DOCSLIB.ORG

Cigarette Packaging in the Philippines: a Comparison by Flavor and Flavor Capsule Presence

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cigarette Packaging in the Philippines: a Comparison by Flavor and Flavor Capsule Presence Cigarette packaging in the Philippines: A comparison by flavor and flavor capsule presence Jennifer Brown, MPH Katherine Clegg Smith, PhD Meng Zhu, PhD Meghan Moran, PhD Connie Hoe, PhD Joanna Cohen, PhD Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Funding source: This work was supported with funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies’ Bloomberg Initiative to Reduce Tobacco Use (Bloomberg.org). Industry funding: None Off label medication uses discussed: None ©©2019, 2014, Johns Hopkins UniverUniversity.sity. All rights reserved. Background • 22.7% of adult population in the Philippines smokes • Philippines has a high menthol market share Source: World Health Organization ©©2019, 2014, Johns Hopkins UniverUniversity.sity. All rights reserved. Flavored cigarettes • Menthol cigarettes are associated with smoking initiation and decreased likelihood of quitting and staying quit • Flavor capsule cigarettes associated with misperceptions of harm and appeal to youth ©©2019, 2014, Johns Hopkins UniverUniversity.sity. All rights reserved. Marketing • Cigarette packaging is an important marketing tool • No research has examined difference between menthol and non-menthol cigarette packaging ©©2019, 2014, Johns Hopkins UniverUniversity.sity. All rights reserved. Objective To compare and describe the similarities and differences in packaging components being used between packs that vary by flavor and flavor capsule presence that were on the market in the Philippines in 2016. ©©2019, 2014, Johns Hopkins UniverUniversity.sity. All rights reserved. Research questions • What structural components (pack type, opening style, shape) are used to package cigarettes? • What graphic components (color, imagery, descriptors) are used on cigarette packaging? • Are there differences and/or similarities between groups of packaging that vary by flavor and capsule presence and the structural and graphic components used? ©©2019, 2014, Johns Hopkins UniverUniversity.sity. All rights reserved. Methods ©©2019, 2014, Johns Hopkins UniverUniversity.sity. All rights reserved. Methods • Packs coded for structural elements and graphic components • Quantitative content analysis • Compared prevalence of structural elements and graphic components across categories of packs (distinguished by flavor and flavor capsule) using Fisher’s exact test ©©2019, 2014, Johns Hopkins UniverUniversity.sity. All rights reserved. Variable Definition No flavor No indication that pack is flavored and no distinguishable flavor/taste/aroma other than tobacco is displayed on cigarette pack or stick “Menthol” or “mint” appears as a descriptor on Menthol or mint cigarette pack or stick Characterizing flavor A characterizing flavor other than “menthol” or other than mint or “mint” is displayed as a descriptor on the cigarette menthol packaging or stick, including, but not limited to caramel/vanilla/chocolate, cinnamon/canella or other spice, clove/kretek, fruit or citrus, coffee, alcoholic beverage, energy drink Non-characterizing Indication that pack is flavored but no flavor distinguishable flavor/taste/aroma other than tobacco is displayed on cigarette pack or stick Flavor capsule pack Pack that indicates in any way that the user is able to change the stick flavor (e.g. convertibles, click and roll, activate) ©©2019, 2014, Johns Hopkins UniverUniversity.sity. All rights reserved. Results (N=75) FLAVOR FLAVOR CAPSULE No flavor Menthol or mint Characterizing Non- flavor – not characterizing menthol or mint flavor No n/a n/a (n=0) (n=0) Group 1: Non-flavor Group 2: Menthol non- non-capsule (n=36) capsule (n=23) Yes n/a (n=0) Group 3: Menthol Group 4: Non-characterizing or other flavor capsule (n=10) capsule (n=6) ©©2019, 2014, Johns Hopkins UniverUniversity.sity. All rights reserved. Results – Structural elements Group 1: Group 2: Group 3: Group 4: 1 1 1 2 2 3 Non- Menthol Menthol Non- vs vs vs vs vs vs flavored non-capsule capsule (n=10) characterizing 2 3 4 3 4 4 