descriptor ban, the tobacco market was filled with these multiple presentations of lower tar brands. For example, Philip Morris subsidiary, Abal offered a range of lower tar variants such as Fiesta 50 50, Fiesta Blue, Philip Morris Blue, Marlboro Gold,

Marlboro Blue, and Premier Extra, among others. Its competitors offered brands such as Nevada

White, Coronado Plata (Silver in English), and Montana Blue.

122. As a result, the industry’s response to the descriptor bans has limited the impact on correcting false beliefs about brand variants. Consumer research suggests these efforts have succeeded in maintaining consumer perceptions associated with brands previously labeled as light or mild.126 Indeed, population-based and experimental studies indicate that smokers perceive descriptors such as “gold”, “smooth” and number descriptors as indicators of reduced harm.127 Although some countries have tried to expand the list of prohibited descriptors, this type

126 M. Bansal-Travers, et al., The Impact of Cigarette Pack Design, Descriptors, and Warning Labels on Risk Perception in the U.S, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 40, No. 6 (June 2011) p. 680 (R-240). 127 See Merit Agenda (7 Apr. 1993), Bates No. 2048838219-8255 (JC-057); Hammond D, Parkinson C. The impact of cigarette package design on perceptions of risk. Journal of Public Health 2009; 31(3): p. 347 (R-39);

of regulatory approach has not solved the problem because of the tobacco industry’s continual

response and creativity, and is undermined by historical associations with “light” brand variants

in devising new packaging elements to perpetuate these false beliefs.

123. For example, the business documents from Philip Morris obtained by the FDA further indicate that consumer perceptions changed very little following the ban on “light” and

“mild” descriptors in the United States.128 According to Philip Morris research, close to 60% of

adult smokers did not even notice any packaging changes.129 Overall, the evidence indicates that

descriptor bans are insufficient on their own to substantially reduce false impressions promoted

by brand variants and, therefore, proved inadequate to address the primary rationale for

Uruguay’s single presentation regulation.130

124. In addition to the use of “replacement” brand descriptors, tobacco companies have

also used other product attributes across brand families to promote false beliefs about the risk of

brand variants. Colors, logos, and other aspects of brand imagery on packages further influence

perceptions of risk.

Hammond, D., Potentially misleading information and plain packaging: New Canadian findings, World Conference on Tobacco Health (9 Mar. 2009) (JC-086); M. Bansal-Travers, et al., The Impact of Cigarette Pack Design, Descriptors, and Warning Labels on Risk Perception in the U.S., American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 40, No. 6 (June 2011), p. 674 (R-240). 128 Altria Client Services, Memorandum re Marlboro Pack Identifier Qualitative Research (26 Mar. 2010), Bates No. 3104473670 (“Marlboro Lights and Marlboro Ultra Lights adult Smokers were least confused by the pack change. Many of these adult smokers were easily able to identify their pack in the display. Many did not notice a difference until it was pointed out.”) (JC-090); Altria Client Services, Memorandum re FDA Monitor Qualitative - AS Rendezvous Quick Observations (18 June 2010), Bates No. 3104474100 (“There seemed to be no confusion around the Marlboro Gold Pack.”) (JC-092). 129 Altria Client Services, Email re FDA Awareness Study - Status (10 June 2010), Bates No. 5028316010- 6011(“Close to 6 in 10 (57%) of adult smokers have not noticed any packaging changes.”) (JC-091). 130 See supra ¶ 109 above.

b. The Color Spectrum

125. Like brand descriptors, colors are matched to product design and filter ventilation

level. Trade sources and tobacco industry documents reveal that marketing communication and

package depictions of color and imagery are meant to convey product “lightness.”131 As

discussed below, different shades of the same color and the proportion of white space on the

package are also commonly used to manipulate perceptions of a product’s relative strength

compared to other brand variants.

126. To color code brand family variants, tobacco companies have historically taken

one of two approaches. One approach is to have a brand family represented by a particular color and to attribute hues or tones of the given color to the brand variants. Consequently, in efforts to give the brand family a high degree of prominence and visual impact at the point-of-sale, the typical retail merchandising approach is to group various brand family members together “to create a larger, more effective display of the name, BENSON & HEDGES, for example.”132 To

make an impact, considered a key principle of retail promotion by British American Tobacco

(BAT), it is advised that “similar coloured packs displayed together will create a bold eye

catching display.”133 In using such an approach, a particular brand or brand family may be

associated with a particular color (for example, the brand Player’s and the color blue), but

different descriptors as well as varying intensities of the given color and the amount of white

131 Pollay, R. and Dewhirst, T., Marketing cigarettes with low machine-measured yields in: Risks Associated with Smoking Cigarettes with Low Machine-Measured Yields of Tar and Nicotine, Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 13, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute (2001), pp. 217-219; Wakefield, M., et al., The cigarette pack as image: new evidence from tobacco industry documents, Tobacco Control, Vol. 11, No. 1 (2002), pp. i73-i80. 132 British American Tobacco, What Can You Do? (Undated), Bates No. 301656380-6409, p. 301656388 (JC-104). 133 Ibid., p. 301656397 (JC-104).

space seen on the package navigate smokers along the supposed tar delivery spectrum, as seen

below.

Philip Morris achieved a similar effect for the Premier brand in Uruguay, where different shades

of blue were used to indicate different levels of brand “strength.”

127. According to BAT documentation, “‘light-lighter-lightest’ were achieved by insistance [sic] on lighter presentations—product story imagery—white packs—pale colours—

mildness dominated copy.”134 Consumer research for tobacco firm, RJR-Macdonald found that,

134 British American Tobacco Co., Ltd., Research & development/marketing conference (1985), Bates No. 102198587-8662, p. 102198600 (JC-045).

68 with the exception of black, darker colors were associated with “heavier” smoke while “package design can make inferential statements that, in relative terms, the brand is a more clean and healthy alternative. The amount of white space makes a major contribution in this regard.”135

Similarly, Philip Morris observed that “as one moves down the delivery sector, then the closer to white a pack tends to become. This is because white is generally held to convey a clean healthy association.”136 According to documents from Philip Morris’ Canadian subsidiary, “stronger cigarettes were more associated with brighter, darker, more visually impactful [sic] packaging… light/milder cigarettes were more linked with white.”137 This is consistent with independent research on tobacco packaging, which has found that lighter colour packing is associated with less harmful cigarettes. For example, smokers of ‘gold’, ‘silver’, ‘blue’ or ‘purple’ brands are more likely to believe that their brand may be less harmful compared to smokers of ‘red’ or

‘black’ brands.138

128. A second approach is to use an assortment of colors as visual cues for the variants of a brand family. By using a color-coding system, variants can both maintain associations with banned descriptors (e.g., “light,” “mild,” “low tar”) previously deemed misleading and deceptive, and create distinctions among new variants on the basis of their color positioning within the brand family.139 According to John Digianni, designer and vice-president at

135 Qualitative Science, Exploration of various design parameters re: Export “A” pack re-design (June 1991) Bates No. TA23163- 3240, p. TA23192 (JC-054). 136 Philip Morris, Marketing New Products in a Restrictive Environment (June 1990), Bates No. 2044762173-2364 (JC-051). 137 Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., Project Apollo: A Qualitative Study of Opportunities in the YAM Segment (1999), Bates No. TA23241-3285 (JC-067). 138 S. Mutti, et al., Beyond light and mild: cigarette brand descriptors and perceptions of risk in the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey, Addiction, Vol. 106, No. 6 (June 2011), p. 1173 (R-62). 139 Anderson, S., et al, Implications of the federal court order banning the terms “light” and “mild”: What difference could it make?, Tobacco Control, Vol. 16, 2007, p. 276 (JC-083).

Gianninoto Associates Inc., “red packs connote strong flavor, green packs connote coolness or menthol and white packs suggest that a cigaret [sic] is low-tar. White means sanitary and safe.”140 Philip Morris’ internal documents also show that “lower delivery products tend to be featured in blue packs.”141 The color red is commonly used for regular cigarettes, whereas blue and gold are commonly understood to signal “light” or “medium” variants while the color, silver is commonly linked with “Ultra Lights” (e.g., Marlboro Lights was renamed Marlboro Gold,

Marlboro Milds was renamed Marlboro Blue, and Marlboro Ultra Lights was renamed Marlboro

Silver).142 Thus, the color-coded packs serves both as substitutes for prior brands that were prohibited as deceptive and as an easily understood system to identify the “lighter” character of certain brands going forward.

129. In Uruguay, Philip Morris, for example, used this color-coding system to denote the relative strength of the variants sold under the Marlboro brand. As shown below, Marlboro

Gold was a light variant sold in gold packaging, Marlboro Red was the regular variant sold in red packaging, Marlboro Blue was the medium variant (in between light and regular Marlboros) sold in blue packaging, and Marlboro Fresh Mint was the mentholated variant sold in green packaging. The Marlboro packaging was consistent in amounts of white space and the use of logos. Color alone distinguished the cigarettes in this brand family:

140 Koten, J., “Tobacco Marketers’ Success Formula: Make Cigarets in Smoker’s Own Image,” Wall Street Journal (29 Feb. 1980) (JC-036). 141 Philip Morris, Marketing New Products in a Restrictive Environment (June 1990), Bates No. 2044762173-2364 (JC-051). 142 Wilson, D., “Coded to Obey Law, Lights Become Marlboro Gold,” The New York Times (19 Feb. 2010) (R-45); Thrasher, J. et al., The alchemy of Marlboro: transforming ‘light’ into ‘gold’ in Mexico, Tobacco Control, 19, Aug. 2010., pp. 342-343 (R-43).G. Connolly & H. Alpert, Has the tobacco industry evaded the FDA’s ban on ‘Light’ cigarette descriptors?, Tobacco Control: Online First (13 Mar. 2013) (R-274).

c. Product Design: Filters

130. Package design and brand imagery also act in synergy with product design to influence the perceived risk of brand variants. For example, brands labeled as “light,” “mild,” or

“gold” typically have greater filter ventilation levels, which produce more diluted smoke.143

Although smokers “compensate” for filter ventilation levels by taking larger puffs or more puffs,

the diluted smoke produces “lighter” sensory perceptions during inhalation, which helps to

reinforce the false belief that these brands are less harmful.144

131. In summary, while the Uruguay descriptor ban led to modest reductions in false

beliefs among Uruguayan smokers, the ban did not address the full range of product attributes

that promote false beliefs about the risks of brand variants. Brand variants continued to serve the

143 O’Connor, R., et al., Relationship of cigarette-related perceptions to cigarette design features: Finding from the 2009 ITC US Survey, Nicotine & Tobacco Research, Vol. 15, No. 11 (Nov. 2013), pp. 1943-1947 (JC-101); O’Connor, R., Relationship between constituent labelling and reporting of tar yields among smokers in four countries, Journal of Public Health, Vol. 28, No. 4 (2006), pp. 324-329 (JC-081). 144 Wakefield, M., et al., The cigarette pack as image: new evidence from tobacco industry documents, Tobacco Control, Vol. 11, No. 1 (2002), pp. i73-i80; Hammond D., Parkinson C., The impact of cigarette packaging design on perceptions of risk, Journal of Public Health, Vol. 31 (2009), pp. 345-53 (R-39) (finding that perceptions of taste were significantly associated with perceptions of tar level and risk); J. Hoek & T. Dewhirst, The Meaning of “Light” and “Ultralight” Cigarettes: A Commentary on Smith, Stutts, and Zank, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 31, No. 2 (Fall 2012), p. 225 (R-261); Kozlowski L. T. & Pillitteri J. L., Beliefs about ‘lights’ and ‘ultra-light’ cigarettes and efforts to change those beliefs: an overview of early efforts and published research, Tobacco Control, Vol. 10 (2001), (JC-071).

71 strategic goal of offering reassurance to smokers moving down the continuum in search of a

“healthier” cigarette.

B. Uruguay’s Ban on Brand Extensions

132. Thus, Uruguay’s ban on brand extensions took over where the descriptor ban left off. Brand or line extensions are defined as “new products introduced under existing brand names,” where attempts are made to leverage the already established reputation of the parent brand.145 According to common marketing thought, the use of brand families and introducing line extensions can generally serve several purposes, including the facilitation of more targeted marketing efforts and enhancing a trademark’s presence. In practice, however, brand extensions within the Uruguayan tobacco market (and elsewhere) were primarily used to target marketing efforts towards health-concerned consumers by offering health reassurance to smokers by creating the perception that there is a hierarchy of “strength” and harmfulness within brand families. As demonstrated in this section, Uruguay’s ban on multiple brand variants responded to the tobacco industry’s deceptive use of brand sub-variants by restricting the companies’ ability to use brand extensions to position brand variants as “less harmful” options.

1. The Industry’s Strategy: Using Brand Extensions to Position Health Reassurance Brands

133. The success of the tobacco companies’ ability to create the perception that some cigarettes were healthier versions of others greatly relies on their use of brand extensions.

Marlboro is a good example of this practice. Philip Morris’ Marlboro Red is the parent brand of the Marlboro brand family – as well as the company’s mainstay product within the Uruguayan market – commonly known for its strong intensity and being “full flavored.” The brand image of

145 Wells, W., et al, Advertising: Principles and practice (1989), p. 74 (JC-049).

72 the Marlboro trademark includes rugged masculinity, independence, freedom, and heroism.

When introducing a brand extension such as Marlboro Light, offering a lower yield cigarette relative to Marlboro Red implies reduced harm, yet the established reputation of the trademark can also be leveraged to reassure smokers that the product offers a certain taste or quality.

134. In extending the brand families, advertising creatively reinforced the false perception of comparative healthiness. According to Philip Morris documentation, “when

Marlboro Lights was first introduced in 1971, our management made a conscious decision to differentiate Lights from Red… the advertising was dramatically different…first using water color executions, then, big pack shots, a lot of white space and a small cowboy visual.”146 Early advertising for Marlboro Light featured copy stating “the spirit of Marlboro in a low tar cigarette.

Lighter in taste. Lower in tar. And still offers up the same quality that has made Marlboro famous.”

146 Philip Morris, Merit history [script for slide presentation] (17 Aug. 1990), Bates No. 3990435857-5880, p. 3990435880 (JC-053).

135. Recommended advertising objectives of subsequent campaigns were “to differentiate the ad for Marlboro Lights from Marlboro Reds” and “to communicate the mildness of Marlboro Lights.”147 The prominence of white in the advertisements was equated with communicating that the cigarette is “mild/light” and using white horses “did achieve the objectives to project the mildness and differentiate the image from Marlboro Red.”148 Consumer research for Philip Morris, comparing old and new ad campaigns pertaining to Marlboro Light, found that one of the ads was well received for “Marlboro,” but “the colour is not light enough to clearly indicate a light cigarette.”149

136. As described above, for the Uruguay market, “Lights” were regarded by Philip

Morris as the market direction for appealing to this particular segment.150 Philip Morris underwent a market analysis which identified internal strengths and weaknesses as well as external opportunities and threats for their various brand families in 1989. For Marlboro,

“growth of lights segment – Marlboro Lights” was declared an opportunity, which partially reflected that a key weakness of Marlboro was the general perception of being a harsh product.151 For Fiesta Lights, a key weakness was that the brand did not offer any line extensions, yet an opportunity was to offer Fiesta Extra Lights to appeal to those with “interest in lighter or ‘mas suave’ brands.”152 Mas suave translates to smoother, thus “lighter” and

147 SRT, Conclusions and Recommendation (June 1993), Bates No. 2504021628-1638, p. 2504021628 (JC-058). 148 Ibid., p. 2504021630 (JC-058). 149 Ibid., p. 2504021636 (JC-058). 150 See supra Section III (c): The Marketing of Health Reassurance in Uruguay; Philip Morris Internal Document, Summary of Main Findings (Dec. 1989), Bates No. 2040125501-5527, p. 2040125524 (R-123). 151 Ibid., p. 2040125516. 152 Ibid., p. 2040125510.

“smoother” were regarded internally by Philip Morris as virtually equivalent terms. A key threat

for Fiesta Lights was a competitor introducing a “Light” brand that tasted good, which reflects

the common consideration in the marketing of lower yield cigarettes to convey the product’s

reduced risk while still managing to offset the loss in taste.153 For the J&M Lights brand, a strategic opportunity in Uruguay was to offer J&M Ultra Lights to once again appeal to those with an interest in “mas suave” or a “smoother” brand.154 Nevada was a competing brand

identified with the key weakness of “no successful line extensions,” and opportunities were to

offer “targeted advertising” and “revitalize Nevada Lights.” 155 In conclusion, the product direction of the Uruguayan cigarette market was identified as “moving towards (perceived) lights products.”156

137. As also described above, in 1994, a Philip Morris analysis of the Uruguay market

found that the product acceptance of Marlboro needed improvement as smokers perceived the

brand’s flavor as too harsh. 157 Marlboro Red had difficulty gaining traction in Uruguay as many

perceived the “harshness” of the cigarette as running counter to their concerns about the potential

intensity of its harm. Despite Marlboro Red being associated with full flavor compared to the

other brand family variants, it was the top performing brand of the brand family, whereas

Marlboro Light was underperforming with an insignificant market share. In order to enhance

product acceptance among health-concerned users, Philip Morris’ action plan included adjusting

Marlboro Lights to appeal to the consumers Philip Morris categorized as health concerned, as

153 Pollay, R. & Dewhirst, T., The dark side of marketing seemingly “Light” cigarettes: successful images and failed fact, Tobacco Control, Vol. 11, No. Suppl 1 (Mar. 2002), pp. i18-i31 (R-153). 154 Philip Morris Internal Document, Summary of Main Findings (Dec. 1989), Bates No. 2040125501-5527, p. 2040125516 (R-123). 155 Ibid., p. 2040125512 156 Ibid., p. 2040125516. 157 See supra Section III (c): The Marketing of Health Reassurance in Uruguay.

75 well as using Marlboro Medium as a new brand opportunity to appeal to the consumers Philip

Morris identified as young and active.158

138. Philip Morris, in giving a historical overview of the Marlboro brand and its advertising in 1999, highlighted the multiple functions of brand families and the introduction of brand variants or line extensions:

“Domestically and abroad, the campaign’s ability to incorporate and take advantage of changing tastes and attitudes among smokers has also played a key role in the brand’s future successes.

In the early 70’s, smoker interest in lower tar cigarettes began developing – and by using the brand equities already established, the roof, the cowboy, the Country, Philip Morris was able to successfully launch Marlboro Lights in 1972.

In the following years, Marlboro continued to use line extensions to support and address the changing marketplace, constantly creating news for the brand and fueling its growth.

In the late 80’s [. . .] we also determined that a ‘flavor gap’ existed between Marlboro Reds and Lights. . .and developed Marlboro Mediums. . . .”159

For Philip Morris, the “flavor gap” between Marlboro Red and Marlboro Light was regarded as equivalent to a “tar gap.”160 Therefore, products were developed along a tar spectrum ranging from light to medium to full strength.

139. In this way, brand variants were designed to offer erroneous reassurance to health concerned smokers by creating the perception of sequential tar yields for the brand family.

Policy initiatives, such as banning the use of “light” and “mild” product descriptors, have aimed

158 Rodriguez, C., Memorandum re Uruguay (16 Mar. 1994), Bates No. 2503023582-3585 (JC-059). 159 Philip Morris, The Marlboro Story (7 Dec. 1999), Bates No. 2067061353-1357, p. 2067061356 (JC-069). 160 Roper, R., Marlboro Summit (19 Mar. 1994), Bates No. 2501098715-8782, p. 2501098770 (JC-060); Philip Morris International, Marlboro Worldwide Creative Issues and Guidelines (1993), Bates No. 2044682618- 2044682627 (JC-056).

76 to address this issue, but the effect of these policies has been limited by the tobacco industry’s response, given that tobacco companies have demonstrated an exceptional ability to circumvent the spirit of these policies. The single presentation requirement serves to close policy loopholes being exploited by tobacco companies, including Philip Morris, and restrict them from using the brand family to perpetuate misconceptions about the comparative harmfulness of brand variants.

It does this by addressing the root causes that lead smokers to believe that certain cigarettes are less harmful than others, which will be explained next.

2. The Consumer’s Response: The Effect of Anchoring

140. When a brand name becomes familiar in consumers’ minds, a marketer has an opportunity to develop a “brand family” around that brand name. A considerable amount of research in marketing and psychology reveals that the parent brand in such a brand family often serves as a type of anchor that is capable of influencing judgments about other members of the brand family (brand variants or brand extensions).161 In other words, sometimes consumers’ perceptions and judgments are distorted so that a brand variant is made to appear better than it would normally be (or than it actually is) simply because of the presence of the parent brand as an anchor. Though anchoring promotes such distortions in perceptions and judgments, the research has clarified whether the direction of the distortion is likely to be toward the parent

161 See Chernev, A., Semantic Anchoring in Sequential Evaluations of Vices and Virtues, Journal of Consumer Research (Feb. 2011) (JC-095); Similar accounts can be found in numerous psychological references including; Moskowitz, G., and Roman, R.J., Spontaneous Trait Inferences as Self-Generated Primes: Implications for Conscious Social Judgment, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 62, No. 5 (1992), pp. 728-738 (JC-055); and Herr, P., Consequences of priming: Judgment and behavior, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, No. 6 (1986), pp. 1106-1115 (JC-047). Finally much of the empirical literature relevant to marketing has been reviewed by Dato-on, M. C. and Dahlstrom, R., A Meta-Analytic Investigation of Contrast Effects in Decision-Making, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 20 (8) (2003), pp. 707-731 (JC-075).

77 brand or away from the parent brand. This has major implications for the marketing of cigarettes in Uruguay and for the importance of the single presentation requirement.

141. In psychology, the most relevant research is referred to as “priming” studies because it investigates the degree to which an anchoring stimulus (the “prime”) can alter perceptions, judgments, or evaluations of a second object. When the effect of the prime is to move the judgment of the second object (often referred to as a “target”) closer to the prime that is referred to as an assimilation effect. When the effect of the prime is to move the judgment of the target further away from the prime, it is referred to as a “contrast” effect. Both assimilation and contrast effects have been examined in literally hundreds of studies. Assimilation becomes more likely when a brand variant is marketed in such a way that it shares most characteristics of the anchoring brand. Contrast becomes more likely when a brand variant is marketed to include the name of the anchoring brand, but considerable effort is made to distinguish them in packaging, advertising, and other forms of presentation. As discussed above, though Philip Morris capitalized on its powerful parent brand to lend prestige to brand variants such as Marlboro Light and Marlboro Gold, it made a conscious decision and went to great lengths to differentiate these brand variants from the parent brand using dramatically different advertising executions “to differentiate the ad for Marlboro Lights from Marlboro Reds” and “to communicate the mildness of Marlboro Lights.”162 The same was true with respect to packaging, as shown above, where the purpose was to contrast Marlboro Light against Marlboro Red on a dimension that smokers could easily equate to lower in harmful levels of tar and nicotine and thereby provide the illusion of lower risk.

162 SRT, Conclusions and Recommendation (June 1993), Bates No. 2504021628-1638, p. 2504021628 (JC-058).

142. Philip Morris has taken great pains over 40 years to capitalize on the brand name,

“Marlboro,” as the anchor for a brand family in which brand variants such as “Marlboro Light”

are sharply differentiated along a dimension that consumers readily translate to imply higher

versus lower health risk. To the extent that Marlboro Red is understood to be high in tar and

hence a more “hazardous cigarette,” its availability as an anchor is likely to have a contrast effect

on peoples’ judgments of other Marlboro brand variants, including Marlboro Gold and Blue,

which are distinctively marketed to be seen as “lower in tar and nicotine.” Leaving all else aside, these brand variants would be judged as even less hazardous simply by virtue of that contrast.

When companies market brand extensions they have the ability to accentuate differences in perceptions of brand variants, often in very subtle ways that may bypass conscious thought processes.

143. This is aptly described by Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada in “A

Comprehensive Plan to End the ‘Light’ and ‘Mild’ Deception,” which recommends banning brand extensions for this reason:

“If smokers are faced with multiple types of cigarettes under one brand name they can be expected to look for and find differences in those brands, and to ascribe a meaning to those differences. Because these cigarettes were marketed to convey a hierarchy of ‘strength’/harmfulness, this will be the meaning that smokers ascribe to any within-brand distinctions.”163

144. That smokers typically rely on marketing positioning rather than more specific

information is supported by the testimony of James Morgan, as Philip Morris CEO, “the major

influence in people’s perceptions in the tar of a cigarette would have come from the marketing

163 Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, A comprehensive plan to end the ‘light’ and ‘mild’ deception (Jan. 2005), p. 5 (R-170).

positioning of a brand as opposed to people literally reading the FTC [tar and nicotine

figures].”164

145. Because the single presentation requirement eliminates the side-by-side, comparison marketing of a parent brand together with its brand variants it serves an important public health function, and it is why the single presentation requirement gets to the crux of the problem. Not only does the illusion of a healthier cigarette, represented by a brand variant, undermine public health, but the ability to “anchor” one’s perceptions and beliefs about risk on the parent brand -- so that a movement “down” to a lighter version is seen as a healthier choice -- makes it decidedly easier to continue smoking instead of trying harder to quit.

146. The Tobacco Institute was prescient about this possibility in 1967, prior to the time the industry introduced “Light” cigarettes:

“A smoker may compare two packages of cigarettes and choose one on the ground that its tar and nicotine content is less than the other. Presumably, he would be doing so because of his belief that reduced tar and nicotine content makes the cigarette ‘safer.’ Here again, he is receiving a possibly false assurance of safety, because there is no way of knowing whether the difference between the two cigarettes is at all significant. Even if one were to assume that reduced tar and nicotine content made cigarettes safer, no one knows how much reduction would be meaningful.”165

Smokers and potential smokers who understand that smoking cigarettes create substantial risk

often use the presence of the full flavor/higher tar parent brand to rationalize that in choosing the

brand variant they have made a choice consistent with lower risk. This becomes particularly

important for those who are becoming or are already addicted to smoking, since they experience

164 United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., Amended Final Opinion, Case No. 99-2496 (GK) (D.D.C. 2006), p. 888, ¶ 2403 (RL-171). 165 Tobacco Institute, Statement of Position (22 May 1967), Bates No. CORTI0003741-3814, p. CORTI0003786 (JC-012).

80 substantial guilt about smoking while believing they are unable to quit. In addition, family members and friends typically exert pressure on such smokers to quit, and so being able to show them that they have taken an initial step in the direction of better health is a way of reducing pressure on them to quit.

147. The relative character of a variant as “lower in tar” is that much easier to manipulate and communicate when it is compared to other variants within the spectrum of the same brand family (rather than to cigarettes more generally). Philip Morris has acknowledged that smokers respond to relational aspects of Marlboro brand extensions, and it is clear that

Philip Morris has intentionally manipulated color and related aspects of brand variants to create the false illusion that certain of these are less hazardous. As they acknowledged in 1989:

“A red pack with cork tipping will position Marlboro Ultra Lights closely to Marlboro’s flavor heritage. A blue/gray pack with white tipping, although distant from the Marlboro flavor heritage, provides traditional ultra low tar reassurance. A red pack with white tipping represents a middle ground position with a flavor link to Marlboro via the red pack and ultra low tar reassurance via white tipping.”166

148. By contrast, it is much more difficult to use a separate brand as an anchor because the relationship between brands is less clear. When smokers assign brands to categories such as

“full flavor,” “mild,” “light,” and “ultra-light,” the harmful effects of category-based inferences regarding health risks are bad enough without being enhanced by the anchoring and contrast effects discussed above. This report has spent considerable time examining the damage done by creating the illusion of significant health benefits associated with steering brands into purportedly “safer” categories. Anchoring and contrast effects are largely a within-brand

166 Camisa, R., Memorandum re Marlboro Ultra Lights Test Market Introduction - Revised (8 Feb. 1989), Bates No. 2070624747-4763, p. 2070624748 (JC-050).

problem. There are several reasons why the use of an anchoring brand and a target brand within

the same brand family is particularly effective in causing the contrast effect to emerge.

149. First, if the brands come from separate families there is much less chance that

bringing one to mind will bring the other to mind, which is a necessary condition for one to

anchor judgments about the other. Second, when the two come from the same brand family

consumers infer that there must be important enough differences between them to warrant

marketing both. Such an inference is not nearly as likely when two separate brands or brand

families are involved because competitive forces are a reasonable explanation. Third,

comparisons between brands that are members of different brand families are harder to make

because they are likely to differ on several dimensions, and brand differences are highlighted in

marketing. So, for example, it is much easier for Philip Morris to lend its Marlboro brand cache

to both Red and Light/Gold while managing the perception of a substantial difference with

respect to health risks. The consumer who has decided to switch “down” to a reduced tar product

may implicitly place his/her trust in the brand family he knows rather than simultaneously

switching both “down” and to an unfamiliar brand.167 As a result, that smoker is led to contrast the brand variant against the familiar parent brand. Thus, in a misled smoker’s mind it is far easier to answer whether Marlboro Lights are “healthier” than Marlboro Red (Original), compared to whether this Fiesta is “healthier” than that Premier.

167 Smokers are extremely brand loyal. While there is very little switching between cigarette brands, there is much more switching within the same brand family. If someone starts smoking Marlboro during adolescence, for example, it is highly likely that they will continue smoking the brand 20 years later, if they do not quit. Changes in product selection are therefore commonly within the same brand family (e.g., from Marlboro Red to Marlboro Blue). U.S. Surgeon General, Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults (2012) (JC- 099); Cummings, K., Discrepancies in cigarette brand sales and adult market share: Are new teen smokers filling the gap?, Tobacco Control, Vol. 6 (1997) (JC-063).

150. Existing brands further capitalize on such brand family marketing not only

because the parent brand serves as a well understood anchor for perceptions but because the

wisdom of choosing a brand variant (whose health-associated aspects have been manipulated) is

buttressed by the trust consumers put in existing brands. Internal Philip Morris correspondence

has observed:

“The smoker, especially the one who feels he has made a conscious effort to protect his health - at least to some extent - by moving down to a reduced tar product, wants to place his trust in someone. He does not want to feel vulnerable. By going to established brand spinoffs, he perceptually sets up a reliability, a sense of trust for his personal smoking experience.”168

151. One of Philip Morris’ experts in this case, Professor Chernev, writing in the

Journal of Consumer Research, offers a particularly insightful explanation of how contrast

effects work, which has particular relevance to what Uruguay is seeking to prevent via its single

presentation requirement. He relies on well-established psychological theories of assimilation and contrast, in which the presence of an anchor (i.e., the family brand, in this case Marlboro) leads to distortions in perception and judgment.169

152. In essence, he argues that people find it convenient to think about options as

either vices (e.g., unhealthy) or virtues (e.g., healthy) and that they use these as anchors. An

example he uses is the presence of fried cheese bites as an anchor leads people to judge a

cheeseburger as a more healthy option because it benefits from a contrast effect:

“The availability of a semantic anchor, however, is likely to produce a directionally opposite effect, leading to contrast rather than assimilation. For

168 Ellison, A., A Qualitative Analysis of the Light/Low Tar Category with Particular Emphasis on Consumer Reactions to Advertising Language and Prototype Concepts for Salem Lights (Nov. 1977), Bates No. 501226743-6772, p. 501226757 (R-104). 169 Chernev, A., Semantic Anchoring in Sequential Evaluations of Vices and Virtues, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 37 (Feb. 2011) (JC-095).

example, a cheeseburger following a green salad is likely to be judged as having more calories than the same cheeseburger preceded by a plate of fried cheese 170 bites.”

He explains what happens when the anchor (say the parent brand, Marlboro Red) is seen as

dissimilar from the target (say the brand variant, Marlboro Gold), and in another example argues

that a wolf, which individually is seen as a fierce animal, will be seen as less ferocious when

contrasted against a tiger:

“The proposition that sequential evaluations of vice/virtue combinations will lead to a contrast effect builds on prior research in the domain of social psychology arguing that classifying options into opposing categories is likely to polarize their meaning. Applied to anchoring, these findings imply that if the reference object is similar to the target it is likely to be used as a basis for judgments, resulting in an assimilation of the target toward the reference object. When the reference object is largely dissimilar from the target, however, it is likely to be used as a point of comparison, resulting in a contrast rather than assimilation effect. This argument is consistent with the finding that an object is likely to be judged as more extreme when following a dissimilar prime. For example, even though a fox is described as more ferocious following a similar semantic prime (wolf), it is described as less ferocious following a dissimilar prime (tiger).”171

153. Consistent with Professor Chernev’s explanation, exposure to the parent brand,

Marlboro Red, is comparable to exposure to a fierce animal (his example was a tiger). With that

as an anchor, a brand variant associated with reduced harm (Marlboro Lights and now Gold) is

contrasted away from Marlboro Red and is seen as even less harmful -- just as a wolf or fox

would be in the animal kingdom. The well-studied contrast effect will lead consumers to judge

Marlboro Gold in a much more favorable light on the primary dimension (health consequences) for which it was used to differentiate itself from the parent brand. Chernev notes the importance of creating accurate consumer perceptions of sources of health risk in applying his understanding of the effect of anchoring and contrast effects on judgments of calorie content:

170 Ibid., p. 3. 171 Ibid.

“People’s ability to accurately evaluate a meal’s calorie content also has important public policy implications, stemming from the fact that calorie overconsumption has been identified as one of the primary sources contributing to the obesity epidemic.”172

154. His concerns about misperceptions and inaccuracies in perception of health risks due to anchoring and contrast seem highly applicable to allowing multiple brand presentations by cigarette companies (e.g., Marlboro and Marlboro Gold). Hence it is hard to understand why he would oppose the single presentation requirement in Uruguay.

