The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has regulatory authority for modified risk tobacco product advertising claims. To guide future regulatory efforts, we investigated how variations in modified risk claim advertisements influence consumer perceptions of product risk claims for Camel Snus.
Methods:
Young people and adults (15–65), including current, never, and former smokers, were randomised to view one of five Camel Snus print advertisements as part of a web-based survey. Four of the advertisements presented information related to nitrosamine content of snus using four formats: (1) text, (2) a bar chart, (3) a text/testimonial and (4) a bar chart/testimonial. The fifth format, used as a control, was a current advertisement for Camel Snus without the explicit claims made about nitrosamine content. After viewing advertisements for all products, participants were asked which product they would be most interested in trying.
Results:
Participants exposed to advertisements that contained an explicit reduced risk message agreed the advertising claim for that product posed fewer health risks than cigarettes. However, advertisements containing the reduced risk messages were also viewed as containing less truthful information and respondents were more sceptical of the information presented. Advertisement claim format was not associated with selecting snus over the other tobacco products, nor was it associated with purchase intentions.
Conclusion:
The results of this research indicate that consumers respond to reduced risk messages, though perhaps not in the direct way anticipated. We found no significant differences by advertisement format (numerical, graphical, testimonial).
AnckerJSSenathirajahYKukafkaRet al. (2006) Design features of graphs in health risk communication: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association13(6): 608–618.
2.
Bansal-TraversMHammondDSmithPet al. (2011) The impact of cigarette pack design, descriptors, and warning labels on risk perception in the U.S. American Journal of Preventive Medicine40(6): 674–682.
3.
Bansal-TraversMO’ConnorRFixBVet al. (2011) What do cigarette pack colors communicate to smokers in the U.S.?American Journal of Preventive Medicine40(6): 683–689.
4.
BienerLBogenKConnollyG (2007) Impact of corrective health information on consumers’ perceptions of ‘reduced exposure’ tobacco products. Tobacco Control16(5): 306–311.
5.
BienerLMccauslandKCurryLet al. (2011) Prevalence of trial of Snus products among adult smokers. American Journal of Public Health101(10): 1874–1876.
6.
BienerLRomanAMMcInerneySAet al. (2016) Snus use and rejection in the USA. Tobacco Control25(4): 386–392.
7.
ChangJTLevyDTMezaR (2016) Trends and factors related to smokeless tobacco use in the united states. Nicotine & Tobacco Research18: 1740–1748.
8.
DaveDMSafferH (2013) Demand for smokeless tobacco: Role of advertising. Journal of Health Economics32: 682–697.
9.
DelnevoCDWackowskiOAGiovencoDPet al. (2012) Examining market trends in the United States smokeless tobacco use: 2005–2011. Tobacco Control23(2): 107–112.
10.
EllwoodKCTrumboPRKavanaughCJ (2010) How the US food and drug administration evaluates the scientific evidence for health claims. Nutrition Reviews68(2): 114–121.
11.
GartnerCEHallWDChapmanSet al. (2007) Should the health community promote smokeless tobacco (Snus) as a harm reduction measure?PLoS Medicine4: e185.
12.
HallMGRibislKMBrewerNT (2013) Smokers’ and nonsmokers’ beliefs about harmful tobacco constituents: Implications for FDA communication efforts. Nicotine & Tobacco Research16(3): 343–350.
KapsakWRSchmidtDChildsNMet al. (2008) Consumer perceptions of graded, graphic and text label presentations for qualified health claims. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition48(3): 248–256.
18.
KaufmanARMaysDKoblitzARet al. (2014) Judgments, awareness, and the use of Snus among adults in the United States. Nicotine & Tobacco Research16(10): 1404–1408.
19.
KiviniemiMTKozlowskiLT (2015) Deficiencies in public understanding about tobacco harm reduction: Results from a United States national survey. Harm Reduction Journal12(1).
20.
KostyginaGEnglandLLingP (2016) New product marketing blurs the line between nicotine replacement therapy and smokeless tobacco products. American Journal of Public Health106(7): 1219–1222.