non- (n=23) or other flavor capsule capsule (n=6) (n=36) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) Pack type* ** Hard 27 (75.0) 11 (47.8) 10 (100) 6 (100) Soft 9 (25.0) 12 (52.2) 0 (0) 0 (0) Traditional 36 (100) 23 (100) 10 (100) 6 (100) shape Slim pack* 2 (5.6) 1 (4.3) 0 (0) 2 (33.3) *p<0.05; values are from Fisher’s exact test **p<0.008, adjusted for multiple comparisons; values are from Fisher’s exact tests ©©2019, 2014, Johns Hopkins UniverUniversity.sity. All rights reserved. Group 1: Non- Group 2: Group 3: Group 4: flavored non- Menthol non- Menthol capsule Non-characterizing capsule (n=36) capsule (n=23) (n=10) or other flavor capsule (n=6) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) Pack type* Hard 27 (75.0) 11 (47.8) 10 (100) 6 (100) Soft 9 (25.0) 12 (52.2) 0 (0) 0 (0) Examples of menthol non-capsule soft packs (group 2) Examples of menthol capsule hard packs (group 3) ©©2019, 2014, Johns Hopkins UniverUniversity.sity. All rights reserved. Results – Graphic components Group 1: Group 2: Group 3: Group 4: 1 1 1 2 2 3 Non-flavored Menthol Menthol Non- vs vs vs vs vs vs non-capsule non- capsule (n=10) characterizing 2 3 4 3 4 4 (n=36) capsule or other flavor (n=23) capsule(n=6) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) Green* 1 (2.8) 21 (91.3) 6 (60) 2 (33.3) ** ** Blue 9 (25.0) 2 (8.7) 5 (50) 2 (33.3) Purple* 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (20) 0 (0) Masculine 1 (2.8) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (16.7) appeal Less harm 1 (2.8) 1 (4.3) 0 (0) 0 (0) “Taste” 3 (8.3) 1 (4.3) 2 (20) 2 (33.3) “Fresh”* 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (10) 3 (50) ** ** “Cool/ice”* 0 (0) 1 (4.3) 3 (30) 1 (16.7) “Sensation” 0 (0) 1 (4.3) 2 (20) 0 (0) Technology* 3 (8.3) 1 (4.3) 10 (100) 6 (100) ** ** ** ** *p<0.05; values are from Fisher’s exact test **p<0.008, adjusted for multiple comparisons; values are from Fisher’s exact tests ©©2019, 2014, Johns Hopkins UniverUniversity.sity. All rights reserved. Group 1: Non- Group 2: Group 3: Group 4: flavored non- Menthol non- Menthol capsule Non-characterizing or capsule (n=36) capsule (n=23) (n=10) other flavor capsule(n=6) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) Green* 1 (2.8) 21 (91.3) 6 (60) 2 (33.3) Example of green menthol non-capsule pack Example of green menthol capsule pack ©©2019, 2014, Johns Hopkins UniverUniversity.sity. All rights reserved. Group 1: Non- Group 2: Group 3: Group 4: flavored non- Menthol non- Menthol capsule Non-characterizing or capsule (n=36) capsule (n=23) (n=10) other flavor capsule(n=6) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) “Fresh”* 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (10) 3 (50) Examples of non-characterizing flavor capsule pack displaying “fresh” ©©2019, 2014, Johns Hopkins UniverUniversity.sity. All rights reserved. Group 1: Non- Group 2: Group 3: Group 4: flavored non- Menthol non- Menthol capsule Non-characterizing or capsule (n=36) capsule (n=23) (n=10) other flavor capsule(n=6) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) Technology* 3 (8.3) 1 (4.3) 10 (100) 6 (100) Examples of menthol capsule packs using technology imagery ©©2019, 2014, Johns Hopkins UniverUniversity.sity. All rights reserved. Non-characterizing or other flavor capsule cigarettes (n=6) 2 other flavor capsule packs: Coffee flavor with ice coffee flavor and coffee flavor with orange coffee flavor 4 non- characterizing flavor capsule packs: “Fresh” and green color could potentially indicate menthol flavoring ©©2019, 2014, Johns Hopkins UniverUniversity.sity. All rights reserved. Strengths & limitations + First study to describe differences in packaging between menthol and non-menthol packs + Data collected in geographically and culturally diverse areas in the Philippines - Sample was collected in 2016; likely changes to market - Not able to confirm meaning of structural elements and graphic components to consumers ©©2019, 2014, Johns Hopkins UniverUniversity.sity. All rights reserved. Conclusions • Different materials, color (green), descriptors (“fresh”, technology terms) and imagery (technology) are used on cigarette packaging to distinguish between cigarette types in the Philippines • Findings