155. Indeed, while Professor Chernev’s work elsewhere may have merit, his analysis in this case does not. The central problem in Professor Chernev’s expert report here is his use of limiting criteria (e.g. relevance, validity, and sufficiency) to exclude and critique all studies related to the single presentation requirement and the 80% warning label. As addressed by

Professor Thrasher in his expert report, these criteria are excessive and misplaced. This fundamental flaw applies equally to his treatment of both measures, and there is no need to repeat it here. However, in the context of single presentation, Professor Chernev adds still another condition for disregarding the relevant studies, namely that they must also measure the effect of differences of package color on consumers.173 Of the only two studies that pass his criteria, one does not satisfy this additional consideration. But again, Professor Chernev’s focus is misguided. Color, in and of itself, is not the relevant issue. As discussed above, the tobacco industry uses a combination of design elements, including color, to position variants as more or less “healthy” versions of the same brand. Color-coding is perhaps the most obvious tactic, but it is far from the only one. The single presentation requirement was not implemented to restrict

172 Ibid. 173 Report of Alexander Chernev, Ph.D. (28 Feb. 2014), p. 10 (CWS-009).

color per se, but the meaning that colors acquire in their context within the brand family, as also addressed earlier. Uruguay’s measure is not limited to color, nor are the studies that support it.

VI. CONCLUSION

156. Uruguay’s requirement of a single presentation for a given brand (which

disallows the marketing of brand variants) is particularly reasonable in light of the importance of

the parent brand as an anchor and the availability of a second and third brand variant that already

has substantial health reassurance associations. But such positioning is much more difficult

under the requirement of a single presentation since there can be no brand family contrast -- for

example, between Marlboro Red, Marlboro Blue, and Marlboro Gold -- to accentuate the

difference between them. The ability to contrast Marlboro Red and Marlboro Gold also leads to

the consumer inference that the two brand variants must be meaningfully different in tar and

nicotine deliveries (and hence degree of health risk).

157. While the use of brand variants in the abstract can theoretically enable a firm to

appeal to different market segments more easily, any meaningful discussion of them in the

matter before this tribunal must center on the reality of their use in the cigarette market. In that

regard, history is clear that the use of brand variants by the tobacco industry, including Philip

Morris, has been a key factor in deceiving smokers into thinking that their offerings differed in

their delivery of harmful substances. This undoubtedly leads many people to continue smoking

rather than quitting as well as encouraging new smokers. In short, a substantial amount of

scientific evidence in psychology, marketing, and public health supports Uruguay’s refusal to

allow more than a single presentation of a cigarette brand. The presence of additional brand

variants within the same brand family affects choices in harmful ways, by leading many consumers to mistakenly believe that one cigarette is healthier than another.

______

Joel Cohen

______

Timothy Dewhirst David Hammond

Appendix 1

JOEL B. COHEN

BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

Address: 4622 N.W. 56th Drive Gainesville, FL 32606-4316 Phone: (352) 373-9929 E-mail: [email protected]

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

Ph.D. (Business Administration/Marketing) 1966 U.C.L.A. Supporting Field: Social Psychology Doctoral Dissertation: "Interpersonal Response Traits and Consumer Behavior"

MBA (Marketing) 1963 U.C.L.A.

B.S. (Business Administration) 1962 U.C.L.A.

ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS

2008 - Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus, University of Florida

Fall 2008: Visiting Professor, Columbia University

1988 – 2007: Distinguished Service Professor of Marketing and Adjunct Professor of Anthropology. Director, Center for Consumer Research, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida

1975 - 1988: Professor of Marketing and Director, Center for Consumer Research, University of Florida

1974 - 1983: Professor and Chairman, Marketing Department, University of Florida

1972 - 1973: Vice President and Director, National Analysts Social and Behavioral Science Division of Booz, Allen & Hamilton

1970 - 1972: Associate Professor of Business Administration, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

1966 - 1970: Assistant Professor of Business Administration, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Summer 1967: Visiting Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Business Administration, U.C.L.A.

Summer 1965, 1966: Instructor, Graduate School of Business Administration, U.C.L.A. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS

Association for Consumer Research American Psychological Association (Division 8: Personality and Social Psychology) American Marketing Association

PUBLICATIONS

Books

Behavioral Science Foundations of Consumer Behavior, New York: The Free Press, 1972.

Chapters in Books and Edited Collections

"The Role of Personality in Consumer Decisions," in H.H. Kassarjian and T.S. Robertson (eds.), Perspectives in Consumer Behavior, Scott, Foresman, Glenview, Ill., 1968, pp. 220-234.

"Toward An Integrated Use of Expectancy-Value Attitude Models," in G.D. Hughes and M.L. Ray, Buyer/Consumer Information Processing, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 1974, pp. 331-346.

"A Behavioral Science Look at Market Segmentation Research," (with William L. Wilkie) in Y. Wind and M.G. Greenberg (eds.), Moving Ahead with Attitude Research, American Marketing Association, Chicago, 1977, pp. 29-38.

"The Structure of Product Attributes: Defining Attribute Dimensions for Planning and Evaluation," in A.D. Shocker (ed.), Analytic Approaches to Product and Marketing Planning, Marketing Science Institute, 1979, pp. 239-256.

"Consumer Psychology," (with Dipankar Chakravarti) in M.R. Rosenzweig and L.W. Porter (eds.), Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 41, 1990, pp. 243-288.

"Attitude, Affect and Consumer Behavior," in B.S. Moore and A. M. Isen (eds.), Affect and Social Behavior, Cambridge University Press, 1990, pp. 152-206.

"Charting a Public Policy Agenda for Cigarettes," in P.E. Murphy and W.L. Wilkie (eds.), The Future of Marketing and Advertising Regulation: The Federal Trade Commission in the 1990s, University of Notre Dame Press, 1990, 234-254.

"Affect and Consumer Behavior," (with Charles Areni) in T.S. Robertson and H.H. Kassarjian (eds.), Handbook of Consumer Behavior, Prentice-Hall, 1991, pp. 188-240.

"Reconceptualizing Alcohol Advertising Effects: A Consumer Psychology Perspective," in S.E. Martin (ed.), The Effects of the Mass Media on the Use and Abuse of Alcohol. Bethesda, MD: Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 1995, pp. 245-249.

"The Dangers of Advertising Low Tar Cigarettes: Let’s Understand what Consumers Understand," in M.E. Goldberg, M. Fishbein and S.E. Middlestadt (eds.), Social Marketing: Theoretical and Practical Perspectives, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997, pp. 245-264.

"A Motivational Perspective on Means-End Chains," (with Luk Warlop) in T. J. Reynolds and J. C. Olson (eds.), Consumer Decision-Making: A Means-End Approach to Marketing and Advertising Strategy, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2001, pp. 389-412.

“Affect-Based Evaluation and Regulation as Mediators of Behavior: The Role of Affect in Risk Taking, Helping and Eating Patterns,” (with Eduardo B. Andrade) in Roy Baumeister, Kathleen Vohs, and George Loewenstein (eds.) Do emotions help or hurt decision making? A hedgefoxian perspective. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2007, pp. 35-68.

“The Role of Affect in Consumer Judgment and Decision Making,” (with Michel Tuan Pham and Eduardo B. Andrade) in Curtis P. Haugtvedt, Paul Herr, and Frank Kardes (eds.) Handbook of Consumer Psychology. Psychology Press, 2008, 297-348.

“When Brands Are Built From Within: A Social Identity Pathway to Liking and Evaluation,” (with Americus Reed II and Amit Bhattacharjee) in Deborah MacInnis, C.Whan Park and Joseph Priester (eds.) Handbook of Brand Relationships. M.E. Sharpe, (Society for Consumer Psychology), 2009, 124-150.

Articles in Journals and Proceedings

"Cognitive Dissonance and Consumer Behavior" (with Harold H. Kassarjian). California Management Review, Vol. 8 (Fall, 1965), pp. 55-64.

"An Interpersonal Orientation to the Study of Consumer Behavior." Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 4, (August, 1967), pp.270-278.

"Toward An Interpersonal Theory of Consumer Behavior." California Management Review, Vol. 11 (Spring, 1968), pp. 73-80.

"Self Concept Constraints Upon Dissonance Reduction." Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 62 (December, 1968), pp. 151-152.

"Product Choice and Consumer Response: Cognitive Theory vs. Reinforcement Theory," The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 33 (Fall, 1969), pp. 479-480. Abstract of paper presented at the 24th Annual Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, May, 1969.

"The Dissonance Model in Post-Decision Product Evaluation," (with Marvin E. Goldberg). Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 7 (August, 1970), pp. 315-321.

"Cognitive Consequences of Brand Loyalty," (with Michael J. Houston). Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 9 (February, 1972), pp. 97-99.

"An Expectancy X Value Analysis of the Relationship Between Consumer Attitudes and Behavior," (with Olli T. Ahtola). In D.M. Gardner (ed.), Proceedings: The Second Annual Conference, Association for Consumer Research, 1971, pp. 344-364.

"The Nature and Uses of Expectancy-Value Models in Consumer Attitude Research," (with Martin Fishbein and Olli T. Ahtola). Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 9 (November, 1972), pp. 456-460.

"Informational Social Influence and Product Evaluation," (with Ellen Golden). Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 56 (February, 1972), pp. 97-99.

"Testing the Value of Adding any Third Component to Fishbein's Expectancy-Value Model," (with Olli T. Ahtola). Proceedings of the Business and Economic Statistics Section of the American Statistical Association. 1975.

"An Extended Expectancy-Value Approach to Contraceptive Alternatives," (with Lawrence J. Severy and Olli T. Ahtola). Journal of Population, Vol. 1 (Spring, 1978), pp. 22-41.

"New Directions in Attitude Research: A Critical Evaluation," in H.K. Hunt (eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 5 (1978), pp. 370-376.

"Exploring Attitude Construct Validity: Or Are We?" in W.L. Wilkie (ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 6 (1979), pp. 303-306.

"Isolating Attitudinal and Normative Influences in Behavioral Intentions Models," (with Paul W. Miniard). Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16 (February, 1979), pp. 102-110.

"Information Integration: An Information Processing Perspective," (with Paul W. Miniard and Peter R. Dickson). In J.C. Olson (ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 7 (1980), pp. 161-170.

"Promoting Interdisciplinary Consumer Research: Institutional and Discipline-Based Criteria and the Faculty Reward Problem," in J.C. Olson (ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 7 (1980), pp. 46-48.

"An Examination of the Fishbein Behavioral Intentions Model's Concepts and Measures," (with Paul W. Miniard). Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 17, (1981), pp. 309-339.

"The Role of Affect in Categorization: Toward a Reconsideration of the Concept of Attitude," in A. Mitchell (ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 9 (1982), pp. 94-100.

"Modeling Personal and Normative Influences on Behavior," (with Paul W. Miniard). Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10 (September 1983), pp. 169-180.

"Involvement and You: 1000 Great Ideas," in R.P. Bagozzi and A.M. Tybout (eds.) Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10 (1983), pp. 325-328.

"Does the Emperor Ride Again?" in T.C. Kinnear (ed.) Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11 (1984), pp. 367-368.

"Alternative Models of Categorization: Toward a Contingent Processing Framework," (with Kunal Basu). Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13 (March, 1987), pp. 455-472.

"An Over-Extended Self?" Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16 (June 1989), pp. 125-128.

"Counting Advertising Assertions to Assess Regulatory Policy: When It Doesn't Add Up," Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 8, 1989, pp. 24-29.

"Research and Policy Issues in Ringold and Calfee's Treatment of Cigarette Health Claims," Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 11, No.1 (May 1992), pp. 82-86.

"Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein: An ACR Retrospective," in S.K. Barnett (ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 22 (1995), pp. 545-547.

"Smokers’ Knowledge and Understanding of Advertised Tar Numbers: Health Policy Implications," American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 86, No. 1 (January 1996), pp. 18-24.

“Playing to Win: Marketing and Public Policy at Odds Over ‘Joe Camel’,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol.19, No.2 (Fall 2000), pp. 155-167.

“Affect-Monitoring and the Primacy of Feelings in Judgment,” (with Michel T. Pham, John W. Pracejus and G. David Hughes). Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 28 (Sept. 2001), pp. 167-188.

“When Communications Collide with Recipients’ Actions: Effects of Post-Message Behavior on Intentions to Follow the Message Recommendation,” (with Dolores Albarracin and G. Tarcan Kumkale). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 29, No. 7 (July 2003), pp. 834-845.

“Affective Intuition and Task-Contingent Affect Regulation” (with Eduardo Andrade). Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31 (Sept. 2004), pp. 358-367.

"Choice Based on Goals," (with Stijn Van Osselaer, Suresh Ramanathan, Margaret C. Campbell, Jeannette K. Dale, Paul M. Herr, Chris Janiszewski, Arie W. Kruglanski, Angela Y. Lee, Stephen J. Read, J. Edward Russo and Nader T. Tavassoli), Marketing Letters, (2005) Vol.16:3/4, pp. 335-346.

“A Multiple Pathway Anchoring and Adjustment (MPAA) Model of Attitude Generation and Recruitment” (with Americus Reed II). Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.33, (June 2006), pp. 1-15. *

Perspectives on Parsimony: How Long is the Coast of England? A Reply to Park and MacInnis (2006), Schwarz (2006), Petty (2006), and Lynch (2006) (with Americus Reed II), Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.33, (June 2006), pp.28-30.

“Does Marketing Products as Remedies Create ‘Get Out of Jail Free Cards’?” (with Lisa E. Bolton and Paul N. Bloom). Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.33, (June 2006), pp.71-81.

“On the Consumption of Negative Feelings” (with Eduardo Andrade). Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 34, (October 2007), pp.283-300.

“Using Visualization to Alter the Balance Between Desirability and Feasibility During Choice” (with Julia Belyavsky and Tim Silk), Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 18, Number 4, 2008, pp. 270-275.

“Reflections of an Activist Editor,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 30, Number 1 (Spring 2011), pp.81-85.

“Using Loan Plus Lender Literacy Information to Combat One-Sided Marketing of Debt Consolidation Loans” (with Lisa E. Bolton and Paul N. Bloom), Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 48 SPL 2011, pp. 51-59.

“Evolutionary Psychology and Consumer Behavior: A Constructive Critique” (with H. R. Bernard). Journal of Consumer Psychology (invited paper), Vol.23, Number 3, 2013, pp. 387-399.

* Winner of the Journal of Consumer Research 2009 Best Article Award.

Book Reviews, Technical Reports, Working Papers

"An Interactive Consumer-Product Typological System: A Progress Report and Partial Evaluation," (with Arnold Barban). The Pennsylvania State University Working Paper Series in Marketing Research, 1970.

"An Experimental Study of Directory Assistance Usage" (with Terry G. Vavra and Paul R. Winn). Technical Report, Illinois Bell Telephone Company, 1970.

"The Structure of Consumer Attitudes: The Use of Attribute Possession and Importance Scores," (with Michael J. Houston). University of Illinois, College of Commerce and Business Administration Working Paper, 1971.

"Effectiveness of Safety Belt Warning and Interlock Systems," (with A. Suzanne Brown). U.S. Department of Transportation, 1973.

"Consumers' Response to the Vega Radio Advertisement." Federal Trade Commission, 1973.

"Presidential Address." Association for Consumer Research Newsletter, Vol. 3 (January 1973), pp. 3-5.

"An Evaluation of Twin Response Bias" (with E. Henderson). Epidemiology Branch, The National Heart and Lung Institute, National Institutes of Health, 1974.

"A Study of Attitudinal and Normative Factors Leading to Partners' Contraceptive Decisions," (with Olli T. Ahtola, Michael B. Mazis and Lawrence J. Severy). National Institutes of Health, 1976.

"The Marketing Researcher Goes to Washington -- or Does He?" (with William L. Wilkie). Marketing News, Vol. 9 (January 16, 1976), pp. 9ff.

Review of The Social Animal, 2nd Edition, by Elliot Aronson, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 14 (November, 1977), pp. 622-623.

"An Overview of Market Segmentation: Behavioral Concepts and Research Approaches," (with William L. Wilkie). Marketing Science Institute, 1977.

"An Experimental Investigation of Detergent Performance Labeling," (with William L. Wilkie and Albert R. Wildt). Federal Trade Commission, 1978.

"Applying Expectancy-Value Models to Liking, Preference and Choice," American Marketing Association Attitude Research Series, 1980.

"Information Processing Issues Involved in the Communication and Retrieval of Cigarette Warning Information," (with Thomas K. Srull). Federal Trade Commission, 1980.

"Preservation of Consumers' Claims and Defenses: Consumer Reactions to Alternative Texts," Federal Trade Commission, 1980.

"Consumer Behavior Energy Conservation Travel Questionnaire: A Handbook and Demonstration Study," (with Lawrence J. Severy). Florida Department of Transportation, 1982.

"Postdecision Consistency Enhancing Processes," (with Dan L. Moore). University of Florida Center for Consumer Research Working Paper, 1988.

"Public Policy and Regulatory Issues in the Marketing and Advertising of Cigarettes." University of Florida Center for Consumer Research Working Paper, 1989.

"How Cigarette Advertising Affects Consumer Behavior," in Tobacco Issues: Part I, pp. 187-199, U.S. Government Printing Office (Technical Report to Accompany Testimony). 1989.

"Issues in the Role and Design of Copy Tests," in Advances in Claim Substantiation, pp. 151-159, Proceedings, NAD Workshop III, Advances in Claim Substantiation, Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc. 1991.

"Validating a Dial-Turning Instrument for Real-Time Measurement of Affective and Evaluative Responses to Advertising,” (with Michel Pham and G. David Hughes). Marketing Science Institute. 1993.

Review of Smoking: Making the Risky Decision, by W. Kip Viscusi, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 13 (Spring 1994), pp. 170-173.

Review of The Psychology of Attitudes, by Alice H. Eagly and Shelly Chaiken, American Scientist, Vol. 83 (January-February 1995), pp. 93-94.

"The Direction of Post-Decision Thinking: Looking Forward Rather Than Looking Back," (with Lisa Bolton). In C. Pechmann and S. Ratneshwar (eds.), Society for Consumer Psychology: 1997 Winter Conference Proceedings, 1997, pp.57-61.

"If You Believe in Ghosts," Invited comment in Regulation: The CATO Review of Business and Government, Vol. 20, (1997) No. 4, pp. 6-7.

POLICY ASSESSMENT RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

Smoking and Health

Evaluation of Cigarette Warning Messages for the Federal Trade Commission and United States Senate Commerce Committee, 1980-1982.

Reviewer 1989 Surgeon General's Report on Smoking and Health, Department of Health and Human Services.

Evaluation of Cigarette Advertising in Relation to the Tobacco Products Control Act and Expert Witness, Attorney General of Canada v. R.J.R. Macdonald Inc. and Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Government of Canada 1988-89.

Invited Testimony, "The Protect Our Children From Cigarettes Act of 1989," United States House of Representatives, 1989.

Author of Chapter 9, "Consumer/Smoker Perceptions of FTC Ratings," in National Cancer Institute Monograph 7: The FTC Cigarette Test Method for Determining Tar, Nicotine, and Carbon Monoxide Yields of U.S. Cigarettes. Also presented to the Ad Hoc Committee of the President's Cancer Panel, at the NCI Conference on this issue, Bethesda, Maryland, December 1994.

Reviewer for National Cancer Institute’s Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph 13: Risks Associated with Smoking Cigarettes with Low Machine-Measured Yields of Tar and Nicotine, 2001.

Research consultant, Competition Bureau, Canada (Re: Imperial Tobacco; Rothmans; Benson & Hedges; JTI- MacDonald), 2005-2007.

Volume Reviewer, National Cancer Institute (NCI) Tobacco Control Monograph 19, The Role of the Media in Promoting and Discouraging Tobacco Use, 2008.

Filing on Section 904 of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. FDA-2011-N-0867, (on the proposed form and content of disclosure of potentially harmful constituents), February 2012.

Federal Trade Commission Activities

On behalf of the Federal Trade Commission evaluated proposed industry-wide trade regulation rules, supervised and reviewed consumer research or served as an expert witness in each of the following (1972- ):

Proposed trade regulation rule regulating the sale of used motor vehicles Proposed trade regulation rule concerning advertising claims for over-the-counter drugs Proposed trade regulation rule concerning advertising for over-the-counter antacids Proposed trade regulation rule regarding nutritional advertising claims for food products Proposed trade regulation rule on detergent performance labeling Proposed trade regulation rule regarding communication of consumers' rights in credit contracts Federal Trade Commission vs. General Motors (Chevrolet Vega) Federal Trade Commission vs. Thompson Medical (Aspercreme) Federal Trade Commission vs. Figgie International (Heat Detectors) Federal Trade Commission vs. American National Cellular (Cellular Telephones) Federal Trade Commission vs. Campbell Soup Company Federal Trade Commission vs. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (Several cases including “Joe Camel”)

Other Public Policy Activities

National Academy of Sciences, Consultant on Research Design to Panel on the Impact of Drug Use and Misuse, 1972-1973

Congress of the United States, Consultant to Office of Technology Assessment, 1976

Member, Working Group on the Effects of the Mass Media on the Use and Abuse of Alcohol, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 1992

Filing submitted to the Federal Communications Commission, CG Docket No. 09-158, In the Matter of Comments Sought on Measures Designed to Assist U.S. Wireless Consumers to Avoid “Bill Shock.” July, 2010.

Filing including a survey submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Docket No. FDA-2010-P-0491 (In opposition to a proposal to permit changing the name of high-fructose corn syrup.). November, 2011.

PROFESSIONAL AND SERVICE ACTIVITIES AND RELATED HONORS

Service for Scholarly Journals

Editor: Journal of Public Policy & Marketing (2001-2006)

Editorial Board: Journal of Consumer Psychology (2014-) Journal of Consumer Research (1974-2011) Journal of Public Policy & Marketing (1998-2009) Journal of Marketing (1979 - 1987)

Peer reviewer: Journal of Marketing Research, Addictive Behavior, Psychological Reports, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Perceptual and Motor Skills

Honors

Journal of Consumer Research: “Distinguished Service Award” (for career contributions, presented 2007)

Awarded 2011 Pollay Prize from the University of British Columbia for “Intellectual Excellence in Research on Marketing in the Public Interest”

Service to American Marketing Association Program Chairman, 1975 National Educators' Conference Doctoral Dissertation Awards Committee (several years) Doctoral Consortium Faculty (numerous years) Reviewer, Competitive Paper Sessions (numerous annual conferences)

Service to Association for Consumer Research Program Chairman, 1970 National Conference President, 1972 Annual Activities including: research presentations, research discussant, program committee, conference reviewer 1970-2010

American Psychological Association Professional Practices Committee, Division 23, 1973 Affiliate Affairs Committee, Division 23, 1973

Service to College and University of Florida Received 1981 Exxon Award from the American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business for Development of an Interdisciplinary Graduate Program in Consumer Psychology ("For educational innovation in graduate education for business administration and management").

Committee memberships include: Chairman, State of Florida Marketing Common Course Committee, University Curriculum Committee, University Educational Policy Committee, College Promotion and Tenure Committee, College Long Range Planning Committee, College Undergraduate Committee, Division of Sponsored Research/Graduate School Summer Research Awards Committee

Doctoral Students

Served as the primary or co-advisor to each of the following:

Marvin Goldberg*(1972) Robert Burnkrant** (1974) Kunal Basu (1987) Spencer Tinkham (1973) John Vann (1980) Michel Pham* (1994) Olli Ahtola* (1973) Paul Miniard* (1981) Americus Reed II* (2000) Herbert Hupfer (1973) Peter Dickson* (1981) Eduardo Andrade (2004) Richard Lutz* (1973) Raymond Burke (1985) Michael Munson (1973) Alain d'Astous (1985)

*Named a chaired professor or journal editor.

Appendix 2

TIMOTHY DEWHIRST Associate Professor, Marketing & Consumer Studies University of Guelph

Department of Marketing and Consumer Studies College of Business and Economics University of Guelph Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1 Canada

Tel: (519) 824-4120 Ext. 53328 Fax: (519) 823-1964 E-mail: [email protected]

EDUCATION.

University of British Columbia Ph.D. 07/1998 – 07/2003 Supervisor: Richard W. Pollay (Sauder School of Business); Graduated with honours; Coursework in Commerce (Marketing and Consumer Behaviour), Sociology, Anthropology, Human Kinetics, Health Care and Epidemiology, and Political Science. Thesis: Tobacco Marketing and Public Policy in Canada, 1960-2002: The Role of Sponsorship

Queen’s University M.A. 09/1993 – 05/1995 Graduated with honours; Coursework in Political Science, Public Administration, and Physical and Health Education Thesis: The Federal Government Versus The Tobacco Industry: The Regulation of Tobacco Advertising and Sport Sponsorship in Canada

University of Toronto B.P.H.E. 09/1989 – 05/1993 Graduated with honours; Major in Physical and Health Education, Minor in Sociology

ACADEMIC WORK EXPERIENCE.

 Associate Professor, Department of Marketing and Consumer Studies, College of Business and Economics, University of Guelph (07/2009 – present) --Teaching assignments have included MCS 6100: Marketing Theory; MCS 6710: Special Topics in Marketing; MCS 4300: Marketing and Society; and MCS 3620: Marketing Communications. --Graduate thesis supervision includes Kevin Richards (2008-2009), Jordana King (2009-2010), Scott McCreary (2009-2011), Joshua D’Alvise (2011-2012), Scott Connors (2012-2013), and Drew Harden (2014-present). --Research interests include brand strategy, marketing communication and advertising, marketing and public policy, marketing history, sports and entertainment marketing (including event sponsorship and celebrity endorsements), and social marketing. --Visiting scholar at the University of Sydney’s Medical School (03/2013 – 06/2013) in Australia while on approved study/research leave (i.e., sabbatical).

1  Assistant Professor, Department of Marketing and Consumer Studies, College of Management and Economics, University of Guelph (07/2007 – 06/2009) --Awarded tenure, effective February 9, 2009.

 Associate Professor, Edwards School of Business (formerly College of Commerce), University of Saskatchewan (07/2003 – 06/2007) --Teaching assignments included COMM 204: Introduction to Marketing; COMM 200: Introduction to Agribusiness Marketing; COMM 450: Sports, Arts, and Entertainment Marketing; MBA 867: Health Policy and Politics; and MBA 809: Research Methods.

 Visiting Associate Professor, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) (07/2004 – 12/2004) Invitation from Dr. Stanton Glantz, Director, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education Duties: While serving as a Canada-U.S. Fulbright Scholar, several research projects were pursued in collaboration with UCSF faculty members and graduate students; contributed to the Tobacco Control Fellowship program at the Center, including a guest lecture to postdoctoral fellows about principles of marketing, as well as regular attendance and participation at the weekly Center seminars; provided detailed comments and feedback on numerous manuscripts for graduate students and postdoctoral fellows at the Center.

 Research Assistant, Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration, University of British Columbia (05/1998 – 07/2003) Worked under the supervision of Dr. Richard W. Pollay Duties: literature searches, article retrieval, preparation of advertisements for photo shoots, editing, and co-authorship of several papers. Research projects were focused on cigarette marketing and tobacco litigation.

 Instructor, Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration, University of British Columbia (01/2002 – 04/2002) Duties: Instructor of COMM 396: Introduction to Marketing, a 4-credit course (teaching load was 4 hours per week) with 55 students enrolled.

 Research Assistant, Centre for Community Child Health Research, University of British Columbia (05/1998 – 04/1999) Worked under the supervision of Dr. Chris Lovato Duties: literature searches, article retrieval, administration of surveys, presentations, grant proposal assistance, and literature reviews.

 Teaching Assistant and Research Assistant, School of Physical and Health Education, Queen’s University (09/1993 – 05/1995) Worked under the supervision of Drs. Don Macintosh and Hart Cantelon Duties: Teaching assistant for PHED 141: Social Dimensions, PHED 371: Organization and Administration, and PHED 341: Sport and Society. Duties included leading tutorials, teaching classes, proctoring exams, performing literature searches, editing, and marking essays, case studies and exams.

2 ACADEMIC AWARDS AND SCHOLARSHIPS.

Longo Brothers Fruit Markets Inc. Research Partnership (2014-2015; University of Guelph) This partnership provides funding ($20,000.00) for a one-year research project entitled, Rhetorical figures in food advertising.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Training Grant in Population Intervention for Chronic Disease Prevention (PICDP): A Pan-Canadian Program (2009-2015; University of Guelph, co-applicant) This grant provides funding ($1,950,000.00) to offer an interdisciplinary training experience for those enrolled in graduate and post-doctoral programs and conducting research in an area related to population interventions for chronic disease prevention. Funding is primarily targeted towards supporting research trainees through stipends, and trainees must have one or more of PICDP’s 65 mentors as a supervisor or as a member of their supervisory committee. I am listed as one of the mentors. Barb Riley, from the University of Waterloo, is the principal applicant of the training grant.

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) Research Funding, Product Development and Enhancement through Value Chains Research Program (2010- 2013; University of Guelph, co-applicant) This grant provides funding ($155,328.00) for a project entitled, Improving icewine innovation through evaluating innovative clusters and consumer trends & demands in Ontario’s icewine industry. Lefa Teng, from the University of Guelph, is the principal applicant.

(Internal) SSHRC General Research Grant (2011; University of Guelph) This internal research grant provides seed funding ($4,550.00) to assist with preparing a research proposal entitled, Rhetorical figures and food advertising: Implications for public policy.

U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH)/U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) Research Grant (2009-2011; University of Guelph, collaborator) This grant provides funding ($3,000,000.00) for a project entitled, Visual Media Influences on Adolescent Smoking Behavior. James D. Sargent, professor of pediatrics at Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine, is the principal applicant.

Health Canada Federal Tobacco Control Strategy Contribution Funding (2009-2011; University of Guelph; co-applicant) This grant provides funding ($182,944.00) for a project entitled, Chatterbox: Policy implications for cigarette packaging beyond light and mild. Robert Schwartz, from the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit at the University of Toronto, is the principal applicant.

(Internal) SSHRC General Research Grant (2010; University of Guelph) This internal research grant provides seed funding ($3,789.00) to assist with preparing a research proposal entitled, A policy analysis of Canada’s Tobacco Act.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)/Canadian Tobacco Control Research Initiative (CTCRI) Idea Grant (2009-2010; University of Guelph; co-applicant) This grant provides funding ($50,000.00) for a project entitled, Cigarette pack as advertisement: Beyond light and mild. Robert Schwartz, from the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit at the University of Toronto, is the principal applicant.

3 (Internal) SSHRC General Research Grant (2009; University of Guelph) This internal research grant provides seed funding ($1,500.00) to assist with preparing a research proposal entitled, A case study of Matinée cigarette brand marketing.

(Internal) SSHRC General Research Grant (2008; University of Guelph) This internal research grant provides seed funding ($1,250.00) to assist with preparing a research proposal entitled, Market segmentation: A historical case study of the Canadian tobacco industry.

Interdisciplinary Capacity Enhancement Learning Opportunities Program Grant (2008; University of Guelph) This grant provides funding ($3,000.00) to support my travel expenses to present at the UICC World Cancer Congress in Geneva, Switzerland.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)/Canadian Tobacco Control Research Initiative (CTCRI) Idea Grant (2007-2008; University of Guelph) This grant provides funding ($48,350.00) for a project entitled, International advertising and the gender of nations: A case study of Virginia Slims advertising in the United States, Japan, and Korea.

Young Investigator Scholarship, APACT Triennial Congress (2007; University of Guelph) Awarded US$1,000 for paper submission, International advertising and the gender of nations: A case study of Virginia Slims advertising in the United States, Japan, and Korea, to the 8th Asia Pacific Conference on Tobacco or Health.

