Impact of the removal of misleading terms on cigarette pack on smokers' beliefs about ‘light/mild’ cigarettes: cross‐country comparisons
Open accessAbstract
Aim This paper examines how smokers' beliefs about ‘light/mild’ cigarettes in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom were affected by the removal of misleading ‘light/mild’ terms from packs. Design, setting and participants The data come from the first seven waves (2002–09) of the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation (ITC) Four‐Country Survey, an annual cohort telephone survey of adult smokers in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia (21 613 individual cases). ‘Light’ and ‘mild’ descriptors were removed in 2003 in the United Kingdom, in 2006 in Australia and in 2007 in Canada. We compare beliefs about ‘light’ cigarettes both before and after the bans, with those of smokers in the United States serving as the control condition. Measures Smokers' beliefs about ‘light’ cigarettes were assessed using a set of statements rated on a five‐point ‘agree’–‘disagree’ scale. Findings The proportions of respondents reporting misperceptions about light cigarettes declined between 2002 and 2009 in all four countries. There were marked temporary reductions in reported misperceptions in the United Kingdom and Australia, but not in Canada, following the removal of ‘light/mild’ descriptors. Conclusions Removal of ‘light/mild’ descriptors and tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide yield information from cigarette packs is insufficient to effectively eliminate false beliefs. The combination of alternative descriptors and design features that produce differences in taste strength and harshness, independent of actual intakes, are sufficient to produce or sustain the same misbeliefs.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
PMI's Uruguayan subsidiary Abal responded to the prohibition by colour-coding cigarette packages, for example replacing Marlboro Lights with yellow Marlboro packages.
“Philip Morris International’s (PMI) Uruguayan subsidiary Abal Hermanos (Abal) responded to the prohibition by colour-coding cigarette packages (eg, replacing Marlboro Lights with yellow Marlboro packages).”
From Defending strong tobacco packaging and labelling regulations in Uruguay: transnational tobacco control network versus Philip Morris International (2018) · cites this paper as [30]
The Discussion (page unavailable) says tobacco companies in the UK, Australia and Canada replaced prohibited terms with systematic pack colour differences. It does not identify Uruguay, Abal Hermanos, or a change from Marlboro Lights to yellow Marlboro packages, so it supports the general practice but not this specific example. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe single pack presentation permitted only one variant of each cigarette brand, which prohibited the colour-coding of light and mild or menthol variants.
“(The single pack presentation permitted only one variant of each cigarette brand which prohibited the colour-coding of ‘light’ and ‘mild’28–3033 or menthol33 variants).”
From Defending strong tobacco packaging and labelling regulations in Uruguay: transnational tobacco control network versus Philip Morris International (2018) · cites this paper as [30]
The Discussion (page unavailable) reports that manufacturers used systematic pack-colour differences to signal ‘light’ and ‘mild’ variants, and says plain packaging would help eliminate cues to differential harm. It does not say that a single-pack presentation allowed only one variant per brand, prohibited colour-coding, or addressed menthol variants. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 17
- [1]Hecht S Murphy S Carmella S Similar uptake of lung carcinogens by smokers of regular, light, and ultralight cigarettes Cancer Epidemiology and Biomarkers Prevention 2005 14 639 698 15767351
- [3]Thun M Burns D Health impact of "reduced yield" cigarettes: a critical assessment of the epidemiological evidence Tobacco Control 2001 10 i4 i11 11740038 PMC1766045
- [4]Gilpin E Emery S White M Does tobacco industry marketing of "light" cigarettes give smokers a rationale for postponing quitting? Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2002 4 S147 S155 12573176
- [5]Kozlowski L Goldberg M Berwood A Smokers' misperceptions of light and ultra-light cigarettes may keep them smoking American Journal of Preventive Medicine 1998 15 9 16 9651633
- [6]Borland R Fong G Yong H What happened to smokers' beliefs about light cigarettes when "light/mild" brand descriptors were banned in the UK? Findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey Tobacco Control 2008 17 256 262 18426868 PMC4658347
- [7]Thompson M Fong G Hammond D The methodology of the International Tobacco Control Four-Country Survey Tobacco Control 2006 15 iii12 iii18 16754941 PMC2593059
- [9]Hanley J Negassa A Edwardes M Statistical analysis of correlated data using generalised estimating equations: an orientation American Journal of Epidemiology 2003 157 364 375 12578807
- [10]Mutti S Hammond D Borland R Beyond light and mild: cigarette brand descriptors and perceptions of risk in the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey Addiction 2011 106 PMC4419584 21481054
- [11]Callery W Hammond D O'Connor R Fong G The appeal of smokeless tobacco products among young Canadian smokers: the impact of pictorial health warnings and relative risk messages Nicotine and Tobacco Research in press 21357730
- [12]King B Borland R Abdul-Salaam S Divergence between strength indicators in packaging and cigarette engineering: a case study of Marlboro varieties in Australia and the United States Tobacco Control in press 20530138
- [13]O'Connor R Cummings K Giovino G McNeill A Kozlowski L How did UK cigarette makers reduce tar to 10 mg or less? BMJ 2006 332 302 16455737 PMC1360411
- [14]Kozlowski L O'Connor R Cigarette filter ventilation is a defective design because of misleading taste, bigger puffs and blocked vents Tobacco Control 2002 11 40 50 PMC1766061 11893814
- [15]Shiffman S Pillitteri J Burton S Smokers' beliefs about "light" and "ultra light" cigarettes Tobacco Control 2001 10 i17 i23 11740040 PMC1766054
- [16]Hammond D Parkinson C The impact of cigarette package design on perceptions of risk Journal of Public Health 2009 31 345 353 19636066
- [17]Hammond D Arnott D Dockrell M Lee A McNeill A Cigarette pack design and perceptions of risk among UK adult and youth: evidence in support of plain packaging European Journal of Public Health 2009 19 631 637 19726589
- [18]Bansal-Travers M Hammond D Smith P Cummings K The impact of cigarette pack design, descriptors, and warning labels on risk perception American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2010 Submitted PMC3108248 21565661
- [19]Borland R Young D Coghill K Zhang J The Tobacco Use Management System: Analyzing Tobacco Control From a Systems Perspective American Journal of Public Health 2010 100 1229 1236 20466970 PMC2882395
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Crosbie, E., Sosa, P., & Glantz, S. A. (2018) · Tobacco control · doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-053690 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
- Authors
- Yong, H., Borland, R., Cummings, K. M., Hammond, D., O'Connor, R. J., Hastings, G., & King, B.
- Affiliations
- Cancer Council Victoria (AU)
- Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center (US)
- University of Waterloo (CA)
- University of Stirling (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Yong, Hua‐Hie
- Venue
- Addiction
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-09-21
- Volume
- 106
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 2204-2213
- ISSN
- 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
- 1360-0443
- PMC
- PMC3208785
- OpenAlex
- W1903836434
- Cited by
- 62
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 3.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Addiction (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Stirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling) (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Open Research Online (The Open University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Cancer Research UK (C312/A3726)
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research (79551, 57897)
- National Cancer Institute (P01CA138389, P50CA111236, R01CA100362, P30CA016056)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
- Keywords
- misleading health claims, tobacco control, cross-national comparison, Australia, Canada, United Kingdom
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Advertising, Australia, Canada, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Data Collection, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Middle Aged, Terminology as Topic, Product Labeling, Smoking, Tars, United States, Cohort Studies, Program Evaluation, Tobacco Industry, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