highlight the need for a greater awareness of the potential for different packaging components to convey product characteristics to consumers, some that may be misleading or that are attractive to a new generation of smokers • Can inform future tobacco control policy as the Philippines and other countries consider bans on flavored tobacco and displays at point-of-sale and adoption of plain tobacco packaging ©©2019, 2014, Johns Hopkins UniverUniversity.sity. All rights reserved. Next steps • Future research will explore consumer perceptions of menthol and flavor capsule cigarette packaging and assess whether distinguishing marketing features are associated with: Attractiveness Less harm Intention to try ©©2019, 2014, Johns Hopkins UniverUniversity.sity. All rights reserved. Thank you! [email protected] ©©2019, 2014, Johns Hopkins UniverUniversity.sity. All rights reserved..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In the United States District Court for the District Of
    Case 1:16-cv-00296-JB-LF Document 132 Filed 12/21/17 Page 1 of 249 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO IN RE: SANTA FE NATURAL TOBACCO COMPANY MARKETING & SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION No. MD 16-2695 JB/LF MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Motion to Dismiss, filed November 18, 2016 (Doc. 71)(“First JN Motion”); (ii) Defendants’ Second Motion for Judicial Notice in Support of the Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint, filed February 23, 2017 (Doc. 91)(“Second JN Motion”); (iii) Defendants’ Third Motion for Judicial Notice in Support of the Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint, filed May 30, 2017 (Doc. 109)(“Third JN Motion”); and (iv) the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, filed February 23, 2017 (Doc. 90)(“MTD”). The Court held hearings on June 16, 2017 and July 20, 2017. The primary issues are: (i) whether the Court may consider the items presented in the First JN Motion, the Second JN Motion, and the Third JN Motion without converting the MTD into one for summary judgment; (ii) whether the Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Reynolds American, Inc. for claims that were not brought in a North Carolina forum; (iii) whether the Federal Trade Commission’s Decision and Order, In re Santa Fe Nat. Tobacco Co., No. C-3952 (FTC June 12, 2000), filed November 18, 2016 (Doc. 71)(“Consent Order”), requiring Defendant Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Health Effects of Flavored Tobacco and Nicotine Products
    HEALTH EFFECTS OF FLAVORED TOBACCO AND NICOTINE PRODUCTS "Flavored cigarettes appeal to kids and disguise the bad taste of tobacco, but they are just as addictive as regular tobacco products and have the same harmful health effects," -- Mitch Zeller, Director of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Center for Tobacco Products 1 The Tobacco Control Act, which was signed into law in 2009, banned cigarettes that contained candy or fruit flavors, to reduce the likelihood of youth smoking and addiction to tobacco. However, menthol was excluded from this ban. Tobacco manufacturers have also found a way to skirt this law by selling flavored cigarettes labeled as cigars. To understand some of the potential health impacts of ending the sale of flavored tobacco, below are just some of the health effects of tobacco and nicotine: Menthol Cigarettes The Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee 2011 report concluded that menthol cigarettes are no more or less toxic than are regular cigarettes, but the flavor’s cooling and anesthetic properties reduce the harshness of cigarette smoke, thereby increasing their appeal to new smokers. 2 However, menthol cigarettes are more difficult to quit than unflavored tobacco because menthol decreases the metabolism of nicotine and increases the amount of the addictive substance in the blood. 3 Health Effects of Tobacco Use Smoking leads to disease and disability and harms nearly every organ of the body. More than 16 million Americans are living with a disease caused by smoking. For every person who dies because of smoking, at least 30 people live with a serious smoking-related illness.