Environmental Sciences Research Initiative (ESRI) Award (2007; University of Guelph; co- applicant) This grant provides funding ($10,000) for University of Guelph faculty to form integrative research clusters on particular research themes and to hold a workshop involving faculty and external stakeholders (university, industry, and government). The project is entitled, Corporate social responsibility: challenges and opportunities.

Ontario Tobacco Research Unit (OTRU) Investigator Award for Research in Tobacco Control (2006-2007; University of Saskatchewan) This grant provides funding ($20,000.00) for a project entitled, A critical analysis of Export ‘A’ cigarette brand marketing (1970-2006).

Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Interdisciplinary Capacity Enhancement Seed Grant (2006-2007; University of Saskatchewan; co-investigator) This grant provides seed funding for a project entitled, Where there’s Smoke, There’s Fire: The Tobacco Industry’s Challenge of Canada’s Tobacco Act.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)/Canadian Tobacco Control Research Initiative (CTCRI) Idea Grant (2005-2006; University of Saskatchewan) This grant provides funding ($34,370.00) for a project entitled, A critical analysis of the role of intertextuality in Rothmans cigarette brand marketing (1957-2005).

Fulbright Scholar Award (2004; University of Saskatchewan) Awarded a research scholarship, which provided support for a six-month (July-December 2004) research term at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), where I collaborated with Professors Stanton Glantz and Pamela Ling. Research was largely focused on how American and Canadian tobacco companies market their products to women.

4 Canadian Tobacco Control Research Initiative (CTCRI) Travel Allowance Grant (2003; University of British Columbia) This grant provides funding for the dissemination of research findings about Premiere™ and the illusion of harm reduction cigarettes. I was the sole applicant of the travel allowance grant, but presented a co-authored paper (with Professor Richard W. Pollay).

Health Canada/Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) National Health Ph.D. Fellowship (1999-2002; University of British Columbia) This fellowship assists with the research training of highly qualified individuals wishing to pursue a public health or health care services research career in Canada in academic or institutional settings. The award of $54,000.00 was payable over a 36-month period.

Queen’s Graduate Scholarship (1994-1995; Queen’s University) Based on academic standing

Dean’s Award (1994-1995; Queen’s University) Recipient must attain an academic average above 80%

Queen’s Graduate Scholarship (1993-1994; Queen’s University) Based on academic standing

P.H.E. Alumni Scholarship (1993; University of Toronto) Recipient must possess the highest academic average among fourth year students

Fourth Year Alumni Shield (1993; University of Toronto) In recognition of the most outstanding graduating male student

Mike Furlong Award (1992; University of Toronto) Awarded to the third year student who best exhibits scholarship and active participation in school activities and athletics

Undergraduate In-Course Scholarship (1992; University of Toronto) Recipient must attain an academic average above 80%

R. Tait McKenzie Honour Society Scholar (1991; University of Toronto) Awarded to students within the first six in academic rank

PUBLICATIONS.

Lee, W.B., Fong, G.T., Dewhirst, T., et al. (in press). Social marketing in Malaysia: Cognitive, affective, and normative mediators of the TAK NAK antismoking advertising campaign. Journal of Health Communication.

Dewhirst, T. (2014). Rationales for the regulation of tobacco advertising and promotion. In: C.J. Pardun (Ed.), Advertising and Society: An Introduction (2nd edition) (pp. 74-83). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Dewhirst, T. (2013). American Express OPEN: Big Break for Small Business. In: M. Miskelly (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Major Marketing Strategies (pp. 17-20). Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Cengage.

5 Connors, S. & Dewhirst, T. (2013). Art Series Hotels: Steal Banksy. In: M. Miskelly (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Major Marketing Strategies (pp. 25-28). Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Cengage.

Connors, S. & Dewhirst, T. (2013). Durex: Vinyl. In: M. Miskelly (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Major Marketing Strategies (pp. 129-131). Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Cengage.

Connors, S. & Dewhirst, T. (2013). Volkswagen: The bark side. In: M. Miskelly (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Major Marketing Strategies (pp. 393-396). Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Cengage.

Hoek, J. & Dewhirst, T. (2012). The meaning of “Light” and “Ultralight” cigarettes: A commentary on Smith, Stutts, and Zank. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 31 (2), 223- 231.

Dewhirst, T. (2012). Price and tobacco marketing strategy: Lessons from ‘dark’ markets and implications for the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control [editorial]. Tobacco Control, 21 (6), 519-523.

Dewhirst, T. & Lee, W.B. (2012). Cigarette advertising in the Republic of Korea: A case illustration of The One. Tobacco Control, 21 (6), 584-588.

Dewhirst, T. (2012, February 3). What’s in a name? Super Bowl edition. The Globe and Mail, p.A19 [available online at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/whats-in-a- name-super-bowl-edition/article2324625/].

Dewhirst, T. (2012). Commentary on Burton et al.: The influence of tobacco retail merchandising on tobacco consumption. Addiction, 107 (1), 176-177.

Dewhirst, T. & Lee, W.B. (2011). Social marketing and tobacco control. In: G. Hastings, C. Bryant, & K. Angus (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Marketing (pp. 391-404). London: Sage Publications.

Dewhirst, T. & Sparks, R. (2011). Brand mismanagement: Rothmans cigarette marketing, 1957- 2000. Journal of Historical Research in Marketing, 3 (3), 351-369.

Dewhirst, T. (2011). Target audience. In: L.E. Swayne & M. Dodds (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Sports Management and Marketing (pp. 1526-1528). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dewhirst, T. (2011). Proposal, creating an effective sponsorship. In: L.E. Swayne & M. Dodds (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Sports Management and Marketing (pp. 1221-1223). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dewhirst, T. (2011). Utah Jazz. In: L.E. Swayne & M. Dodds (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Sports Management and Marketing (pp. 1616-1617). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

McCreary, S. & Dewhirst, T. (2011). Reference group, primary. In: L.E. Swayne & M. Dodds (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Sports Management and Marketing (pp. 1263-1264). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dewhirst, T. (2011, February 6). Super Bowl XLV: Industrial brands at work and play. Toronto Star, p.A15.

6 Dewhirst, T. (2010). Gender, extreme sports, and smoking: A case study of Export ‘A’ cigarette brand marketing. In: L.K. Fuller (Ed.), Sexual Sports Rhetoric: Global and Universal Contexts (Chapter 19, pp. 263-275). New York: Peter Lang.

Dewhirst, T. (2009). New directions in tobacco promotion and brand communication [editorial]. Tobacco Control, 18 (3), 161-162.

Dewhirst, T. & Davis, R.M. (2008). Key principles of tobacco promotion and rationales for regulation. In: The Role of the Media in Promoting and Reducing Tobacco Use (Chapter 3, pp. 53-97), Tobacco Control Monograph No. 19. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute.

Dewhirst, T. (2008). Tobacco portrayals in U.S. advertising and entertainment media. In: P.E. Jamieson & D. Romer (Eds.), The Changing Portrayal of Adolescents in the Media since 1950 (Chapter 9, pp. 250-283). New York: Oxford University Press.

Dewhirst, T. (2008, February 2). Super Bowl XLII: A spectacle of brands. Guelph Mercury, p.A7.

Dewhirst, T. (2007). Branding. In: J.J. Arnett (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Children, Adolescents, and the Media (pp. 132-134). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dewhirst, T. (2007). Intertextuality. In: J.J. Arnett (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Children, Adolescents, and the Media (pp. 453-454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dewhirst, T. (2007). Cigarette use in television and movies. In: J.J. Arnett (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Children, Adolescents, and the Media (pp. 180-182). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dewhirst, T. & Cavanaugh, L.A. (2007). Designated driver advertising campaigns. In: J.J. Arnett (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Children, Adolescents, and the Media (pp. 235-237). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Anderson, S.J., Dewhirst, T., & Ling, P.M. (2006). Every document and picture tells a story: Using internal corporate document reviews, semiotics, and content analysis to assess tobacco advertising. Tobacco Control, 15 (3), 254-261.

Dewhirst, T. & Davis, B. (2005). Brand strategy and integrated marketing communication (IMC): A case study of Player’s cigarette brand marketing. Journal of Advertising, 34 (4), 81-92.

Sparks, R., Dewhirst, T., Jette, S., & Schweinbenz, A. (2005). Historical hangovers or burning possibilities: Regulation and adaptation in global tobacco and alcohol sponsorship. In: J. Amis & T.B. Cornwell (Eds.), Global Sport Sponsorship: A Multidisciplinary Study (Chapter 2, pp. 19- 66). Oxford, U.K.: Berg Publishers.

Dewhirst, T. (2005). Sponsorship. In: J. Goodman (Ed.), Tobacco in History and Culture: An Encyclopedia (pp. 593-596). Farmington Hills, MI: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Dewhirst, T. (2005). Public relations. In: J. Goodman (Ed.), Tobacco in History and Culture: An Encyclopedia (pp. 473-479). Farmington Hills, MI: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

7 Dewhirst, T. & Farish, M. (2005, February 10). Super Bowl XXXIX: Branded patriotism. The StarPhoenix, p.A11.

Dewhirst, T. (2004). Smoke and ashes: Tobacco sponsorship of sports and regulatory issues in Canada. In: L.R. Kahle & C. Riley (Eds.), Sports Marketing and the Psychology of Marketing Communication (Chapter 17, pp. 327-352). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Dewhirst, T. (2004). POP goes the power wall? Taking aim at tobacco promotional strategies utilised at retail [editorial]. Tobacco Control, 13 (3), 209-210.

Dewhirst, T. & Sparks, R. (2003). Intertextuality, tobacco sponsorship of sports, and adolescent male smoking culture: A selective review of tobacco industry documents. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 27 (4), 372-398.

Pollay, R.W. & Dewhirst, T. (2003). A Premiere example of the illusion of harm reduction cigarettes in the 1990s. Tobacco Control, 12 (3), 322-332.

Dewhirst, T. & Hunter, A. (2002). Tobacco sponsorship of Formula One and CART auto racing: Tobacco brand exposure and enhanced symbolic imagery through co-sponsors’ third party advertising. Tobacco Control, 11 (2), 146-150.

Pollay, R.W. & Dewhirst, T. (2002). The dark side of marketing seemingly “Light” cigarettes: Successful images and failed fact. Tobacco Control, 11 (Supplement 1), i18-i31.*

*All corresponding authors for papers published in Tobacco Control since 2001 – as well as the journal’s advisory board and its senior editors – were invited to nominate the most important and influential papers on tobacco control. For the category, “Tobacco Advertising, Promotion, PR and Packaging,” the co-authored publication entitled, “The dark side of marketing seemingly ‘Light’ cigarettes: Successful images and failed fact,” was ranked in the top ten.

Dewhirst, T. (2002). Making “pictures in our heads”: Government advertising in Canada [book review]. Public Relations Review, 28 (2), 203-205.

Dewhirst, T. (2002). Resistance to exercise: A social analysis of inactivity [book review]. Sociology of Sport Journal, 19 (3), 339-342.

Pollay, R.W. & Dewhirst, T. (2001). Marketing cigarettes with low machine-measured yields. In: Risks Associated with Smoking Cigarettes with Low Machine-Measured Yields of Tar and Nicotine (Chapter 7, pp. 199-235), Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 13. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute.

Dewhirst, T.L. & Pollay, R.W. (2001). Content analyses of cigarette advertising: A critical review of the literature. In: C.R. Taylor (Ed.), The Proceedings of the 2001 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising (pp. 46-51). Villanova, PA: American Academy of Advertising.

Dewhirst, T. (1999). ‘Know the competitor’: Identifying and closing legislation loopholes exploited by Canadian tobacco manufacturers. Social Marketing Quarterly, 5 (3), 86-89.

8 Dewhirst, T. (1999). Tobacco sponsorship is no laughing matter. Tobacco Control, 8 (1), 82-84.

WORK UNDER REVIEW/IN PROGRESS.

Exporting an inherently harmful product: The marketing of Virginia Slims cigarettes in the United States, Japan, and Korea (with Wonkyong Beth Lee, Geoffrey Fong, and Pamela Ling). “Under review” at Journal of Business Ethics.

Rhetorical figures and crafty advertisers: A case study of pictorial persuasion in the food sector (with Jordana King and Edward McQuarrie). “Revise and resubmit” at Journal of Public Policy and Marketing.

Fast cars and cigarettes: Lamborghini brand sharing and cigarette advertising in the Republic of Korea (with Wonkyong Beth Lee). “Revise and resubmit” at Tobacco Control.

Compulsive consumption and problem behavior: The case of tobacco (with Drew Harden). In preparation for Journal of Business Ethics.

Tobacco marketing and target market selection (with Richard W. Pollay and Sonya A. Grier). In preparation for Journal of Business Ethics.

Persistent lifestyle messages in the face of regulation: A content analysis study comparing traditional cigarette advertising and sponsorship promotions (with Richard W. Pollay and Laurence Ashworth). In preparation for Journal of Business Ethics.

Tobacco culture, consumer resistance, and the art of the jam (with Robert V. Kozinets). In preparation for Journal of Consumer Research.

Puffery and persuasion applied to the beverage sector (with Wonkyong Beth Lee and Theo Noseworthy). In preparation for Journal of Marketing.

CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS.

Dewhirst, T. (2014, October). Brand mythology and communication of a hero identity: A case study of Player’s cigarette marketing. Working paper to be presented at the Association for Consumer Research (ACR) Conference. Baltimore, MD.

Dewhirst, T. & Kozinets, R. (2014, July). You, me and my ignominy: Anti-tobacco discourse and jammed culture jamming. Paper presented at the International Centre for Anti-Consumption Research (ICAR) Symposium on Anti-Consumption and Consumer Wellbeing [also served as the session chair for the session entitled, “Culture jamming and subversive behaviours”]. Kiel, Germany.

Dewhirst, T. & Lee, W.B. (2014, June). Fast cars and cigarettes: Lamborghini brand sharing and cigarette advertising in the Republic of Korea. Paper presented at the AMA Marketing and Public Policy Conference. Boston, MA

Dewhirst, T. (2014, April). Player’s cigarette brand marketing and communication of a hero identity. Paper presented at the 6th William A. Kern Conference in Visual Communication. Rochester, NY.

9 Dewhirst, T. (2013, October). “Slim” cigarettes and consumer inferences about product harmfulness. Working paper presented at the Association for Consumer Research (ACR) Conference. Chicago, IL.

Dewhirst, T. & Lee, W.B. (2012, July). Cigarette advertising in the Republic of Korea: A case illustration of The One. Paper presented at the 2012 Global Marketing Conference at Seoul. Seoul, Korea.

Dewhirst, T. & Lee, W.B. (2012, June). Social marketing and tobacco control. Paper presented at the AMA Marketing and Public Policy Conference [also served as organizer of accepted special topic session proposal entitled, “Social marketing” as well as invited discussant/attendee at roundtable session entitled, “Researching consumption addiction: Developing a theoretical framework of understanding”]. Atlanta, Georgia.

Dewhirst, T. & Lee, W.B. (2012, March). Social marketing and tobacco control. Poster presented at the 15th World Conference on Tobacco or Health. Singapore.

Dewhirst, T. & Sparks, R. (2011, November). Brand mismanagement: Rothmans cigarette marketing, 1957-2000. Paper presented at the 7th National Conference on Tobacco or Health. Toronto, Ontario.

King, J., Dewhirst, T., & McQuarrie, E.F. (2011, June). Rhetorical figures and crafty advertisers: A case study of pictorial persuasion in the food sector. Paper presented at the AMA Marketing and Public Policy Conference. Washington, DC.

O’Connor, S., Di Sante, E., Schwartz, R., Cohen, J., Lavack, A., Hammond, D., Philipneri, A., Dewhirst, T., et al. (2011, March). The cigarette pack as communication vehicle: Policy implications for tobacco control (A “Chatter Box” Project). Poster presented at the 2011 European Conference on Tobacco or Health. Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Di Sante, E., O’Connor, S., Schwartz, R., Cohen, J., Lavack, A., Hammond, D., Andrews, J., Dewhirst, T., & Tilson, M. (2011, March). Communicating luxury through cigarette packaging: A “Chatter Box” Project. Poster presented at the 2011 European Conference on Tobacco or Health. Amsterdam, Netherlands.

O’Connor, S., Schwartz, R., Di Sante, E., Andrews, J., Dewhirst, T., et al. (2011, February). Chatter box: Cigarette package design elements as a vehicle for communicating meaning about lifestyle and strength. Poster presented at the 17th Annual Meeting of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT). Toronto, Ontario.

Dewhirst, T. & Kozinets, R. (2010, June). You, me and my ignominy: Jammed culture jamming, or the cultural resistance to consumer resistance. Paper presented at the Consumer Culture Theory Conference. Madison, Wisconsin.

10 Lee, W.B., Fong, G.T., Dewhirst, T.L., et al. (2010, May). Cognitive, affective, and normative mediators of the Tak Nak antismoking advertising campaign: Cultural implications for social marketing. Paper presented at the 2010 AMA Marketing and Public Policy Conference. Denver, Colorado.

King, J. & Dewhirst, T. (2010, March). Rhetorical figures claiming controversial issues: A case study of food and agricultural advertising. Paper presented at the American Academy of Advertising 2010 Annual Conference. Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Dewhirst, T. & Richards, K. (2009, April). Tobacco and alcohol as consumption constellations. Poster presented at the 2009 Joint Conference of Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) and SRNT-Europe. Dublin, Ireland.

Dewhirst, T. (2008, September). Starbucks, corporate social responsibility communication, and consumer resistance. Paper presented at the 4th International Colloquium of the Academy of Marketing’s Brand, Corporate Identity and Reputation Special Interest Group (SIG). Atlanta, Georgia.

Lee, W., Fong, G., Zanna, M., & Dewhirst, T. (2008, July). East meets west? Regulatory focus and advertising appeals in Korea, Canada, and the United States. Paper presented at the 2008 Latin America Association for Consumer Research (ACR) Conference. São Paulo, Brazil.

Dewhirst, T. (2008, July). Cigarette product descriptors offering potential reassurance to health concerned consumers. Paper presented at the Pre-Conference Workshop on Transformative Research at the 2008 Latin America Association for Consumer Research (ACR) Conference. São Paulo, Brazil.

Dewhirst, T. & Sparks, R. (2008, June). Rothmans cigarette brand marketing (1957-2007): Intertextuality and the decline of a flagship trademark. Paper presented at the 2008 International Conference on Research in Advertising (ICORIA). Antwerp, Belgium.

Dewhirst, T. (2008, May). The marketing of smokeless tobacco as harm reduction. Invited Special Session Participant at the 2008 AMA Marketing and Public Policy Conference. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Dewhirst, T. (2007, October). How the industry uses the media: The role of sponsorship. Invited presentation given at the U.S. National Conference on Tobacco or Health. Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Dewhirst, T., Lee, W., Fong, G., & Ling, P. (2007, October). International advertising and the gender of nations: A case study of Virginia Slims advertising in the United States, Japan, and Korea. Paper presented at the 8th Asia Pacific Conference on Tobacco or Health. Taipei, Taiwan.

Dewhirst, T. (2006, December). A case study of Export ‘A’ cigarette brand marketing (1970- 2006). Paper presented at the Ontario Tobacco Control Conference. Niagara Falls, Ontario.

Dewhirst, T. (2006, July). Denormalization as a tobacco control strategy. Paper presented at the 13th World Conference on Tobacco OR Health. Washington, D.C.

Dewhirst, T. (2006, June). Rothmans cigarette brand marketing: Intertextuality and the decline of a flagship trademark. Paper presented at the INFORMS International Conference. Hong Kong.

11 Dewhirst, T. (2006, June). Cigarette use in movies and television shows: A review of content analysis literature. Paper presented at the 2006 AMA Marketing and Public Policy Conference [served as organizer of accepted special topic session proposal entitled, “Smoking in movies and TV shows”; also invited discussion leader of competitive paper session entitled, “Advertising and Smoking”]. Long Beach, California.

Dewhirst, T. (2006, March). Male youth, extreme sports, and the gendering of smoking: A case study of Export ‘A’ brand marketing in Canada. Paper presented at the American Academy of Advertising 2006 Annual Conference [Pre-conference session on “Sponsorship-Linked Marketing Communications”]. Reno, Nevada.

Dewhirst, T. (2005, June). Matinée cigarette brand marketing: A case study of ‘mild’ and ‘slims’ as product descriptors. Paper presented at the 4th National Conference on Tobacco or Health. Ottawa, Ontario.

Dewhirst, T. (2005, June). Project Tomahawk: A Premiere example of the illusion of harm reduction. Paper presented at the 4th National Conference on Tobacco or Health. Ottawa, Ontario.

Dewhirst, T. (2005, June). POP goes the power wall? Taking aim at tobacco promotional strategies utilized at retail. Paper presented at the 4th National Conference on Tobacco or Health. Ottawa, Ontario.

Dewhirst, T., Lee, W., Fong, G., & Ling, P. (2005, June). Gender, culture, and smoking: A case study of Virginia Slims advertising in the United States, Japan, and Korea. Paper presented at the 2005 American Academy of Advertising Asia-Pacific Conference. Hong Kong.

Dewhirst, T. (2005, May). Matinée cigarette brand marketing: A case study of ‘mild’ and ‘slims’ as product descriptors. Paper presented at the 2005 AMA Marketing and Public Policy Conference. Washington, D.C.

Dewhirst, T. & Davis, B. (2005, April). Brand strategy and integrated marketing communications: A case study of Player’s cigarette brand marketing. Paper presented at the American Academy of Advertising 2005 Annual Conference. Houston, Texas.

Sparks, R., Dewhirst, T., Jette, S., & Schweinbenz, A. (2004, November). Historical hangovers or burning possibilities: Regulation and adaptation in global tobacco and alcohol sponsorship [paper included as part of “Global Sport Sponsorship: Problematizing the Global-Sport- Sponsorship Nexus” Symposium]. Paper presented at the Sport Marketing Association Conference. Memphis, Tennessee.

Dewhirst, T. (2004, June). The Tobacco Act faces a constitutional challenge: Are tobacco sponsorship promotions directed toward youth and a form of “lifestyle” advertising? Paper presented at the 19th Annual North American Society for Sport Management Conference. Atlanta, Georgia.

Dewhirst, T. (2004, May). Persistent lifestyle messages in the face of regulation: A content analysis study comparing traditional cigarette advertising and sponsorship promotions. Paper presented at the 2004 AMA Marketing and Public Policy Conference. Salt Lake City, Utah.

12 Dewhirst, T. & Lee, W.B. (2004, May). Made for a man or a woman? An exploratory comparison of Virginia Slims advertising in the United States and Korea. Paper presented at the 2004 ACR Asia-Pacific Conference. Seoul, Korea.

Pollay, R.W. & Dewhirst, T. (2004, May). A Premiere example of the illusion of harm reduction cigarettes in the 1990s. Paper presented at the Ontario Tobacco Control Conference. Toronto, Ontario.

Dewhirst, T. (2004, March). Rothmans cigarette brand marketing (1957-2003): Intertextuality and the decline of a flagship trademark. Paper presented at the American Academy of Advertising 2004 Annual Conference. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Pollay, R.W. & Dewhirst, T. (2003, August). Gimmicks and ruses: A Premiere example of the illusion of harm reduction. Paper presented at the 12th World Conference on Tobacco or Health. Helsinki, Finland.

Dewhirst, T. (2003, April). Tobacco sponsorship of auto racing: Tobacco brand exposure and enhanced symbolic imagery through co-sponsors’ third party advertising. Paper presented at The Second Australian Tobacco Control Conference. Melbourne, Australia.

Dewhirst, T. (2002, December). Targeting of menthol cigarettes. Paper presented at The National Conference on Tobacco and Health Disparities. Tampa, Florida.

Dewhirst, T. (2002, December). Tobacco sponsorship of auto racing: Brand exposure and enhanced imagery through co-sponsors’ advertising. Paper presented at The Third National Conference on Tobacco or Health. Ottawa, Ontario.

Dewhirst, T. & Hunter, A. (2002, May). Tobacco sponsorship of auto racing: Seeking partners for third party advertising. Paper presented at the 17th Annual North American Society for Sport Management Conference. Canmore, Alberta.

Dewhirst, T. (2001, July). ‘Fatal attraction’: A case study of Matinée fashion sponsorship. Paper presented at the 14th Annual Women’s Studies Network (UK) Association Conference. Cheltenham, England.

Dewhirst, T. (2001, May). Tobacco industry objectives for sponsoring sports events: A review of internal documents. Paper presented at the 16th Annual North American Society for Sport Management Conference. Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Dewhirst, T. & Pollay, R.W. (2001, March). Content analyses of cigarette advertising: A critical review of the literature. Paper presented at the American Academy of Advertising 2001 Annual Conference. Salt Lake City, Utah.

Dewhirst, T. (2000, December). Published Papers Placed on Display at the Health Policy Research Nexus: Conference for NHRDP Personnel Award Holders. Kingston, Ontario.

Dewhirst, T. (2000, November). ‘Pushing the limits’: Export ‘A’ sponsorship of an extreme sport series. Paper presented at the 21st Annual North American Society for the Sociology of Sport Conference. Colorado Springs, Colorado.

13 Dewhirst, T. & Pollay, R.W. (2000, August). Persistent tobacco-promotion messages in the face of regulation. Paper presented at the 11th World Conference on Tobacco OR Health. Chicago, Illinois.

Dewhirst, T. (2000, June). ‘Blowing smoke’: Emerging trends in tobacco promotion strategies. Paper presented at the 15th Annual North American Society for Sport Management Conference. Colorado Springs, Colorado.

Dewhirst, T. (2000, May). Tobacco promotions appealing to male youths in Canada: Positioning cigarettes as symbols of masculinity, independence, rebelliousness, excitement, and adventure. Paper presented at the World No Tobacco Day Forum on Tobacco Industry Documents. Ottawa, Ontario.

Dewhirst, T. & Sparks, R. (1999, November). Intertextual appeal of tobacco sponsorship in adolescent male culture: A selective review of tobacco industry documents. Paper presented at the 20th Annual North American Society for the Sociology of Sport Conference. Cleveland, Ohio.

Dewhirst, T. (1999, November). ‘Out of the ashes’: An illustration of how tobacco sponsorship enables the exploitation of legislation loopholes. Paper presented at the 20th Annual North American Society for the Sociology of Sport Conference. Cleveland, Ohio.

Dewhirst, T. (1999, July). ‘Know the competitor’: Identifying and closing legislation loopholes exploited by Canadian tobacco manufacturers. Poster presentation at the 5th Annual Innovations in Social Marketing Conference. Montreal, Quebec.

Dewhirst, T. (1998, July). Smoke & ashes: The regulation of tobacco sport sponsorships in Canada. Paper presented at the International Sociology of Sport Association Conference (held in conjunction with the 14th World Congress of Sociology). Montreal, Quebec.

Dewhirst, T. (1998, May). Smoke & ashes: The regulation of tobacco sport sponsorships in Canada. Paper presented at the 17th Annual Advertising and Consumer Psychology Conference. Portland, Oregon.

INVITED GUEST LECTURES/ADDITIONAL PRESENTATIONS.

Dewhirst, T. (2014, March). Signs, messages, and meaning: An introduction to interpretive research. Guest lecture for “MCS 6080: Qualitative Research Methods” (University of Guelph).

Dewhirst, T. (2013, November). Mixed methods at work and some insights from my research. Guest lecture for “MGMT 6820: Theory of Management” (University of Guelph).

Dewhirst, T. (2013, November). Marketing of tobacco products. Guest lecture for “Tobacco and Health: From Cells to Society,” which is offered through the Graduate Department of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health (University of Toronto).

Dewhirst, T. (2013, November). Research methods workshop. Panelist for CIHR Training Program in Population Intervention for Chronic Disease Prevention: A Pan-Canadian Program (PICDP), 5th Annual Meeting. Mississauga, Ontario.

14 Dewhirst, T. (2013, November). Career transitions. Guest speaker for CIHR Training Program in Population Intervention for Chronic Disease Prevention: A Pan-Canadian Program (PICDP), 5th Annual Meeting. Mississauga, Ontario.

Dewhirst, T. (2013, May). Health, marketing, and public policy: The case of tobacco in Canada. Invited as inaugural keynote speaker for the “Conversations in Business and Health Series” at the University of Sydney Business School. Sydney, Australia.

Dewhirst, T. (2013, May). Sponsorship-linked marketing and image transfer: The role of product/consumption constellations. Invited speaker at brown bag seminar series, University of Sydney Business School. Sydney, Australia.

Dewhirst, T. (2013, February). Culture-jamming: Creating a smokefree social movement. Keynote address for ASPIRE 2025. Wellington, New Zealand.

Dewhirst, T. & Lee, W.B. (2013, February). Social marketing. Invited workshop speaker at the University of Otago—Wellington Public Health Summer School. Wellington, New Zealand.

Dewhirst, T. (2012, November). Marketing of tobacco products. Guest lecture for “Tobacco and Health: From Cells to Society,” which is offered through the Graduate Department of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health (University of Toronto).

Dewhirst, T. (2012, November). Tobacco marketing and target market selection: Ethical implications. Invited presentation at DAN Management and Organizational Studies, Western University. London, Ontario.

Dewhirst, T. (2012, May). Tobacco marketing and target market selection: Ethical implications. Invited speaker at the Queen’s School of Business Conference on Morality and Ethics in Consumer Decision Making. Kingston, Ontario.

Dewhirst, T. (2011, November). Marketing of tobacco products. Guest lecture for “Tobacco and Health: From Cells to Society,” which is offered through the Graduate Department of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health (University of Toronto).

Dewhirst, T. (2011, September). Personality and lifestyles. Guest lectures for “MOS 3321F (Section 001 and 002): Consumer Behaviour” (University of Western Ontario).

Dewhirst, T. (2010, February). Tobacco promotion and public policy in Canada. Invited speaker at faculty seminar series, Faculty of Business and IT, University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT). Oshawa, Ontario.

Dewhirst, T. (2010, January). Tobacco promotion and public policy in Canada. Invited speaker at the Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Dartmouth Medical School. Lebanon, New Hampshire.

Dewhirst, T. (2009, January). A Canadian case study of reducing smoking in young people. Invited speaker at workshop entitled, A Review of Young People and Smoking in England. London, England.

Dewhirst, T. (2008, August). Tobacco marketing strategies and effective policy interventions. Invited speaker at the UICC World Cancer Congress. Geneva, Switzerland.

15 Dewhirst, T. & Janzen, P. (2007, March). A crystal clear message with impact. Invited workshop leader at Canada’s Next Top Ad Exec [hosted by DeGroote School of Business; in partnership with Mitsubishi Motor Sales of Canada]. Hamilton, Ontario.

Dewhirst, T. (2007, March). The representation of youth and tobacco use in the media, 1950- 2006. Invited presentation at The Changing Portrayal of American Youth in Popular Media Conference [organized by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania]. Rancho Mirage, California.

Dewhirst, T. (2007, February). Invited leader of Sponsorship-Linked Marketing Workshop [organized by Business Advisory Services, College of Commerce, University of Saskatchewan]. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

Dewhirst, T. (2007, January). Tobacco promotion and marketing: Coping with the moving regulatory frontier. Invited presentation at Health Canada’s Compendium Report on Smoking and Health in Canada Conference. Ottawa, Ontario.

Dewhirst, T. (2006, November). Misleading cigarette product descriptors: Reassuring concerned smokers. Invited presentation at New Zealand Parliamentary Breakfast. Wellington, New Zealand.

Dewhirst, T. (2006, September). Elaboration of a template for a protocol on cross-border advertising, promotion and sponsorship: Canada’s experience. Invited presentation at the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control first meeting of the expert group for the elaboration of a template for a protocol on cross-border advertising, promotion and sponsorship. World Health Organization Headquarters, Geneva, Switzerland.

Dewhirst, T. (2005, May). Tobacco sponsorship and public policy. Invited lecture at the University of California, San Francisco for a graduate course entitled, “Tobacco Control Policy Issues.” San Francisco, California.

Dewhirst, T. (2004, November). Marketing 101: Key principles applied to the tobacco industry. Invited lecture to the American Legacy Fellows at the University of California, San Francisco. San Francisco, California.

Dewhirst, T. (2004, November). Project Tomahawk – Marketing aspects. Invited speaker at Tobacco Industry Secret Science Research Symposium [hosted by Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada]. Gatineau, Quebec.

Dewhirst, T. (2004, November). Matinée cigarette brand marketing: Positioned as a “health” cigarette. Invited speaker at Tobacco Industry Secret Science Research Symposium [hosted by Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada]. Gatineau, Quebec.

