Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29529277›Full record

ArticleNicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco2019

"Organic," "Natural," and "Additive-Free" Cigarettes: Comparing the Effects of Advertising Claims and Disclaimers on Perceptions of Harm.

Sabeeh A Baig, M Justin Byron, Allison J Lazard, Noel T Brewer

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Adolescents' Health Perceptions of Natural American Spirit's On-the-Pack Eco-Friendly Campaign.The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2021
    Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Optimizing Warnings on E-Cigarette Advertisements.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2020
    Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Neighborhood Inequities in Tobacco Product Descriptors, Washington, DC, 2018-2019.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sabeeh A BaigDepartment of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
M Justin ByronLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Allison J LazardSchool of Media and Journalism, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Noel T BrewerDepartment of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.

Funding

Training & Education Program p294-308P50CA180907 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI RIBISL, KURT M. · 2013 to 2017
$20.2M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA180907
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe US Tobacco Control Act restricts advertising or labeling that suggests one tobacco product is less harmful than another. We sought to examine how "organic," "natural," and "additive-free" advertising claims and corresponding disclaimers affect perceptions of cigarettes' harm.

methodsParticipants were a national probability sample of adults in the United States (n = 1114, including 344 smokers). We conducted a 5 (claim) × 2 (disclaimer) between-subjects factorial experiment. Participants viewed a Natural American Spirit cigarettes ad claiming they were "organic," "natural," "additive-free," "light," or "regular;" and with or without a corresponding disclaimer. The outcome was perceived harm of the advertised cigarettes. Among smokers, we also assessed interest in switching within their current brand to cigarettes with this characteristic (eg, "additive-free").

resultsClaims in the ad had a large effect on perceived harm (Cohen's d = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.47 to 1.29). Claims of cigarettes being "organic," "natural," or "additive-free" reduced perceived harm from the advertised cigarettes, as compared with "regular" and "light" claims. Disclaimers had a small effect, increasing perceived harm (d = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.08 to 0.41). The problematic claims also increased smokers' interest in switching. Disclaimers had no effect on smokers' interest in switching.

conclusions"Organic," "natural," and "additive-free" claims may mislead people into thinking that the advertised cigarettes are less harmful than other cigarettes. Disclaimers did not offset misperceptions of harm created by false claims. The US Food and Drug Administration should restrict the use of these misleading claims in tobacco advertising. IMPLICATIONS: "Organic," "natural," and "additive-free" cigarette advertising claims decrease perceptions of harm among the public and increase interest in switching to such cigarettes among smokers. Disclaimers do not counteract the reduced perceptions of harm or increased interest in switching to these cigarettes. The US Food and Drug Administration should restrict the use of "organic," "natural," and "additive-free" claims in tobacco marketing.

Indexed as

PerceptionAdolescentAdultAdvertisingAgedCigarette SmokingFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProduct LabelingSmokersTobacco ProductsUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID29529277
PMCPMC6588395

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.