    [Show full text]
  • Tobacco Industry Tactics: Packaging and Labelling
    WHO-EM/TFI/201/E Tobacco industry tactics: packaging and labelling Tobacco packs are key to marketing and advertising. The tobacco industry challenges large, graphic warnings and pack size/colour restrictions using intellectual property and “slippery slope” arguments. Through litigation, or threat of litigation, the industry seeks to delay implementation of packaging and labelling restrictions. Donations, political contributions and so- called corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities can result in pro-industry arguments gaining political support. Introduction Tobacco packaging is a potent marketing tool. Pack design and colour are used to manipulate people’s perception of the level of harm and increase the products’ appeal, especially among the young, including young women (1–4). For the public health community, packaging is an important medium for communicating health messages (5). Studies from all over the world have concluded that large graphic warnings are associated with reduced tobacco consumption and smoking prevalence, and with increased knowledge of health risks and efforts to quit(6) . Therefore, Article 11 of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) mandates the adoption and implementation of health warnings on tobacco product packaging and labelling. Article 11 of the WHO FCTC focuses on two key aspects: an effective warning label; and restrictions on misleading or deceptive packaging/labelling elements, including descriptors (light, mild, low tar), emissions yields, and other elements that detract from health warnings or convey that one product is safer than another. To undermine the effectiveness of packaging and labelling regulations, tobacco companies increasingly use pack colours to replace misleading descriptors and convey the perception of “reduced risk”, to diminish health concerns and reduce the impact of health warning labels (7).
    [Show full text]
  • Pack Modifications Influence Perceptions of Menthol E-Cigarettes
    Pack Modifications Influence Perceptions of Menthol E-cigarettes Amy M. Cohn, PhD Amanda L. Johnson, MHS Haneen Abudayyeh, MPH Bonnie King, MHS Jess Wilhelm, PhD Objectives: Tobacco package colors and descriptors influence attitudes and intentions to use. This study examined the impact of flavor, color, and descriptors on electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) packages young adults’ perceptions of e-cigarettes. Methods: We recruited 2872 US participants ages 18-24 from Amazon Mechanical Turk (2018-2019) and randomized them to view one of 7 e-cigarette package images that varied by flavor (menthol vs tobacco), color (green or brown vs black and white), and descriptor (present vs absent). Models examined main and interactive effects of flavor, color, and descriptor on perceptions of appeal, harm, and addictiveness, and the moderating effects of product appeal. Results: Menthol e-cigarette packages were rated as more “attention grabbing,” “appetizing,” and “fun to use.” Perceptions of harm and addictiveness did not vary across package conditions. Interactions of menthol pack conditions with appeal emerged. Specifically, participants exposed to the green package with the menthol descriptor reported low e-cigarette harm perceptions across all levels of “attention grabbing” and “discour- ages use,” while those exposed to the green package without the menthol descriptor or the brown package with the tobacco descriptor reported lower harm perceptions as ratings of prod- uct appeal increased. Conclusions: Colors and descriptors on e-cigarette packaging influence product appeal and harm perceptions. Key words: flavored tobacco; menthol; e-cigarettes; young adults; perceived harm; perceived addictiveness; appeal; packaging; marketing; tobacco companies Tob Regul Sci.™ 2021;7(2):87-102 DOI: doi.org/10.18001/TRS.7.2.1 urveillance data show that the prevalence of bacco smoke or vapor, making it easier for new us- current e-cigarette use has increased signifi- ers to initiate tobacco use.