Dewhirst, T. (2004, March). Big tobacco, sponsorship, and universities. Plenary speaker for University of Alberta Wellness Week [organized by the University of Alberta Students’ Union]. Edmonton, Alberta.

Dewhirst, T. (2001, October). Tobacco advertising and sponsorship in Canada: How the tobacco industry is targeting “you”th. Plenary speaker at Tobacco: Targeting the Truth Conference [organized by the South Fraser Health Region]. White Rock, British Columbia.

16 Dewhirst, T. (2001, September). ‘Learning from the competitor’: A review of tobacco industry promotional strategies and developing counter-messages. Presentation given at the Lower Mainland HeartSmart Kids Workshop [hosted by the Heart and Stroke Foundation of B.C. & Yukon]. Vancouver, British Columbia.

Dewhirst, T. (2001, February). Tobacco advertising and sponsorship in Canada. Presentation given to Students (Grade 8-12) at New Westminister Secondary School. Vancouver, British Columbia.

Dewhirst, T. (2000, November). Tobacco sponsorship of sports events. Guest lecture for HKIN 161: Social and Managerial Aspects of Leisure and Sport (University of British Columbia).

Dewhirst, T. (1999, July). ‘Know the competitor’: Identifying and closing legislation loopholes exploited by Canadian tobacco manufacturers. Paper Presentation at a tobacco-marketing mini- seminar [hosted by Health Canada, arranged by Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada]. Ottawa, Ontario.

Dewhirst, T. (1998, October). Smoke & ashes: The regulation of tobacco sport sponsorships in Canada. Paper Presented at the Green College Member Speaker Series. Vancouver, British Columbia.

Pollay, R.W. & Dewhirst, T. (1998, October). Cigarette sponsorship of public and non-profit organizations. Guest lecture for COMM 460: Public and Nonprofit Marketing Management (University of British Columbia).

Dewhirst, T. (1998, July). Smoke & ashes: The regulation of tobacco sport sponsorships in Canada. Paper Presented at the Centre for Community Child Health Research Ideas In Progress Meeting. Vancouver, British Columbia.

WORKSHOP/MEETING INVITATIONS.

Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) Event on Promoting the Health of Youth in Canada. Ottawa, Ontario (March 4, 2010).

Consumer Behavior Winter Research Camp. Ivey School of Business. London, Ontario (January 29, 2010).

Pan-Canadian Resource Network Interdisciplinary Capacity Enhancement (ICE) Program Summer Learning Forum. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan (June 21-22, 2007).

World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC): Second meeting of the expert group for the elaboration of a template for a protocol on cross-border advertising, promotion and sponsorship. Agra, India (November 16-18, 2006).

3rd Annual Invitational Symposium for Research to Inform Tobacco Control, hosted by the Canadian Tobacco Control Research Initiative (CTCRI). Toronto, Ontario (November 13-15, 2006).

World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC): First meeting of the Protocol template elaboration expert group on cross-border advertising, promotion and sponsorship. Geneva, Switzerland (September 13-15, 2006).

17 2nd Annual Invitational Symposium for Research to Inform Tobacco Control, hosted by the Canadian Tobacco Control Research Initiative (CTCRI). Toronto, Ontario (November 9-11, 2005).

Building a Research Community: The 1st Invitational Meeting of Tobacco Control Investigators and Trainees, hosted by the Canadian Tobacco Control Research Initiative (CTCRI). Toronto, Ontario (December 2-3, 2004).

Harm Reduction Summit, hosted by the California Tobacco Control Section. Sacramento, California (September 8-9, 2004).

CIHR-Institute of Gender and Health, 2nd Annual National Research Award Recipient Symposia and 2nd Annual Workshop for New Investigators in Gender and Health Research. Edmonton, Alberta (October 20-21, 2003).

Exposed and Disclosed Symposium. Vancouver, British Columbia (March 10-11, 2003).

CIHR-Institute of Population and Public Health Summer Institute. Talisman Mountain Resort, Ontario (June 9-11, 2002).

Canadian Tobacco Control Research Summit. Ottawa, Ontario (April 19-21, 2002).

Teenaged Girls and Smoking: A Research Agenda. Vancouver, British Columbia (November 29- December 1, 2001).

MEDIA INTERVIEWS.

Interviewed and featured in CBC News (2013) Topic: Cigarette ads reappear in magazines read by Canadian teens

Interviewed and featured in National Post (2013) Topic: Economic impact of legalizing marijuana in Canada (implications for the tobacco industry)

Interviewed and featured in The Guelph Mercury (2012) Topic: Smoking in public places

Interviewed live on “The Gary Doyle Show,” 570 News Kitchener (2011) Topic: Political branding and elections

Interviewed and featured in The Guelph Mercury (2011) Topic: Canadian political parties and branding

Interviewed on “The War Room,” NHL Home Ice, XM Satellite Radio 204/Sirius 208 (2011) Topic: National Hockey League (NHL) teams and branding

Interviewed and featured in The Globe and Mail [Canadian Press] (2009) Topic: Government advertising in Canada

Interviewed and featured in The Globe and Mail (2008) Topic: Fruit-flavoured cigarillos popularity with teens

18 Interviewed live on “Breakfast TV” at TV One Studio; National Television Program in New Zealand (November 23, 2006) Topic: “Light” and “mild” as misleading cigarette product descriptors

Interviewed and featured in National Post, Ottawa Citizen, and Dominion Post articles (2006) Topics: “Sports marketing” (Olympic sponsorship), “tobacco marketing and public policy”, and “misleading cigarette product descriptors”

Interviewed live on CBC Newsworld, “Newsworld Saturday” National Television Program (July 3, 2004) Topic: Smoking in movies can influence teens to start

Interviewed by Tony Wilson on 3RRR, 102.7 FM, Melbourne, Australia (April 23, 2003) Topic: Discussed my address at the 2nd Australian Tobacco Control Conference

Interviewed by Scott Roberts on Mountain FM, based in Whistler, B.C. (March 24, 2000) Topic: Du Maurier contest (limited to smokers)

Interviewed by Peter Royce on “Redeye”—Co-op Radio, CFRO, 102.7 FM (October 16, 1999) Topic: Sport sponsorship by tobacco manufacturers

MANUSCRIPT/GRANT REVIEW, EVALUATION, & EDITORIAL POSITIONS.

Editorial Review Board, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing (2012 – )

Associate Editor, Product Marketing and Promotion, Tobacco Control (2009 – )

Ad Hoc Reviewer, Tobacco Control (2001 – )* *Awarded certificate of appreciation for providing journal with reviews that were judged to be among the best they receive

Reviewer, Wellcome Trust Medical Humanities Research Fellowship application, U.K. (2012)

External Referee and Assessor, regarding a candidate’s application for promotion to Associate Professor (2012)

External Peer Reviewer, Surgeon General’s Report on Preventing Tobacco Use Among Young People (2010-2011)

Reviewer, U.S. National Cancer Institute grant applications regarding “State and Community Tobacco Control Policy and Media Research” (2010)

Judge for Canada’s Next Top Ad Exec competition [organized by McMaster University’s DeGroote School of Business; in partnership with Mitsubishi Motor Sales of Canada (2007, 2008), Volkswagen (2009), and Chevrolet (2010)].

Editorial Advisory Board, Tobacco Control (2006-2008)

Government Grant Reviewer for Research Grants Council, Hong Kong (2005-2008)

19 Scientific Peer Review Panel Member for Canadian Tobacco Control Research Initiative (CTCRI)/Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Research Grants (2004-2005)

External Reviewer, Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) funding application (2001)

Ad Hoc Reviewer, Addiction, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, American Journal of Public Health, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Canadian Public Administration, European Journal of Marketing, Journal of Advertising, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Communication Inquiry, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Journal of Sport Management, New Zealand Medical Journal, Pediatrics, Qualitative Health Research, Social Science and Medicine, and Sport Marketing Quarterly

Ad Hoc Reviewer, American Academy of Advertising (AAA) Asia-Pacific Conference, Association for Consumer Research (ACR) Asia-Pacific Conference, Consumer Behavior Track of the American Marketing Association (AMA) Summer Educators’ Conference, Royal Bank International Research Seminar, (Canadian) National Conference on Tobacco or Health, Transformative Consumer Research Track of the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference (ANZMAC)

Reviewer for The SAGE Handbook of Social Marketing by Hastings, Bryant, and Angus

Principles of Marketing Editorial Review Board, Principles of Marketing (7th Canadian Edition) by Kotler, Armstrong, and Cunningham (2006)

Invited Reviewer of the U.S. National Cancer Institute’s Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 19, Use of the Media to Promote and Discourage Tobacco Use

Reviewer for The Changing Portrayal of Adolescents in the Media since 1950 by Jamieson and Romer

External Reviewer, Pearson Education Canada, textbook entitled, Modern Marketing Research: Step By Step, First Canadian Edition

SCHOLARLY-COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP.

Invited Mentor of Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Strategic Training Program in Tobacco Research (STPTR) (2006 – )

Ph.D. Admissions Committee, College of Management and Economics, University of Guelph (2011-2012)

Chair Search Committee, Department of Marketing and Consumer Studies, College of Management and Economics, University of Guelph (2010-2011)

Tenure and Promotion Committee, Department of Marketing and Consumer Studies, University of Guelph (2009-2011)

M.Sc. and G.Dip. Admissions Committee, Department of Marketing and Consumer Studies, University of Guelph (2009-2011)

20 M.Sc. Program Curriculum Committee, Department of Marketing and Consumer Studies, University of Guelph (2010)

Tenure and Promotion Guidelines Committee, Department of Marketing and Consumer Studies, University of Guelph (2008-2009)

MCS 6120 Committee, Department of Marketing and Consumer Studies, University of Guelph (2008-2009)

Mapping the Marketing Curriculum Committee, Department of Marketing and Consumer Studies, University of Guelph (2007-2009)

Planning and Local Advisory Committee for Pan-Canadian Resource Network Interdisciplinary Capacity Enhancement (ICE) Program Summer Learning Forum (2006-2007)

Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, College of Commerce, University of Saskatchewan (2006-2007)

American Marketing Association (AMA) Marketing and Public Policy Conference 2006 Program Committee (2005-2006)

Undergraduate Studies Committee, College of Commerce, University of Saskatchewan (2005- 2006)

Library Committee, College of Commerce, University of Saskatchewan (2004-2005)

Teaching Effectiveness Committee, College of Commerce, University of Saskatchewan (2003- 2004)

St. John’s College Membership Committee, University of British Columbia (2001-2003)

Green College Policy and Planning Committee, University of British Columbia (2000-2001)

Green College Membership Committee, University of British Columbia (1999-2000)

Secretary for the P.H.E.U.A., University of Toronto (1992-1993)

SOCIETY MEMBERSHIP.

 Association for Consumer Research (ACR)

 American Marketing Association (AMA)

 American Academy of Advertising (AAA)

 Invited Investigator of the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit (OTRU)

 Green College/St. John’s Alumni Membership (University of British Columbia)

21 GRADUATE COURSEWORK.

Ph.D. (University of British Columbia, 1998 – 2003)

 Marketing Management in Public and Non-profit Organizations Instructor: Charles Weinberg (Marketing)  Buyer Behaviour Instructor: Peter Darke (Marketing)  Basic Social Psychology for Business Applications Instructor: Dale Griffin (Marketing)  Social Psychology Theories Applicable to Adolescent Risk-taking Behaviour Instructor: Jim Frankish (Health Promotion)  Organizational Research Methods Instructor: Craig Pinder (Organizational Behaviour)  Directed Study in Business Administration (Content Analysis of Advertisements) Instructor: Richard Pollay (Marketing)  Qualitative Methods in Anthropology Instructor: Janice Graham (Anthropology)  Research Design and Techniques—Quantitative Instructor: David Tindall (Sociology)  Sport, Leisure and Consumer Culture Instructor: Robert Sparks (Leisure and Sport Management)  Sociology of Culture and Knowledge (Risk Society) Instructor: Richard Ericson (Sociology, Law)  Public Policy Analysis Instructor: Kathryn Harrison (Political Science)

M.A. (Queen’s University, 1993 – 1995)

 Politics of Regulation Instructor: John Meisel (Political Science)  Health and Public Policy in Canada Instructor: David Mowat (Public Administration, Community Health and Epidemiology)  Political Economy of Canadian Sport Instructor: Rob Beamish (Physical and Health Education)  Sport and Public Policy Instructor: Hart Cantelon (Physical and Health Education)

Last CV Update: 20 September 2014

22 Appendix 3

David Hammond Curriculum Vitae School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo 200 University Ave West Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1 CANADA Tel: (519) 888-4567 ext. 36462 Email: [email protected] Web: www.davidhammond.ca

ACADEMIC POSITIONS

2011 July - present Associate Professor (Tenured) School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

2007 January Assistant Professor School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

2005 September Research Assistant Professor School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

EDUCATION

2002-2005 Ph.D. Psychology (Special Programs) University of Waterloo 2000-2002 M.Sc. Health Studies University of Waterloo 1992-1996 B.A. Psychology University of British Columbia

AWARDS & DISTINCTIONS 2014 William E. Rawls Prize —Canadian Cancer Society award for important advances in cancer control by a young investigator ($20,000)

2012 Outstanding Performance Award—Faculty of Applied Health Science, University of Waterloo ($3,500)

2012 Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco – Jarvik-Russell Young Investigator Award ($1,000)

2012 Statistical Society of Canada - Lise Manchester Award ($1,000) *Awarded jointly with Dr. Geoffrey Fong and Dr. Mary Thompson

2011-2014 Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute – Junior Investigator Award ($150,000) 2010 Canada’s Premier Young Researcher Award - Canadian Institutes of Health Research ($250,000)

1 2010-2015 Canadian Institutes of Health Research - New Investigator Award ($300,000) *Ranked first among 62 applicants in competition.

2009 Canadian Institutes of Health Research-Canadian Medical Association Journal Top Canadian Achievements in Health Research Awards 2009.* *Awarded jointly with Dr. Geoffrey Fong and Dr. Mary Thompson for research contributions in the area of global tobacco control policies.

2009 Outstanding Performance Award—Faculty of Applied Health Science, University of Waterloo ($3,000)

2005 Michael Smith Foundation (MSFHR) Scholar Award ($80,000/year, Declined)

2005 Ontario Tobacco Research Unit Studentship ($7,000)

2005 Canadian Tobacco Control Research Initiative - Travel Award ($3,000)

2003-05 Canada Graduate Scholarship Doctoral Award ($35,000/year)

2003-05 National Cancer Institute of Canada Studentship Award ($19,000/year, Declined)

2003-05 CIHR Doctoral Research Award ($17,500/year)

2004 International Development Research Agency (IDRC) Doctoral Research Award ($20,000, Declined)

2003 University of Waterloo Graduate Incentive Award

2003 Ontario Graduate Scholarship ($16,000/year, Declined)

2003 CIHR Tobacco Research Training Award ($17,000, Accepted $2,000)

2003 Philip Bryden UW Psychology Memorial Scholarship ($3,000)

2001, 2003 Ontario Tobacco Research Unit Studentship ($7,000)

2001/02 UW Dept. of Health Studies Graduate Scholarship ($1,000)

1992-94 Canadian Olympic Association Torch Scholarship ($2,000)

PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES 2010-2011 Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco - Policy Committee Co-Chair

2009-present Propel Centre for Population Health Impact - Affiliated Scientist

2008-2011 University of Waterloo Survey Research Centre, Executive Board

David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES 2006-present Assistant Editor, Tobacco Control

2006-2010 Ontario Tobacco Research Unit—Research Advisory Board

2006 International Organization for Standardization (ISO) TC126/Working Group 9. (Committee to establish new machine testing standards for cigarette emissions)

2005-present Ontario Tobacco Research Unit—Co-Investigator

2005-2009 Population Health Research Group - Investigator 2005-2009 Centre for Behavioural Research and Program Evaluation (Canadian Cancer Society/National Cancer Institute of Canada) Affiliated Scientist

CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLICY & PRACTICE Selected 2011 to present Canadian Cancer Society –Prevention & Risk Reduction Committee The Cancer Prevention (End 1) Development Committee helps to advise the Canadian Cancer Society (CCS) on funding and strategy for cancer prevention research and risk reduction in order to reduce cancer incidence rates.

2012 to present Heart & Stroke Foundation of Canada, Council on Mission I am a member of the HSFC Council on Mission: Priorities, Advice, Science and Strategy (CoMPASS). The mandate of this group is to provide strategic advice on Mission priorities to the HSFC Board of Directors, through the CEO and President, with the objective of integrating HSFC research, health policy and advocacy activities. This is a high profile appointment to one of the leading NGO’s in my area.

2011 to 2012 Expert Advisory Group for Plain Packaging of Tobacco Products. Department of Health & Ageing, Commonwealth of Australia. The Australian Government established a small international Expert Advisory Group to help develop and implement the world’s first regulations requiring “plain” packaging of tobacco products. The proposed regulations were be implemented by December 2012.

2011 - 2012 Expert Advisor – Tobacco Products Directive, European Commission I served as an Expert Advisor for the European Commission (EC) as they renew their Tobacco Directive, the set of laws and regulations that dictate tobacco control members in the European Union. As part of this role, I have provided advice on the design and evaluation of labelling initiatives.

2010 to present US FDA – Health warning design Advisor to advertising firm who received the bid from the US Food & Drug Administration to develop images for new pictorial health warnings to be implemented on US cigarette packages.

3 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

2010 to present UK Department of Health – Expert Witness, Judicial Review I served as an Expert Witness on behalf of the UK Department of Health related to a Judicial Review of legislation banning point-of-sale tobacco marketing and the display of cigarettes in retail outlets. Tobacco companies launched a legal challenge on the basis that the legislation will be ineffective and therefore disproportionate. My role was review evidence and expert reports submitted by tobacco companies.

2010 to present US Centers for Disease Control & Prevention – Senior Consultant I am serving as a Senior Consultant to the US CDC to help guide evaluation efforts of federal labelling regulations in the United States.

2009 to present Expert Witness in tobacco litigation I have served as an Expert Witness by the federal government for two actions involving the tobacco industry: a health care cost-recovery suit in British Columbia and a class action suit in Quebec. I have also served as an Expert for a class action case against Philip Morris in the state of Missouri.

2005 to present Health Canada- Tobacco Control Program I have participated in a range of meetings and consultations in support of tobacco labelling regulations over the past five years. In addition to regular consultations, this work included hosting a meeting on behalf of Health Canada, drafting reports, and providing regular feedback on new initiatives, as well as high-level meetings with the Deputy Minister, the Health Minister’s office, and senior staff in the Regulations and Policy divisions.

2008 to 2011 Society for Research on Nicotine & Tobacco - Policy & Publications Committee I have sat on the SRNT Policy Committee since 2008. My role is to help guide the society’s conference agenda, as well as to increase linkages with policy makers in the field of tobacco control. I currently sit on SRNT Publications Committee.

2006 to present Framework Convention Alliance I serve as a member and advisor on tobacco product regulation for the Framework Convention Alliance (FCA)—an organization representing over 100 non-governmental associations in support of the WHO FCTC treaty. As part of this work, I co-author annual briefing reports and policy reviews on tobacco product regulation for the FCA membership and for regulators in governments.

2009-2010 Smoke Free Ontario Strategy - Working Group I was a member of the Smoke-Free Ontario Scientific Advisory Committee, which prepared a report on behalf of the Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion: “Evidence to Guide Action: Comprehensive Tobacco Control in Ontario”.

2009 Health Canada - Adult Tobacco Use Working Group I participated in a 2-day meeting to identify federal priorities for reducing adult smoking prevalence. As part of this Meeting; I authored one of the key background papers.

4 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

2008 World Health Organization – Technical Advisor I served as the Technical Advisor for the World Health Organization for Article 11 of the FCTC treaty. In this capacity, I helped to author guidelines for the treaty, which was subsequently endorsed by 168 countries. This work involved a heavy, year-long commitment, including significant international travel. In addition, I created a number of materials and a guide to support the implementation of Article 11 guidelines, and I continue to provide informal guidance and support to a number of jurisdictions.

2007-2009 Ontario Tobacco Research Unit Research Advisory committee The OTRU Research Advisory committee was established to help guide OTRU research priorities and activities. This work represented a light workload, with annual meetings for the committee.

2009 United Kingdom, Department of Health – Tobacco strategy I have participated in meetings to inform the development of the UK Department of Health’s tobacco strategy. This involved meetings and presentations in the UK, as well as contributions to the draft strategy.

2006 International Standards Organization (ISO) – Working Group I served as a technical expert on an International Organization for Standardization (ISO) committee to establish new machine testing standards for cigarette emissions (ISO TC126/Working Group 9), at a series of meetings in Geneva, Switzerland and Las Vega Nevada. My role was to support WHO scientists, particularly in the technical aspects of machine smoking and cigarette yields.

5 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PUBLICATIONS Journal Articles (h-index=38, i-index=89)

1. Hobin E, Lebenbaum M, Rosella L, Hammond D. Availability, type, and format of nutrition information in fast-food restaurants in Canada. Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research; In press.

2. Azagba S, Sharaf M, Hammond D. Association between contraband tobacco and illicit drug use among high school students in Canada. Journal of Primary Prevention; In Press.

3. Azagba S, Minaker LM, Sharaf MF, Hammond D, Manske S. Smoking intensity and intent to continue smoking among menthol and non-menthol adolescent smokers in Canada. Cancer Causes and Control; In press.

4. Thrasher JF, Osman A, Moodie C, Hammond D, Bansal-Travers M, Cummings MK, Borland R, Yong HH, Hardin J.. Promoting cessation resources through cigarette package warning labels: A longitudinal survey with adult smokers in Australia, Canada and Mexico. Tobacco Control; In press.

5. Swayampakala K, Hardin J, Hammond D, Yong HH, Borland R, Krugman D, Brown A, Thrasher J. Pictorial health warning label content and smokers’ understanding of smoking-related risks – a cross-country comparison. Health Education Research 2014; May 21. pii: cyu022 [Epub ahead of print].

6. Hammond D & O’Connor RJ. Reduced nicotine cigarettes: smoking behavior and biomarkers of exposure among smokers not intending to quit. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention 2014; Aug 22. [Epub ahead of print].

7. Czoli C, White CM, Hammond D. Electronic cigarettes in Canada: Prevalence of use and perceptions among young adults. Canadian Journal of Public Health 2014; In Press.

8. Kennedy RD, Spafford MM, Douglas O, Brule J, Hammond D, Fong GT, Thompson ME, Schultz AS. Addressing patient tobacco use in optometric practice. Optometry and Vision Science 2014; In Press.

9. Leatherdale ST, Brown KS, Caron V, Childs RA, Dubin JA, Elliot SJ, Faulkner G, Hammond D, Manske S, Sabiston CM, Laxer RE, Bredin C, Thompson-Haile A. Using COMPASS to set the new standard: a longitudinal hierarchical research platform for evaluating natural experiments related to changes in programs, policies and the built environment on modifiable risk behaviours among youth. Chronic Disease and Injuries in Canada 2014; In Press.

10. Minaker L, Ahmed R, Manske S, Hammond D. Flavored tobacco use among Canadian students in Grades 9 – 12: Prevalence and patterns from the 2010-11 Youth Smoking Survey. Preventing Chronic Disease 2014; 11: E102.

6 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PUBLICATIONS Journal Articles (h-index=38, i-index=89)

11. Lillico H, Manske S, Murnaghan D, Hammond D. The prevalence of eating patterns among Canadian youth. BMC Public Health 2014; 14: 323.

12. Adkison SE, O’Connor RJ, Borland R, Yong H, Cummings KM, Hammond D, Fong GT. Impact of reduced ignition propensity cigarette regulation on consumer smoking behavior and quit intentions: evidence from 6 waves (2004-11) of the ITC Four Country Survey. Tobacco Induced Diseases 2013; 11: 26.

13. Yong HH, Borland R, Thrasher J, Thompson M, Nagelhout G, Fong GT, Hammond D, Cummings KM. Mediational pathways of the impact of cigarette warning labels on quit attempts in four countries: An application of the ITC Conceptual Model. Health Psychology 2014; In Press.

14. Mays D, Niaura RS, Evas D, Hammond D, Luta G, Tercyak KP. The impact of graphic cigarette warning label message framing and plain packaging among adult smokers: Evidence to inform tobacco regulation. Tobacco Control 2014; In Press.

15. Hitchman S, Driezen P, Logel C, Hammond D, Fong GT. Changes in effectiveness of cigarette health warning over time: Findings from the ITC Canada and US surveys, 2002-2011. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2014; In Press.

16. Fathelrahman AI, Li L, Borland R, Yong HH, Omar M, Awang R, Sirirassamee B, Fong GT, Hammond D. Stronger pack warnings predict quitting more than weaker ones: findings from the ITC Malaysia and Thailand Surveys. BMC Public Healthv 2014; In Press.

17. O'Connor RJ, Caruso RV, Borland R, Cummings KM, Bansal-Travers M, Fix BV, King B, Hammond D, Fong GT. Relationship of cigarette-related perceptions to cigarette design features: Finding from the 2009 ITC US Survey. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2013; 15(11): 1943-7. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntt075.

18. Li L, Borland R, Yong HH, Fong GT, Yuan J, Hammond D, Quah ACK. Reported exposures to anti- smoking messages and their impact on Chinese smokers’ subsequent quit attempts. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine; 2013 Sep 28. [Epub ahead of print]. View

19. Hammond D, Goodman S, Hanning R, Daniel S. A randomized trial of calorie labelling on menus. Preventive Medicine 2013 2013;57(6):860-6

20. Hammond D, White C, Anderson W, Arnott D, Dockrell M. Perceptions of cigarette packaging among UK youth: the effect of health warning type and standardized packaging. European Journal of Public Health 2013; Sept 9 [Epub ahead of print] doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckt142.

7 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PUBLICATIONS Journal Articles (h-index=38, i-index=89)

21. Li L, Borland R, Fong GT, Thrasher JF, Hammond D, Cummings KM. Impact of point-of-sale tobacco display bans: findings from the International Tobacco Control Four Country Survey. Health Education Research 2013; May 2 [Epub ahead of print] doi 10.1093/her/cyt058. View

22. Hobin E, Hammond D, White C, Li L, Chiu M, O’Brien M. Nutritional quality of fast food items on “Kids Menus”: comparisons across countries and companies. Public Health Nutrition 2013; Oct 22:1-7. [Epub ahead of print].

23. Czoli C, Hammond D. Cigarette package marketing and youth: Perceptions of “natural” and organic cigarettes, filter references, and contraband tobacco. Journal of Adolescent Health 2013; Sep 4. pii: S1054-139X(13)00381-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.07.016. [Epub ahead of print] View

24. Pang J, Hammond D. Efficacy and consumer preferences for calorie labelling on menus. Journal of Nutrition Education & Behavior 2013; 45(6):669-75. View

25. Vanderlee L, Hammond D. Does nutrition information on menus impact food choice? Comparisons across two hospital cafeterias. Public Health Nutrition 2013; 17(6): 1393-402. View

26. Adkison SE, O’Connor RJ, Bansal-Travers M, Hyland A, Borland R, Cummings KM, McNeill A, Thrasher JF, Hammond D, Fong GT. Awareness, trial, and current use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS): Findings from the ITC Four Country Survey. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2012; 44(3): 207-15. View

27. Kotnowski K, Hammond D. The impact of cigarette pack shape, size and opening: Evidence from tobacco company documents. Addiction 2013; 108(9):1658-68. View

28. Sinclair S, Goodman S, Hammond D. Socio-demographic differences in the comprehension of nutritional labels on food products. Journal of Nutrition Education & Behavior 2013; S1499- 4046(13)00469-7. View

29. White CM, Hammond D, Thrasher JF, Fong GT. The potential impact of plain packaging of cigarette products among Brazilian young women. BMC Public Health 2012; 12:737. View

30. Zawahir S, Omar M, Awang R, Yong HH, Borland R, Sirirassame B, Fong GT, Hammond D. Effectiveness of antismoking media messages and education among adolescents in Malaysia and Thailand: Findings from the ITC SEA Project. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2012; Sept 4 [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1093/ntr/nts161. View

31. Vanderlee L, Manske S, Murnaghan D, Hanning R, Hammond D. Sugar-sweetened beverage consumption among a subset of Canadian youth. Journal of School Health 2014; 84(3): 168-176.

8 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PUBLICATIONS Journal Articles (h-index=38, i-index=89)

32. Hammond D, Wakefield M, Durkin S, Brennan E. Tobacco packaging and mass media campaigns: Research needs for Articles 11 and 12 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2013; 15(4): 817-37. View

33. Vanderlee L, Goodman S, Sae Yang W, Hammond D. Consumer understanding of calorie amounts and serving size: Implication for nutritional labelling. Canadian Journal of Public Health 2012; 103(5):327-31. View

34. Wong SL, Hammond D, Malaison E, Hammond D, Leatherdale S. Second-hand Smoke Exposure Among Canadians: Cotinine and Self-Report Measures from the Canadian Health Measures Survey 2007-2009. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2013; 15(3): 693-700. View

35. Hammond D, Daniel S, White CM. The effect of cigarette branding and plain packaging on female youth in the United Kingdom. Journal of Adolescent Health 2013; 52(2): 151-157. View

36. Kasza K, Hyland A, Borland R, McNeill A, Travers M, Fix B, Hammond D, Fong G, Cummings KM. Effectiveness of Stop-Smoking Medications: Findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. Addiction 2013; 108(1): 193-202. View

37. Hammond D, Reid JL. Health warnings on tobacco products: international practices. Mexican Journal of Public Health 2012; 54: 270-280. View

38. Goodman S, Hammond D, Hanning RM, Sheeska J. The impact of adding front-of-package sodium content labels to grocery products: An experimental study. Public Health Nutrition 2012; 16 (3): 383-91. View

39. Lane EN, Leatherdale ST, Dubin JA, Hammond D. Student and school characteristics associated with use of nicotine replacement therapy: a multilevel analysis among Canadian youth. Addictive Behaviours 2012; 37(7): 811-6. View

40. Hobin EP, Hammond D, Manske S, Hanning RM. The Happy Meal effect: the impact of toy premiums on healthy eating. Canadian Journal of Public Health 2012; 103(4): 244-48. View

41. Kennedy RD, Spafford M, Ilan B, Hammond D, Borland R, Fong GT. Positive impact of Australian “blindness” tobacco warning labels: Findings from the ITC Four Country Survey. Clinical and Experimental Optometry 2012; 95(6): 590-598. View

42. Hammond D, White CM. Improper Disclosure: Tobacco packaging and chemical information in the European Union. Public Health 2012; 126(7):613-9. Doi: 10.1016/j.puhe2012.03.012. View

9 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PUBLICATIONS Journal Articles (h-index=38, i-index=89)

43. Partos TR, Borland R, Yong HH, Thrasher JF, Hammond D. Cigarette packet warning labels can prevent relapse: Findings from the ITC 4-Country Policy Evaluation Cohort Survey. Tobacco Control 2013; 22 (e1): e43-50. View

44. Mutti S, Hammond D, Reid J, Thrasher J. The Impact of cigarette warning labels on health beliefs in the United States and Mexico. Journal of Health Communication 2013; 18(10); 1180-92.

