Natural American Spirit's Pro-Environment Packaging and Perceptions of Reduced-Harm Cigarettes

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Natural American Spirit's Pro-Environment Packaging and Perceptions of Reduced-Harm Cigarettes Preventive Medicine 126 (2019) 105782 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Preventive Medicine journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ypmed Natural American Spirit's pro-environment packaging and perceptions of T reduced-harm cigarettes Anna E. Eppersona, Eric F. Lambinb,c, Lisa Henriksena, Michael Baiocchia, June A. Florad, ⁎ Judith J. Prochaskaa, a Stanford Prevention Research Center, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA b School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences, Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA c Georges Lemaître Earth and Climate Research Centre, Earth and Life Institute, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium d Solutions Science Lab, Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Natural American Spirit (NAS) cigarettes feature a pro-environment marketing campaign on the packs. The NAS Tobacco product “Respect for the Earth” campaign is the first example of on-the-pack corporate social responsibility advertising. Environment In a randomized survey design, we tested perceptions of NAS relative to other cigarette brands on harms to self, Perceptions others, and the environment. Never (n = 421), former (n = 135), and current (n = 358) US adult smokers were recruited for an online survey from January through March 2018. All participants viewed packs of both NAS and Pall Mall. Participants were randomized to view NAS vs. Pall Mall and to pack color (blue, green, or yellow/ orange), which was matched between brands. Survey items assessed perceptions of health risk of the cigarette brand to self, others, and the environment and corporate perceptions. Consistently on all measures, NAS ci- garettes were rated as less harmful for oneself, others, and the environment relative to Pall Mall (p's < .001). Though Reynolds American owns both brands, participants rated the company behind NAS as more socially responsible than the company behind Pall Mall, F[1, 909] = 110.25, p < .001. The NAS advantage was sig- nificant irrespective of smoking status, pack color, and brand order, with findings stronger for current thannever smokers. Pro-environmental marketing on NAS cigarette packs contributes to misperceptions that the product is safer for people and the environment than other cigarettes and made by a company that is more socially re- sponsible. Stricter government regulations on the use of pro-environment terms in marketing that imply mod- ified risk are needed. Tobacco is the leading preventable cause of death (USDHHS, 2014) tobacco companies of the American public, leading many smokers to and the leading form of litter globally (Rath et al., 2012), releasing toxic switch rather than to quit smoking. Passed in 2009, the Family Smoking chemicals into the soil and water supply (Slaughter et al., 2011; Prevention and Tobacco Control Act banned the use of “light,” “low,” or Novotny et al., 2011). Further, mass production of tobacco involves “mild” labels on tobacco products without a modified risk tobacco significant environmental costs (Otanez and Glantz, 2011). Given the product order from the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA), yet the serious harms of smoking and the growing public concern about these tobacco industry still continues color coding cigarette packs to perpe- harms, an emphasis by the tobacco industry has been promotion of a tuate the idea that some cigarettes are healthier (Bansal-Travers et al., safer, less harmful way to smoke (Epperson et al., 2017). In the mid- 2011). 1950s, the tobacco companies created the illusion of filtration and mass More recent concern about cigarette marketing has been the focus marketed low tar cigarettes (Johnston, 1966), followed in the 1970s by on natural and organic tobacco, featured prominently in the branding the heavy promotion of light and ultra-light cigarettes (USDHHS, of Natural American Spirit (NAS) cigarettes. Similar to what occurred 2001). In 2006, United States vs. Philip Morris (D.O.J. Lawsuit) de- decades earlier with filters and lights, studies have shown that both termined that selling and advertising of low tar and light cigarettes as smokers and nonsmokers perceive the NAS brand as less harmful to less harmful than regular cigarettes was deliberate deception by the US health than other cigarettes (Moran et al., 2017; Gratale et al., 2019; ⁎ Corresponding author at: Stanford Prevention Research Center, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Medical School Office Building, X316, 1265 Welch Road, Stanford, CA 94305-5411, USA. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.J. Prochaska). