Stay Informed

Sign up for news & alerts

Already signed up?
Login here

take action
For every $1 states spend dollar sign on substance misuse and addiction, 94 cents go to shovel up the consequences instead of for treatment and prevention. TELL YOUR LEGISLATORS

What Can I Do?



Continuing Education
Free online courses for addiction counselors LEARN ONLINE

Get Help
Need alcohol or drug help for yourself or someone else? GET HELP

 

Cigarette Companies Use Color to Convey 'Mild' Message
October 9, 2009

Share Share Email
Email
Print
Print
SubscribeSubscribe
News Summary

Federal law will soon bar cigarette companies from using terms like 'mild' and 'light' to describe their products, but marketers are using pastels and other soft color schemes on packaging to convey the same impression, the Boston Globe reported Oct. 8.

Pall Mall Lights, for example, are now called Pall Mall Blues and are encased in a royal-blue package. The former Salem Lights are now dubbed Salem Gold Box, with the color scheme shifted from kelly green to pastels and white.

Critics see the new designs as an attempt to subvert the new tobacco-advertising laws that will be enforced by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Company officials deny that. "By using designations such as colors, that makes it possible for retailers and adult tobacco consumers to clearly identify the different styles moving forward," said David Howard, a spokesperson for R.J. Reynolds.

However, research in countries with similar laws finds that smokers believe that cigarettes sold under names like "silver," "gold" and "smooth" are safer than others and less addictive. "These tricks are now well-established," said Stanton Glantz, a tobacco-control expert at the University of California at San Francisco. "The real question for the FDA is, are they going to let them get away with these shenanigans?" An FDA spokesperson said the agency is aware of the issue and will "thoroughly review the use of descriptors, including the use of color."

"You don't need McDonald's written under the golden arches to know it's McDonald's," said marketing expert Douglas Quintal of Emerson College. "In my estimation, that's what the tobacco industry's banking on, that consumers will read beyond the gold and the new naming and look at the new package and say, 'Yeah, that's low tar, that's low nicotine.'"

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

Posted by rc on 13 Oct 09 09:54 AM EDT
If society doesn't know by now about the tricks big tobacco does, then we are morons.I don't smoke and hate going places that still permit it. I hate coming home and smelling like a ashtray. But, I'm equally tired of hearing about all this. Government isn't going to do anything but take the money from tobacco and spend it any way they want. In PA they passed the Clean Indoor Act. It's monintored by the liquor control board enforcement arm. I have yet to read about any business being fined or having their liquor license revoked for it, let along any fines. Portions of the master settlement years ago was suppose to go towards prevention and treatment efforts. States are using it for everything but what it was intended for. People are going to continue regardless of all the information/research we supply that proves how deadly it is. What about the packaging on happy meals at McD's? The food is high in fat and contributes towards childhood obesity. So, what's next, plain brown bags?

Posted by Bill Godshall on 13 Oct 09 11:14 AM EDT
For several decades, cigarette companies have marketed light, ultralight and mild cigarette brands in distinctly different lighter colors. For the past five years, I've pointed out (in Congressional testimony, multiple letters to Congress, news articles and conference presentations) that the FDA legislation's ban on light, ultralight, and mild cigarette brand descriptors (which I strongly support) would result in manufacturers renaming those brands as the pack color (e.g. Marlboro Lights will become Marlboro Gold, Marlboro Ultralights will become Marlboro Silver). And of course, I've repeatedly informed Stan Glantz and Greg Connolly (both of whom are quoted in the Boston Globe article criticizing cigarettes companies for doing exactly as I predicted). Since banning colors would clearly violate the 1st amendment, I also repeately urged Congress (and recently the FDA) to amend the legislation to require warnings on all cigarette packs truthfully informing smokers that light, ultralight and mild brands are just as hazardous as other cigarettes. But Glantz and Connolly (as well as CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA, AMA, Waxman, Kennedy and other FDA bill advocates) refused to support and/or opposed these (and other) changes to the legislation. The overwhelming majority of smokers inaccurately beleive that light cigarette brands are less hazardous than other cigarettes, but most anti tobacco activist refuse to support efforts to inform smokers of this myth. Instead, they prefer blaming cigarette companies for their own actions to keep smokers ignorant.

Posted by A. Yale on 13 Oct 09 11:44 AM EDT
As unhealthy as smoking is, we should not make it harder for the smoker to take in less tar and nicotine. Does society wish to become sadistic and encourage smokers to buy the highest tar and nicotine cigarettes? RC makes a good analogy with fast food. Should we disallow purveyors of saturated fats from listing their calories or percentages of fat?

Posted by Sandra Streifel on 13 Oct 09 12:11 PM EDT
In Canada, cigarette packages must be stored in a closed cabinet, so the packages are not on display. Warning labels including graphic photographs of diseased tissue must take up half the package area, and tnere are calls for generic packaging with the same colour and typeface for all brands. I don't know if any of these curbs on advertising have affected smoking rates. Taxes on tobacco do go into general revenue-but cost is the #1 reason people give for quitting.

SUBMIT A COMMENT:

Note: Comments are now held for moderator approval. More info

Name:

Comment:
(limit 250
words)

Enter this word
(help):
Change

GUIDELINES: 
Please keep comments on-topic, courteous, clean, non-commercial, and within the word limit.
Read the complete guidelines