45. Young D, Yong HH< Borland R, Shahab L, Hammond D, Cummings, Wilson N. Trends in Roll-Your- Own smoking: Findings from the ITC 4 Country Survey 2002-2008. Journal of Environmental and Public Health 2012; doi:10.1155/2012/406283. View

46. Hammond D, Reid JL, Driezen P, Boudreau C. Pictorial health warnings on cigarette packs in the United States: An experimental evaluation of the proposed FDA warnings. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2013; 15(1): 93-102. View

47. Wakefield M, Germain D, Durkin S, Hammond D, Goldberg M, Borland R. Do larger pictorial health warnings diminish the need for plain packaging of cigarettes. Addiction 2012; 107(6): 1159-67. View

48. Hammond D, Thrasher J, Reid JL, Driezen P, Boudreau C, Arillo-Santillan E, on behalf of the International Tobacco Packaging Study. The effectiveness of pictorial health warnings among Mexico youth and adults. Cancer Causes & Control 2012; 23 (1): 57-67. doi: 10.1007/s10552-012- 9902-4. View

49. June KM, Hammond D, Sjödin A, Li Z, Romanoff L, O’Connor RJ. Cigarette ignition propensity, smoking behavior, and toxicant exposure: A natural experiment in Canada. Tobacco Induced Diseases 2012; 9:13. doi:10.1186/1617-9625-9-13. View

50. Thrasher JF, Arillo-Santillan E, Villalobos V, Perez-Hernandez R, Hammond D, Carter J, Sebrie E, Sansores R, Pineda-Regalado J. Can cigarette package warning labels address smoking-related health disparities? Field experiments among Mexico smokers to assess the impact of textual content. Cancer Causes & Control 2012; 23 (Suppl 1): 69-80. doi: 10.1007/s10552-012-9899-8. View

51. Brown A, Boudreau C, Moodie C, Fong GT, Li GY, McNeill A, Thompson ME, Hassan LM, Hyland A, Thrasher JF, Yong HH, Borland R, Hastings G, Hammond D. Support for removal of point-of- purchase tobacco advertising and displays: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Canada survey. Tob Control 2011; 15 October: doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050153. View

52. Gallopel-Morvan K, Moodie C, Hammond D, Eker F, Beguinot E, Martinet Y. Consumer perceptions of cigarette pack design in France: A comparison of regular, limited edition and plain packaging. Tobacco Control 2011; 12 October: doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050079. View

10 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PUBLICATIONS Journal Articles (h-index=38, i-index=89)

53. Wong SL, Shields, M, Leatherdale S, Malaison E, Hammond D. Assessment of the validity of self- reported smoking status among Canadians. Health Reports 2012; 23(1). View

54. McNeill A, Hammond D, Gartner C. Whither tobacco product regulation. Tobacco Control 2012; 21: 221e-226. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050258. View

55. Borland R, Li L, Driezen P, Wilson N, Hammond D, Thompson ME, Fong GT, Mons U, Willemsen MC, McNeill A, Thrasher JF, Cummings KM. Cessation assistance reported by smokers in 15 countries participating in the International Tobacco Control (ITC) policy evaluation surveys. Addiction 2012; 107(1): 197-205. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03636.x. View

56. Hammond D. Tobacco packaging and labeling under the US Tobacco Control Act: Research needs and priorities. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2012; 14(1): 62-74. View

57. Hammond D. Health warnings on tobacco packages: A Review. Tobacco Control 2011; 20:327-337. doi:10.1136/tc2010.037630 View

58. Hitchman S, Mons U, Nagelhout GE, Guignard R, McNeill A, Willemsen MC, Driezen P, Wilquin JL, Beck F, Du-Roscöat E, Pötschke-Langer M, Hammond D, Fong GT. Effectiveness of the European Union text-only cigarette health warnings: Findings from four countries. European Journal of Public Health; doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckr099. View

59. Yong HH, Borland R, Cummings KM, Hammond D, O’Connor, Hastings, King B. Impact of the removal of misleading terms on cigarette pack on smokers’ beliefs about Light/Mild cigarettes: Cross-country comparisons. Addiction 2011; 106(12):2204-13. View

60. Thrasher JF, Rousu M, Hammond D, Navarro A, Corrigan J. Estimating the impact of Food and Drug Administration regulation of cigarette package warning labels and the added impact of plain packaging: Evidence from experimental auctions among adult smokers in the United States. Health Policy 2011; 102: 41-48. View

61. Sendzik T, McDonald PW, Brown KS, Hammond D, Ferrence R. An Examination of Planned Quit Attempts among Ontario Smokers and Its Impact on Abstinence. Addiction 2011; 106(11):2005-13. View

62. Gallopel-Morvan K, Béguinot E, Eker F, Martinet Y, Hammond D. Efficacité des paquets de cigarettes standardisés. Une étude dans un contexte français. [Effectiveness of plain packaging of tobacco products: Findings from France.] Bulletin épidémiologique hebdomadaire 2011; 20-21: 44- 247. View

63. Hammond D, Doxey J, Daniel S, Bansal-Travers M. Impact of female-oriented cigarette packaging in the United States. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2011; 13(7):579-88. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntr045. View

11 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PUBLICATIONS Journal Articles (h-index=38, i-index=89)

64. Mutti S, Hammond D, Borland R, Cummings KM, O'Connor RJ, Fong GT. Beyond light and mild: cigarette brand descriptors and perceptions of risk in the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. Addiction 2011; 106(6):1166-75. View

65. Doxey J, Hammond D. Deadly in pink: The impact of female-oriented cigarette packaging among young women. Tobacco Control 2011; 20: 353-360. doi: 10.1136/tc.2010.038315 View

66. Bansal-Travers M, Hammond D, Smith P, Cummings KM. The Impact of Cigarette Pack Design, Descriptors, and Warning Labels on Risk Perception. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2011; 40(6): 674-82. View

67. Goodman S, Hammond D, Pillo-Blocka F, Glanville T, Jenkins R. Use of Nutritional Information in Canada: National trends between 2004 and 2008. Journal of Nutrition Education & Behavior 2011; 43 (5): 356-65. View

68. Fix BV, Hyland A, Rivard C, McNeill A, Fong GT, Borland R, Hammond D, Cummins KM. Usage Patterns of Stop Smoking Medications in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States: Findings from the 2006-2008 International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2011; 8: 222-233. doi:10.3390/ijerph8010222. View

69. Yang J, Hammond D, Driezen P, O’Connor RJ, Li Q, Yong H, Fong GT. The use of cessation assistance among smokers from China: Findings from the ITC China Survey. BMC Public Health 2011; 11: 75. View

70. Callery W, Hammond D, O’Connor RJ, Fong GT. The appeal of smokeless tobacco products among young Canadian smokers: the impact of pictorial health warnings and relative risk messages. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2011; 13(5):373-83. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntr013. View

71. O'Connor RJ, Li Q, Stephens WE, Hammond D, Elton-Marshall T, Cummings KM, Giovino GA, Fong GT. Cigarettes sold in China: design, emissions and metals. Tobacco Control 2010; 19 Suppl 2:i47- 53. View

72. Balmford J, Borland R, Hammond D, Cummings KM. Adherence to and reasons for premature discontinuation from stop smoking medications: Data from the ITC Four-Country Survey. Nicotine & Tobacco Research; 2011; 13(2):94-102. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntq215. View

73. Hammond D, Ahmed R, Burkhalter R, Sae Yang W, Leatherdale S. Illicit substance use among Canadian youth: Trends between 2002 and 2008. Canadian Journal of Public Health 2010; 102(1): 7-12. View

74. Campos S, Doxey J, Hammond D. Nutrition labels on pre-packaged foods: A systematic review. Public Health Nutrition 2011; 14(8):1496-506. View

12 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PUBLICATIONS Journal Articles (h-index=38, i-index=89)

75. O’Connor RJ, Fix BV, Hammond D, Giovino GA, Hyland A, Fong GT, Cummings KM. The Impact of Reduced Ignition Propensity Cigarette Regulation on Smoking Behavior. Injury Prevention 2010; 16(6):420-2. Doi:10.1136/ip.2009.025114. View

76. Hammond D. Plain packaging regulations for tobacco products: the impact of standardardizing the color and design of cigarette packs. Revista de Salud Pública de México 2010; 52 suppl 2:S226- S232. View

77. Fong GT, Hammond D, Yuan J, Li Q, Quah ACK, Yan M. Perceptions of Tobacco Health Warnings in China Compared to Picture and Text-Only Health Warnings From Other Countries: An Experimental Study. Tobacco Control 2010; 19(Suppl 2):i69ei77. View

78. King B, Yong HH, Borland R, Omar M, bin Awang Ahmad R, Sirirasamee B, Hamann S, O’Connor RJ, Bansal-Travers M, Elton-Marshall T, Lee BW, Hammond D, Thrasher J. Malaysian and Thai smokers’ beliefs about the relative harmfulness of “light” and menthol cigarettes. Tobacco Control 2010; 19: 444-450. View

79. Gibson J, MacNeill A, Murray R, Hammond D, Fong GT, Borland R, Cooper J, Hyland A. The impact of the United Kingdom's national smoking cessation strategy on quit attempts and use of cessation services: Findings from the International Tobacco Control Four Country Survey. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2010; 12(s1): S64-S71. View

80. Thrasher J, Hammond D, Arillo-Santillain EA. The alchemy of Marlboro: Transforming “Light” into “Gold” in Mexico. Tobacco Control 2010; 19: 342-343. View

81. Gallopel-Morvan KG, Moodie C, Hammond D, Eker F, Beguinot E, Martinet Y. Consumer understanding of cigarette emission labelling. European Journal of Public Health 2010; Jul 2. View

82. Reid J, Hammond D, Boudreau C, Siahpush M, Fong GT. Socioeconomic Variation in Use of Cessation Assistance among Smokers in Canada, US, UK, Australia: Findings from the ITC Four-Country Survey. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2010; 12(s1): S20-S33. View

83. Ashley DL, O’Connor RJ, Bernert JT, Watson CH, Polzin GM, Jain RM, Hammond D, Hatsukami DK, Giovino GA, Cummings KM, McNeill A, Shahab L, King B, Fong GT, Zhang L, Xia Y, Yan X, McCraw JM. Impact of Differing Levels of Tobacco-Specific Nitrosamines in Cigarette Smoke on the Levels of Biomarkers in Smokers. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, and Prevention 2010; 19(6); 1389–98. View

84. Fix BV, O’Connor RJ, Hammond D, King G, McNeill A, et al. ITC ‘spit and butts’ pilot study: The feasibility of collection saliva and cigarette butt samples from smokers to evaluate policy. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2010; 12(3):185-90. View

13 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PUBLICATIONS Journal Articles (h-index=38, i-index=89)

85. Yang J, Hammond D, Driezen P, Fong GT, Yuan J. Health knowledge and perception of risk among Chinese Smokers and Non-Smokers: Findings from the ITC China Survey. Tobacco Control 2010; 19(Suppl 2):i18ei23. View

86. Moodie C, MacKintosh AM, Hammond D. Adolescents’ response to text-only tobacco health warnings: Results from the 2008 UK Youth Tobacco Policy Survey. European Journal of Public Health 2010; 20(4):463-9. View

87. Hammond D, Chaiton M, Lee A Collishaw N. Destroyed Documents: Uncovering the science British American Tobacco sought to conceal. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2009; 181(10):691-8. View

88. Fong GT, Hammond D, Hitchman SC. The impact of pictures on the effectiveness of tobacco warnings. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2009; 87: 640-643. View

89. Hammond D, Arnott D, Dockrell M, Lee A, McNeill A. Cigarette pack design and perceptions of risk among UK adult and youth: evidence in support of plain packaging. European Journal of Public Health 2009; 19(6):631-7. View

90. Elton T, Fong GT, Zanna MP, Yuan J, Hammond D, O’Connor RJ, Yong HH, Lin L, King B, Li Q, Borland R, Cummings KM, Driezen P. Beliefs about the relative harm of “light” and “low tar” cigarettes: Findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) China Survey. Tobacco Control 2010; 19(Suppl 2):i54-i62. View

91. Hammond D, Parkinson C. The impact of cigarette package design on perceptions of risk. Journal of Public Health 2009; 31(3):345-53. View

92. Siahpush M, Yong HH, Borland R, Reid JL, Hammond D. Smokers with financial stress are more likely to want to quit but less likely to try or succeed: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. Addiction 2009;104(8):1420-7. View

93. Reid JL, Hammond D, Driezen P. Socioeconomic status and smoking in Canada, 1999-2006: Has there been any progress on disparities in tobacco use? Canadian Journal of Public Health 2010; 101(1):73-78. View

94. Jiang Y, Fong GT, Lig Q, Hammond D, Quah ACK, Yang Y, Driezen P, Yan M. Effectiveness evaluation of health on cigarette packs in China, 2008 [In Chinese] Chinese Journal of Health Education 2009; 25(6):411-13. View

95. Borland R, Wilson N, Fong GT, Hammond D, et al. Impact of Graphic and Text Warnings on Cigarette Packs: Findings from Four Countries over Five Years. Tobacco Control 2009; 18(5): 358-64. View

14 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PUBLICATIONS Journal Articles (h-index=38, i-index=89)

96. Grainge MJ, Shahab L, Hammond D, O'Connor RJ, McNeill A. Diurnal variation in Smoking Topography and the Effect of Demographic Factors and Cigarette Brand. Drug & Alcohol Dependence 2009; [Epub ahead of print]. View

97. Borland R, Yong HH, Wilson N, Fong GT, Hammond D, Cummings KM, Hosting W, McNeill A. How reactions to cigarette packet health warnings influence quitting: Findings from the ITC Four Country survey. Addiction 2009;104(4):669-75. View

98. Shahab L, Cummings KM, Hammond D, Borland R, West R, McNeill A. The impact of changing nicotine replacement therapy licensing laws in the United Kingdom: Findings from the ITC Four Country Survey. Addiction 2009;104(8):1420-27. View

99. Fathelrahman AI, Omar M, Awang R, Borland R, Fong GT, Hammond D, Zain Z. Smokers’ responses towards cigarette pack warning labels in predicting quit intention, stage of change, and self-efficacy. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2009;11(3):248-53. View

100. Hammond D, Reid J, Driezen P, Cummings KM, Borland R, Fong, GT, McNeill A. Use of nicotine replacement therapy for reasons other than stopping smoking: Findings from the ITC Policy Evaluation Survey. Addiction 2008; 103, 1696–1703. View

101. Hammond D, O’Connor RJ. Chemical constituents and smoke emissions from Canadian cigarettes. Tobacco Control 2008; 17;i24-i31. View

102. Borland R, Fong, GT, Yong HH, Cummings KM, Hammond D, et al. What Happened to Smokers’ Beliefs about Light Cigarettes When “Light/Mild” Brand Descriptors Were Banned in the UK? Findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. Tobacco Control 2008; 17(4):256-62. View

103. O’Connor RJ, Hammond D, McNeill A, King B, Kozlowski LT, Giovino GA, Cummings KM. How do different cigarette design features influence the standard tar yields of popular cigarette brands sold in different countries? Tobacco Control 2008; 17 (Suppl 1): i1-i5. View

104. Leatherdale ST, Hammond D, Ahmed R. Alcohol, marijuana, and tobacco use patterns among youth in Canada. Cancer Causes and Control 2008; 19(4):361-9. View

105. Parkinson C, Hammond D, Borland R, et al. Beliefs about Smoking Among Thai and Malaysian Youth: Findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Survey. American Journal of Health Behavior 2009;33(4):366-75. View

106. Young D, Yong HH, Borland R, Ross H, Fong GT, Hammond D, et al. Prevalence and attributes of roll-your-own smokers from Thailand and Malaysia: Findings from the ITC SEA Survey. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2008; 10(5): 907-915. View

15 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PUBLICATIONS Journal Articles (h-index=38, i-index=89)

107. Yong HH, Borland R, Sirirassamee B, Ritthiphakdee B, Awang R. Omar, M, Zain ZM, Hammond D, O’Connor RJ, Fong GT. Levels and correlates of awareness of tobacco promotional activities among adult smokers in Malaysia and Thailand: Findings from the ITC Southeast Asia Survey. Tobacco Control 2008; 17(1):46-52. View

108. Sahab L, Hammond D, O’Connor R, Cummings KM, Borland R, King B, McNeill A. The reliability and validity of self-reported puffing behaviour: evidence from a cross-national study. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2008; 10(5): 867-874. View

109. Hammond D, Foong Kin, Prohmmo A, Kungsulniti N, et al. Patterns of smoking among youth in Thailand and Malaysia: Findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Survey. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health 2008; 20(3): 193-203. View

110. Thrasher JF, Hammond D, Fong GT, Arillo-Santillan, E. Smokers’ reactions to cigarette package warnings with graphic imagery and with only text: A comparison between Mexico and Canada. Salud Publica Mex 2007; 49 suppl 2: S233-40. View

111. Gower SK, Hammond D. CSP deposition to the regional lung: implications of cigarette design. Risk Analysis 2007; 27 (6):1519-33. View

112. O’Connor RJ, Bauer J, Giovino G, Hammond D. Prevalence of behaviours related to cigarette fires: A random-digit- dialed telephone survey of Ontario smokers. Injury Prevention 2007; 13: 237- 242. View

113. Leatherdale S, Hammond D. Kaiserman MJ, Ahmed R. Marijuana and tobacco use among young adults in Canada: are they smoking what we think they are smoking? Cancer Causes and Control 2007; 18(4):391-7. View

114. O’Connor RJ, McNeill A, Borland R, Hammond D, King B Boudreau C, Cummings KM. Smokers’ beliefs about relative safety of other tobacco products: Findings from the ITC Collaboration. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2007; 9:1033 - 1042. View

115. Hammond D, Fong GT, Borland R, Cummings KM, McNeill A, Driezen P. Text and Graphic Warnings on Cigarette Packages: Findings from the ITC Four Country Survey. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2007; 32 (3): 202–209. View

116. Hammond D, Wiebel F, Kozlowski LT, Borland R, Cummings KM, O’Connor RJ, McNeill A, Connolly GN, Arnott D, Fong GT. Revising the ISO machine smoking regime for cigarette emissions: Implications for tobacco control policy. Tobacco Control 2007;16: 8–14. View

16 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PUBLICATIONS Journal Articles (h-index=38, i-index=89)

117. O’Connor RJ, Hammond D, Hyland A, Cummings KM, Fong GT. Digital image analysis of cigarette filter staining to estimate smoke exposure. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2007;9(8):865- 71. View

118. Hammond D. Tobacco industry research on smoking and cigarette toxicity. [Letter] Lancet. 2006; 368 (9532): 286. View

119. O’Connor RJ, Kozlowski LT, Borland R, Hammond D, McNeill A. Relationship between constituent labelling and reporting of tar yields among smokers in four countries. Journal of Public Health 2006; 28(4): 324-9. View

120. Hammond D, Fong GT, Zanna MP, Thrasher J, Borland R. Tobacco denormalization, anti- industry beliefs and cessation among smokers from four countries. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2006; 31(3):225–232. View

121. Thrasher JF, Chaloupka FJ, Hammond D, Fong G, Borland R, Hastings G, Cummings KM. Evaluación de las políticas contra el tabaquismo en países lainoamericanos en la era del Convenio Marco para el Control del Tabaco. [Evaluation of tobacco control policies in Latin American countries during the era of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.] Revista de Salud Pública de México 2006 ; 48(SuppII): S155-S166. View

122. Hammond D, Fong GT, Cummings KM, O’Connor RJ, Giovino GA, McNeil A. Cigarette yields and human exposure: a comparison of alternative smoking regimes. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, & Prevention 2006; 15(8):1495-501. View

123. Hammond D, Costello MJ, Fong GT, Topham J. Exposure to Tobacco Marketing and Support for Tobacco Control Policies Among University Students. American Journal of Health Behavior 2006; 30(6): 700-9. View

124. Hammond D. Canada: a new angle on packs. [Letter] Tobacco Control 2006; 15: 150. View

125. O’Connor RJ, Giovino GA, Fix BV, Hyland A, Hammond D, Fong GT, Bauer U, Cummings KM. Smokers’ reactions to reduced ignition propensity cigarettes. Tobacco Control 2006; 15: 45-49. View

126. Hammond D, Collishaw N, Callard C. Tobacco industry research on smoking behaviour and product design. The Lancet 2006; 367: 781–87. View

127. Hammond D, Fong GT, McDonald PW, Cameron R, Brown KS. Showing leads to doing: graphic cigarette warning labels are an effective public health policy. [Letter] European Journal of Public Health 2006; 16(2): 223-224. View

17 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PUBLICATIONS Journal Articles (h-index=38, i-index=89)

128. Thompson ME, Fong GT, Hammond D, Boudreau C, Driezen PR, Hyland A, Borland R, Cummings KM, Hastings G, Siapush M, Mackintosh AM, Laux F. The methodology of the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation (Four-Country) Survey (ITCPES). Tobacco Control 2006;15(Suppl III):iii12–iii18. View

129. Fong GT, Cummings KM, Borland R, Hastings G, Hyland A, Giovino GA, Hammond D, Thompson ME. The Conceptual Framework for the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project. Tobacco Control 2006;15(Suppl III):iii3–iii11. View

130. Harris F, Mackintosh AM, Anderson S, Hastings G, Borland R, Fong GT, Hammond D, Cummings KM. The Effects of the Advertising/Promotion Ban in the United Kingdom on Awareness of Tobacco Marketing: Findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Survey. Tobacco Control 2006;15(Suppl III):iii26–iii33. View

131. Fong GT, Hyland A, Borland R, Hammond D, et al. Reductions in tobacco smoke pollution and increases in support for smoke-free public places following the implementation of comprehensive smoke-free workplace legislation in the Republic of Ireland: findings from the ITC Ireland/UK Survey. Tobacco Control 2006;15(Suppl III):iii51–iii58. View

132. Young D, Borland R, Hammond D, Cummings KM, Devin E, Yong HH, O’Connor R. Prevalence and attributes of roll-your-own smokers in the ITC 4-country Survey. Tobacco Control 2006;15(Suppl III):iii76–iii82. View

133. Hammond D, Fong GT, Borland R, McNeill A, Cummings KM, Hastings G. Effectiveness of cigarette warning labels in informing smokers about the risks of smoking: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. Tobacco Control 2006;15 (Suppl III):iii19– iii25. View

134. Siahpush M, McNeill A, Hammond D, Fong GT. Socioeconomic and country variations in knowledge of health risks of tobacco smoking and toxic constituents of smoke: Results from the 2002 International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Survey. Tobacco Control 2006;15(Suppl III):iii65–iii70. View

135. Hammond D, Fong GT, Cummings KM, Hyland A. Smoking Topography, Brand Switching, and Nicotine Delivery: An In Vivo trial. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, & Prevention 2005;14 (6):1–6. View

136. Hammond D. Young Adults and Smoking Behaviour: Beyond Youth Prevention. Tobacco Control 2005; 14:181-185. View

137. Hammond D, Tremblay I, Callard C. et al. Tobacco control Policies and Industry Marketing at Post-Secondary Institutions in Canada. Tobacco Control 2005; 14(2): 136-40. View

18 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PUBLICATIONS Journal Articles (h-index=38, i-index=89)

138. Fong GT, Hammond D, Laux FL, Zanna MP, Cummings KM, Borland R, Ross H. The near- universal experience of regret among smokers in four countries: Findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Survey. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2004; 6(3): S341-52. View

139. Borland R, Yong HH, King B, Cummings KM, Fong GT, Elton TE, Hammond D, McNeill A. Use of and beliefs about 'light' cigarettes in four countries: Findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Survey. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2004; 6(3): S311-21. View

140. Hammond D, Fong GT, McDonald PW, Brown KS, Cameron R. Graphic cigarette package warning labels and adverse outcomes: Evidence from Canadian smokers. American Journal of Public Health 2004; 94 (8): 1442-45. View

141. Hammond D, Fong GT, McDonald PW, Cameron R, Brown KS. The impact of the graphic Canadian warning labels on adult smoking. Tobacco Control 2003; 12:391-95. View

142. Hammond D, Fong GT, McDonald PW, Borland R. Do Smokers Know How to Quit? Knowledge and Adoption of Cessation Assistance in a Representative Sample of Daily Smokers. Addiction 2004; 99(8): 1042-48. View

143. Hammond D, McDonald, PW, Fong GT, Cameron AR. Cigarette warning labels, smoking bans, and motivation to quit smoking: Evidence from former smokers. Canadian Journal of Public Health 2004; 95 (3): 201-04. View

144. Radomsky AS, Rachman S, Hammond D. Panic termination and the post-panic period. Journal of Anxiety Disorders 2002; 16 (1): 97-111. View

145. Radomsky AS, Rachman S, Hammond D. Memory bias, confidence and responsibility in compulsive checking. Behaviour Research & Therapy 2001; 39: 813-22. View

PUBLICATIONS Manuscripts Under Review

1. Newman-Norlund R, Thrasher J, Frridrikson J, Brixius W, Froeliger B, Hammond D, Cummings KM. Neural biomarkers for assessing the effects of different types of imagery in pictorial health warning labels on cigarette packaging. (Submitted to Addiction.)

2. *Czoli C, Hammond D. Levels of NNAL among Canadian smokers. (Submitted to Nicotine & Tobacco Research.)

3. *Vanderlee L, McCrory C, Hammond D. Do Canadians know the recommendations from Canada’s Food Guide. (Submitted to Canadian Journal of Public Health.)

19 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

4. Shiplo, Czoli C, Hammond D. E-cigarette use in Canada: Prevalence and patterns of use in a regulated market. (Submitted to Nicotine & Tobacco Research.)

5. Ding S, Watson C, Hammond D. Mouth-level intake of benzo[a]pyrene from reduced nicotine cigarettes. (Submitted to Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.)

6. *Vanderlee L, Vine M, Fenton N Hammond D. Stakeholder perspectives on developing and implementing a menu labeling program in a cafeteria setting. (Submitted to Journal Nutrition Education & Behaviour.)

7. Cornelius M, Cummings KM, Fong GT, Hyland A, Driezen PR, Chaloupka F, Hammond D, O’Connor RJ, Bansal-Travers M. The prevalence of brand switching among adult smokers in the US, 2006- 2011: Findings from the ITC US Survey. (Submitted to Tobacco Control.)

8. Gravely S, Fong GT, McNally M, Driezen P, Thrasher JF, Thompson ME, Boado M, Bianco E, Borland R, Hammond DJ. The impact of the 2009 enhancement of cigarette health warning labels in Uruguay: Longitudinal findings from the ITC Uruguay Survey. (Submitted to Tobacco Control.)

9. Gravely S, Fong GT, Cumming KM, Quah ACK, Borland R, McNeill A, Hitchman SC, Hammond D, Thrasher JF, Willemsen M, Gwan H, Yuan J, Omar M, Naglehout GE. Awareness, Ever-Trial, and Use of Electronic Cigarettes Among 10 Countries: Findings from the ITC Project. (Submitted to Tobacco Control.)

10. Yong HH, Borland R, Hammond D, Thrasher JF, Cummings KM, Fong GT. Smokers’ reactions and orienting response to the new health warning labels introduced on plain cigarette packs in Australia. (Submitted to Tobacco Control.)

11. Hammond D, Reid JL, Leatherdale ST, McCRory C, Dubin JA. The use of caffeinated energy drinks and alcohol among secondary students in Ontario Canada. (Submitted to Canadian Journal of Public Health.)

12. Kennedy RD, Hammond D, Spafford MM, Douglas O, Brule J, Fong GT, Schultz AS. Risk of Blindness pictorial health warning label. (Submitted to Nicotine & Tobacco Research.)

13. *Lillico H, Hanning R, Findlay S, Hammond D. Calorie Labeling on Menus: Are There Adverse Outcomes Related to Eating Disturbances? (Submitted to Public Health Nutrition.)

14. *Mutti S, Reid JL, Thrasher JF, Hammond D. Perceptions of branded and plain packaging among Mexican youth. (Submitted to Journal of Public Health Policy.)

15. Li L, Borland R, Yong HH, Cummings KM, Thrasher JF, Hitchman S, Fong GT, Hammond D, Bansal- Travers M. Longer term impact of cigarette package warnings in Australia compared to the United Kingdom and Canada. (Submitted to Health Education Research.)

20 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

16. *Mutti S, Hammond D, Thrasher JF, Fong GT. A critical review of personal testimonials in anti- tobacco mass media campaigns: implications for low and middle income countries. (Submitted to Health Communication.)

17. *Vanderlee L, Ahmed S, Ferdous F, Dil Farzana F, Kumar S, Faruque ASG, Ahmed T, Hammond D. Fruit and vegetable intake, physical activity and self-care practices among diabetic patients in rural Bangladesh. (Submitted to Diabetic Medicine.)

18. Thrasher JF, Matthews AE, Thompson M, Borland R, Yong H, Fong GT, Hammond D, Cumming KM. Trajectories of responses to cigarette warning labels in four countries: A latent growth modeling approach. (Submitted to International Journal of Environment Research and Public Health.)

19. Hyland A, Fix B, Li Q, Graf J, Cummings KM, King B, Hammond D, Hastings G, Fong GT. Use of Menthol Cigarettes and Nicotine Dependence: Findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. (Submitted to Nicotine & Tobacco Research.)

PUBLICATIONS Book Chapters & Reports

1. Hammond D. Standardized packaging of tobacco products: Evidence review. Prepared on behalf of the Irish Department of Health; March 2014. Available at: http://www.tri.ie/media/3364/standardized-packaging-of-tobacco-products-evidence-review.pdf

2. Institute of Medicine. (Contributing author). Reducing Tobacco-Related Cancer Incidence and Mortality - Workshop Summary. Institute of Medicine; November 2012. Available at: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2012/Reducing-Tobacco-Related-Cancer-Incidence-and- Mortality.aspx

3. Hammond D. The Tobacco Industry’s Influences on the Use of Tobacco Among Youth and Young Adults. (Contributing Author). In: Preventing tobacco use among youth and young adults: A report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2012.

4. Hammond D. Proposed cigarette product warning labels: Submission to the Food & Drug Administration for public comment on the proposed rule requiring warnings for cigarette packages and advertisements. Docket No. FDA-2010-M-0568. January 2011.

5. Reid JR, Hammond D. Tobacco use in Canada: Patterns and Trends (2012 Edition). Propel Centre for Population Health Impact. January 2013. Available at: www.tobaccoreport.ca

6. Hammond D. FCTC Article 11 Guidelines: Evidence Based Practices. Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance; September 2010.

21 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PUBLICATIONS Book Chapters & Reports

7. Smoke-Free Ontario Scientific Advisory Committee. Evidence to Guide Action: Comprehensive Tobacco Control in Ontario. Toronto: Ontario Agency for Health Promotion and Protection, 2010. Available at: http://www.oahpp.ca/services/evidence-to-guide-action-ctc-in- ontario.html#downloads

8. Hammond D. Priorities for reducing adult smoking: Best practice to reach 12% by 2011. Prepared for Health Canada, Tobacco Control Program; March 2009.

9. Hammond D. The impact of tobacco packaging and labelling on youth tobacco use. In: Global Consultation on Effective Youth Tobacco Control Policy Interventions. World Health Organization; In press.

10. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Measures to assess the effectiveness of restrictions on tobacco product labeling policies. In: IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention, Tobacco Control, Volume 12: Methods for Evaluating Tobacco Control Policies. Lyon, France; 2008. Accessible at: http://www.iarc.fr/en/publications/pdfs-online/prev/handbook12/index.php

11. Hammond D. Graphic cigarette pack labeling packs a punch. Cancer Prevention 2008; 11: 6-7.

12. Ferrence R, Hammond D, Fong GT. Warning Labels and Packaging. Appendix in Bonnie R (Chair) Report of the Committee on Reducing Tobacco Use: Strategies, Barriers, and Opportunities. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, Washington DC. 2007

13. Fong GT, Hammond D, Zanna MP. Bridging to Evidence-Based Public Health Policy. In Van Lange, P.A.M. (Ed.). Bridging social psychology: Benefits of transdisciplinary approaches. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2004.

14. Giesbrecht N, Hammond D. (2005) Alcohol Warning Labels: A review of the research literature. Report to Health Canada.

15. Brown KS, Diener A, Ahmed R, Hammond D. (2005) Survey Methods. In: 2002 Youth Smoking Survey Technical Report. Health Canada, Ottawa. Accessible at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs- sesc/tobacco/research/yss-sjf2002/chap2 e.html

16. Diener A, Hammond D. (2005) International Comparisons in Youth Smoking Behaviour. In: 2002 Youth Smoking Survey Technical Report. Health Canada, Ottawa. Accessible at: http://www.hc- sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/pubs/tobac-tabac/yss-etj-2002/chap12 e.html

17. Hammond D, et al. (June 2004) Tobacco on Campus: Tobacco Policy and Industry Marketing Among Universities and Colleges in Canada. Report to Health Canada.

22 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PUBLICATIONS Book Chapters & Reports

18. Hammond D, Thompson ME, Fong GT. (June 2004). International Tobacco Control Evaluation Survey: Technical report. Available at: http://www.itcproject.org/Downloads/ITC-W1- TechReportFinal.pdf

PRESENTATIONS Invited

1. Hammond D. E-cigarettes in Canada: Implications for public health policy. Public Health Ontario; 2014 July 10; Toronto, ON.

2. Hammond D. Population-level interventions for obesity prevention: What we can (and can’t) learn from tobacco. Canadian Obesity Network Student Meeting; 2014 June 20; Waterloo, ON.

3. Hammond D. Smoking cessation and tobacco control policy: Findings from the ITC Policy Evaluation Project. Program Training and Consultation Centre Knowledge Exchange Forum— Cancer Care Ontario; 2014 June 17; Toronto, ON.

4. Hammond D. E-cigarettes in Canada: Patterns of use and regulation. Council of Chief Medical Officers of Health of Canada; 2014 June 12; Toronto, ON.

5. Hammond D. Population health approaches to diabetes prevention: Policy interventions to promote healthy eating. Canadian Public Health Association Conference; 2014 May 27; Toronto, ON.