21.
KozlowskiLSweanorD (2016) Withholding differential risk information on legal consumer nicotine/tobacco products: The public health ethics of health information quarantines. The International Journal on Drug Policy32: 17–23.
LevyDTMumfordEACummingsKMet al. (2004) The relative risks of a low-nitrosamine smokeless tobacco product compared with smoking cigarettes: Estimates of a panel of experts. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention13: 2035–2042.
24.
McCafferyKJDixonAHayenAet al. (2012) The influence of graphic display format on the interpretations of quantitative risk information among adults with lower education and literacy: A randomized experimental study. Medical Decision Making : An International Journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making32: 532–544.
25.
MaysDMoranMBLevyDTet al. (2015) The impact of health warning labels for Swedish Snus advertisements on young adults’ Snus perceptions and behavioral intentions. Nicotine & Tobacco Research18(5): 1371–1375.
26.
MoodieCFordAMackintoshAet al. (2015) Are all cigarettes just the same? Female’s perceptions of slim, coloured, aromatized and capsule cigarettes. Health Education Research30(1): 1–12.
27.
O’ConnorRJBansal-TraversMCummingsKMet al. (2015) Filter presence and tipping paper color influence consumer perceptions of cigarettes. BMC Public Health15: 1279.
28.
O’ConnorRJNortonKJBansal-TraversMet al. (2011) US smokers’ reactions to a brief trial of oral nicotine products. Harm Reduction Journal8: 1477–7517.
29.
PeetersSGilmoreAB (2013) How online sales and promotion of snus contravenes current European union legislation. Tobacco Control22(4): 266–273.
30.
PeetersSGilmoreAB (2013) Transnational tobacco company interests in smokeless tobacco in Europe: Analysis of internal industry documents and contemporary industry materials. PLoS Medicine10(9): e1001506.
31.
PopovaLLingPM (2014) Nonsmokers’ responses to new warning labels on smokeless tobacco and electronic cigarettes: An experimental study. BMC Public Health14: 997.
32.
PopovaLNeilandsTBLingPM (2014) Testing messages to reduce smokers’ openness to using novel smokeless tobacco products. Tobacco Control23: 313–321.
ReesVWKreslakeJMCummingsKMet al. (2009) Assessing consumer responses to potential reduced-exposure tobacco products: A review of tobacco industry and independent research methods. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, & Prevention18: 3225–3240.
35.
RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company (2003) Comments to proposed rulemaking, fire safety standards for cigarettes. RJ Reynolds. Available at: http://tobaccodocuments.org (Bates No. 528767372)
36.
SchwartzLMWoloshinS (2013) The drug facts box: Improving the communication of prescription drug information. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences110(Suppl. 3): 14069–14074.
37.
SmithPBansal-TraversMOconnorRet al. (2011) Correcting over 50 years of tobacco industry misinformation. American Journal of Preventive Medicine40(6): 690–698.
38.
TanCEKyrissTGlantzSA (2013) Tobacco company efforts to influence the food and drug administration-commissioned institute of medicine report clearing the smoke: An analysis of documents released through litigation. PLoS Medicine10(5): e1001450.
39.
TomarSL (2007) Epidemiologic perspectives on smokeless tobacco marketing and population harm. American Journal of Preventive Medicine33(6): S387–S397.
40.
TomarSLFoxBJSeversonHH (2009) Is smokeless tobacco use an appropriate public health strategy for reducing societal harm from cigarette smoking?International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health6(1): 10–24.
41.
US Department of Health and Human Services (2012) 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.
42.
US Department of Health and Human Services (2014) The Health Consequences of Smoking – 50 Years of Progress: 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.
WackowskiOADelnevoCD (2015) Young adults’ risk perceptions of various tobacco products relative to cigarettes. Health Education & Behavior43(3): 328–336.
45.
WakefieldMMorleyCHoranJKet al. (2002) The cigarette pack as image: New evidence from tobacco industry documents. Tobacco Control11(Suppl. 1): i73–i80.