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.105782 Received 28 February 2019; Received in revised form 4 June 2019; Accepted 17 July 2019 Available online 17 July 2019 0091-7435/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. A.E. Epperson, et al. Preventive Medicine 126 (2019) 105782 Fig. 1. Pack images viewed. Participants viewed both brands but were randomized as to which pack they viewed first (Natural American Spirit or Pall Mall). Participants also were randomized to one of three pack colors (blue, green or orange/gold), with color matched for both packs viewed. There were 6 total randomized conditions, crossing pack brand order (2) by color (3). Pearson et al., 2016; Leas et al., 2018; Leas et al., 2017). The Population investigated in two studies to date. Participants shown advertisements Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study estimated that over (e.g., print, online) highlighting environment/sustainability practices of half of US smokers who prefer NAS mistakenly believe the brand is less NAS production rated the brand more favorably than a control group harmful than other cigarette brands (Leas et al., 2017). An ultra-pre- not exposed to advertisements (Gratale et al., 2017). Similarly, parti- mium brand, NAS's market share has increased over 400% since 2002 cipants randomized to view NAS advertisements with the text “tobacco (Sharma et al., 2016). Due to concerns about reduced harm claims, the and water” or with references to “eco-friendly” practices were more FDA required NAS to cease use of “100% additive free” and “natural” in likely to report misperceptions of reduced harm to health compared to its product marketing and advertising, effective October 2018, those who viewed the NAS advertisements without these terms (Moran yet allowed continued use of “natural” in the trademarked brand name et al., 2018). Unexamined is the impact of pro-environment tobacco (Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, 2017). In place of “additive-free,” the marketing on cigarette packaging. The cigarette pack is a central mes- NAS packs substituted “tobacco ingredients: tobacco and water,” simi- sage vector viewed 7300 times a year by pack-a-day smokers. larly creating misperceptions of reduced harm (Gratale et al., 2019). In a within-subject and randomized survey design, the current study The NAS packs also now feature a pro-environment marketing examined the effect of NAS's pro-environment product labeling onto- campaign. While tobacco companies have a history of creating pro- bacco-related perceptions of health and environment among never, environment marketing campaigns (Otanez and Glantz, 2011; Gonzalez former, and current adult smokers. We tested the 2018 NAS packs, et al., 2012), the NAS “Respect for the Earth” campaign is the first which replaced the previous messages of “100% additive-free” with example of corporate social responsibility (CSR) advertising on cigar- “tobacco ingredients: tobacco and water.” Pall Mall was selected as the ette packs themselves (Epperson et al., 2018). Pro-environment mar- comparison brand pack because they are equally harmful, and both keting with a focus on biospheric values can inspire the public to pay a brands are owned by Reynolds American. Thus, all comparisons be- premium for products such as energy efficient appliances and organic tween NAS and Pall Mall have no actual differences (i.e., in health foods (Nguyen et al., 2016). In reality, biospheric values are entirely outcomes or corporate responsibility) and any perceived differences are incompatible with the manufacturing and smoking of cigarettes. Yet, misperceptions. the NAS “Respect for the Earth” CSR campaign advertises a facility that is “zero-waste-to-landfill” and includes a wreath of three tobacco leaves that mimics the symbol for recycling. The side of the pack features the 1. Method logo for the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC), a forest certification organization promoting sustainable forest 1.1. Recruitment management (Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification, 2018). Participants were recruited through the online platform Prolific Pro-environmental advertising campaigns for NAS have been (https://prolific.ac/) for a study on “different marketing approaches with consideration of health and the environment.” Based on Prolific 2 A.E. Epperson, et al. Preventive Medicine 126 (2019) 105782 screening data, we stratified by smoking status and restricted thein- Corporate social responsibility perceptions of the tobacco com- vitation to members over the age of 18, residing in the US, and fluent in pany behind each brand were assessed with 11 true/false statements English. The survey was limited to US residents because NAS marketing (Kuder-Richardson-20 = 0.70 for NAS/0.65 for Pall Mall); e.g., “The differs in non-US countries (e.g., NAS packs in Japan still include “light” company donates profits
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]
  • South Carolina Tobacco Directory
