Tobacco Constituents, Flavorants, and Paper Permeability of Factory-Made and Roll-Your-Own Cigarettes on the Australian Market.

INTRODUCTION: Roll-your-own (RYO) tobacco is a popular choice in Australia, with some people who smoke finding these products more attractive than factory-made cigarettes (FMC). Differences in visual and tactile properties and in the feel and taste of the smoke may contribute to this attractiveness. These differences may be driven by variation in tobacco constituents and wrapping paper permeability. However, to date, there has been no comparison of RYO and FMC products on the Australian market. AIMS AND METHODS: Chemical constituents, pH, flavorants, and paper permeability were compared in unburned RYO tobacco and tobacco from FMC. RYO and FMC products from matched brands were compared, as were products from the most popular FMC and RYO brands on the Australian market in 2018. RESULTS: RYO tobacco had higher moisture and humectant content (glycerol and propylene glycol) than FMC tobacco. RYO tobacco also had higher amounts of total and reducing sugars and lower nicotine when comparing the most popular brands. RYO papers were less permeable than FMC papers. Both RYO and FMC tobacco contained many chemicals identified as flavorants, including fourteen with known potential health risks. For most measured constituents and flavorants, RYO tobaccos had more in common with other RYO than FMC, with the commonalities remaining even when matched brands were compared. CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of moisture, humectants, and sugars in Australian RYO tobacco compared to FMC may be increasing attractiveness of RYO by reducing the harsh taste of the smoke and increasing the moist feel of the tobacco. IMPLICATIONS: While price is the main factor driving the use of RYO tobacco, some people who smoke find these products more attractive. This study has shown that Australian RYO tobacco contains higher amounts of glycerol, propylene glycol, and sugars than FMC. These chemicals may be improving the taste of the tobacco, as well as creating a moist feel that is falsely perceived as indicating that the tobacco is "fresh" and "less chemically." Ironically, it may be that higher amounts of some added chemicals in RYO contribute to false perceptions of a more natural and less harmful product.

Australian Smokers' Sensory Experiences and Beliefs Associated with Menthol and Non-Menthol Cigarettes.

Many current smokers incorrectly believe that menthol cigarettes are less harmful, likely due to the biological and sensory effects of menthol, which can lead smokers to have favourable sensory experiences. In this study, we measured the extent to which Australian smokers associate certain sensory experiences with smoking menthol and non-menthol cigarettes, and their beliefs about how damaging and enjoyable they find cigarettes with each of these sensory experiences. A sample of 999 Australian 18-69-year-old weekly smokers was recruited from a non-probability online panel; this study focuses on the 245 respondents who currently smoked menthol cigarettes at least once per week. Current menthol smokers were four to nine times more likely to experience menthol rather than non-menthol cigarettes as having favourable sensory experiences, including feeling smooth, being soothing on the throat, fresh-tasting and clean-feeling. Menthol smokers perceived cigarettes with these favourable sensations as less damaging and more enjoyable than cigarettes with the opposite more aversive sensory experience. Efforts to correct these misperceptions about risk will likely require messages that provide new information to help smokers understand that these sensations do not indicate a lower level of risk. Banning menthol in tobacco products-as has recently been done in some nations-would also be a timely and justified strategy for protecting consumers.

Australian smokers' experiences and perceptions of recessed and firm filter cigarettes.

BACKGROUND: While cigarette filter modifications have long been used to increase product appeal and assuage health concerns, tighter marketing restrictions, including plain packaging, have further spurred the growth of filter variants. We explored and assessed experiences and perceptions of smokers who had tried and/or currently use recessed filter cigarettes (RFCs) and firm filter cigarettes (FFCs). METHOD: In November 2018, we undertook eight exploratory focus groups of Australian adult factory-made cigarette smokers (total n=56). In July 2019, we surveyed 999 smokers aged 18-69 years to quantify ever and current use of these products and associated beliefs and sensory experiences. RESULTS: Focus group and survey findings were consistent. Among 988 smokers who had at least tried factory-made cigarettes, 28.9% had tried FFCs and 11.1% currently smoked these, while 36.4% had tried RFCs and 7.5% currently smoked these. Smokers in both studies believed these filters may reduce harm and that FFCs increase appeal. In the survey, 58.9% of RFC triers agreed these hide the filter's brown stain and 48.9% agreed that RFCs keep harmful substances away from the mouth. Similarly, 58.4% of FFC triers agreed these trap more harmful substances than standard filters. Relative to standard filter cigarettes, more smokers experienced FFCs and RFCs as feeling clean (p=0.03) and more current FFC users experienced these as feeling smooth (p=0.01). CONCLUSION: RFCs and FFCs undermine plain packaging legislation, which aims to reduce appeal and minimise misperceptions about the relative harms of different tobacco products. Like other filter modifications, these filter variants should be disallowed.

Features of alcohol harm reduction advertisements that most motivate reduced drinking among adults: an advertisement response study.

OBJECTIVES: To improve the effectiveness of alcohol harm reduction mass media campaigns, this study aimed to (1) identify existing advertisements (ads) with greatest potential to motivate reduced alcohol consumption, (2) assess consistency across audience subgroups in ad effectiveness and (3) identify ad features associated with effectiveness. DESIGN: Cross-sectional online ad response study with random assignment to view ads. PARTICIPANTS: 2174 Australian adult weekly drinkers recruited from an online panel. PROCEDURE: Participants were randomly assigned to view three of 83 English-language alcohol harm reduction ads. Each ad was viewed and rated by a mean of 79 participants. OUTCOME MEASURE: After viewing each ad, participants reported the extent to which they felt motivated to reduce their drinking. Ads were ranked from most to least motivating using predicted means adjusted for demographic characteristics and alcohol consumption. We compared the characteristics of the top-ranked 15% of ads (most motivating) with the middle 70% and bottom 15%. RESULTS: An ad about the link between alcohol and cancer ('Spread') was most motivating, whereas an ad that encouraged drinking water instead of beer ('Add nothing') was least motivating. Top-ranked ads were more likely than other ads to feature a 'why change' message and less likely to carry a 'how to change' message; more likely to address long-term harms; more likely to be aimed at the general adult drinking population and more likely to include drinking guidelines. There was substantial overlap in top-ranked ads for younger versus older adults, men versus women and high-risk versus low-risk drinker subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of alcohol harm reduction campaigns may be improved by directly communicating alcohol's long-term harms to the general adult population of drinkers along with drinking guidelines. By doing so, campaigns can also efficiently influence high-risk drinkers and key demographic subgroups.