6. Hammond D. Tobacco retail display bans: packaging, promotion and policy. Swedish Cancer Agency; 2014 May 27; Stockholm, Sweden.

7. Hammond D. Cancer, obesity and diet. Canadian Cancer Society Waterloo Region. 2014 March 28; Waterloo, ON.

8. Hammond D. Communication, advertising, and labelling. Enhancing science to inform FDA regulation of tobacco, Society for Research on Nicotine & Tobacco Pre-Conference; 2014 Feb 5; Seattle, WA.

9. Hammond D. Communication, advertising, and labelling. Strategic Dialogue on Harm Reduction II; 2014 Jan 28; Washington, DC.

10. Hammond D, Vanderlee L. Does nutrition labelling on restaurant menus promote healthier eating Finding from the Ottawa Hospital menu labelling study. Public Health Agency of Canada; 2013 Dec 5; Ottawa, ON.

23 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PRESENTATIONS Invited

11. Hammond D. Tobacco, nutrition, and alcohol warning: International practices, evidence, & legal implications. 2013 O’Neill Institute Summer Program on Global Health Law and Governance 2013 June 14; Washington DC, USA.

12. Hammond D. Will pictorial health warnings “work” in the US? Projecting the impact of policies before they are implemented. Jarvik-Russell Award talk, Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Meeting; 2013 March 14; Boston, MA.

13. Hammond D. Health warnings and plain packaging. Public hearing on Tobacco Products, Committee of the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, European Parliament; 2013 February 25; Brussels, BG.

14. Hammond D. How to establish a successful research program. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Institute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes New Investigator meeting; 2012 December 7; Niagara on the Lake, ON.

15. Hammond D. Work-life balance. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Institute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes New Investigator Meeting; 2012 December 7; Niagara on the Lake, ON.

16. Hammond D. Tobacco industry advertising bans: the role of plain packaging. Bloomberg Initiative to Reduce Tobacco Use: Partner Meeting; 2012 October 17; NY, NY.

17. Hammond D. Efficacy of menu labeling: Summary of Canadian Research. CSPI National Symposia Series on Menu Labeling – Ontario Legislature; 2012 September 12; Toronto, ON.

18. Hammond D. What messages are most effective for preventing initiation of and for quitting tobacco use? Cigarette warning labels. National Cancer Policy Forum Workshop on reducing tobacco-related cancer incidence and mortality: Institute of Medicine; 2012 June 12; Washington, DC.

19. Hammond D. Package health warnings: Evolution of message strategies. US Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC)–National Tobacco Education Campaign Information Sharing Meeting; 2012 June 4 [teleconference].

20. Hammond D & Vanderlee L. Summary of research on menu labelling. Presentation to the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Task Group on the Provision of Nutritional Information in Restaurants and Foodservices; 2012 May 30 [Teleconference].

21. Hammond D. Tobacco advertising and the rise and fall of tobacco use in the 20th century. Discovery Days Keynote, Canadian Medical Hall of Fame; 2012 April 17; Waterloo, ON.

22. Hammond D. Plain packaging: Summary of Evidence Pre-conference: World Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2012 March 21; Singapore, SG.

24 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PRESENTATIONS Invited

23. Hammond D. Tobacco package design and use of health warnings. Fifty years since ‘Smoking and health’ progress, patterns and priorities for a smoke-free UK, Royal College of Physicians; 2012 March 6; London, UK.

24. Hammond D. Plain packaging and health warnings. High-level conference on pictorial health warning and standardized packaging for tobacco products, European Parliament; 2012 March 1; Brussels, BE.

25. Hammond D. Public policy issue and sodium reduction: Shaping public policy in support of the national sodium recommendations. Ontario Sodium Summit: Implementation the Federal Sodium Working Group’s National Recommendations; 2012 February 16; Toronto, ON.

26. Hammond D. Population level interventions and smoking cessation. Ottawa Model for Smoking Cessation Conference; 2012 February 3; Ottawa, ON.

27. Hammond D. Pictorial health warnings for tobacco products: Will they “work” in the US? Society for Personality and Social Psychology & Personality, Social Personality & Health Pre-conference; 2012 January 26; San Diego, CA.

28. Hammond D. Reduced nicotine content cigarettes and smoking behavior: Implications for regulating nicotine in tobacco products. Health Canada Tobacco Control Program; 2011 December 13; Ottawa, ON.

29. Hammond D. Policy levers and economic incentives to modify tobacco use: Implications for other risk factors. Cancer Quality Council of Ontario – Signature Event; 2011 December 5; Toronto, ON.

30. Hammond D. Will the pictorial health warning on US cigarette packages work? US National Institutes of Health; 2011 November 30; Bethesda, MD.

31. Hammond D. Population level health and obesity prevention: Nutrition labelling and food marketing. Canadian Cancer Society; 2011 November 22; Waterloo, ON (Webconference).

32. Hammond D. Tobacco control and obesity prevention: Lessons learned, feedback loops and opportunities. National Conference on Tobacco or Health (Opening Plenary); 2011 November 3; Toronto, ON.

33. Hammond D. Changing population level behaviour: Lessons from tobacco. Manitoba Centre for Health Policy; 2011 October 24; Winnipeg, MN.

34. Hammond D. Tobacco industry marketing. Canadian Institutes of Health Research Café Scientifique; 2011 October 26; Windsor, ON.

25 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PRESENTATIONS Invited

35. Hammond D. Lessons learned from tobacco for obesity prevention. Canadian Public Health Association, Plenary; 2011 July 21; Montreal, QC.

36. Hammond D. Best practices in tobacco product health warnings. 6th Annual Global Tobacco Control Leadership Program, Johns Hopkins University; 2011 July 18; Baltimore, MD.

37. Hammond D. Lessons learned from Tobacco Applied to Nutrition. Nutrition Exchange: From Policy to Practice, Ontario Society of Nutrition Professionals in Public Health Conference; 2011 June 2; Ottawa, ON.

38. Hammond D. Plain packaging of tobacco products. Program Training and Consultation Centre (Cancer Care Ontario); 2011 April 6; Toronto, ON.

39. Hammond D. Menu labelling. Health Canada Think Tank Meeting: Provision of nutrition information in restaurants and food services; 2011 March 28; Toronto, ON.

40. Hammond D. The last smoker standing: Do we need a new approach to tobacco control. Canadian Institutes of Health Research Café Scientific; 2011 March 16; Ottawa, ON.

41. Hammond D. International best practices in tobacco labelling. Bloomberg Initiative to Reduce Tobacco Use – Stakeholder Meeting; 2010 Dec 1; New York, NY.

42. Hammond D. Nutrition information on menus. Canadian Cancer Society – Ontario Division; 2010 November 25; Toronto, Canada.

43. Hammond D. Advertencias sanitarias gráficas en México. National Institute of Public Health (Mexico); 2010 May 30; Mexico City, Mexico.

44. Hammond D. Tobacco labelling and packaging: Research needs relevant to FDA legislative authority to regulate tobacco products. Society for Research on Nicotine & Tobacco Conference; 2010 27 February; Baltimore, MD.

45. Hammond D. Cigarette packages as tobacco marketing: The impact of pack design on consumer behaviour and perceptions of risk, and implications for public health regulation. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Transdisciplinary Tobacco Rounds; 2010 15 January; Toronto, ON.

46. Hammond D. New directions in tobacco control in Canada. Opening plenary, National Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2009 November 2; Montreal, Canada.

47. Hammond D. Prohibitions on misleading packaging information. Workshop on Cigarette Warning Labels, Packaging, and Product Labeling. US National Cancer Institute; 2009 October 21; Rockville, MD.

26 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PRESENTATIONS Invited

48. Hammond D. “Light” & “Ultra-light” Cigarette Descriptors: FDA regulation & Industry Practice. Harvard School of Public Health; 2009 October 1; Boston, MA.

49. Hammond D. Will graphic health warnings on cigarette packs work in the United States? Understanding the impact of FDA regulation of tobacco products. US Centres for Disease Control & Prevention, Office of Smoking and Health; 2009 July 30; Atlanta, GA.

50. Hammond D. Product packaging and regulation: Helping to drive smokers into services. UK National Smoking Cessation Conference; 2009 June 23; London, UK.

51. Hammond D. Plain packaging: Evidence from Canada & UK. Round Table on Plain Packaging—UK Department of Health; 2009 June 26; London, UK.

52. Hammond D, Bansall-Travers M. Methods for evaluating tobacco product health warnings and labelling policies. World Conference on Tobacco or Health, Pre-Conference Workshop on evaluating tobacco control policies; 2009 March 8; Mumbai, India.

53. Hammond D. Research on effectiveness of tobacco control policies: Tobacco product labelling. IARC Workshop: Perspectives and Priorities for Research on Tobacco and Cancer International Agency for Research on Cancer/World Health Organization; 2009 March 8; Mumbai, India.

54. Hammond D. Tobacco industry marketing and packaging regulations. Quebec Coalition for Tobacco Control—Consultation; 2009 February 10; Montreal, QC.

55. Hammond D. The future of tobacco control: Where to from here? British Columbia Cancer Society Public Forum; 2008 April 26; Vancouver, BC.

56. Hammond D. Tobacco marketing: Current practices and implications for tobacco control. Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission (AADAC) World No Tobacco Day; 2008 March 29; Edmonton, AB.

57. Hammond D. The package, product, and the point of sale. United Kingdom Department of Health Tobacco Control Strategy consultation; 2008 March 14; London, England.

58. Hammond D. Tobacco Product Modification. Round Table on Long-Term Policy Options to Regulation the Tobacco Industry and its Products; 2008 January 28; Toronto, Ontario.

59. Hammond D. Smoking: Why continue to study it if everyone knows it’s bad? National Cancer Institute of Canada, Making Connections: Public Forum; 2007 November 15; Toronto, Ontario.

60. Hammond D. Tobacco product packaging and labelling: A review. World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: Working Group for Article 11; 2007 November 7; Manila, Philippines.

27 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PRESENTATIONS Invited

61. Hammond D. Best practices in product labelling. NGO Forum: World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Conference of the Parties II; 2007 June 30; Bangkok, Thailand.

62. Hammond D. Tobacco product regulation and disclosure: FCTC Articles 9 and 10. World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Conference of the Parties II; 2007 July 2; Bangkok, Thailand.

63. Hammond D. Tobacco product labelling information session. Health Canada; 2007 June 21; Ottawa, ON.

64. Hammond D. The Product and the Package: current policy issues. The Ontario Tobacco Control Conference; 2006 December 6; Niagara Falls, ON.

65. Hammond D. How do different machine testing regimens predict nicotine bioavailability? TTURC Grantees Conference; 2006 October; Bethesda MD.

66. Hammond D. Product Toxicity vs. Product Harm: Considerations for Product Regulation. World Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2006 July 13-17; Washington, DC.

67. Hammond D. Tobacco Product Regulation: Priorities and Implications for Consumers. World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Conference of the Parties; 2006 February; Geneva, Switzerland.

68. Hammond D. Filter Analyses, “Intensive” Human Smoking Parameters, and Compensatory Smoking Behaviour: Comments on ISO /TC 129 /WG 9. International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) TC 129 Working Group 9 meeting; 2005 December, Geneva, Switzerland.

69. Hammond D. Communicating risk: Implications for constituent labelling. CIHR STPTR Annual Invitational Symposium for Research to Inform Tobacco Control; 2005 November; Toronto, ON.

70. Hammond D. The impact of cigarette warning labels: Findings from the ITC Survey. TTURC Grantees Conference; 2005 October; Washington, DC.

71. Hammond D. Cigarette testing protocols: A Review. Cancer Research Across the Spectrum, Canadian Institutes of Health Research; 2005 May; Mont Tremblant, Quebec.

72. Hammond D. Do smokers know how to quit? Implications for Understanding Barriers to Quitting and the Use of Cessation Assistance. Centre for Addiction in Mental Health; 2005 February; Toronto, Ontario.

28 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PRESENTATIONS Invited

73. Hammond, D. Nicotine Replacement Therapy: Promise, Practice, & Public Health Benefit. Strengthening the Foundations Symposium: Health Policy Research Conference, Canadian Institutes for Health Research; 2003 November; Montreal, Quebec.

PRESENTATIONS Peer-reviewed Conference Presentations

1. Vanderlee L, Hammond D. The impact of menu labelling in hospital cafeterias over time: a quasi- experimental study. Poster presented at the Canadian Nutrition Society Annual Meeting, 2014 June 7- 8; St. John’s, NL.

2. McCrory C, Vanderlee L, White C, Hammond D. Knowledge of recommended caloric intake and influence of calories on food selection among Canadians. Poster presented at The Canadian Nutrition Society 2014 Annual Meeting, 2014 June 6-7; St. John’s, NL.

3. Lillico H, Hanning R, Findlay S, Hammond D. The effects of calorie labels on those at high-risk of eating pathologies: A pre-post intervention study. Poster presented at the Canadian Nutrition Society Annual Meeting, 2014 June 7-8; St. John’s, NL.

4. Reid JL, Hammond D, Leatherdale S, McCrory C, Dubin J. Use of caffeinated energy drinks and alcohol among secondary school students in Ontario, Canada. Canadian Public Health Association Annual Meeting, 2014 May 28; Toronto, ON.

5. Vanderlee L, Hammond D. On today’s menu: evaluation of a menu labelling initiative in hospital cafeterias in Ottawa, Canada. Canadian Public Health Association Annual Meeting, 2014 May 29; Toronto, ON.

6. Czoli CD, Hammond D, Goniewicz M, Islam T & Kotnowski K. The effect of product characteristics on perceptions of electronic cigarettes among Canadians. Canadian Public Health Association Annual Meeting, 2014 May 29; Toronto, ON.

7. White C, Lillico H, Hammond D. The Health Check program in restaurants: consumer awareness, use of nutrition information and consumption patterns. Canadian Public Health Association Annual Meeting, 2014 May 29; Toronto, ON.

8. Hobin E, Vanderlee L, Manson H, L’Abbe M, Rosella L, Bollinger B, Hammond D. Changes in consumer awareness, understanding, trust, and use of an on-shelf nutrition labelling system in supermarkets in Ontario. Canadian Public Health Association Annual Meeting, 2014 May 29; Toronto, ON.

9. Hobin E, Shen-Tu G, White C, Sheeshka J, O’Brien M, McVey G, Hammond D. Comprehension and use of Nutrition Facts tables among young people in Canada. Canadian Public Health Association Annual Meeting, 2014 May 29; Toronto, ON.

29 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PRESENTATIONS Peer-reviewed Conference Presentations

10. Hobin E, Shen-Tu G, White C, Sheeshka J, O’Brien M, McVey G, Hammond D. Using a hybrid methodological technique in a qualitative study to explore young Canadians’ understanding and use of Nutrition Facts tables. Poster presented at the International Society for Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity Annual Meeting, 2014 May; San Diego, CA.

11. Vanderlee L, McCrory C, Hammond D. What should I eat? Awareness of Canada’s food guide. Canadian Public Health Association Annual Meeting, 2014 May 28; Toronto, ON.

12. Delnevo C, Giovenco D, Hrywna M, Hammond D, Ambrose B, Corey C, Green V, Frissell K. Using e- cigarette market trends to inform Tobacco Control Regulatory Science. National Institutes of Health Tobacco Regulatory Science Conference, 2014 April 28; Bethesda, MD.

13. Majowicz S, Diplock K, Leatherdale S, Hammond D, Bitton AJ, Papdopoulos A, Rebellato S, Dubin J. “Don’t put poop in your mouth”: Can food safety training effectively improve food safety knowledge and practice in Ontario High School Students. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food’s 12 Annual Food Safety Research Forum, 2014 May 8; Guelph, ON.

14. Vanderlee L, Shahnawaz A, Ferdous F, Farzana FD, Das SK, Faruque ASG, Ahmed T, Hammond D. Fruit and vegetable intake, physical activity and self-care practices in patients with diabetes in rural Bangladesh. Poster presented at the Global Health Innovation Conference, Yale University; 2014 April 12; New Haven, CT.

15. Czoli C, Hammond D. Electronic cigarettes: product characteristics, health risks, and role as a smoking cessation aid. The Ontario Public Health Association Conference, 2014 April 1; Toronto, ON.

16. Hammond D, Czoli C, Shiplo S. E-cigarettes: Patterns of use and regulation. The Ontario Public Health Association Conference, 2014 April 1; Toronto, ON.

17. Hobin E, White C, O’Brien M, Li L, Chui M, Hammond D. Availability, type, and format of point-of- purchase nutrition information in the top 10 fast-food chain restaurants in Canada. Poster presented at the Ontario Public Health Association Conference, 2014 April 1; Toronto, ON.

18. Shen-Tu G, Hobin E, Sheeshka J, O’Brien M, McVey G, Hammond D. “Think aloud” – How did we use it? Using a unique content analysis method to represent findings from a qualitative study of young Canadians’ understanding of the Nutrition Facts table. Poster presented at the Ontario Public Health Conference, 2014 April 1; Toronto, ON.

19. Gravely S, Fong GT, Yan Mi, Tait MK, Quah ACK, Hammond D, Cummings KM, Borland R, McNeill A, Hitchman SC, Thrasher JF, Willemsen M, Gwan Seo H, Jiang Y, Cavalcante T, Perez C, Omar M, Nagelhout GE for the ITC Project Collaboration. Awareness, Ever-trial and Use of Electronic Cigarettes Among 10 Countries: Findings from the ITC Project. Perceptions of slim cigarettes: An experimental study of smokers in seven countries. Poster presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine & Tobacco Annual Meeting; 2014 Feb 7; Seattle WA.

30 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PRESENTATIONS Peer-reviewed Conference Presentations

20. Reid JL Hammond D. Perceptions of slim cigarettes: An experimental study of smokers in seven countries. Poster presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine & Tobacco Annual Meeting; 2014 Feb 6; Seattle WA.

21. Reid JL Hammond D. Perceptions of menthol cigarettes among adult smokers and youth in the United States: An experimental study. Poster presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine & Tobacco Annual Meeting; 2014 Feb 6; Seattle WA.

22. Thrasher JF, Swayampakala K, Hardin J, Hammond D, Thompson ME, Bansal-Travers M, Yong HH, Borland. Does self-efficacy or reactance moderate the relationship between smokers’ responses to pictorial health warnings on cigarette packs and quit behavior. Poster presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine & Tobacco Annual Meeting; 2014 Feb 6; Seattle WA.

23. Cummings KM, Cornelius ME, Fong GT, Hyland A, Dreizen PR, Chaloupka FJ, Hammond D, Bansal- Travers M. The prevalence of brand switching among adult smokers in the US, 2006-2011. Poster presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine & Tobacco Annual Meeting; 2014 Feb 6; Seattle WA.

24. Fong GT, Cummings KM, Borland R, McNeill A, Thompson ME, Hammond D, Thrasher JF, O’Connor RJ, Hyland A. Recent findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project. Poster presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine & Tobacco Annual Meeting; 2014 Feb 6; Seattle WA.

25. Kennedy RD, Spafford MM, Brule J, Hammond D, Fong GT, Schultz ASH, Douglas O. What optometrists see as a relevant in tobacco prevention and cessation: Patient education material and continuing education. Poster presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine & Tobacco Annual Meeting; 2014 Feb 6; Seattle WA.

26. White CM, Hammond D, Anderson W, Arnott D, Dockrell M. Health warnings, branding, and superslims: Perceptions of cigarette packaging among UK youth. Society for Research on Nicotine & Tobacco Annual Meeting; 2014 Feb 6; Seattle WA.

27. *Li L, Borland R, Yong HH, Cummings KM, Thrasher JF, McNeill A, Fong GT, Hammond D. Longer term impact of cigarette package warnings: Findings from Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Society for Research on Nicotine & Tobacco Annual Meeting; 2014 Feb 7; Seattle WA.

28. *Kotnowski K, Hammond D, Fong GT, Gallopel-Morvan K. The efficacy of standardized cigarette packaging among young women in Canada: A discrete choice experiment. Society for Research on Nicotine & Tobacco Annual Meeting; 2014 Feb 7; Seattle WA.

31 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PRESENTATIONS Peer-reviewed Conference Presentations

29. *Thrasher JF, Abad EN, Hammond D, Bansal-Travers M, Cummings KM, Yong HH, Moodie C, Borland R, Hardin J. Using cigarette package warnings and inserts to promote cessation resources and cessation attempts. Society for Research on Nicotine & Tobacco Annual Meeting; 2014 Feb 7; Seattle WA.

30. *Czoli C, Hammond D, White CM. Electronic Cigarettes in Canada: Prevalence of Use and Perceptions Among Youth and Young Adults. National Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2013 November 26; Ottawa, ON.

31. Baskerville NB, Filsinger S, Hammond D, Guindon E. Crush the Crave™: A Social Media and mHealth Quit Smoking Intervention for Young Adult Smokers. National Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2013 November 26; Ottawa, ON.

32. Czoli C, Hammond D, Goniewicz M. The Effect of Product Characteristics on Perceptions of Electronic Cigarettes Among Canadians. National Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2013 November 26; Ottawa, ON.

33. Driezen, Hammond D, Fong GT, Yong HH. Are Canadian Smokers Ready for Plain Packaging? Findings from the ITC Four-Country Survey 2010-2011. National Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2013 November 26; Ottawa, ON.

34. Costello MJ, Hammond D, McDonald PW, Thrasher JF, Kronstal A, Marshall P, Novinger R, Korgak A. Evaluating the potential effectiveness of tobacco-related health messages among Inuit smokers. National Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2013 November 26; Ottawa, ON.

35. White CM, Hammond D. Stop-smoking medication use and the impact of provincial subsidization policies in Canada. National Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2013 November 26; Ottawa, ON.

36. Kotnowski K, Hammond D, Fong GT, Gallopel-Morvan K. The impact of standardized packaging among young women in Canada: A discrete choice experiment. National Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2013 November 26; Ottawa, ON.

37. Hammond D. Plain packaging, slim cigarettes, & tobacco packaging policy: International overview and new evidence. National Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2013 November 26; Ottawa, ON.

38. Reid JR, Hammond D. Perceptions of “slim” cigarettes: An experimental study of smokers in seven countries. National Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2013 November 26; Ottawa, ON.

39. Fong GT, Quah ACK, Guindon E, Hammond D. Evaluation of tobacco control in Canada: Findings from the ITC Canada Survey 2002-2011. National Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2013 November 27; Ottawa, ON.

32 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PRESENTATIONS Peer-reviewed Conference Presentations

40. Kennedy RDK, Corvaglia-Douglas O, Spafford M, Brule J, Hammond D, Fong GT, Thompson ME, Schultz A. Canadian optometrists’ opinion on Health Canada’s new “risk of blindness” warning label. Poster presentation at the National Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2013 November 27; Ottawa, ON.

41. Hammond D, Reid JL, Vanderlee L, White CM. Consumer perceptions of nutritional labelling on menus: findings from the International Menu Labelling Study. Canadian Public Health Association Annual Meeting; 2013 June 11; Ottawa, ON.

42. Czoli CD, Hammond D. Cigarette Packaging: Youth Perceptions of “Natural” Cigarettes, Filter References and Contraband Tobacco. Canadian Public Health Association Annual Meeting; 2013 June 12; Ottawa, ON.

43. Reid JL, Rynard V, Hammond D. Are Canadian smokers’ purchasing patterns undermining public health objectives? Poster presented at the Canadian Public Health Association Annual Meeting; 2013 June 10-12; Ottawa, ON.

44. Vanderlee LV, Hammond D, White CW, Reid J. Sources of nutrition information among Canadians: Surveys with restaurant patrons. Canadian Public Health Association Annual Meeting; 2013 June 11; Ottawa, ON.

45. Kotnowski K, Hammond D. The impact of cigarette pack shape, size and opening: evidence from tobacco company documents. Canadian Public Health Association Annual Meeting; 2013 June 10; Ottawa, ON.

46. Lillico, HG, Hammond D, Manske S, Murnaghan D. The Prevalence of Four Eating Behaviours Among Canadian Youth. Canadian Public Health Association Annual Meeting; 2013 June 11; Ottawa, ON.

47. Mutti S, Hammond D, Reid JL, Gupta PC, Nargis N, Pednekar M, Shedge H, Hussain G. Patterns of use and health beliefs about smokeless tobacco in India and Bangladesh: Findings from an experimental study. Canadian Public Health Association Annual Meeting; 2013 June 12; Ottawa, ON

48. White CM, Hammond D, Ahmed R, Burkhalter R. Stop-smoking medication use in Canada and the impact of a subsidization policy in Quebec. Canadian Public Health Association Annual Meeting; 2013 June 12; Ottawa, ON.

49. Pang J, Hammond D. Evaluation of efficacy and consumer preference of point-of-purchase calorie labelling formats. Canadian Association for Health Services and Policy Research (CASPER) Annual Conference; 2013 May 29; Vancouver, BC.

50. Hammond D, O’Connor RJ. Reduced nicotine content cigarettes: Smoking behaviour, biomarkers of exposure and product perceptions. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Meeting; 2013 March 14; Boston, MA.

33 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PRESENTATIONS Peer-reviewed Conference Presentations

51. White CM, Hammond D, Ahmed R, Reid JL, Burkhalter R. Stop-smoking medication use in Canada and the impact of a provincial subsidization policy. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Meeting; 2013 March 14; Boston, MA.

52. Adkison SE, O’Connor RJ, Borland R, Yong HH, Cummings KM, Hammond D, Fong GT. Impact of reduced ignition propensity cigarette regulation on consumer acceptability and smoking cessation: Evidence from 6 waves (2004-11) of the ITC 4 Country Survey. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Meeting; 2013 March 14; Boston, MA.

53. Kennedy RD, Spafford MM, Brule J, Hammond D, Fong GT, Thompson ME, Shchultz ASH. Smoking cessation referrrals by optometrists: A national study assessing practices and opportunities. Poster presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Meeting; 2013 March 14; Boston, MA.

54. Sebrie EM, Tores ET, Thrasher JF, Oliva DM, Beatriz Champagne B, Cummings KM, Hammond D. Health warning labels with pictograms in Central America: Results from Honduras and Nicaragua. Poster presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Meeting; 2013 March 16; Boston, MA.

55. Huang L, Thrasher JF, Hammond D, Reid JL. Predicitve and external validity of a pre-market study to determine the most effective pictorial health warning label content for cigarette packages. Poster presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Meeting; 2013 March 116; Boston, MA.

56. Swayampakala K, Thrasher JF, Hammond D, Yong HH, Borland R, Arillo-Santillan E, Cummings KM. Pictorial health warning label content and smokers’ understanding of smoking-related risks: A cross- country comparison. Poster presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Meeting; 2013 March 16; Boston, MA.

57. Adkison SE, O’Connor RJ, Bansal-Travers M, Hyland A, Borland R, Yong HH, Cummings KM, McNeill A, Thrasher JF, Hammond D, Fong GT. Awareness, trial and current use of electronic cigarettes: Findings from the TIC Four Country Survey. Poster presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Meeting; 2013 March 14; Boston, MA.

58. Lin L, Borland R, Fong GT, Hammond D, Thrasher JF, Cummings KM. Impact of tobacco display bans: Findings from the ITC Four Country Survey. Poster presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Meeting; 2013 March 14; Boston, MA.

59. Hitchman SC, Driezen P, Logel C, Hammond D, Fong GT. Changes in effectiveness of cigarette health warnings over time: Findings from the ITC Policy Evaluation Project Canada and the US Surveys, 2002- 2011. Poster presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Meeting; 2013 March 15; Boston, MA.

34 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PRESENTATIONS Peer-reviewed Conference Presentations

60. Czoli C, Hammond D, White CM. Electronic cigarettes in Canada: Prevalence of use and perceptions among young adults. Poster presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Meeting; 2013 March 15; Boston, MA.

61. Fong GT, Cummings KM, Borland R, McNeill A, Thompson ME, Hammond D, Thrasher JF, O’Connor RJ, Hyland A. International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project (ITC Project): Summary of recent findings. Poster presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Meeting; 2013 March 15; Boston, MA.

62. Reid JL, Hammond D, Mons U. Perceptions of pictorial health warnings among adult smokers and youth in Germany. Poster presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Meeting; 2013 March 15; Boston, MA.

63. Cummings KM, Cornelius ME, O’Connor RJ, Hyland A, Hammond D, Fong GT, Thrasher JF, Chaloupka FJ. What cigarette brands are people smoking and how is this changing? Poster presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Meeting; 2013 March 15; Boston, MA.

64. Kennedy RD, Campbell HS, Baskerville NB, Hammond D, Pollon D. Canadian tobacco packaging policy impact on the management and promotion of provincial quitlines: A qualitative Study. Poster presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Meeting; 2013 March 15; Boston, MA.

65. Ding YS, Ward J, Hammond D, Watson CH. Mouth level intake of benzo[a]pyrene from reduced nicotine cigarettes. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Meeting; 2013 March 14; Boston, MA.

66. Mutti S, Hammond D, Reid JL, Gupta PC, Pednekar M, Shedge H, Nargis N, Hussain GAKM. Perceptions of novel health warning labels for smokeless tobacco packages in India and Bangladesh. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Meeting; 2013 March 13; Boston, MA.

67. Kotnowski K, Hammond D. The impat of pack shape, size, and opening: Evidence from tobacco company documents. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Meeting; 2013 March 13; Boston, MA.

68. Thrasher JF, Hammond D, Borland R, Yong HH, O’Connor RJ. Early effects of the Australian plain packaging policy on adult smokers. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Meeting; 2013 March 13; Boston, MA.

69. Mutti S, Hammond D, Reid JL, White CM, Thrasher JF. Perceptions of branded and plain cigarette packaging among Mexican youth. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Meeting; 2013 March 13; Boston, MA.

35 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PRESENTATIONS Peer-reviewed Conference Presentations

70. Hobin E, Hammond D, Daniel S, Hanning R, and Manske S. The Happy Meal effect: the impact of toy premiums on healthy eating. Poster presentation at the Canadian Nutrition Society Annual Meeting; 2012 May 24; Vancouver, BC.

71. Vanderlee L, Hammond D. Does nutritional information on menus impact food choice? Comparisons across two hospital cafeterias. Poster presentation at the Canadian Nutrition Society Annual Meeting; 2012 May 25; Vancouver, BC.

72. Hitchman SC, Craig LV, Driezen P, Fong GT, Hammond D. Disparities in awareness that smoking causes cardiovascular disease: Evidence from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Policy Evaluation Project Surveys in seventeen countries. World Congress of Cardiology, 2012 April 20; Dubai, UAE.

73. Hammond D. Health warnings: Current international practices. World Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2012 March 21; Singapore, SG.

74. Thrasher JF, Hammond D. Health warnings: how to design the content of pictorial warnings. World Conference on Tobacco or Health, 2012 March 21; Singapore, SG.

75. Sirirassamee T, Sirirassamee B, Borland R, Fong GT, Hammond D. Adolescents’ perceptions of new anti-smoking advertisements: Findings from the ITC Thailand Survey. Poster presented at the World Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2012 March 23; Singapore, SG.

76. Gainroj P, Sirirassamee T, Sirirassamee B, Borland R, Fong GT, Hammond D. Trends of access to cigarettes among Thai adolescent smokers: Results from 4 waves of the ITC SEA Surveys. Poster presented at the World Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2012 March 23; Singapore, SG.

77. Hitchman SC, Craig L, Driezen P, Hammond D, Fong GT, Grainger-Gasser A. Evidence of disparities in awareness that smoking causes cardiovascular disease from the TIC Policy Evaluation Project Surveys in 16 countries. Poster presented at the World Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2012 March 23; Singapore, SG.

78. Zawahir S, Omar M, Awang R, Yong HH, Borland, Sirirassamee B, Quah AC, Fong GT, Hammond D. Can anti-smoking messages protect Malaysian and Thai adolescents from smoking? Findings from the ITC SEA Project. Poster presented at the World Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2012 March 23; Singapore, SG.

79. White CM, Hammond D, Thrasher JF, Fong GT. Cigarette packaging design on young women in Brazil: Brand appeal and perceptions of health risk. World Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2012 March 23; Singapore, SG.

80. Robertson C, Hoek J, Hammond D, McNeill L, and ASPIRE 2025. How do young adult women smokers perceive dissuasive cigarette sticks? Poster presented at the World Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2012 March 22; Singapore, SG.

36 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PRESENTATIONS Peer-reviewed Conference Presentations

81. Li Q, Hammond D, Reid J, Jiang Y, Feng G, on behalf of the International Tobacco Packaging Study. Perceptions of cigarette package design among adult male smokers in China. Poster presented at the World Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2012 March 22; Singapore, SG.

