Smoking cessation messages aimed at smokers of light and ultra light cigarettes, approximately two-thirds of the U.S. cigarette market, must take into account that these products do provide positive sensory experiences like feeling less harsh, which can support a misperception about their health benefit. This conclusion is based on a study of smokers' beliefs planned for presentation today at the 11th World Conference on Tobacco OR Health in Chicago.
According to the study of more than 2,000 adult U.S. smokers, many smokers choose light or ultra light cigarettes because they believe these products are safer, produce milder sensations, will help them quit and deliver less tar and nicotine than regular cigarettes.
"Despite smokers' positive perception of lights' and ultra lights' health benefits, numerous scientific studies show the dangers of smoking and that these products can deliver as much tar and nicotine as regular cigarettes," says Saul Shiffman, Ph.D., professor of psychology at the University of Pittsburgh and author of the study. "It is a matter of public health urgency to inform light and ultra light smokers of the true risks of these cigarettes and to persuade them to quit smoking completely." Shiffman will discuss the findings during the World Conference's workshop, "Light Cigarettes – Problems and Possible Solutions," on Monday, Aug. 7 at 7 a.m. CDT.
Reports expected in the next few months from the U.S Department of Health and Human Services and the Institute of Medicine will further examine the science and disease impact of light and ultra light cigarettes and smokers' beliefs about these products, Shiffman notes.
"We have reason to be concerned about whether Œlight' cigarettes provide any benefit. Whatever small benefit may, or may not, exist, the evidence presented today shows that the public certainly misunderstands these products," comments Judith Wilkenfeld, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. "With the introduction of new purported Œreduced risk' drug-delivery products by the tobacco industry, smokers and non-smokers alike should question the industry and be skeptical about the evidence generated by the industry of the relative safety of these products."
Statements about cigarette's tar and nicotine levels, which appear in all U.S. cigarette advertising, are based on a machine-based method developed in the 1960s, and does not rely on actual human smoking behavior . These tests show that lights and ultra lights yield less tar and nicotine than regular cigarettes, thereby inferring that smokers are exposed to fewer toxins. However, several studies show that the tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide yields measured using the machine understate the actual exposure of human smokers, Shiffman notes.
The machine test does not account for a wide range of human behaviors when smoking that are well documented in other studies and related to the design of the product and tobacco addiction, such as frequency, duration and volume of each puff. For example, manufacturers create vent holes in the cigarette rod to dilute the smoke, thereby reducing exposure to tar and nicotine, yet smokers often partially or completely block vents with their lips or fingers, allowing the cigarette to deliver as much of these chemicals as a regular cigarette.
For the study, Shiffman and his coauthors examined how three different message strategies might impact smokers' attitudes and quitting intentions. Specifically, they measured changes in smokers' beliefs that lights and ultra lights are healthier or safer, deliver lower tar and nicotine, and feel smoother or easier. The investigators queried 2,120 adults aged 18 and older who were daily smokers of regular, light and ultra light cigarettes.
Of the three message strategies, the sensory-focused message resulted in the most consistent and encouraging changes in beliefs and quitting intentions, Shiffman notes. This message indicated that while lights and ultra lights feel less harsh or strong on their throat and chest, these sensations do not reflect a health benefit.
The second message that focused on the blocking of cigarette vents also strongly affected perceptions of delivery and moderately changed beliefs about safety, although these effects were not as large as seen with the sensory-focused message. The third message, which had the least effect, reinforced the dangers of smoking using text from the U.S. Surgeon General's warnings that must appear on all U.S. cigarette packs.
"The data showed that exposure to the sensory-focused message increased interest in quitting, more so than the messages about blocking cigarette vents and the general hazards of smoking," Shiffman says.
Among the smokers expressing some interest in quitting, 32.7 percent of those exposed to the sensory message advanced in interest in quitting, compared to 16.3 percent of those who heard the vents message and 10.7 percent of those who heard the health message.
Shiffman's coauthors of the study include Janine L. Pillitteri, Ph.D., Jeffrey M. Rohay, M.S., and Joe G.Gitchell, B.A., of Pinney Associates, and Steven L. Burton, M.B.A., of SmithKline Beecham Consumer Healthcare, which supported the study. Shiffman also is Senior Scientific Advisor at Pinney Associates.
Marion E. Glick
212-601-8273
mailto:Marion_Glick@porternovelli.com