Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38417417›Full record

ArticleNicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco2024

From "Additive-Free" to "Tobacco & Water": Assessing the Impact of Marketing Claim Changes on Natural American Spirit and L&M Cigarettes.

Caitlin Weiger, Stefanie K Gratale, Ollie Ganz, Olivia A Wackowski

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. The Impact of Cigarillo Text Warning Presence and Size on Young Adults' Cigarillo Risk Beliefs, Knowledge, Appeal, and Use Intentions.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2025
    Article
  3. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Caitlin WeigerRutgers Institute for Nicotine & Tobacco Studies, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6029-0033
Stefanie K GrataleRutgers Institute for Nicotine & Tobacco Studies, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Ollie GanzRutgers Institute for Nicotine & Tobacco Studies, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7933-8463
Olivia A WackowskiRutgers Institute for Nicotine & Tobacco Studies, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9159-5473
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey · US

Funding

Tobacco Industry Marketing CoreU54CA229973 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI STRASSER, ANDREW A · 2018 to 2022
$18.8M
Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco ProductsNCI NIH HHS U54 CA229973
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe 2017 agreement between the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the makers of Natural America Spirit (NAS) cigarettes restricted the use of "additive-free" (AF) in brand marketing, which the company replaced with "tobacco ingredients: tobacco & water" (TW), a phrase subsequently adopted by L&M. We tested how participants' perceptions differed when exposed to AF versus TW claims on NAS and L&M packs. AIMS AND

methodsA between-subjects experiment was embedded within an online survey in August 2022 (n = 2526). Participants were randomized to view one of three packs (NAS AF pack, NAS TW pack, L&M TW pack). Logistic regressions assessed differences (by pack exposure) in perceived pack attractiveness and relative chemical and harm perceptions compared to other cigarettes. Interactions by smoking status were explored.

resultsNo significant differences were observed between the NAS AF and NAS TW packs on perceived attractiveness or relative harm, although never smokers had higher odds of having lower relative chemicals perceptions in response to the NAS AF versus NAS TW pack (OR = 1.81). Compared to participants who saw the NAS TW pack, those who saw the L&M TW pack tended to have lower odds of perceiving the pack as attractive, believing that the product had fewer chemicals than other products, or believing the product was less harmful than other products compared to the NAS TW pack.

conclusionResults suggest the more implicit "tobacco ingredients: tobacco & water" claim functions similarly to "additive-free" and as an unauthorized modified risk claim. NAS brand image also appears to contribute to higher perceived pack attractiveness and lower perceptions of chemicals and harm. Additional marketing regulations and corrective campaigns may be needed to reduce risk-related misperceptions about NAS cigarettes. IMPLICATIONS: Our findings show that replacing "additive-free" claims with "tobacco ingredients: tobacco & water" did not sufficiently address the illegal use of unauthorized modified risk claims by the makers of NAS cigarettes. Further regulatory action restricting the TW claim could potentially reduce inaccurate lower harm perceptions about NAS cigarettes. Educational campaigns may also be needed to mitigate NAS's history of marketing that implies reduced harm, given that the effects of implicit reduced risk claims like TW have a greater effect on pack perceptions for NAS than L&M.

Indexed as

MarketingTobacco ProductsAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProduct LabelingSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID38417417
PMCPMC12187000
OpenAlexW4392244082

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.