    South Carolina Tobacco Directory Updated: June 14, 2019 Office of the Attorney General South Carolina Tobacco Directory Alan Wilson Company Name Brand Name Original Certification Date Agreement type Status Cheyenne International LLC Decade 8/10/2005 NPM Compliant Aura 6/16/2014 NPM Compliant Cheyenne 8/10/2005 NPM Compliant Commonwealth Brands, Inc. USA Gold 8/10/2005 PM Compliant Crowns 3/16/2011 PM Compliant Rave 7/15/2009 PM Compliant Rave (RYO) 7/15/2009 PM Compliant Montclair 8/10/2005 PM Compliant Fortuna 9/15/2008 PM Compliant Sonoma 8/10/2005 PM Compliant Compania Tabacalera Internacional, S.A. Director 12/27/2017 NPM Compliant Dosal Tobacco Corporation 305 8/9/2010 NPM Compliant DTC 8/9/2010 NPM Compliant Firebird Manufacturing Cherokee 8/4/2010 NPM Compliant Palmetto 8/4/2010 NPM Compliant ITG Brands LLC Kool 8/12/2005 PM Compliant Winston 8/12/2005 PM Compliant Salem 8/12/2005 PM Compliant Maverick 8/11/2005 PM Compliant Japan Tobacco International U.S.A., Inc. Wave 8/10/2005 PM Compliant LD by L. Ducat 5/6/2016 PM Compliant Export A 8/10/2005 PM Compliant Kretek International Taj Mahal Bidis 10/18/2005 PM Compliant KT&G Corporation page: 0 of 1 Carnival 2/15/2012 NPM Compliant THIS 2/15/2018 NPM Compliant Timeless Time 2/15/2012 NPM Compliant Liggett Group Inc. Pyramid 8/9/2005 PM Compliant Liggett Select 8/9/2005 PM Compliant Eve 8/9/2005 PM Compliant Bronson 10/4/2011 PM Compliant Grand Prix 8/9/2005 PM Compliant Tourney 9/8/2005 PM Compliant Tourney Slims 8/9/2005 PM Compliant NASCO Products, LLC SF 1/5/2015 PM Compliant Native Trading Associates Mohawk 8/6/2013 NPM Compliant Native 6/14/2006 NPM Compliant Native (RYO) 12/10/2007 NPM Compliant Ohserase Manufacturing Signal 8/1/2011 NPM Compliant Peter Stokkebye Tobaksfabrik A/S Turkish Export (RYO) 8/15/2013 PM Compliant Danish Export (RYO) 8/15/2013 PM Compliant London Export (RYO) 8/15/2013 PM Compliant Amsterdam Shag (RYO) 8/15/2013 PM Compliant Stockholm Blend (RYO) 8/15/2013 PM Compliant Norwegian Shag (RYO) 8/15/2013 PM Compliant Philip Morris USA Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • FY 2020 Announcement.Pdf
    17 February 2021 –PRELIMINARY RESULTS BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO p.l.c. YEAR ENDED 31 DECEMBER 2020 ‘ACCELERATING TRANSFORMATION’ GROWTH IN NEW CATEGORIES AND GROUP EARNINGS DESPITE COVID-19 PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS REPORTED ADJUSTED Current Vs 2019 Current Vs 2019 rates Rates (constant) Cigarette and THP volume share +30 bps Cigarette and THP value share +20 bps Non-Combustibles consumers1 13.5m +3.0m Revenue (£m) £25,776m -0.4% £25,776m +3.3% Profit from operations (£m) £9,962m +10.5% £11,365m +4.8% Operating margin (%) +38.6% +380 bps +44.1% +100 bps2 Diluted EPS (pence) 278.9p +12.0% 331.7p +5.5% Net cash generated from operating activities (£m) £9,786m +8.8% Free cash flow after dividends (£m) £2,550m +32.7% Cash conversion (%)2 98.2% -160 bps 103.0% +650 bps Borrowings3 (£m) £43,968m -3.1% Adjusted Net Debt (£m) £39,451m -5.3% Dividend per share (pence) 215.6p +2.5% The use of non-GAAP measures, including adjusting items and constant currencies, are further discussed on pages 48 to 53, with reconciliations from the most comparable IFRS measure provided. Note – 1. Internal estimate. 2. Movement in adjusted operating margin and operating cash conversion are provided at current rates. 3. Borrowings includes lease liabilities. Delivering today Building A Better TomorrowTM • Revenue, profit from operations and earnings • 1 growth* absorbing estimated 2.5% COVID-19 revenue 13.5m consumers of our non-combustible products , headwind adding 3m in 2020. On track to 50m by 2030 • New Categories revenue up 15%*, accelerating • Combustible revenue
    [Show full text]
  • Other Tobacco Products (OTP) Are Products Including Smokeless and “Non-Cigarette” Materials
    Other tobacco products (OTP) are products including smokeless and “non-cigarette” materials. For more information on smoking and how to quit using tobacco products, check out our page on tobacco. A tobacco user may actually absorb more nicotine from chewing tobacco or snuff than they do from a cigarette (Mayo Clinic). The health consequences of smokeless tobacco use include oral, throat and pancreatic cancer, tooth loss, gum disease and increased risk of heart disease, heart attack and stroke. (American Cancer Society, “Smokeless Tobacco” 2010) Smokeless tobacco products contain at least 28 cancer-causing agents. The risk of certain types of cancer increases with smokeless tobacco: Esophageal cancer, oral cancer (cancer of the mouth, throat, cheek, gums, lips, tongue). Other Tobacco Products (OTP) Include: Chewing/Spit Tobacco A smokeless tobacco product consumed by placing a portion of the tobacco between the cheek and gum or upper lip teeth and chewing. Must be manually crushed with the teeth to release flavor and nicotine. Spitting is required to get rid of the unwanted juices. Loose Tobacco Loose (pipe) tobacco is made of cured and dried leaves; often a mix of various types of leaves (including spiced leaves), with sweeteners and flavorings added to create an "aromatic" flavor. The tobacco used resembles cigarette tobacco, but is more moist and cut more coarsely. Pipe smoke is usually held in the mouth and then exhaled without inhaling into the lungs. Blunt Wraps Blunt wraps are hollowed out tobacco leaf to be filled by the consumer with tobacco (or other drugs) and comes in different flavors. Flavors are added to create aromas and flavors.