    [Show full text]
  • Testimony Before the Connecticut Public Health Committee
    Testimony before the Connecticut Public Health Committee Regarding Prohibiting the Sale of Flavored Tobacco and Vapor Products Lindsey Stroud, Policy Analyst Taxpayers Protection Alliance February 1, 2021 Chairwoman Daughertry Abrams and Chairman Steinberg and Members of the Committee, Thank you for your time today to discuss the issue of banning remote sales of tobacco and vapor products. My name is Lindsey Stroud and I am a Policy Analyst with the Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA). TPA is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to educating the public through the research, analysis and dissemination of information on the government’s effects on the economy. As lawmakers attempt to address the critical issue of youth use of age- restricted products, including electronic cigarettes and vapor products, some policymakers are seeking to ban sales of flavored tobacco and vapor products. Although addressing youth use is laudable, policymakers should refrain from policies that would restrict adult access to tobacco harm reduction products, as well as implementing policies that further subvert adult choices, such as is the case with the proposal to ban flavors in tobacco and vapor products. Also, during a pandemic when politicians are urging the public to use science as a guiding concept, it is important to look at the science behind tobacco harm reduction. E-Cigarettes and Tobacco Harm Reduction The evidence of harm associated with combustible cigarettes has been understood since the 1964 U.S. Surgeon General’s Report that determined
    [Show full text]
  • Youth Bidi, Kretek, Or Pipe Tobacco Use
    2013 Florida Youth Tobacco Survey: Fact Sheet 10 Youth Bidi, Kretek, or Pipe Tobacco Use Introduction The Florida Youth Tobacco Survey (FYTS) was administered in the spring of 2013 to 6,440 middle school students and 6,175 high school students in 172 public schools throughout the state. The overall survey response rate for middle schools was 83%, and the overall survey response rate for high schools was 75%. The FYTS has been conduct- ed annually since 1998. The data presented in this fact sheet are weighted to represent the entire population of public middle and high school students in Florida. About Bidis, Kreteks, and Pipe Tobacco Bidis are small brown cigarettes from India consisting of tobacco wrapped in a leaf tied together with a thread. Bidis have higher levels of nicotine, carbon monoxide, and tar than traditional cigarettes. Kreteks are cigarettes containing tobacco and clove extract. In 2009, the Food and Drug Administration banned kreteks, along with flavored cigarettes, from being sold in the United States. Pipe tobacco comes either plain or flavored and is smoked through a pipe. On previous FYTS fact sheets, bidis, kreteks, and pipe tobacco have been Figure 1. Ever Tried Bidis, Kreteks, or Pipe Tobacco 8.4 8.5 reported as “specialty tobacco” products. 9 8.0 8 7.2 7.1 Ever Tried Bidis, Kreteks, or Pipe Tobacco 7 5.9 6 In 2013, 2.5% of middle school and 5.9% of high 5 4 3.2 school students had tried smoking a bidi, kretek, or Percent 2.9 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 pipe tobacco at least once (Figure 1).
    [Show full text]
  • SFDA.FD 60:2018 Plain Packaging of Tobacco Products
    Unofficial Translation SFDA.FD 60:2018 Plain Packaging of Tobacco Products Unofficial Translation Preamble Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA) is an independent entity, its main purpose is to regulate and control food, drug, and medical and diagnostic equipment. SFDA mission is to set specifications and technical regulations for various products in related fields, whether imported or locally manufactured. The Food Sector in the SFDA prepared these regulations (Plain Packaging for Tobacco Products) no. (SFDA FD.60). The project was prepared after reviewing related specifications and regulations. The regulations were approved by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of SFDA pursuant to decision no. 1440-18-2/7, overriding and substituting the GCC Standardization Organization (GSO)-Saudi Technical Regulations no. SFDA.FD GSO 246/2011 “Labeling of Tobacco Product Packages”. Unofficial Translation Plain Packaging of Tobacco Products 1. Scope: These regulations pertain to the requirements for the packaging of tobacco products; including cigarettes, cigar, tobacco molasses, loose tobacco, and similar tobacco products. 2. Complementary References: 2.1. SFDA.FD/ GSO 597 "Cigarettes" 2.2. SFDA.FD/ GSO 1415 “Tobacco Molasses” 2.3. SFDA.FD/ GSO 1749 "fruit flavored Tobacco Molasses" 2.4. SFDA.FD/ GSO 2050 "Mixed Pipe Tobacco" 2.5. SFDA.FD/ GSO 2047 "Cigars and Tuscany Cigars" 2.6. SFDA.FD/ GSO 2051 "Tobacco and Tobacco products – Cigaritos" 3. Definitions: 3.1. Trademark The primary name through which a product is recognized. 3.2. Calibration Mark A mark used only for the purpose of automated manufacture of a packaging. 3.3. Distinctive Flavors A clear and distinct aroma or taste besides the flavor of tobacco itself.
