Impact of modified risk tobacco product claims on beliefs of US adults and adolescents

Abstract

ObjectiveUnder US law, tobacco product marketing may claim lower exposure to chemicals, or lower risk of health harms, only if these claims do not mislead the public. We sought to examine the impact of such marketing claims about potential modified risk tobacco products (MRTPs).MethodsParticipants were national samples of 4797 adults and 969 adolescent US smokers and non-smokers. We provided information about a potential MRTP (heated tobacco product, electronic cigarette or snus). Experiment 1 stated that the MRTP was as harmful as cigarettes or less harmful (lower risk claim). Experiment 2 stated that the MRTP exposed users to a similar quantity of harmful chemicals as cigarettes or to fewer chemicals (lower exposure claim).ResultsClaiming lower risk led to lower perceived quantity of chemicals and lower perceived risk among adults and adolescents (all p<0.05, Experiment 1). Among adults, this claim led to higher susceptibility to using the MRTP (p<0.05). Claiming lower exposure led to lower perceived chemical quantity and lower perceived risk (all p<0.05), but had no effect on use susceptibility (Experiment 2). Participants thought that snus exposed users to more chemicals and was less safe to use than heated tobacco products or electronic cigarette MRTPs (Experiments 1 and 2).DiscussionRisk and exposure claims acted similarly on MRTP beliefs. Lower exposure claims misled the public to perceive lower perceived risk even though no lower risk claim was explicitly made, which is impermissible under US law.

Light and mild redux: heated tobacco products’ reduced exposure claims are likely to be misunderstood as reduced risk claims

“…PMI’s own qualitative and quantitative studies consistently show that reduced exposure claims are likely to be perceived as reduced risk claims and will, therefore, mislead the public. While few studies outside the tobacco industry evaluated consumer perceptions of reduced risk or reduced exposure claims for non-cigarette tobacco products, 32 – 34 the results were similar. El-Toukhy et al 34 found that modified exposure claims reduced perceived risks of snus and e-cigarette products among adults and adolescents.…”

“…While few studies outside the tobacco industry evaluated consumer perceptions of reduced risk or reduced exposure claims for non-cigarette tobacco products, 32 – 34 the results were similar. El-Toukhy et al 34 found that modified exposure claims reduced perceived risks of snus and e-cigarette products among adults and adolescents. These results indicate that perceptions of exposure and risk are highly correlated and communication about one—either lower risk or lower exposure—reduces perceptions of both risk and chemical exposure.…”

“…PMI is using the same playbook in marketing IQOS around the world by promoting IQOS as sophisticated and aspirational, 7 emphasising the themes of cleanliness, customisation and sociability 6 . Based on what we have learnt from marketing of light cigarettes and natural tobacco, 42 – 44 as well as the results of PMI’s own research, it is likely that these claims will also be understood by consumers as reduced risk claims 34 …”

PMI’s heated tobacco products marketing claims of reduced risk and reduced exposure may entice youth to try and continue using these products

“…When assessing how these claims of reduced risk and reduced exposure could impact consumers’ and possible consumers’ understanding and perceptions of IQOS, particular attention must be paid to the impact on youth as youth will likely not understand or will misinterpret these claims 4–6. Further, applicable law mandates that any advertising or labelling concerning products marketed with reduced exposure claims does not mislead consumers 7.…”

Heated tobacco product regulation under US law and the FCTC

“… 27 50 51 Independent research also demonstrates that adults and adolescents misinterpret reduced-exposure claims as communicating lower risk even when there is no explicit claim of lower risk. 52 TPSAC also found that PMI failed to demonstrate that consumers would accurately understand the risks of IQOS as conveyed in PMI’s proposed MRTP labelling and advertising. 13…”