Sabeeh A Baig

Public understanding of cigarette smoke constituents: three US surveys

Introduction The Tobacco Control Act requires public disclosure of information about toxic constituents in cigarette smoke. To inform these efforts, we studied public understanding of cigarette smoke constituents. Methods We conducted phone surveys with national probability samples of adolescents (n=1125) and adults (n=5014) and an internet survey with a convenience sample of adults (n=4137), all in the USA. We assessed understanding of cigarette smoke constituents in general and of 24 specific constituents. Results Respondents commonly and incorrectly believed that harmful chemicals in cigarette smoke mostly originate in additives introduced by cigarette manufacturers (43–72%). Almost all participants had heard that nicotine is in cigarette smoke, and many had also heard about carbon monoxide, ammonia, arsenic and formaldehyde. Less than one-quarter had heard of most other listed constituents being in cigarette smoke. Constituents most likely to discourage respondents from wanting to smoke were ammonia, arsenic, formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide, lead and uranium. Respondents more often reported being discouraged by constituents that they had heard are in cigarette smoke (all p<0.05). Constituents with names that started with a number or ended in ‘ene’ or ‘ine’ were less likely to discourage people from wanting to smoke (all p<0.05). Discussion Many people were unaware that burning the cigarette is the primary source of toxic constituents in cigarette smoke. Constituents that may most discourage cigarette smoking have familiar names, like arsenic and formaldehyde and do not start with a number or end in ene/ine. Our findings may help campaign designers develop constituent messages that discourage smoking.

Adolescents’ and adults’ perceptions of ‘natural’, ‘organic’ and ‘additive-free’ cigarettes, and the required disclaimers

Objectives We sought to investigate adolescents’ and adults’ perceptions of an American Spirit advertisement with ‘natural’, ‘organic’ and ‘additive-free’ descriptors and related disclaimers. Methods We conducted nine focus group discussions in the Southern USA, with 59 participants aged 13–64 years (30 male, 29 female), stratified by age, smoking status and susceptibility to smoking. We conducted thematic content analysis of the transcripts. Results Many participants were sceptical or confused about the ‘natural’, ‘organic’ and ‘additive-free’ descriptors. Many participants viewed American Spirit cigarettes as being less, or possibly less harmful than other cigarettes, even though the ad contained disclaimers explicitly stating that these cigarettes are not safer. Some participants said that people tend to ignore disclaimers, a few expressed doubt that the disclaimers were fully true, and others did not notice the disclaimers. A few smokers said they smoke American Spirit cigarettes because they think they are not as bad for them as other cigarettes. Conclusions Disclaimers intended to prevent consumers from attributing a health benefit to cigarettes labelled as ‘natural’, ‘additive-free’, or ‘organic’ may be insufficient. A ban on these descriptors may be a more appropriate remedy than disclaimers.

How people think about the chemicals in cigarette smoke: a systematic review

Laws and treaties compel countries to inform the public about harmful chemicals (constituents) in cigarette smoke. To encourage relevant research by behavioral scientists, we provide a primer on cigarette smoke toxicology and summarize research on how the public thinks about cigarette smoke chemicals. We systematically searched PubMed in July 2016 and reviewed citations from included articles. Four central findings emerged across 46 articles that met inclusion criteria. First, people were familiar with very few chemicals in cigarette smoke. Second, people knew little about cigarette additives, assumed harmful chemicals are added during manufacturing, and perceived cigarettes without additives to be less harmful. Third, people wanted more information about constituents. Finally, well-presented chemical information increased knowledge and awareness and may change behavior. This research area is in urgent need of behavioral science. Future research should investigate whether educating the public about these chemicals increases risk perceptions and quitting.

Cigarette pack messages about toxic chemicals: A randomised clinical trial

Background The USA can require tobacco companies to disclose information about harmful and potentially harmful chemicals in cigarette smoke, but the impact of these messages is uncertain. We sought to assess the effect of placing messages about toxic chemicals on smokers’ cigarette packs. Methods Participants were 719 adult cigarette smokers from California, USA, recruited from September 2016 through March 2017. We randomly assigned smokers to receive either factual messages about chemicals in cigarette smoke and their health harms (intervention) or messages about not littering cigarette butts (control) on the side of their cigarette packs for 3 weeks. The primary trial outcome was intention to quit smoking. Results In intent-to-treat analyses, smokers whose packs had chemical messages did not have higher intentions to quit smoking at the end of the trial than those whose packs had control messages (P=0.56). Compared with control messages, chemical messages led to higher awareness of the chemicals (28% vs 15%, P<0.001) and health harms (60% vs 52%, P=0.02) featured in the messages. In addition, chemical messages led to greater negative affect, thinking about the chemicals in cigarettes and the harms of smoking, conversations about the messages and forgoing a cigarette (all P<0.05). Discussion Chemical messages on cigarette packs did not lead to higher intentions to quit among smokers in our trial. However, chemical messages informed smokers of chemicals in cigarettes and harms of smoking, which directly supports their implementation and would be critical to defending the messages against cigarette company legal challenges. Trial registration number NCT02785484.