    [Show full text]
  • CITY of SHOREVIEW AGENDA CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP Monday March 15, 2021 5:00 PM
    CITY OF SHOREVIEW AGENDA CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP Monday March 15, 2021 5:00 PM MEETING FORMAT - This meeting is taking place virtually due to COVID-19. Members of the public may join the meeting the following ways: PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, or Android device https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84462029374?pwd=cXYxMHpoMGhFRTlIdkQ4SkI2cUljUT09 Password: 303732 Phone Call 1-312-626-6799 Webinar ID: 844 6202 9374 Passcode: 303732 1. GENERAL BUSINESS 1.a Discussion regarding tobacco flavor ban 1.b Review of Updated Vision, Mission, and Core Values for the City of Shoreview 2. OTHER ISSUES 3. ADJOURNMENT 1 Memorandum TO: City Council Workshop FROM: Renee Eisenbeisz , Assistant City Manager DATE: March 15, 2021 SUBJECT: Discussion regarding tobacco flavor ban ITEM 1.a NUMBER: SECTION: GENERAL BUSINESS REQUESTED MOTION INTRODUCTION In 2016, the city council approved an ordinance that limits the sale of flavored tobacco, excluding menthol, mint, and wintergreen, to tobacco shops. Last year, the city received a request to expand its restrictions to include menthol, mint, and wintergreen. The council briefly discussed this at a workshop meeting and asked staff to bring it back this spring for further discussion. DISCUSSION Katie Engman from the Association of Nonsmokers-Minnesota will be at the March 15 workshop meeting to discuss a possible expansion of the city's restrictions to include menthol, mint, and wintergreen. As you can see on the attached map, several cities in the metropolitan area have restricted or banned flavored tobacco products, including menthol. Please find attached the following documents: Fact sheet on menthol tobacco products Letter of support from the human rights commission Summary of ANSR's 2020 survey on youth vaping Summary of Minnesota's 2020 survey on youth tobacco usage Policy brief on menthol Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Analysis of the EU Market of Tobacco, Nicotine and Related Products
    Executive Agency for Health and Consumers Specific Request EAHC/2011/Health/11 for under EAHC/2010/Health/01 Lot 2 Economic analysis of the EU market of tobacco, nicotine and related products Revised Final Report 20 September 2013 Economic analysis of the EU market of tobacco, nicotine and related products Disclaimer This report was produced under the Health Programme (2008-13) in the frame of a contract with the Executive Agency for Health and Consumers (EAHC) acting on behalf of the European Commission. The content of this report represents the views of Matrix Insight and is its sole responsibility; it can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Commission and/or EAHC or any other body of the European Union. The European Commission and/or EAHC do not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this report, nor do they accept responsibility for any use made by third parties thereof. In keeping with our values of integrity and excellence, Matrix has taken reasonable professional care in the preparation of this report. Although Matrix has made reasonable efforts to obtain information from a broad spectrum of sources, we cannot guarantee absolute accuracy or completeness of information/data submitted, nor do we accept responsibility for recommendations that may have been omitted due to particular or exceptional conditions and circumstances. © Matrix Insight Ltd, 2009 Any enquiries about this report should be directed to [email protected] Matrix Insight Ltd. | 20 September 2013 2 Economic analysis of the EU
    [Show full text]
  • "I Always Thought They Were All Pure Tobacco'': American
    “I always thought they were all pure tobacco”: American smokers’ perceptions of “natural” cigarettes and tobacco industry advertising strategies Patricia A. McDaniel* Department of Social and Behavioural Sciences, School of Nursing University of California, San Francisco 3333 California Street, Suite 455 San Francisco, CA 94118 USA work: (415) 514-9342 fax: (415) 476-6552 [email protected] Ruth E. Malone Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Nursing University of California, San Francisco, USA *Corresponding author The Corresponding Author has the right to grant on behalf of all authors and does grant on behalf of all authors, an exclusive licence (or non exclusive for government employees) on a worldwide basis to the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and its Licensees to permit this article (if accepted) to be published in Tobacco Control editions and any other BMJPGL products to exploit all subsidiary rights, as set out in our licence (http://tc.bmj.com/misc/ifora/licence.pdf). keywords: natural cigarettes, additive-free cigarettes, tobacco industry market research, cigarette descriptors Word count: 223 abstract; 6009 text 1 table, 3 figures 1 ABSTRACT Objective: To examine how the U.S. tobacco industry markets cigarettes as “natural” and American smokers’ views of the “naturalness” (or unnaturalness) of cigarettes. Methods: We reviewed internal tobacco industry documents, the Pollay 20th Century Tobacco Ad Collection, and newspaper sources, categorized themes and strategies, and summarized findings. Results: Cigarette advertisements have used the term “natural” since at least 1910, but it was not until the 1950s that “natural” referred to a core element of brand identity, used to describe specific product attributes (filter, menthol, tobacco leaf).