    [Show full text]
  • Brands MSA Manufacturers Dateadded 1839 Blue 100'S Box
    Brands MSA Manufacturers DateAdded 1839 Blue 100's Box Premier Manufacturing 7/1/2021 1839 Blue King Box Premier Manufacturing 7/1/2021 1839 Menthol Blue 100's Box Premier Manufacturing 7/1/2021 1839 Menthol Blue King Box Premier Manufacturing 7/1/2021 1839 Menthol Green 100's Box Premier Manufacturing 7/1/2021 1839 Menthol Green King Box Premier Manufacturing 7/1/2021 1839 Non Filter King Box Premier Manufacturing 7/1/2021 1839 Red 100's Box Premier Manufacturing 7/1/2021 1839 Red King Box Premier Manufacturing 7/1/2021 1839 RYO 16oz Blue Premier Manufacturing 7/1/2021 1839 RYO 16oz Full Flavor Premier Manufacturing 7/1/2021 1839 RYO 16oz Menthol Premier Manufacturing 7/1/2021 1839 RYO 6 oz Full Flavor Premier Manufacturing 7/1/2021 1839 RYO 6oz Blue Premier Manufacturing 7/1/2021 1839 RYO 6oz Menthol Premier Manufacturing 7/1/2021 1839 Silver 100's Box Premier Manufacturing 7/1/2021 1839 Silver King Box Premier Manufacturing 7/1/2021 1st Class Blue 100's Box Premier Manufacturing 7/1/2021 1st Class Blue King Box Premier Manufacturing 7/1/2021 1st Class Menthol Green 100's Box Premier Manufacturing 7/1/2021 1st Class Menthol Green King Box Premier Manufacturing 7/1/2021 1st Class Menthol Silver 100's Box Premier Manufacturing 7/1/2021 1st Class Non Filter King Box Premier Manufacturing 7/1/2021 1st Class Red 100's Box Premier Manufacturing 7/1/2021 1st Class Red King Box Premier Manufacturing 7/1/2021 1st Class Silver 100's Box Premier Manufacturing 7/1/2021 24/7 Gold 100's Xcaliber International 7/1/2021 24/7 Gold King Xcaliber International 7/1/2021 24/7 Menthol 100's Xcaliber International 7/1/2021 24/7 Menthol Gold 100's Xcaliber International 7/1/2021 24/7 Menthol King Xcaliber International 7/1/2021 24/7 Red 100's Xcaliber International 7/1/2021 24/7 Red King Xcaliber International 7/1/2021 24/7 Silver Xcaliber International 7/1/2021 Amsterdam Shag 35g Pouch or 150g Tin Peter Stokkebye Tobaksfabrik A/S 7/1/2021 Bali Shag RYO gold or navy pouch or canister Top Tobacco L.P.