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

Objective Under 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). Methods Participants 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). Results Claiming 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). Discussion Risk 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.

Brand switching and toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke: A national study

Introduction US law requires disclosure of quantities of toxic chemicals (constituents) in cigarette smoke by brand and sub-brand. This information may drive smokers to switch to cigarettes with lower chemical quantities, under the misperception that doing so can reduce health risk. We sought to understand past brand-switching behavior and whether learning about specific chemicals in cigarette smoke increases susceptibility to brand switching. Methods Participants were US adult smokers surveyed by phone (n = 1,151, probability sample) and online (n = 1,561, convenience sample). Surveys assessed whether smokers had ever switched cigarette brands or styles to reduce health risk and about likelihood of switching if the smoker learned their brand had more of a specific chemical than other cigarettes. Chemicals presented were nicotine, carbon monoxide, lead, formaldehyde, arsenic, and ammonia. Results Past brand switching to reduce health risk was common among smokers (43% in phone survey, 28% in online survey). Smokers who were female, over 25, and current “light” cigarette users were more likely to have switched brands to reduce health risks (all p < .05). Overall, 61–92% of smokers were susceptible to brand switching based on information about particular chemicals. In both samples, lead, formaldehyde, arsenic, and ammonia led to more susceptibility to switch than nicotine (all p < .05). Conclusions Many US smokers have switched brands or styles to reduce health risks. The majority said they might or would definitely switch brands if they learned their cigarettes had more of a toxic chemical than other brands. Brand switching is a probable unintended consequence of communications that show differences in smoke chemicals between brands.

Placing Health Warnings on E-Cigarettes: A Standardized Protocol

Health warnings for e-cigarettes are a promising and novel tobacco control intervention for reducing e-cigarette use. We developed a new protocol for evaluating e-cigarette warnings by placing them on users’ own devices to reflect real-world exposure. Study 1 participants were a national convenience sample of 606 U.S. adult e-cigarette users surveyed online in March 2017. Most Study 1 participants were willing to have their e-cigarette devices (87%) and refills (83%) labeled. Study 2 participants were a convenience sample of 22 adult e-cigarette users recruited in California, United States in April 2017. We applied the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s proposed e-cigarette warning to users’ own devices and refills. Most Study 2 participants (81%) reported using e-cigarette devices with our warning labels at least 90% of the time during the study. Nearly all (95%) said they would participate in the study again, and 100% would recommend the study to a friend. Conversations about e-cigarette harms, conversations about quitting e-cigarettes, and intentions to quit using e-cigarettes increased during the study (all p < 0.05). These studies show that our naturalistic labeling protocol was feasible, acceptable to participants, and had high retention over three weeks. Using the protocol can yield important evidence on the impact of e-cigarette warnings to inform tobacco warning policies.

A response from Morgan, Byron, Baig, Stepanov and Brewer

People are using a wider variety of tobacco products. Cigarette smoking remains the most common by far, but use of e-cigarettes, hookah and other tobacco products is on the rise (Kasza et al., 2017). Regular use of hookah was 2% among US youth and adults in 2013 and 2014. Hookah use was highest among young adults, at 11%. Among past-30day users of tobacco products, 38% of adults and 43% of youth had used multiple tobacco products. The most common multiple product use involved cigarettes and one other tobacco product. We agree with Dr. Jawad that communication about harmful chemicals in cigarette smoke will need to be increasingly mindful of a new tobacco control environment in which multiple product use is fast becoming the norm. Our study focused on cigarettes because the literature was sufficiently large to support a systematic review (Morgan, Byron, Baig, Stepanov, & Brewer, 2017). Reviewing how people think about chemicals in other tobacco products was beyond our scope, and this new literature was too small to support a systematic review. Understanding how people think about chemicals in other tobacco products is an important area for future research. Dr. Jawad’s hypothesis that saying hookah smoke has more of a given harmful chemical than cigarettes couldmake cigarettes seem safer intrigues us. This hypothesis merits empirical study. We agree on the importance of assessing unintended consequences of messages and campaigns about harms of tobacco product use. Expanding such research to include communication about marijuana may be sensible because combusted marijuana also contains dangerous chemicals (Moir et al., 2007). We hope behavioral science researchers will considermultiple product use as they explore howpeople think about harmful chemicals in tobacco products.