82. Li Q, Hammond D, Fong GT, O’Connor RJ, Jiang Y, Quah AC, Zhang J, Yang Y, and the ITC Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project Team. How do tobacco companies in China promote their products through cigarette packaging? Poster presented at the World Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2012 March 22; Singapore, SG.

83. Ding Y, Ward J, Watson C, Hammond D. A study to correlate mouth-level intake of benzo[a]pyrene and tis biomarke of exposure. Poster presented at the World Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2012 March 21; Singapore, SG.

84. Mutti SK, Hammond D, Reid J, Thrasher JF. The impact of cigarette warning labels on health beliefs in the United States and Mexico. Poster presented at the World Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2012 March 21; Singapore, SG.

85. Sirirassamee T, Sirirassamee B, Borland R, Fong GT, Hammond D. Short and long-term impact of new graphic health warning labels on adolescent attitudes toward smoking: Findings from the ITC Thailand Survey. Poster presented at the World Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2012 March 21; Singapore, SG.

86. Li L, Borland R, Yong HH, Fong GT, Jiang Y, Li A, Hammond D. Impact of point-of-sale anti-smoking warnings on quit intentions and behaviours: Findings from China and four Western countries. Poster presented at the World Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2012 March 21; Singapore, SG.

87. Sirirassamee B, Sirirassamee T, Borland R, Fong GT, Hammond D. Psychosocial characteristics related to smoking status of Thai adolescents over time. Poster presented at the World Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2012 March 21; Singapore, SG.

88. Young D, Yong HH, Borland R, Shahab L, Hammond D, Cummings KM, Wilson N on behalf of ITC 4 Country Survey Group. Trends in roll-your-own (RYO) use and reasons for use in Canada, the USA, UK, and Australia 2002-2008. World Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2012 March 21; Singapore, SG.

89. Campbell S, Baskerville B, Hammond D, Kennedy R. Improving Canadian quitline reach: Impact of the quitline number on cigarette packages. National Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2011 November 3; Toronto.

90. Hammond D. Plain packaging: Summary of Evidence. National Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2011 November 2; Toronto.

37 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PRESENTATIONS Peer-reviewed Conference Presentations

91. Mutti S, Hammond D, Reid JL, Thrasher JF, Fong GT. The impact of cigarette health warning labels on health beliefs in the United States and Mexico. Poster presented at the National Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2011 November 3; Toronto.

92. Lane NE, Leatherdale ST, Dubin JA, Hammond D. Student and school factors associated with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) use by Canadian youths. Poster presented at the National Conference on Tobacco or Health2011 November 2; Toronto.

93. Hammond D, Ahmed R, Burkhalter R, Reid JL, Guindon E, Brown KS. Point-of-sale cigarette display bans in Canada: Changes in smoking prevalence and age of initiation. National Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2011, November 3; Toronto, ON.

94. Goodman S, Hammond D, Hanning R, Sheeshka J. The influence of front-of-package sodium content labels on grocery products among Canadian consumers. Canadian Public Health Association Annual Conference, 2011 June 22; Montreal, QC.

95. White CM, Hammond D. The impact of cigarette package design & plain packaging on female youth: brand appeal and health-related perceptions. Canadian Public Health Association Annual Conference, 2011 June 22; Montreal, QC.

96. Reid JL, Hammond D, Cameron R, Burkhalter R, Ahmed R. A report on tobacco use in Canada: current trends and implications for the future. Canadian Public Health Association Annual Conference, 2011 June 22; Montreal, Canada.

97. Schwartz R, Manson H, Perley M, Lynn H, Ferrence R, Hammond D, Chaiton M. Tobacco endgame: Evidence, knowledge exchange and politics. The Ontario Public Health Association Conference, 2011 April 6; Toronto, Canada.

98. O’Connor S, Di Sante E, Schwartz R, Cohen J, Lavack A, Hammond D, Philipneri A, Dewhirst T, Tilson M, Andrews J, Borland T. The cigarette pack as communication vehicle: Policy implications for tobacco control. European Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2011 March 28; Amsterdam, Netherlands.

99. Di Sante E, O’Connor S, Schwartz R, Cohen J, Lavack A, Hammond D, Andrews J, Dewhirst T, Tilson M. Communicating luxury through cigarette packaging: the “Chatter Box” Project. European Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2011 March 28; Amsterdam, Netherlands.

100. Hammond D, Ahmed R. Point-of-sale tobacco bans: evidence from Canada. European Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2011 March 28; Amsterdam, Netherlands.

101. Hammond D, Daniel S. Plain packaging and smoking susceptibility among UK youth. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Conference, 2011 17 Feb; Toronto, Canada.

38 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PRESENTATIONS Peer-reviewed Conference Presentations

102. Wakefield M, Germain D, Hammond D, Goldberg M, Borland R, Durkin S. Effects on brand perceptions of plain packaging and size of graphic health warnings among adult smokers and adolescents in Australia. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Conference, 2011 17 Feb; Toronto, Canada.

103. Thrasher JF, Arillo-Santillan E, Caballero M, Hammond D. Determining effective message content for pictorial warning labels on cigarette packages: results from a field experiment in Mexico. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Conference, 2011 17 Feb; Toronto, Canada.

104. Hammond D, Reid JL, on behalf of the International Packaging Study Research Team. Pictorial health warnings in the United States: What types of warnings will be most effective? Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Conference, 2011 17 Feb; Toronto, Canada.

105. Reid JL, Hammond D, Cameron R, Burkhalter R, Ahmed R. Tobacco use in Canada: A report on patterns and trends from 199-2009 and implications for the future. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Conference, 2011 17 Feb; Toronto, Canada.

106. White CM, Hammond D. Improper disclosure: Tobacco packaging and emission information. Poster presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Conference, 2011 17 Feb; Toronto, Canada.

107. Fix BV, Hyland A, Rivard C, Fong GT, Borland R, Hammond D, Cummings KM. Usage patterns of stop-smoking medications in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States: Findings from the ITC 4 Country Survey. Poster presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Conference, 2011 18 Feb; Toronto, Canada.

108. Hyland A, Fix BV, O’Connor RJ, Hammond D, King B, Fong GT, Cummings KM. Use of menthol cigarettes and nicotine dependence: Findings from the ITC Policy Evaluation Survey. Poster presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Conference, 2011 18 Feb; Toronto, Canada.

109. Yong HH, Borland R, Cummings KM, O’Connor RJ, Hammond D, Hastings G. Removal of misleading pack descriptors is not enough: Findings from the ITC 4 Country Survey. Poster presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Conference, 2011 18 Feb; Toronto, Canada.

110. Mutti S, Hammond D, Borland R, Cummings KM, O’Connor RJ, Fong GT. Beyond light and mild: Cigarette brand descriptors and perceptions of risk in the ITC 4 Country Survey. Poster presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Conference, 2011 18 Feb; Toronto, Canada.

111. Fong GT, Logel C, Hitchman S, Hammond D, Driezen P. The declining effectiveness of the Canadian warning labels on cigarette packs: Findings from the ITC Canada Survey. Poster presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Conference, 2011 18 Feb; Toronto, Canada.

39 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PRESENTATIONS Peer-reviewed Conference Presentations

112. Omar M, Rashid S, Tahir N, Zawahir S, Rani ANAA, Jasni NH, Borland R, Yong HH, Fong GT, Hammond D, Sirirassamee B. Text warnings alone on cigarette packages may not be sufficient for behavior changes among never smoked adolescents. Longitudinal cohort study findings from the ITC South-East Asia Project. Poster presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Conference, 2011 19 Feb; Toronto, Canada.

113. Omar M, Zawahir S, Awang R, Samin S, Radzi YM, Amir NA, Misnan A, Borland R, Yong HH, Fong GT, Sirirassamee B, Hammond D, Sirirassamee. Impact of overall anti-smoking information messages on knowledge, thinking and behaviour changes among adolescents in Malaysia and Thailand: Longitudinal cohort study findings from the ITC South-East Asia Project. Poster presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Conference, 2011 19 Feb; Toronto, Canada.

114. Noormohamed A, Hammond D. Perceptions of message framing on tobacco health warning effectiveness. Canadian Public Health Association Conference, 2010 15 June; Toronto, Canada.

115. Doxey JR, Hammond D. Deadline in pink: The impact of female oriented packaging among young women. Society for Research on Nicotine & Tobacco Conference, 2010 28 February; Baltimore, MD.

116. Thrasher J, Roussu M, Hammond D. Estimates of reduction in demand associated with different cigarette package warning label formats: An experimental auction among adult smokers in the U.S. Society for Research on Nicotine & Tobacco Conference, 2010 28 February; Baltimore, MD.

117. Bansal-Travers M, Hammond D. Study to evaluate the influence of cigarette pack design on U.S. adults. Society for Research on Nicotine & Tobacco Conference, 2010 28 February; Baltimore, MD.

118. Callery W, Hammond D, O’Connor RJ, Fong GT. Impact of health warning messages on appeal and young adult smokers’ interest in trying smokeless tobacco. Poster presented at Society for Research on Nicotine & Tobacco Conference, 2010 28 February; Baltimore, MD.

119. Hammond D, Lee A. Reduced nicotine cigarettes: Implications for a product moratorium. National Conference on Tobacco Health; 2009 November 3; Montreal, Canada.

120. Hammond D, Lee A. Reduced nicotine cigarettes: Implications for a product moratorium. National Conference on Tobacco Health; 2009 November 3; Montreal, Canada.

121. Reid J, Hammond D, Cameron AR. Tobacco use in Canada: An Overview of Trends and Implications for the Future. National Conference on Tobacco Health; 2009 November 3; Montreal, Canada.

40 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PRESENTATIONS Peer-reviewed Conference Presentations

122. McCammon-Trip L, McDonald PW, Kaufman P, Hammond D. Tenant Perceptions of Drifting Environmental Tobacco Smoke in Multi-Unit Dwellings. National Conference on Tobacco Health; 2009 November 2; Montreal, Canada.

123. Sendzik T, McDonald PW, Brown KS, Hammond D. An Examination of Planned Quit Attempts Among Ontario Smokers and Its Impact on Abstinence. Poster presented at the National Conference on Tobacco Health; 2009 November 2; Montreal, Canada.

124. Callery W, Hammond D, O’Connnor RJ, on behalf of the ITC Collaboration. Smokers’ awareness and beliefs about smokeless tobacco products. Poster presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine & Tobacco Conference, 2009 April 30; Dublin, Ireland.

125. Doxey JR, Hammond D. Beliefs about the harmfulness of different cigarette brands: Findings from the ITC 4-Country Survey. Poster presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine & Tobacco Conference, 2009 April 30; Dublin, Ireland.

126. Reid JL, Hammond D, Boudreau C, Fong GT, Siahpush M. Are patterns of smoking cessation related behaviours associated with socioeconomic status? Data from the ITC 4-Country Survey. Poster presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine & Tobacco Conference, 2009 April 29; Dublin, Ireland.

127. Gibson J, MacNeill A, Murray R, Hammond D, Fong GT, Borland R, Cooper J, Hyland A. International differences in use and effectiveness of smoking cessation support: Findings from the ITC 4-Country Survey. Poster presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine & Tobacco Conference, 2009 April 29; Dublin, Ireland.

128. Fix BV, Cummings KM, O’Connor RJ, MacNeill A, Hammond D, King B, Hyland A. The feasibility of collecting biologic samples from population based samples to evaluate public health policy. Poster presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine & Tobacco Conference, 2009 April 28; Dublin, Ireland.

129. Hyland A, Fix BV, Li Q, Graf J, Hammond D, King B, Fong GT, Hastings G, Cummings KM. Use of menthol cigarettes and nicotine dependence: Findings from the International Tobacco Control Evaluation Survey. Poster presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine & Tobacco Conference, 2009 April 28; Dublin, Ireland.

130. Hyland A, Higbee C, Cummings KM, Fong FT, Hammond D, et al. Use of stop smoking medications before and after the introduction of Varenicline in the US and the UK. Poster presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine & Tobacco Conference, 2009 April 28; Dublin, Ireland.

131. Hammond D, Arnott D, Dockrell M, Lee A, McNeill A. Cigarette pack design and perceptions of risk among UK adult and youth: evidence in support of plain packaging. Society for Research on Nicotine & Tobacco Conference, 2009 April 28; Dublin, Ireland.

41 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PRESENTATIONS Peer-reviewed Conference Presentations

132. Hammond D. Potentially misleading information and plain packaging: New Canadian findings. World Conference on Tobacco Health; 2009 March 9; Mumbai, India.

133. Thrasher JF, Villalobos V, Fong GT, Hammond D. Reaction to health warning labels with graphic imagery among smokers in three countries: does fear arousing content matter? Presented at the World Conference on Tobacco Health; 2009 March 10; Mumbai, India.

134. Reid J, Hammond D, Fong GT, Cummings KM, Driezen P. Socioeconomic Variation in Use of Cessation Assistance among Smokers in Canada, US, UK, and Australia: Findings from the International Tobacco Control 4-Country Survey. Poster presented at the World Conference on Tobacco Health; 2009 March 10; Mumbai, India.

135. Fong GT, Hammond D, Driezen P, Quah ACK. Comparing health warnings in China to health warnings in other countries: An experimental study in four Chinese cities. Oral presentation at the 14th World Conference on Tobacco or Health; March 9 2009: Mumbai, India.

136. Bansal-Travers M, Fong GT, Gupta PC, Sinha D, Pendekar MS, Hammond D for the ITC Collaboration. Awareness of warning labels among tobacco users in India: Findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) India Pilot Survey. Oral presentation at the 14th World Conference on Tobacco or Health; March 10, 2009: Mumbai, India.

137. Elton-Marshall T, Fong GT, Zanna MP, Yuan J, Hammond D, O’Connor RJ, Yong HH, Li L, King B, Li Q, Borland r, Cummings KM, Driezen P. What Predicts Beliefs about “Light” and “Low Tar” Cigarettes Among Chinese Smokers? Findings from ITC China Survey. World Conference on Tobacco Health; 2009 March 10; Mumbai, India.

138. King B, Yong HH, Broland R, Omar M, Ahmad AA, Sirirassamee B, Hamann S, O’Connor RJ, Bansal- Travers M, Elton-Marshall T, Wonkyong BL, Hammond D, Thrasher T. Malaysian and Thai Smokers’ beliefs about light and menthol cigarettes. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco—Asian Regional Conference, 2008 October 29; Bangkok, Thailand.

139. Hammond D. Plain packaging: Regulations and Research. Ontario Tobacco Control Research Conference; 2008 Nov 11; Toronto, Ontario.

140. Tonglim S, Sirirassamee B, Guest P, Sirirassamee T, Aree J, Konkaew T, Borland, R, Fong GT, Hammond D. Factors influencing Thai adolescents decision to refuse cigarettes. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco—Asian Regional Conference, 2008 October 29; Bangkok, Thailand.

141. Sirirassamee T, Sirirassamee B, Aree J, Konkaew T, Tonglim S, Borland, R, Fong GT, Hammond D. Protective factors for tobacco use among Thai adolescent: Findings from the ITC SEA Survey. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco—Asian Regional Conference, 2008 October 29; Bangkok, Thailand.

42 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PRESENTATIONS Peer-reviewed Conference Presentations

142. Konkaew T, Sirirassamee B, Guest P, Sirirassamee T, Aree J, Tonglim S, Borland, R, Fong GT, Hammond D. Influences of smoking restriction in the home on smoking behaviour of adolescents in Thailand. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco—Asian Regional Conference, 2008 October 29; Bangkok, Thailand.

143. Hammond D, Dockrell M, Arnott D, Lee A, Anderson S, McNeill A. Cigarette pack design and perceptions of risk among UK adult and youth: evidence in support of plain packaging. National Cancer Research Institute Conference, 2008 October 5; Birmingham, UK.

144. Erdem P, Grainge M, Carkoglu A, Hammond D, O’Connor RJ, McNeill A. Smoking Behavior and Exposure among Turkish smokers. Paper presented at SRNT Europe conference, 2008 September 24; Rome.

145. Reid J, Hammond D, Driezen P. Socioeconomic status and smoking in Canada: An analysis of data from the Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey (CTUMS), 1999-2006. Paper presented at the Canadian Public Health Association Conference, 2008 June 4; Halifax, NS.

146. Borland R, Hammond D, Fong GT, Yong HH, Hosking W, et al. The relative effectiveness of graphic and text based health-warnings: finding from the ITC – 4-country study. Paper presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. 2008 February 28; Portland, Oregon.

147. Hammond D. The impact of brand descriptors, package design, and emission information on risk perception. Paper presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. 2008 February 28; Portland, Oregon.

148. Yong HH, Borland, Li L, King B, Fong GT, Hammond D, Cumming KM, O’Connor RJ, McNeill A, Hastings G. Impact of the removal of misleading cigarette pack labeling on smokers’ beliefs about Light cigarettes: A cross country comparison. Paper presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. 2008 February 28; Portland, Oregon.

149. Reid JR, Hammond D, Driezen P, Cummings M, Fong GT, Borland R, McNeil A. Use of Nicotine Replacement Therapy for Reasons Other than Quitting Smoking: Findings from the ITC 4-Country Survey. Poster presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. 2008 February 28; Portland, Oregon.

150. Callery WE, Hammond D, Reid JL, Fong GT, Borland R, Cummings KM. Socioeconomic variation in the reach of various sources of anti-smoking information: Findings from the ITC 4-Country Study. Poster presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. 2008 February 28; Portland, Oregon.

43 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PRESENTATIONS Peer-reviewed Conference Presentations

151. Parker JR, Hammond D, Sirirassamee B, Omar M, Fong GT, Borland R, Cummings KM. Exposure to anti-smoking information among Thai and Malaysian Youth: Findings from the ITC Southeast Asia Survey. Poster presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. 2008 February 28; Portland, Oregon.

152. Hammond D. What We Know About the Effectiveness of Tobacco Product Labeling Policies: From Warnings to Brand Descriptors. American Association for Cancer Research Prevention; 2007 December 6; Philadelphia, PA.

153. Hammond D. The case for plain packaging: brand descriptors and design. Canadian National Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2007 October 2; Edmonton, Alberta.

154. Yong H-H, Borland R, Fong GT, Lee WB, Kennedy RD, Hammond D, Sirirassamee B, Ritthitphakdee B, Awang R, Omar M, Foong K, Zain Z, Cummings KM, Hastings G, Hassan L, Harris F. Impact of Tobacco Advertising Policy on Smokers’ Awareness of Tobacco Promotion in Six Countries: Findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project. Society for Research on Tobacco and Nicotine Conference; 2007 February 23; Austin, Texas.

155. Omar M, Foong K, Awang R, Fong GT, Hammond D, Sirirassamee B, Driezen P. Impact and Perceptions of Warning Labels across Seven Countries: Findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project. Society for Research on Tobacco and Nicotine Conference; 2007 February 23; Austin, Texas.

156. O’Connor R, Cummings, KM, Giovino GA, McNeill A, Hammond D, Fong GT. Product Characteristics and Smoke Chemistry: Comparisons across the 10 ITC Countries. Society for Research on Tobacco and Nicotine Conference; 2007 February 23; Austin, Texas.

157. Hammond D. Factors that Impact Nicotine Bioavailability: Findings for the Transdisciplinary Tobacco Use Research Centers Program. Society for Research on Tobacco and Nicotine Conference; 2007 February 22; Austin, Texas.

158. Elton-Marshall T, Fotuhi O, Fong GT, Hammond D, Hamann SL, Sirirassamee B, Yong H-H, Abdullah C, Nizam H. Depression and Smoking among Youth in Thailand and Malaysia: Findings from The ITC Southeast Asia Survey. Society for Research on Tobacco and Nicotine Conference; 2007 February 22; Austin, Texas.

159. Kennedy RD, Sendzik T, Elton Marshall T, Hammond D, Fong GT. Tobacco Smoke Pollution in Outdoor Hospitality Settings: The Results of PM2.5 Monitoring on Patios and Inside Bars. Society for Research on Tobacco and Nicotine Conference; 2007 February 22; Austin, Texas.

44 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PRESENTATIONS Peer-reviewed Conference Presentations

160. Borland R, Fong GT, Driezen P, Hammond D, Hyland A, McNeill A, Hamann S, Omar M. Cross- country Comparison of the Prevalence of Smoke-Free Public Places and Support for Smoke-Free Policies: Findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project. Society for Research on Tobacco and Nicotine Conference; 2007 February 23; Austin, Texas.

161. Hammond D, O’Connor R, Giovino GA, Fong GT, Parkinson C. The Impact of Canada’s Lowered Ignition Propensity Regulations on Smoking Behaviour & Consumer Perceptions. Society for Research on Tobacco and Nicotine Conference; 2007 February 23; Austin, Texas.

162. Lee WB, Fong GT, Zanna MP, Borland R, Hammond D, Sirirassamee B, Omar M, Seo HG. Differences in Rationalization and Regret among Smokers in Western Countries and Asia Countries: Findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project. Society for Research on Tobacco and Nicotine Conference; 2007 February 22; Austin, Texas.

163. Hammond D, O’Connor R. The next frontier: Tobacco Products & Science. The Ontario Tobacco Control Conference; 2006 December 5; Niagara Falls, ON.

164. Hammond D. Health knowledge and warning labels: Results from the ITCPES Study. American Public Health Association; 2006 October 27; Boston, MA.

165. Leatherdale S, Hammond D, Kaiserman MJ. Prevalence of Marijuana Use in Smokers and Non- Smokers. Ontario Tobacco Conference; 2006 December 5; Niagara Falls, ON.

166. Yong HH, Borland R, Fong GT, Cummings KM, Hyland A, Hammond D, O'Connor R, Hassan L, McNeill A, Hastings G. Evaluating the impact of banning "light/mild" cigarette brand descriptors in UK and Australia: Findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Survey (ITCPES). World Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2006 July 13-17; Washington, DC.

167. Foong K, Omar M, Awang R, Sirirassamee B, Sethaput C, Borland R, Fong GT, Yong HH, Hammond D, Thompson M, Elton-Marshall T. Cigarette Advertising Presence and Effects on Adolescents in Malaysia and Thailand: Findings from the ITC Southeast Asia Survey. World Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2006 July 13-17; Washington, DC.

168. Hassan L, Harris F, MacKintosh AM, Hastings G, Borland R, Fong GT, Hammond D, Cummings KM, McNeill A. Assessing the Impact of the UK Tobacco Marketing Ban: Findings from the ITC Four Country Survey. World Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2006 July 13-17; Washington, DC.

169. Jiang Y, Yang Y, Feng G, Wei XS, Fong GT, Wu C, Thompson ME, Elton-Marshall T, Hammond D, Kennedy RD, Sendzik T, Yang J, Boudreau C, Li Q, Giovino GA, Foong K, O'Connor R, Hyland A, Cummings KM, Borland R. Surveillance and Evaluation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in China: Description and Initial Results from the ITC China Project. World Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2006 July 13-17; Washington, DC.

45 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PRESENTATIONS Peer-reviewed Conference Presentations

170. Hammond D. Developing new machine testing standards for cigarette emissions: Implications of adopting the “Canadian Intensive” smoking regime for product regulation. World Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2006 July 13-17; Washington, DC.

171. Sahab L, McNeill A, Hammond D, O'Connor R, Fong GT, Giovino G, Ashley DL, Cummings KM, West R. The validity of self-reported smoking behaviour in UK, Canadian and US smokers. World Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2006 July 13-17; Washington, DC.

172. Wiebel FJ, Kozlowski L, Hammond D, Borland R. A Novel Machine Smoking Regime for Establishing Regulatory Limits of Toxic Smoke Constituents. World Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2006 July 13-17; Washington, DC.

173. Polzin GM, McCraw JM, Yan X, Giovino GA, Cummings KM, Borland R, King B, Fong GT, Hammond D, O'Connor R, McNeill A, West R, Hatsukami D, Bernert JT, Ashley DL, Watson CH, Shahab L. Analysis of solanesol in cigarette butts to examine cigarette smoking patterns. World Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2006 July 13-17; Washington, DC.

174. Hearn BA, Polzin GM, Vaughan CL, Tavakoli AD, Zhang L, Johnson DR, Giovino G, Cummings KM, O'Connor R, Hammond D, Fong GT, McNeill A, King B, Borland R, Sirirassamee B, Kin F, Watson CH, Ashley DL. Analysis of Physical Characteristics and Smoke Chemistry of Popular Brand Cigarettes from Selected Countries Before and After Changes in Regulation. World Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2006 July 13-17; Washington, DC.

175. Hammond D. Communicating constituent and emission information to smokers: implications for product labelling and risk communication. World Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2006 July 13-17; Washington, DC.

176. Kennedy RD, Sendzik T, Elton-Marshall T, Hammond D, Fong GT. Tobacco Smoke Pollution in Outdoor Hospitality Settings -- the Results of PM2.5 Monitoring on Patios and Inside Bars. World Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2006 July 13-17; Washington, DC.

177. Omar M, Lajis R, Foong K, Sirirassamee B, Sethaput C, Borland R, Fong GT, Hammond D, Thompson ME, Driezen P, Elton-Marshall T. The Greater Impact of Warning Labels in Southeast Asia Compared to Four High Income Countries: Findings From the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project. World Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2006 July 13-17; Washington, DC.

178. Hammond D, Hassan L, Hastings G, Driezen P, Fong GT. Effectiveness of Cigarette Warning Labels After Implementation of the FCTC Minimal Standard in the United Kingdom: Findings from the ITC Four Country Survey. World Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2006 July 13-17; Washington, DC.

179. Fong GT, Hammond D. What We Know About the Impact of Warning Labels: Review of Findings from the ITC Project and Recommendations for Designing Effective Warning Labels. World Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2006 July 13-17; Washington, DC.

46 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PRESENTATIONS Peer-reviewed Conference Presentations

180. Foong K, Omar M, Sirirassamee B, Awang R, Borland R, Hammond D, Fong GT. Developing Evidence for the FCTC: Findings from the ITC Southeast Asia Survey in Malaysia and Thailand. World Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2006 July 13-17; Washington, DC.

181. O'Connor R, Hammond D, King B, McNeill A, Giovino G, Cummings KM. What Makes ‘Light' Cigarettes Light? Examining Physical Properties. World Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2006 July 13-17; Washington, DC.

182. Awang R, Omar M, Foong K, Sethaput C, Borland R, Fong GT, Hammond D, Driezen P, Elton- Marshall T, Zain Z. Perception About “Light and Mild” Brands in Thailand and Malaysia: Findings from the ITC Southeast Asia Project. World Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2006 July 13-17; Washington, DC.

183. Foong K, Omar M, Awang R, Sirirassamee B, Sethaput C, Borland R, Fong GT, Yong HH, Hammond D, Thompson M, Elton-Marshall T. Smoking Attitudes, Beliefs and Behaviours Among Adolescents in Malaysia and Thailand: Findings from the ITC Southeast Asia Survey. World Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2006 July 13-17; Washington, DC.

184. Fong GT, Cummings KM, Borland R, Hastings G, Hyland A, Giovino GA, Hammond D, Thompson ME. The International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project: Evaluating the Impact of the Framework Convention On Tobacco Control. World Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2006 July 13- 17; Washington, DC.

185. Hammond D. Revising the machine smoking regimes for cigarette yields: Implications for tobacco control policy. Society for Research on Tobacco and Nicotine Conference; 2006 February 15-18; Orlando, Florida.

186. O’Connor RJ, Hammond D, Kozlowski LT, Stitt JP, Hyland A, Cummings KM, Fong GT, Vance T. Reliability and Predictive Validity of Digital Imaging Analysis of Cigarette Filter Staining for Estimating Smoke Exposure. Poster presented at the Society for Research on Tobacco and Nicotine Conference; 2006 February 15-18; Orlando, Florida.

187. Hammond D, Collishaw N, Callard C. BAT secret science: Smoking behaviour, cigarette toxicity, and regulatory testing. National Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2005 June; Ottawa, ON.

188. Hammond D. (2005, June). Cigarette warning labels: A Review. National Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2005 June; Ottawa, ON.

189. Hammond D. Tobacco industry conduct and product design. National Conference on Tobacco Control; 2005 May; Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

47 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PRESENTATIONS Peer-reviewed Conference Presentations

190. Maizurah O, Kin F, Borland R, Fong GT, Hammond D, et al. Initial findings from the South East Asia Tobacco Control Policy Survey. East-West Conference on Tobacco and Alcohol; 2005 April; Pasadena, CA.

191. Hammond D, Fong GT, Cummings KM, Giovino G, O’Connor R. Human smoking behavior constituent yields and cigarette testing protocols. National Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2005 May; Chicago, Ill.

192. Hammond D, Fong GT, McNeill A, Borland R, Cummings KM, Hastings G. Health knowledge and cigarette warning labels: Results from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Study. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Conference; 2005 March; Prague, Czech Republic.

193. Hammond D, Fong GT, Cummings KM, Hyland A. Smoking topography, brand switching and nicotine delivery: Results from an in vivo study. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Conference; 2005 March; Prague, Czech Republic.

194. Hammond D, Fong GT, Cummings KM, Giovino G. Deceptive Standards? Cigarette testing protocols, constituent yields, and human smoking behaviour. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Conference; 2005 March; Prague, Czech Republic.

195. Anderson S, Hastings G, Borland R, Fong GT, Hammond D, Cummins KM. Patterns of awareness of tobacco marketing across four countries: Findings from the ITC 4-Country Survey. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Conference; 2005 March; Prague, Czech Republic.

196. Hammond D, Hastings G, Borland R, Mackintosh AM, Anderson S, Fong GT, Cummings KM. Tobacco Advertising as a Barrier to Quitting: Findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Survey. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Conference; 2005 March; Prague, Czech Republic.

197. Fong GT, Hyland A, Hammond D, Borland R, Hastings G, Cummings MK, McNeill A, Anderson S. Changes in knowledge, attitudes, and behavior following the Irish smoke-free bylaw: Findings from the ITC-Ireland/U.K. Survey. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Conference; 2005 March; Prague, Czech Republic.

198. DalCin S, Fong GT, Lee WB, Zanna MP, Hammond D, Siahpush M, Borland R, Hyland A. Stress due to world events predicts smoking relapse: Findings from the ITC 4-Country Survey. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Conference; 2005 March; Prague, Czech Republic.

199. Hammond D, Costello MJ, Fong GT. Tobacco Industry Marketing and Policy Support Among University Students: Findings from the Campus Tobacco Survey. The Ontario Tobacco Strategy Conference; 2004, May; Toronto, ON.

48 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PRESENTATIONS Peer-reviewed Conference Presentations

200. Hammond D, Cameron R., Cushman R, Zimmerman L. (2004, May). Tobacco Denormalization and Youth: Preliminary Findings Ottawa Public Health exposé Campaign. The Ontario Tobacco Strategy Conference, Toronto.

201. Hammond D, Fong GT, Elton TE, Zanna MP. (2004, February). Tobacco denormalization and intentions to quit among smokers from four countries: Findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Survey. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Conference, Scottsdale, Arizona.

202. Hammond D, Fong GT, Costello MJ, Cummings KM, Hyland A, Traverse M, Kaiserman MJ. (2004, February). Puff topography and Self Report: Can smokers accurately report their puffing behaviour in vivo? Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Conference, Scottsdale, Arizona.

203. Fong GT, Hammond D, Borland R, et al. Quasi-Experimental evaluation of the enhancement of warning labels in the United Kingdom: Initial findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Survey. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Conference; 2004 Feb; Scottsdale, Arizona.

204. Hastings G, Fong GT, Hammond D, MackIntosh AM, Anderson S, McNeill A., Borland R, Cummings KM. Evaluation of the comprehensive ban on tobacco advertising and promotion in the United Kingdom: Initial findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Survey. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Conference; 2004 Feb; Scottsdale, Arizona.

205. Borland R, Fong GT, Cummings KM, Hastings G, Hammond, D. Attitudes towards the tobacco industry and government interventions: Findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Survey. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Conference; 2004 Feb; Scottsdale, Arizona.

206. Fong GT, Hammond D, Zanna MP, Borland R. The near universal experience of regret from smokers across four countries: Findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Survey. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Conference; 2004 Feb; Scottsdale, Arizona.

207. Borland R, Yong HH, Fong GT, Hammond D, Cummings KM, Hastings G. Restrictions on smoking across four countries: Findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Survey. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Conference; 2004 Feb; Scottsdale, Arizona.

208. McNeill A, Fong GT, Borland R. Hastings G Anderson S, Hammond D, Siahpush M. Do smokers from different countries differ in their levels of dependences? Findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Survey. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Conference; 2004 Feb; Scottsdale, Arizona.

209. Hammond D, Fong GT, McDonald PW, Cameron AR, Brown KS. The Impact of graphic warning labels: Evidence from Canada. World Conference on Tobacco or Health; 2003 August; Helsinki, Finland.

