Qualitative perspective on nicotine pouches from adults who smoke cigarettes in North Carolina.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how nicotine pouch products are perceived by people who smoke, including if they are perceived as a cessation aid or a substitute for when they cannot smoke. We qualitatively investigated the reactions and perceptions about On!, a leading brand of nicotine pouches. METHODS: We conducted online semistructured interviews with 30 adults who smoke cigarettes. Participants viewed an On! brochure and an image of an opened nicotine pouch and were asked about their initial impression, who the intended user is, and how they thought of the product's safety compared with other tobacco and cessation products. Transcripts were independently coded and the data were analysed using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Among the participants, half identified as female and slightly more than half were white (n=16). The mean age was 43 years old. The following are the central themes that emerged: (1) participants perceived the concealability, flavours and packaging of On! as appealing to youth and young adults; (2) participants perceived nicotine pouches as a product that would supplement rather than replace tobacco use; and (3) the product raised health concerns, which decreased interest in trying nicotine pouches. CONCLUSIONS: Participants believed that the On! nicotine pouch promotional material may promote youth and young adult nicotine product initiation and dual product use for people who smoke. Most viewed On! as a product to use with cigarettes, rather than a way to quit cigarettes. Increased surveillance of nicotine pouches is warranted to monitor the trajectory of this emerging tobacco product and prevent youth initiation.

Reducing Misperceptions About Very Low Nicotine Content Cigarettes: Insights From Adults Who Smoke.

INTRODUCTION: Many people incorrectly think that very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes are less carcinogenic than current cigarettes. This risk misperception by people who smoke could reduce motivation to quit under a nicotine reduction policy. We qualitatively examined perspectives on campaign messages designed to reduce misperceptions. AIMS AND METHODS: Adults who smoke from North Carolina participated in online interviews. After being introduced to the idea of a VLNC policy, participants were shown VLNC messages and asked about their perceptions on the clarity, understandability, persuasiveness, and meaning of the messages. We conducted a thematic content analysis of the transcripts. RESULTS: Thirty adults who smoke cigarettes participated (15 females, 13 males, 2 nonbinary) with a mean age of 43 years. Central themes that emerged were: (1) Confusion about the proposed VLNC cigarette policy affected how messages were interpreted; (2) Messages that promote self-efficacy for quitting rather than guilt or fear were better received; and (3) Direct and succinct messages were seen as more able to grab attention and inform people who smoke. Some participant concerns focused on whether VLNC cigarettes would relieve their nicotine cravings and whether they would need to smoke more VLNC cigarettes to feel satisfied. CONCLUSION: Campaign messages to educate the public about the harmful effects of smoking VLNC cigarettes may be more effective if people who smoke are informed about the policy's rationale to understand why nicotine is removed rather than the other harmful chemicals. Messages should also acknowledge the difficulty of quitting and be short and direct to capture attention. IMPLICATIONS: Adults who smoke have some confusion about nicotine reduction in cigarettes and this affects how they perceive potential communication campaign messages about the risk of smoking VLNC cigarettes. In our qualitative research, we found that adults who smoke prefer messages about VLNC cigarettes that acknowledge the challenge of quitting and that are direct and succinct. With further development, campaign messages may be able to reduce misperceptions about VLNC cigarettes and maximize the public health benefit of a nicotine reduction policy.

Is a cigarette brand with fewer chemicals safer? Public perceptions in two national US experiments.

By law, the US government must publicly display the quantities of harmful chemicals in cigarettes by brand, but doing so could mislead people to incorrectly think that some cigarettes are safer than others. We evaluated formats for presenting chemical quantities side-by-side to see if any were misleading. We recruited US convenience (n = 604) and probability (n = 1440) samples. We randomized participants to 1 of 5 formats: checklist, point estimates, ranges, a visual risk indicator, or no-quantity control. Participants were far more likely to incorrectly endorse one cigarette brand as riskier than the other in the checklist (65% made error), point estimate (67-70%), range (64-67%), or risk indicator (68-75%) conditions as compared to the no-quantity control (1%, all p < .001). Among smokers, erroneous risk perceptions mediated the impact of quantity format on interest in switching brands. People viewing chemical quantities for cigarette brands side-by-side misperceived differences in risk, suggesting limited public health value of this information.