    [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]
  • Group Income Statement
    news release www.bat.com 06 May 2009 BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO p.l.c. INTERIM MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED 31 MARCH 2009 • Strong revenue growth at both constant and current exchange rates • Volumes from subsidiaries increased 7 per cent to 170 billion • All four Global Drive Brands grew volume, with overall growth of 7 per cent Trading update British American Tobacco had a good start to 2009 and is continuing to build on the success achieved in 2008. Group revenue for the three months grew strongly in constant currency terms, driven by the continued good pricing momentum and volume growth from the acquisitions made in the middle of last year (Skandinavisk Tobakskompagni (ST) and Tekel). All regions contributed to this good result. Revenue benefited further from the favourable impact of significant exchange rate movements which more than offset the adverse transactional impact of exchange rates on costs. Group volumes from subsidiaries were 170 billion, up 7 per cent, mainly as a result of the acquisitions of ST and Tekel. Excluding the benefits of these acquisitions, volumes were in line with last year with premium volumes slightly ahead. The four Global Drive Brands continued their strong performance and achieved overall volume growth of 7 per cent. Dunhill was up 8 per cent, Kent 3 per cent, Lucky Strike 4 per cent and Pall Mall grew by 11 per cent. Cigarette volumes The segmental analysis of the volumes of subsidiaries is as follows: 3 months to Year to 31.03.09 31.03.08 31.12.08 bns bns bns Asia-Pacific 43.3 42.9 179.5 Americas 37.9 39.2 161.0 Western Europe 29.7 25.1 122.6 Eastern Europe 27.1 29.1 137.3 Africa and Middle East 31.5 22.1 114.2 169.5 158.4 714.6 Trading environment This performance was achieved against general trading conditions which became tougher during the quarter with lower industry volumes in a number of key markets and a deceleration of growth in the premium segment.
    [Show full text]
  • INTERNATIONAL CIGARETTE PACKAGING STUDY Summary
    INTERNATIONAL CIGARETTE PACKAGING STUDY Summary Technical Report June 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS RESEARCH TEAM ................................................................................................................... iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 2.0 STUDY PROTOCOL ........................................................................................................... 1 2.1 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................ 1 2.2 SAMPLE AND RECRUITMENT ................................................................................. 2 3.0 STUDY CONTENT ............................................................................................................. 3 3.1 STUDY 1: HEALTH WARNING MESSAGES ............................................................... 3 3.2 STUDY 2: CIGARETTE PACKAGING ......................................................................... 4 4.0 MEASURES...................................................................................................................... 6 4.1 QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................... 6 4.2 QUESTIONNAIRE CONTENT ................................................................................... 6 5.0 SAMPLE INFORMATION ................................................................................................... 9 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Sproule Et Al V. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco
    Case 0:15-cv-62064-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2015 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JUSTIN SPROULE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, No. Plaintiff, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. SANTA FE NATURAL TOBACCO COMPANY, INC., and REYNOLDS AMERICAN INC., Defendants. / CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Justin Sproule, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated in the United States, by and through the undersigned counsel, files this Class Action Complaint, and alleges against Defendants, Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. and Reynolds American Inc., as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. Defendants manufacture, market, and sell Natural American Spirit cigarettes (“American Spirits”). Defendants’ product labeling and advertising describes these cigarettes as “Natural,” “Additive Free,” “100% Additive Free,” “Organic,” and an “unadulterated tobacco product.”1 These terms are intended to suggest that American Spirits are healthier, safer, and present a lower risk of tobacco-related disease than other tobacco products. Defendants, however, have no competent or reliable scientific evidence to back their labeling and advertising claims. Defendants’ claims are patently deceptive, especially in today’s market, where these terms have a 1 https://www.sfntc.com/site/ourCompany/sfntc-story/ (last visited Aug. 28, 2015). Case 0:15-cv-62064-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2015 Page 2 of 20 potent meaning for the health-and environmentally-conscious consumer. Moreover, as the FDA recently determined, American Spirits are in fact ‘adulterated.’ Using these deceptive terms, Defendants are able to successfully price American Spirits higher than other competitive cigarette brands.