49 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

PRESENTATIONS Peer-reviewed Conference Presentations

210. Hammond D, McDonald PW, Cameron R, Fong GT. Do Graphic Cigarette Warning Labels and Smoke- Free Bylaws Motivate Smokers to Quit? Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Conference; 2003 Feb; New Orleans, Louisiana.

211. Fong GT, Borland R, Cummings KM, Hastings G, Hammond D. et al. International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project: Current Status and Possibilities for the Future. Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Conference; 2003 Feb; New Orleans, Louisiana.

212. Hammond D, Fong GT, McDonald PW, Cameron AR, Brown KS. Graphic cigarette warning labels do not lead to adverse outcomes. Tobacco or Health Conference, Science & Policy in Action; 2002 Dec; Ottawa, ON.

213. Hammond D, Fong GT, McDonald PW, Borland R. Do smokers know how to quit? Poster presented at the Tobacco or Health Conference: Science & Policy in Action; 2002 Dec; Ottawa, ON.

214. Hammond D, McDonald PW, Fong GT, Cameron AR, Brown KS. Cigarette warning labels and smoking cessation A survey of Canadian smokers. Ontario Tobacco Strategy Conference; 2002 March; Toronto, ON. 215. Hammond D, Habra ME, Linden W. Perceived need and levels of social support in a cohort of cardiac rehabilitation participants. Annual Meeting of the Canadian Association for Cardiac Rehabilitation; 2000 Oct; Vancouver, BC.

216. Radomsky AS, Rachman S, Hammond D. Responsibility, confidence, and memory in compulsive checkers. Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy Conference; 1999 Nov; Toronto, ON.

GRANTS & RESEARCH SUPPORT Received

1. University of Waterloo Chronic Disease Prevention Initiative Seed 2014-2015 $9,933 Grant. CAD Canadian Dietary Cohort Survey for Young Adults. Hammond D, Black J, Dubin J, Kirk S, Kirkpatrick S, Minaker LM, Paquette MC, Raine K, Schonlau M, Vanderlee L.

2. Health Canada. 2014 $9,950 Promotional activities for electronic cigarettes in Canada: A review CAD and preliminary environmental scan. Hammond D.

50 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

GRANTS & RESEARCH SUPPORT Received

3. Public Health Ontario 2014 $34,500 Efficacy and preferences for different approaches to calorie and CAD sodium labelling on restaurant menus among parents of young children in Ontario: Evidence to inform implementation of the Ontario Health Kids Strategy. Hobin E, Manson H Rosella L, Hammond D.

4. Canadian Institutes of Health Research – Operating Grant 2014-2017 $176,753 Investigating the impact of a simple standardized retail nutrition CAD labelling system on the nutritional quality of consumer's food purchases in supermarkets in Canada. Hobin EP, Hammond D (Co-PI), Bollinger B, L’Abbe M, Manson H, Rosella L, Vanderlee L.

5. US National Institutes of Health 2013-2014 $407,874 Consumer appeal of very low nicotine cigarette. P-01 Supplement USD Grant. Cummings KM, Fong GT, Hammond D, O’Connor RJ.

6. OMAF and MRA Food Safety Research Program 2013/14 2014-2017 $149,000 Food Safety and Ontario’s Youth: Can Food Safety Training Effectively CAD Improve Knowledge and Practice in Ontario High School Students? Majowicz S, Leatherdale S, Diplock K, Papadopoulos A, Hammond D, Jones-Bitton AJ, Rebellato S, Dubin J.

7. Public Health Ontario 2013-2014 $115,345 Encouraging a culture of moderation: investigating the efficacy of CAD standard drink labels and health messages on alcohol containers among adults in Ontario. Hobin E, Hammond D, Stockwell T, Rosella L, Manson H, Rempel B.

8. US National Institutes of Health 2013-2015 $637,729 Evaluating the impact of mandatory nutrition information on menus. USD Hammond D (PI), Harnack L, Thrasher J, Hanning RH, Thompson ME.

9. Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute (CCSRI) Innovation Grant. 2013-2016 $199,301 Understanding utilization and impact of a smartphone smoking CAD cessation application: a mixed methods implementation pilot study. Baskerville NB, Hammond D (Co-PI), Whittaker R, Guindon E, Brown KS, Norman C.

10. National Institute of Drug Abuse – Population Assessment of Tobacco 2013-2014 $13,704 and Health (PATH) Study – Ad Hoc Project USD Using e-cigarette market trends to inform PATH. Delvano (PI), Hammond D.

51 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

GRANTS & RESEARCH SUPPORT Received

11. Propel Centre for Population Health Impact 2013-2014 $10,000 Investigating the impact of an on-shelf nutrition labelling system on CAD customer food purchases in supermarkets in Canada: A natural experiment. Hobin E (Co-PI), Hammond D (Co-PI), L’Abbe M, Bollinger B, Rosella L, Manson H, Vanderlee L.

12. Propel Centre for Population Health Impact 2013-2014 $10,000 Health around the corner: a multi-disciplinary, mixed-methods CAD evaluation of a healthy corner stores intervention in Toronto, Ontario Minaker L, (Co-PI), Hammond D (Co-PI), Mah C, Cook B, Raine K, McLeod L, Shelley J.

13. Canadian Institute of Health Research – Operating Grant. 2013-2015 $199,635 Evaluating the impact of Canada’s caffeinated energy drink policy CAD among youth and young adults. Hammond D (PI), Martineau C, Fenton N, Harrington D, Vanderkooy P.

14. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) – Planning Grant. 2013-2014 $19,986 Ensuring uptake of RAI evidence and knowledge by all (EUREKA): A CAD strategy for persons with mental illness. Martin L, Perlman, CP, Bieling P, Hammond D.

15. British Columbia Ministry of Health. 2012 $10,000 The impact of nutrition information on restaurant menus. CAD (Contract) Hammond D (PI).

16. Canadian Foundation for Dietetic Research. 2012-2014 $49,822 Nutrition Labelling: Comprehension and Use of Nutrition Facts Tables CAD among Young People in Canada. Hammond D (PI), Hobin EP (Co-PI), Sheeshka J, McVey G, O’Brien MF.

17. Heart & Stroke Foundation of Canada. 2012-2014 $39,500 Evaluation the Health Check restaurant program. (Contract) CAD Hammond D.

18. US National Cancer Institute / National Institutes of Health 2012-2014 $2,071,789 (3P01CA138389-05S1) USD Effectiveness of Tobacco Control Policies in High vs. Low Income Countries. Cummings KM (Chief PI), Hammond D (PI for Canada), Hyland A, Thrasher JT.

52 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

GRANTS & RESEARCH SUPPORT Received

19. US National Cancer Institute / National Institutes of Health 2012-2017 $2,051,721 (R01 CA167067-01) USD Building evidence for effective and sustainable cigarette warning label policy. Thrasher J, Hammond D, Santilla EA, Cummings KM, Borland R, Travers M, Fong GT, Boudreau C, Yong HH, Sebrie E, O’Connor RJ, Hardin J.

20. Canadian Institutes of Health Research – Operating Grant: Population 2012-2014 $200,000 Health Intervention Research CAD Nutritional labeling on menus in Canada and the United States: Evidence to inform policy. Hammond D, Harnack L, Thomspon ME, Hanning RH, Thrasher J.

21. H ealth Canada 2011-2012 $300,552 Reaching young adult smokers: An evidence based smartphone CAD cessation application. Baskerville B, Cameron R, Cowan D, Hammond D, Guindon E, McGarry F.

22. University of Waterloo Research Incentive Fund 2011-2012 $6,594 Investigating the impact of toy premiums on children’s choice of food CAD products: evidence to inform policy. Hammond D.

23. Canadian Cancer Society Research Initiative 2011-2016 $8,800,000 Propel Centre for Population Health Impact – Operating grant. CAD Riley B, Brown KS, Cameron R, Fong GT, Hammond D, (5 other Co- Applicants)

24. Public Health Agency of Canada 2011-2013 $77,800 Public health analysis of innovative nutritional labelling cafeteria CAD initiative at Ottawa Hospitals. Hammond D, Vanderlee L.

25. Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre 2011-2014 $360,270 Measuring the impact of the legalization of online gambling in CAD Ontario. Elton-Marshall T, Leatherdale ST, Harrigan K, Hammond D, Zanna MP.

26. Health Canada 2011-2012 $217,133 A new focus on tobacco use prevention and cessation: Engaging the CAD Canadian optometry community. Kennedy RD, Spafford MM, Brule J, Hammond D, Schultz ASH, Fong GT, Thompson ME.

53 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

GRANTS & RESEARCH SUPPORT Received

27. Canadian Institutes of Health Research 2011-2016 $7,430,000 The International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project: CAD Evaluating the impact of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control With an Emphasis on Low and Middle Income Countries. Fong GT, Cummings KM, Borland R, Hammond D, et al.

28. International Development Research Agency 2011-2013 $33,692 The impact of health warning labels on smokeless tobacco products CAD in India and Bangladesh. Hammond D, Gupta P, Nargis N, Mutti S.

29. Canadian Institutes of Health Research 2011-2012 $197,021 Improving Quitline Reach and Integration: Evaluating a Policy CAD Intervention Aimed at Increasing Tobacco Cessation. Campbell SH, Baskerville NB, Hammond D, Kennedy RD.

30. Canadian Institutes of Health Research 2011-2016 $1,446,220 Shaping the direction of youth health: The COMPASS Study. CAD Leatherdale S, Brown KS, Childs R, Elliot S, Faulkner G, Hammond D, Manske S.

31. NIH Trans-disciplinary Tobacco Use Research Centre Career 2010-2011 $16,512 Development Program Grant CAD Australian Cigarette Packaging Study. Hammond D.

32. U.S. National Institutes of Health (P01 administrative supplement 2010-2011 $117,524 grant) USD Impact of tobacco pack size and shape on consumer perceptions. Cummings KM (Co-PI), Hammond D (Co-PI), Bansal-Travers M, O’Connor RJ, Fong GT Thrasher J, Tworek C.

33. Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute 2010-2012 $281,549 The impact of regulating nutritional information on menus: evidence CAD to inform policy. Hammond D, Hanning RM, Thrasher JF.

34. Health Canada Federal Tobacco Control Strategy Contribution 2010-2011 $182,994 Funding CAD Chatter Box: Policy Implications for Cigarette Packaging beyond Light and Mild. O’Connor S, Schwartz R, Dewhirst T, Hammond D, Cohen J, Di Sante E, Philipneri A, Tilson M, Lavack A.

54 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

GRANTS & RESEARCH SUPPORT Received

35. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) 2010-2011 $646,800 Effects of current and plain cigarette pack design on smokers' AUD cigarette evaluation. NHMRC Project grant #623202 Wakefield M, Hammond D, Goldberg M, Durkin S, Chapman S.

36. U.S. National Institutes of Health 2009-2012 $2,772,801 International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Survey USD Fong GT, Cummings KM, Borland R, Hastings G, Thompson M, Hyland A, McNeill A, Hammond D, et al.

37. U.S. National Institutes of Health: P-01 Project Grant 2009-2014 $12,152,218 The effectiveness of tobacco control policies in high vs. low income USD countries. *Principle Investigator on Project 2: $785,857 USD *Co-Investigator on Projects 1,3-5: $11,366,361 USD

38. NIH Trans-disciplinary Tobacco Use Research Centre Career 2009-2010 $11,500 Development Program Grant USD The impact of plain packaging. Hammond D, Doxey JR.

39. Health Canada Tobacco Control Programme – Tobacco Products 2009-2011 $348,328 Regulatory Science Project Grants (Contract) CAD Clinical Study Investigating the behaviour of smokers using reduced nicotine cigarettes. Hammond D, O’Connor RJ, Benowitz N, Fong GT.

40. CIHR Training Grant in Population Intervention for Chronic Disease 2009-2015 $1,950,000 Prevention: A Pan-Canadian Program. CAD PIs: Cameron R, Riley B, Ferrence R, Raine K, Gotay C, Plotnikoff R. Co-Is: 58 additional mentors, including Hammond D.

41. CIHR Canadian Tobacco Control Research Initiative 2008-2010 $79,465 Tobacco packaging regulations: plain packaging and beyond. CAD Hammond D, Fong GT, Zanna MP.

42. Trans -disciplinary Tobacco Use Research Centre Career Development 2008-2009 $17,500 Program Grant USD International Packaging Study Hammond D, O’Connor RJ.

43. Health Canada Tobacco Control Programme – Tobacco Products 2007-2009 $43,637 Regulatory Science Project Grants. (Contract) CAD Tobacco product reporting regulations: Evaluation and dissemination of key findings. Hammond D, O’Connor RJ, McNeill A, Collishaw N.

55 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

GRANTS & RESEARCH SUPPORT Received

44. Canadian Tobacco Control Research Initiative-IDEA Grant 2006-2008 $50,000 Asia Pacific Smoking Study CAD Hammond D, Suzuki G, Yang J, Awang R, O’Connor RJ.

45. Trans -disciplinary Tobacco Use Research Centre Career Development 2006-2008 $56,000 Program Grant CAD Asia Pacific Smoking Study. Hammond D.

46. Ontario Tobacco Research Unit (OTRU) Investigator Award 2006-2007 $20,000 Communicating tobacco product and constituent information to USD smokers. Hammond D.

47. National Cancer Institute / National Institutes of Health (US) 2006-2011 $2,875,544 Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation in China and South Korea: The ITC- USD Asia Project Fong GT, Borland R, Cummings KM, Hastings G, Thompson M, Hyland A, Hammond D, et al.

48. Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) 2007-2011 $3,880,438 International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project: Evaluating CAD the Psychosocial and Behavioural Effects of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Fong GT, Borland R, Cummings KM, Hastings G, Thompson M, Hyland A, Hammond D, et al.

49. Canadian Tobacco Control Research Initiative 2005-2007 $80,000 Human smoking behaviour, cigarette toxicity, and international CAD testing protocols. Hammond D, Fong GT.

50. National Cancer Institute (US) 2006-2009 $1,950,500 Evaluating Low Ignition Propensity Cigarette Legislation USD O’Connor RJ, Giovino G, Cummings KM, Fong GT, Hammond D.

51. Trans -disciplinary Tobacco Use Research Centre—Career 2005-2006 $25,000 Development Grant USD Cigarette design and product regulation. Hammond D.

52. Trans -disciplinary Tobacco Use Research Centre—Developmental 2005-2006 $25,000 Research Grant USD Impact of Lower Ignition Propensity Cigarettes on Smoking Behaviours and Toxin Exposure. Hammond D.

56 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

GRANTS & RESEARCH SUPPORT Received

53. National Cancer Institute / National Institutes of Health (US) 2004-2007 $2,759,800 International Tobacco Control Policy Survey. USD Cummings KM, Fong GT, Borland R, Hastings G, Giovino G, McNeill A, Chaloupka F, Zanna MP, Hyland A, Hammond D. et al.

54. National Cancer Institute /National Institutes of Health (US) 2004-2009 $9,576,775 Building the Evidence Base for Tobacco Control Policies: USD Transdisciplinary Tobacco Use Research Center. Cummings KM, Fong GT, Borland R, Hastings G, Giovino G, McNeill A, Chaloupka F, Zanna MP, Hyland A, Hammond D. et al.

55. Health Canada, Tobacco Control Program. 2004-2005 $74,000 Tobacco Control in Post-Secondary Institutions. CAD Hammond D. (Contract)

56. Canadian Tobacco Control Research Initiative (CTCRI) 2003-2004 $10,000 Youth Smoking Prevention- Industry Denormalization Project. CAD Hammond D.

57. Canadian Tobacco Control Research Initiative (CTCRI) 2003-2004 $10,000 Tobacco Industry Marketing Strategies: Sponsorship, Promotion, & CAD Point-of-Sale. Hammond D.

GRANT REVIEW COMMITTEES 2012 Canadian Institutes of Health (CIHR), Institute of Nutrition, Metabolism, and Diabetes. Programmatic Grants in Food and Health. (Review Committee)

2010 Canadian Institutes of Health (CIHR) Catalyst Grant -Prevention and Treatment of Illicit Substance Use and Catalyst Grant: Tobacco Use and Nicotine Addiction (Review Committee)

2009 Canadian Institutes of Health (CIHR) Prevention of Cardiovascular & Respiratory Diseases committee

2008 Bloomberg Tobacco Control Idea Grants (Review committee) 2008 National Cancer Institute of Canada Personnel Awards (Prevention panel) 2007 Ontario Tobacco Control Unit – Small Grants Awards Review Committee 2007 Cancer Council of Victoria (Australia) – External reviewer

57 David Hammond PhD School of Public Health & Health Systems, University of Waterloo

GRANT REVIEW COMMITTEES 2007 Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Strategic Training Program in Tobacco Research Grants Competition – Review Committee

2006 California Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, Public Health Section – Review Committee

TEACHING EXPERIENCE Areas of teaching expertise include health behaviour, health communication, health policy, addictive behaviour, harm reduction, global health, and population-level health. Courses taught: PHS 603—Public health policy

PHS 662—Global health

HLTH/KIN 349 — Health behaviour change

HLTH 620—Selected Topics (Relative risk and tobacco use)

HLTH 620—Selected Topics (Harm reduction & cannabis use)

HLTH 620—Selected Topics (Sources in nutrition information: national trends)

HLTH 620—Selected Topics (Nutrition labelling policies)

HLTH 620—Selected Topics (Tobacco control in China)

PSYCH 810—Selected Topics (Perceptions of Low tar cigarettes)

HLTH 620—Selected Topics (Popular Mass Media and Public Health)

58 Appendix 4

List of Annexes

RJ Reynolds, More Doctors Smoke Camels Than Any Other Cigarette JC-001 Advertisement, 1952, Bates No. 502598504.

JC-002 A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers, 1954, Bates No. 86017454.

Mace, C., Memorandum re Brief comments on a program to produce JC-003 a low delivery filter cigarette with Flavor, 24 July 1958, Bates No. 1000305086-5087.

Wakeham, H., Trends of Tar and Nicotine Deliveries Over the Last 5 JC-004 Years, Mar. 24, 1961, Bates No. 1000861953.

British American Tobacco, The Effects Of Smoking, Proposal For JC-005 Further Research Contracts With Battelle, 13 Feb. 1962, Bates No. 301083820-3835.

Yeaman, A., Brown & Williamson, Implications of Battelle Hippo I and JC-006 II and the Griffith Filter, 17 July 1963, Bates No. 2023191000-1003.

Wakeman, H., Smoking and Health, Significance of the Report of the JC-007 Surgeon General's Committee to Philip Morris Incorporated, 18 Feb. 1964, Bates No. 1000335612-5625.

Kassarjian, H. H. and Cohen, J. B., Cognitive Dissonance and Consumer JC-008 Behavior: Reactions to the Surgeon General's Report on Smoking and Health, California Management Review, Vol. 8, 1965.

Johnson, M.E., Philip Morris, Special Report No. 248: Market potential JC-009 of a health cigarette, June 1966, Bates No. 1000338644-8669.

Project 6900 Physiological Studies: Semi Annual Report, 25 Oct. 1966, JC-010 Bates No. 1000341400-1414.

Project 6900 Physiological Studies: Semi Annual Report, 9 May 1967, JC-011 Bates No. 1000342063-2073. Tobacco Institute, Statement of Position, 22 May 1967, Bates No. JC-012 CORTI0003741.

Philip Morris, Ryan/Dunn alternate - third version of Board JC-013 presentation, 1969, Bates No. 2023063286-3296.

Wakeman, H., Memorandum re Smoking and Baby Weight (10 Jan. JC-014 1969), Bates No. 1000211305.

Institute for Analytical Research Inc., Contemporary consumer JC-015 attitudes toward cigarettes, smoking and health, Prepared for Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Aug. 1969, Bates No. 696000226.

Cohen, J.B. & Goldberg, M.E., The dissonance model in post-decision JC-016 product evaluation, Journal of Marketing Research, 1970, Bates No. 2018017742.

Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Matinée - Marketing Plans 1971, 1971, Bates JC-017 No. 566628084.

Leber Katz Partners, Vantage 1972 Advertising Plan, Sept. 1971, Bates JC-018 No. 500752303.

Schori, T.R., Tar, nicotine and smoking behavior, Philip Morris U.S.A. JC-019 Research Center, Nov. 1971, Bates No. 3990441229-1256.

JC-020 Statement from the Tobacco Institute, 1972, Bates No. 1005099232

Schori, T.R., Dunn, W.L., Jr., Philip Morris Research Center, Tar, JC-021 nicotine and cigarette consumption, Jan. 1972, Bates No. 3990501490-1503.

Teague, C. E. Jr., Research Planning Memorandum on a New Type of JC-022 Cigarette Delivering a Satisfying Amount of Nicotine With a Reduced "Tar "-to-Nicotine Ratio, 28 Mar. 1972, Bates No. 500915670-679.

Teague, C. E., Memo re: The nature of the tobacco business and the JC-023 crucial role of nicotine therein, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 14 Apr. 1972, Bates No. 511241932-1941.

Panzer, F., Memorandum re the Roper Proposal, 1 May 1972, Bates JC-024 No. 3990078026-8029.

Cohen J.B., et al, The nature and uses of expectancy-value models in JC-025 consumer attitude research, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 9, Nov. 1972, Bates No. 3990247873.

Wakeham, H., Philip Morris U.S.A., Moral issue on FTC tar, 7 Mar. JC-026 1974, Bates No. 3990584616-4618.

Wakeham, H., PME Research Laboratory, Human smoking habits, JC-027 June 1974, Bates No. 3990584619-4621.

Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An JC-028 introduction to theory and research, 1975.

The Roper Organization Inc., A Study of Smokers' Habits and Attitudes JC-029 with Special Emphasis on Low Tar Cigarettes, May 1976, Bates No. 1002476257.

The Nowland Organization, Inc., SHF Cigarette Marketplace JC-030 Opportunities Search and Situation Analysis Volume II Management Report, Dec. 1976, Bates No.84053709-744.

Lorillard memorandum from Fred Schultz to Alexander Spears JC-031 regarding 2 mg Product, 22 July 1977, Bates No. 01616651-6652.

Hawkings, McCain & Blumenthal, Inc., Low “Tar” Satisfaction Step 1. JC-032 Identification of perceived and unperceived consumer needs, 25 July 1977, Bates No. 775036039-067.

JC-033 No title, 1978, Bates No. 666044166 - 4173.

Duffy, D. J., Memorandum re Camel Lights 100's Exploratory Focus JC-034 Group Summary, 29 Jan. 1979, Bates No. 501429361.

JC-035 Review of Low Tar Category, 22 May 1979, Bates No. 1002617983-99.

Koten, J., "Tobacco Marketers' Success Formula: Make Cigarets in JC-036 Smoker's Own Image," Wall Street Journal (29 Feb. 1980).

Hawkins, McCain & Blumenthal, Conference Report #7, 18 Mar. 1980, JC-037 Bates No. 660026713-6718.

Memorandum from Dr. Martin Oldman to Dr. L.C.F. Blackman, Low JC-038 Delivery Cigarettes and Quitting, 28 Apr. 1981, Bates No. 105399687- 9689. Philip Morris Research Center, Memorandum to the Federal Trade Commission from Philip Morris Incorporated concerning Barclay JC-039 cigarettes and a proposed change in the apparatus used in the Commission’s laboratory for testing “tar” delivery, 10 July 1981, Bates No. 786005682-786005713. Weaver, M.J., Cigarette Smoking, Health, and Dissonance (Project JC-040 Libra): IV. Further Analysis, Conclusions and Recommendations, 25 Aug. 1981, Bates No. 650018899-950.

Conference on Marketing Low Delivery Products: January 1982, JC-041 Marketing News Supplement, Apr. 1982, Bates No. 690120722- 756.

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Advertisement: “Can we have an open JC-042 debate about smoking?”, 1984, Bates No. 88053393.

Now 1985 Business Analysis - Summary Analysis, 8 Aug. 1984, Bates JC-043 No. 503610884 – 0907.

BAT Company Memorandum, R&D Views on Potential Marketing JC-044 Opportunities, 9 Dec. 1984, Bates No. 109869437-109869440.

British American Tobacco Co., Ltd., Research & JC-045 development/marketing conference, 1985, Bates No. 102198600.

The Research Centre, Project Magic, June 1985, Bates No. JC-046 2501008130.

Herr, P., Consequences of priming: Judgment and behavior, Journal of JC-047 Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 51, No. 6, 1986.

JC-048 1987-1992 R&D strategic plan, Dec. 1987, Bates No. USX1082780.

JC-049 Wells, W., et al, Advertising: Principles and practice, 1989.

Philip Morris Inter-Office Correspondence from R. J. Camisa, 8 Feb. JC-050 1989, Bates No. 2070624747.

Philip Morris, Marketing New Products in a Restrictive Environment JC-051 (June 1990), Bates No. 2044762173-2364.

Kunda, Z., The case for motivated reasoning, Psychological Bulletin, JC-052 Vol. 108, No. 3, 1990, Bates No. 3990450304.

Philip Morris, Merit history [script for slide presentation], 17 Aug. JC-053 1990, Bates No. 3990435880.

Qualitative Science, Exploration of various design parameters re: JC-054 Export “A” pack re-design, June 1991, Bates No. TA23192.

Moskowitz, G., and Robert J. Roman, Spontaneous Trait Inferences as JC-055 Self-Generated Primes: Implications for Conscious Social Judgment, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 62, No. 5, 1992.

Philip Morris International, Marlboro Worldwide Creative Issues and JC-056 Guidelines (1993), Bates No. 2044682618-2044682627.

JC-057 Merit Agenda, 7 Apr. 1993, Bates No. 2048838219.

JC-058 SRT, Conclusions and Recommendation, June 1993.

Philip Morris International Inc., Inter-Office Memorandum from César JC-059 Rodriguez to Peter Schreer: Uruguay, 16 Mar. 1994, Bates No. 2503023582-3585.

Roper, R., Marlboro Summit, Philip Morris, 19 Mar. 1994, Bates No. JC-060 2501098702.

de Craen, A.J., et al., Effect of colour of drugs: systematic review of JC-061 perceived effect of drugs and of their effectiveness, British Medical Journal, Vol. 313, 1996.

Cohen, J., Smokers’ Knowledge and Understanding of Advertised Tar JC-062 Numbers: Health Policy Implications, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 86, No. 1, Jan. 1996.

Cummings, K.M., Discrepancies in cigarette brand sales and adult JC-063 market share: Are new teen smokers filling the gap?, Tobacco Control, Vol. 6, 1997.

Minnesota v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al., Case No. C1-94-8565 JC-064 (Minnesota District Court), Trial Transcript, 31 Mar. 1998.

Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., STARR: Qualitative Research, Apr. JC-065 1998, Bates No. TA23078.

Mills, K., Tobacco Cos. Pulled ‘50s Health Ads, Associated Press, 28 JC-066 Apr. 1998.

Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., Project Apollo: A Qualitative Study JC-067 of Opportunities in the YAM Segment (1999), Bates No. TA23241- TA23285.

Hendrys, P., Submission to Corporate Productions Committee, June JC-068 1999.

Philip Morris, The Marlboro Story, 7 Dec. 1999, Bates No. JC-069 2067061353.

Madden, T.J., et al., Managing Images in Different Cultures: A Cross- JC-070 National Study of Color Meanings and Preferences, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 8, 2000.

Kozlowski L. T. & Pillitteri J. L., Beliefs about ‘lights’ and ‘ultra light’ JC-071 cigarettes and efforts to change those beliefs: an overview of early efforts and published research, Tobacco Control, Vol. 10, 2001.

Pham, M. T. et al, Affect-Monitoring and the Primacy of Feelings in JC-072 Judgment, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 28, Sept. 2001.

JC-073 Deposition of Hall Adams, 31 May 2002.

JC-074 Deposition of Thomas Dudreck, 19 June 2002.

Dato-on, M. C. and Dahlstrom, R., A Meta-Analytic Investigation of JC-075 Contrast Effects in Decision-Making, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 20 (8), 2003.

Garber, L.L. & Hyatt, E.M., Color as a Tool for Visual Persuasion, in JC-076 L.M. Scott & R. Batra, eds., Persuasive Imagery: A Consumer Response Perspective, 2003.

Olson, J. M. and Stone, J., The influence of behavior on attitudes, in D. JC-077 Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, and M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The Handbook of Attitudes, 2005.

Anderson, S., et al, Taking ad-Vantage of lax advertising regulation in JC-078 the USA and Canada: Reassuring and distracting health-concerned smokers, Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 63, 2006.

Bolton, L., et al, Does marketing products as remedies create "Get Out JC-079 of Jail Free" cards? Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 2006.

Miller, E.G. & Kahn, B.E., Shades of Meaning: The Effect of Color and JC-080 Flavor Names on Consumer Choice, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 32, 2006.

O’Connor, R.J., Relationship between constituent labelling and JC-081 reporting of tar yields among smokers in four countries, Journal of Public Health, Vol. 28, No. 4, 2006.

Skorkino, J.L., et al., A Rose by Any Other Name…: Color-Naming JC-082 Influences on Decision Making, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 23, 2006.

Anderson, S., et al, Implications of the federal court order banning the JC-083 terms “light” and “mild”: What difference could it make?, Tobacco Control, Vol. 16, 2007.

JC-084 Altria Group, Inc. v. Good, 550 U.S. 70 (2008).

Cohen, J. B., et al, The nature and role of affect in consumer behavior, JC-085 in C. P. Haugtvedt, P. Herr, & F. Kardes (Eds.), Handbook of Consumer Psychology, 2008.

Hammond, D., Potentially misleading information and plain JC-086 packaging: New Canadian findings, World Conference on Tobacco Health, 9 Mar. 2009.

Dewhirst, T., Gender, extreme sports, and smoking: A case study of JC-087 Export ‘A’ cigarette brand marketing, in LK Fuller (Ed.), Sexual Sports Rhetoric: Global and Universal Contexts, 2010.

Altria, Memorandum from Altria Sales and Distribution re: Philip JC-088 Morris USA Packaging Conversion Schedule, 15 Mar. 2010, Bates No. 3104476876.

Altria, Memorandum from Scott Myers to Field Sales Force re: Philip JC-089 Morris USA Packaging Updates: Consumer Awareness Onserts and Inserts, 15 Mar. 2010, Bates No. 5027680432.

Altria Client Services, Memorandum from Lauren Hopper re: Marlboro JC-090 Pack Identifier Qualitative Research, 26 Mar. 2010, Bates No. 3104473670.

Internal Altria Client Services, Email from Lauren F. Hopper to Leah R. JC-091 Newcomb re: FDA Awareness Study - Status, 10 June 2010, Bates No. 5028316010-6011.

Altria Client Services, Memorandum from Hilary Mikeska re FDA JC-092 Monitor Qualitative - AS Rendezvous Quick Observations, 18 June 2010, Bates No. 3104474100.

Chernev, A. and Gal, D., Categorization Effects in Value Judgments: JC-093 Averaging Bias in Evaluating Combinations of Vices and Virtues, Journal of Marketing Research, Aug. 2010.

Yong H. H., et al., Impact of the removal of misleading terms on JC-094 cigarette pack on smokers’ beliefs about Light/Mild cigarettes: Cross- country comparisons, Addiction, 106(12):2204-13, 2011.

Chernev, A., Semantic Anchoring in Sequential Evaluations of Vices JC-095 and Virtues, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 37, Feb. 2011.

Australian Department of Health and Ageing, Consultation Paper: JC-096 Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011: Exposure Draft, 7 Apr. 2011.

Parr, V., et al., Market Research to Determine Effective Plain JC-097 Packaging of Tobacco Products, Aug. 2011.

Dewhirst, T. and Lee, W.B., Cigarette advertising in the Republic of JC-098 Korea: A case illustration of The One, Tobacco Control, Vol. 21, No. 6, 2012.

U.S. Surgeon General, Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and JC-099 Young Adults (2012).

Labrecque L.I., et al., The Marketers’ Prismatic Palette: A Review of JC-100 Color Research and Future Directions, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 30, 2013.

O'Connor R. J., et al., Relationship of cigarette-related perceptions to JC-101 cigarette design features: Finding from the 2009 ITC US Survey, Nicotine & Tobacco Research, Vol. 15, No. 11, Nov. 2013.

JC-102 The Nicotine Program, Bates No. 3990467652-7656.

WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), Trade and JC-103 investment issue, available at: http://www.who.int/fctc/trade_and_investement/en/

British American Tobacco, What Can You Do?, (Undated), Bates No. JC-104 301656388.

JC-105 JTI-Macdonald Corp., JTI Descriptor Reference Guide.