ArticleTobacco control2025
Decoding consumers' interpretations of 'additive-free' and 'tobacco & water' cigarette advertising claims.
Article in Tobacco control, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep learning-assisted SERS for detection of propoxate and isopropoxate in E-cigarettes.RSC advances · 2026Article
- Exploring the Underlying Beliefs Shaping Perceptions of E-cigarette Harm Among a Convenience Sample of Adults in the United States.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesIn the USA, some tobacco companies replaced the marketing phrase '100% natural additive-free tobacco' with 'tobacco ingredients: tobacco & water' (T&W) after receiving warnings from the US Food and Drug Administration. This study assesses how people interpret the now-restricted additive-free claims and newer T&W claims on Natural American Spirit (NAS) and L&M cigarette packs.
methodsAn online between-subjects experiment randomised 2526 US adults to view one of three packs: an NAS additive-free pack, an NAS T&W pack or an L&M T&W pack. Participants provided their interpretations of the claim they viewed in an open-text response box. n=810 responses were coded, with frequency reported overall, by experimental condition, and by product harm perceptions.
resultsInterpreting the claim as meaning 'fewer chemicals/harmful ingredients' was significantly more frequent in the NAS additive-free (47.7%) condition but remained common among those in the NAS T&W (27.2%) and L&M T&W (20.3%) conditions (p<0.01). For all conditions, the 'fewer chemicals' interpretation was more common among those who believed the product was less harmful than other cigarettes (p<0.001). Some participants (8%-15%) interpreted the claim they saw to mean the product was less addictive or had less nicotine than other cigarettes, with no significant differences by condition.
conclusionsLike 'additive-free', 'tobacco and water' marketing claims are commonly interpreted as meaning cigarettes have fewer chemicals or harmful ingredients, suggesting they may similarly function as unauthorised modified exposure claims. Regulatory action and educational interventions are warranted to reduce use of these misleading claims and to correct misperceptions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.