    [Show full text]
  • Bidi, Kretek, Or Pipe Tobacco Use
    2012 Florida Youth Tobacco Survey: Fact Sheet 10 Youth Bidi, Kretek, or Pipe Tobacco Use Introduction The Florida Youth Tobacco Survey (FYTS) was administered in the spring of 2012 to 38,989 middle school students and 36,439 high school students in 746 public schools throughout the state. The overall survey response rate for middle schools was 77% and the overall response rate for high schools was 73%. The FYTS has been conducted annually since 1998. The data presented in this fact sheet are weighted to represent the entire population of public middle and high school students in Florida. About Bidis, Kreteks, and Pipe Tobacco Bidis are small brown cigarettes from India consisting of tobacco wrapped in a leaf tied together with a thread. Bidis have higher levels of nicotine, carbon monoxide, and tar than traditional cigarettes. Kreteks are cigarettes containing tobacco and clove extract. In 2009, the Food and Drug Administration banned kreteks, along with flavored cigarettes, from being sold in the United States. Pipe tobacco comes either plain or flavored and is smoked through a pipe. On previous FYTS fact sheets, bidis, kreteks, and pipe tobacco have been Figure 1. Ever Tried Bidis, Kreteks, or Pipe Tobacco 8.4 8.5 reported as “specialty tobacco” products. 9 8.0 8 7.2 7.1 Ever Tried Bidis, Kreteks, or Pipe Tobacco 7 6 In 2012, 2.5% of middle school and 7.1% of high 5 4 3.2 school students had tried smoking a bidi, kretek, or Percent 2.9 3.0 3.0 2.5 pipe tobacco at least once (Figure 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Tobacco Flavoring Fact Sheet 2020
    Tobacco Flavoring THE HISTORY AND WHERE WE ARE NOW In 2009, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act gave the U.S Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate tobacco products, including cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco.1 The bill also banned the sale of flavored cigarettes, except for menthol. In 2016, the FDA extended its regulatory authority to all “tobacco products” including electronic cigarettes and other electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), cigars, hookah, pipe tobacco, nicotine gels, dissolvables not already subject to regulation, and other products that might meet the definition of “tobacco product” in the future.1 FDA has only just begun to take steps to regulate these newer products -- over 15,000 different e-cigarette flavors currently exist in the marketplace leading to an epidemic of youth use, and relatively few studies have been conducted to investigate the safety and inhalation toxicity for flavored products.2 In January 2020, the FDA issued guidance that removed some flavored cartridge-based electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) from the market. However, the policy failed to include menthol- or tobacco-flavored cartridge-based e-cigarettes, any flavored disposable e-cigarettes, and e-liquids used in refillable, open tank systems. Menthol is one of the most common flavor additives used in cigarettes and other tobacco products, accounting for 36% of the cigarette market in the U.S in 2018 and an increase in sales from 10.7% to 61.% among prefilled e-cigarette cartridges in 2020.3,4 A 2013 FDA analysis concluded that menthol cigarettes may increase youth initiation, and there has been great scientific debate on the role of menthol in nicotine dependence and cessation..5 The use of menthol cigarettes is particularly prevalent among youth adults and African Americans.
    [Show full text]