Study: Cigarette Packaging Misleads Smokers

Study: Cigarette Packaging Misleads Smokers
August 17, 2009

Research Summary

A recent study found that simple design elements such as the colors, words and images used on cigarette packaging can mislead smokers into thinking that certain tobacco products are less harmful to their health, the Agence France-Presse reported on Aug. 4.

About 600 smokers and non-smokers participated in the University of Waterloo's study. Participants were shown pairs of cigarette packages with fake brand names and were asked for their impressions of the products. The packs were identical in design except for an added color or words such as "light" or "full flavor" -- terms that have already been banned in several countries. Each package included Canada's mandatory health warning label.

About 80 percent of participants believed the cigarettes in a light-blue package contained less tar, would taste better, and would be less dangerous than the ones in the packages that were dark blue.

Seventy percent of the participants said a pack that had a white image on it contained less tar, would taste better, and would be less dangerous than a pack that had a grey image.

Researchers expressed concern that tobacco companies can convince smokers that some cigarettes are less dangerous despite greater government restrictions on marketing.

"There is growing evidence that the removal of brand imagery from packaging -- so-called 'plain' packaging -- reduces the appeal of brands and increases the salience of health warnings," according to the study, which was authored by David Hammond and Carla Parkinson.

The research appeared in the July 2009 issue of the Oxford Public Health Journal.

This article summarizes an external report or press release on research published in a scientific journal. When available, links to the sources are provided above.

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

Posted by Bill Godshall on 18 Aug 09 11:53 AM EDT

Since they were introduced several decades ago, so-called "light" have had lighter color packaging and advertising than full flavored brands (and "ultralight" with even lighter colors) to help market them as less hazardous cigarettes,with "light" and "ultralight" menthol cigarettes marketed in light annd lighter greens and blues. Lights and ultralights now have a majority of cigarette market share, with 85% of smokers (and the public) inaccurately believing that they are less hazardous than "full flavor" cigarettes, and with 99% inaccurately believing that filtered cigarettes (now 99% of market share) are less hazardous than nonfiltered brands. While the recently enacted US FDA tobacco law will wisely bans (next year) the words "light", ultralight" and "mild" from cigarette brand names and packsages, most smokers will quickly recognize their brand (and others) at retail stores by its distinctive colors and graphics. Marlboro Light (the largest selling cigarette brand) will become Marlboro Gold and Marlboro Ultralight (the largest selling ultralight brand) will become Marlboro Silver. Unfortunately, due to opposition by CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA, Kennedy & Waxman, the new FDA law does NOTHING to inform smokers that lights and ultralights are just as deadly as other cigarettes, so most smokers will continue believing that they are smoking less hazardous cigarettes.

Posted by Diane on 18 Aug 09 01:06 PM EDT

The use of lightly colored packaging to denote "light", "diet", "low sodium", "low fat", etc is common throughout the food and beverage market, without producers having to defiine their terms. The labels of these foods tend to be white, light blue, or even clear (on beverages bottles), so the confusion regarding cigarette labelling is easy to understand. I believe the tobacco industry purposely packages its product in the same manner specifically to confuse the consumer about the content or healthiness of its product. Other studies have clearly shown that the words on the package or in the ads are unimportant (usually because they aren't even read) than the type of packaging or the images used in the ads. People use the packaging of the product itself to give them information about the product so that they don't have to actually read the labels. Producers know that, which is why the FDA has forced food manufacturers to either not use certain labels or to more specifically describe its products. Using this strategy by the tobacco industry is a continuation of the strategies that it has always used to make the public think its product is cool (in the 1920's and 1930's) or safe (at first, tobacco in general, and starting in the 1960's with various low-something products).

Posted by David Brown on 18 Aug 09 01:15 PM EDT

the cigarette company should be made to put on the pack, that there is no difference in the health risk between light and full flavor brands.

Posted by nina on 19 Aug 09 03:06 PM EDT

How can you be told there is no difference when the regular smoker will tell you otherwise. I know people who can not even take a drag from a regular cig but can smoke lights. When I was a smoker, I got asthma with regular and not when smoking ultra lights. They say you inhale more if it is light and it does not mean a thing. My lungs and other people's lungs beg to differ. Filthy habit, but you can not fault the smoker for trying to stay with a light cig. They can tell when they breathe what the difference is between the two. I used to smoke for 30 years and I would get sick on regular but never the ultra light. How is this possible?

Few Countries Put Health Warnings on Tobacco Products, CDC Finds

Injunction Denied in Tobacco Firms' FDA Case

Cigarette Company Sues Over Display Ban

Group Targets Alcohol, Other 'Adult' Ads on Sports Broadcasts

Why Big Alcohol Can't Police Itself

Monograph 19: The Role of the Media in Tobacco Use