The Meaning of “Light” and “Ultralight” Cigarettes: A Commentary on Smith, Stutts, and Zank

Abstract

The authors question Smith, Stutts, and Zank's (2012) conclusion that young adult smokers interpret "light" and "mild" as taste attributes on several grounds. First, the current study examines evidence from industry documents that reveal strategies to use light and mild variants to reassure smokers. Second, the authors explore the multiple meanings of terms such as "light" and "mild" and illustrate how "light" is commonly used to imply a reduction, particularly in food and alcohol products. Third, they review the extensive consumer evidence documenting smokers' belief that light cigarette variants will deliver less tar and nicotine and reduce the risk of harms arising from smoking. Finally, they review Smith, Stutts, and Zank's findings and suggest that their sample, predominantly social smokers, has important cognitive biases. The authors identify limitations in the measures of risk used, suggest that these elicit only superficial risk understanding, and conclude that Smith, Stutts, and Zank's findings reveal a considerable potential for harm. As a result, they conclude that Smith, Stutts, and Zank's study has consolidated prior findings by revealing high levels of deception, even among college students, who might be expected to be better educated and more discerning.

The Impact of the Content of the Label on the Buying Intention of a Wine Consumer

“…The search for strategies that encourage consumer confidence in a product is a key factor for influencing the purchase decision of any given consumer. This research confirmed that the available information on the label can be highly positive in suggesting the purchase intention for different consumers: experts, non-experts, women, and man (Van Den Bulcke and Verbeke, 2001; Hoek and Dewhirst, 2012; Bradu et al, 2014).…”

Effects of brand variants on smokers’ choice behaviours and risk perceptions

“…Since brand descriptors have a long history of deception, many countries now prohibit terms such as ‘light’ and ‘mild’, which create misleading reduced harm connotations 14–18. Tobacco companies responded to these restrictions by introducing synonyms; terms such as ‘smooth’, ‘fine’ and ‘rich’, to recreate and perpetuate the deceptive connotations ‘light’ and ‘mild’ generated 15 16 18–20. Their replacement strategy appears to have been successful as smokers report shifting from brands featuring banned descriptors such as ‘light’ to brands using synonymous replacement descriptors 21…”

Interplay of food and tobacco product descriptors and health claims

“…'Light' signals a lowering of ingredients that are perceived as undesirable or unhealthy. 5 For food products, 'light' often points to a reduction in sugar, fat or calories (figure 1B). For tobacco products, 'light' commonly signals a lower reported tar yield (figure 1C).…”

“…‘Light’ serves as another example of a descriptor used for food and tobacco products that is indicative of a health claim. ‘Light’ signals a lowering of ingredients that are perceived as undesirable or unhealthy 5. For food products, ‘light’ often points to a reduction in sugar, fat or calories (figure 1B).…”