    [Show full text]
  • Use of Non Cigarette Tobacco Products (NCTP) Smokeless
    Non Cigarette Tobacco Products (NCTP) and Electronic cigarettes (e-cigs) Michael V. Burke EdD Asst: Professor of Medicine Nicotine Dependence Center Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN Email: [email protected] ©2011 MFMER | slide-1 Goals & Objectives • Review NCTP definitions & products • Discuss prevalence/trends of NCTP • Discuss NCTP and addiction • Review recommended treatments for NCTP ©2011 MFMER | slide-2 NCTP Definitions & Products ©2011 MFMER | slide-3 Pipes ©2011 MFMER | slide-4 Cigars Images from www.trinketsandtrash.org ©2011 MFMER | slide-5 Cigar Definition U.S. Department of Treasury (1996): Cigar “Any roll of tobacco wrapped in leaf tobacco or any substance containing tobacco.” vs. Cigarette “Any roll of tobacco wrapped in paper or in any substance not containing tobacco.” ©2011 MFMER | slide-6 NCI Monograph 9. Cigars: Health Effects and Trends. ©2011 MFMER | slide-7 ©2011 MFMER | slide-8 Smokeless Tobacco Chewing tobacco • Loose leaf (i.e., Redman) • Plugs • Twists Snuff • Moist (i.e., Copenhagen, Skoal) • Dry (i.e., Honest, Honey bee, Navy, Square) ©2011 MFMER | slide-9 “Chewing Tobacco” = Cut tobacco leaves ©2011 MFMER | slide-10 “Snuff” = Moist ground tobacco ©2011 MFMER | slide-11 Type of ST Used in U.S. Chewing Tobacco Snuff National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) ©2011 MFMER | slide-12 “Spitless Tobacco” – Star Scientific ©2011 MFMER | slide-13 RJ Reynold’s ©2011 MFMER | slide-14 “Swedish Style” ST ©2011 MFMER | slide-15 Phillip Morris (Altria) ©2011 MFMER | slide-16 New Product: “Fully Dissolvables” ©2011 MFMER
    [Show full text]
  • Cigarette Minimum Retail Price List
    MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE FILING ENFORCEMENT BUREAU CIGARETTE AND TOBACCO EXCISE UNIT PRESUMPTIVE MINIMUM RETAIL PRICES EFFECTIVE July 26, 2021 The prices listed below are based on cigarettes delivered by the wholesaler and do not include the 6.25 percent sales tax. Brands of cigarettes held in current inventory may be sold at the new presumptive minimum prices for those brands. Changes and additions are bolded. Non-Chain Stores Chain Stores Retail Retail Brand (Alpha) Carton Pack Carton Pack 1839 $86.64 $8.66 $85.38 $8.54 1st Class $71.49 $7.15 $70.44 $7.04 Basic $122.21 $12.22 $120.41 $12.04 Benson & Hedges $136.55 $13.66 $134.54 $13.45 Benson & Hedges Green $115.28 $11.53 $113.59 $11.36 Benson & Hedges King (princess pk) $134.75 $13.48 $132.78 $13.28 Cambridge $124.78 $12.48 $122.94 $12.29 Camel All others $116.56 $11.66 $114.85 $11.49 Camel Regular - Non Filter $141.43 $14.14 $139.35 $13.94 Camel Turkish Blends $110.14 $11.01 $108.51 $10.85 Capri $141.43 $14.14 $139.35 $13.94 Carlton $141.43 $14.14 $139.35 $13.94 Checkers $71.54 $7.15 $70.49 $7.05 Chesterfield $96.53 $9.65 $95.10 $9.51 Commander $117.28 $11.73 $115.55 $11.56 Couture $72.23 $7.22 $71.16 $7.12 Crown $70.76 $7.08 $69.73 $6.97 Dave's $107.70 $10.77 $106.11 $10.61 Doral $127.10 $12.71 $125.23 $12.52 Dunhill $141.43 $14.14 $139.35 $13.94 Eagle 20's $88.31 $8.83 $87.01 $8.70 Eclipse $137.16 $13.72 $135.15 $13.52 Edgefield $73.41 $7.34 $72.34 $7.23 English Ovals $125.44 $12.54 $123.59 $12.36 Eve $109.30 $10.93 $107.70 $10.77 Export A $120.88 $12.09 $119.10 $11.91
    [Show full text]
  • Submission of Plans for Cigarette Packages and Cigarette Advertisements (Revised)*
    Contains Nonbinding Recommendations Submission of Plans for Cigarette Packages and Cigarette Advertisements (Revised)* Guidance for Industry Comments may be submitted at any time for Agency consideration. Electronic comments may be submitted to https://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, submit written comments to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061, Rockville, MD, 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket number listed in the notice of availability that publishes in the Federal Register. For questions regarding this guidance, contact the Center for Tobacco Products at (Tel) 1-877- CTP-1373 (1-877-287-1373) Monday-Friday, 9 a.m. – 4 p.m. EDT. Additional copies are available online at https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/products- guidance-regulations/rules-regulations-and-guidance. You may send an e-mail request to [email protected] to receive an electronic copy of this guidance. You may send a request for hard copies to U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Tobacco Products, Attn: Office of Small Business Assistance, Document Control Center, Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products July 2021 OMB Control Number: 0910-0877 Expiration Date: 4/30/2023 See additional PRA statement in Section IV of the guidance *This is a revision to the third edition of this final guidance, which issued in February 2021. A summary of the revisions is at the end of the guidance. Contains Nonbinding Recommendations Table of Contents I.
    [Show full text]