Public Understanding of Cigarette Smoke Chemicals: Longitudinal Study of US Adults and Adolescents.

INTRODUCTION: The US Food and Drug Administration has increased communication efforts that aim to raise public awareness of the harmful constituents (ie, chemicals) in cigarette smoke. We sought to investigate whether the public's awareness of these chemicals has increased in light of such efforts. METHODS: Participants were national probability samples of 11 322 US adults and adolescents recruited in 2014-2015 (wave 1) and 2016-2017 (wave 2). Cross-sectional telephone surveys assessed awareness of 24 cigarette smoke chemicals at both timepoints. RESULTS: The proportion of US adults aware of cigarette smoke chemicals did not differ between waves 1 and 2 (25% and 26%, p = .19). In contrast, awareness of chemicals among adolescents fell from 28% to 22% (p < .001), mostly due to lower awareness of carbon monoxide, arsenic, benzene, and four other chemicals. Belief that most of the harmful chemicals in cigarette smoke come from burning the cigarette also fell from waves 1 to 2 (adults: 31% vs. 26%; adolescents: 47% vs. 41%, both ps < .05). Participants were more likely to be aware of cigarette smoke chemicals if they had been exposed to anti-smoking campaign advertisements (p < .05) or had previously sought chemical information (p < .05). Cigarette smoke chemical awareness did not differ between smokers and nonsmokers. CONCLUSION: Awareness of cigarette smoke chemicals remains low and unchanged among adults and decreased somewhat among adolescents. The association of chemical awareness with information exposure via campaigns and information seeking behavior is promising. More concerted communication efforts may be needed to increase public awareness of cigarette smoke chemicals, which could potentially discourage smoking. IMPLICATIONS: Awareness of the toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke may contribute to quitting. The US Food and Drug Administration is making efforts to increase public awareness of these chemicals. Two national surveys (2014-2017) found that chemical awareness was low among adults and adolescents. Although awareness did not change among adults, awareness among adolescents dropped over time. In addition, exposure to anti-smoking campaigns and chemical information seeking behavior were associated with higher awareness of chemicals in cigarette smoke. Campaigns and other efforts may be needed to increase awareness of cigarette smoke chemicals.

Communicating about chemicals in cigarette smoke: impact on knowledge and misunderstanding.

BACKGROUND: The USA must publicly share information about harmful and potentially harmful constituents (chemicals) in tobacco products. We sought to understand whether webpages with chemical information are "understandable and not misleading to a lay person." METHODS: Participants were a national probability sample of US adults and adolescents (n=1441, 18% smokers). In an online experiment, we randomly assigned participants to view one of the developed webpages (chemical names only, names with quantity ranges, names with visual risk indicators) or no webpage in phase one (between subjects). Participants completed a survey assessing knowledge, misunderstanding, perceived likelihood, perceived severity of health effects from smoking and quit intentions (smokers only). In phase two (within subjects), participants viewed all three webpage formats and reported webpage perceptions (clarity, usability, usefulness) and perceived impact (affect, elaboration, perceived effectiveness). RESULTS: In phase one, viewing any webpage led to more knowledge of chemicals (48%-54% vs 28% no webpage, ps<0.001) and health harms (77% vs 67% no webpage, ps<0.001). When exposed to any webpage, 5%-23% endorsed misunderstandings that some cigarettes are safer than others. Webpage format did not affect knowledge or reduce misunderstandings. Viewing any webpage led to higher perceived likelihood of experiencing health effects from smoking (p<0.001) and, among smokers, greater intentions to quit smoking (p=0.04). In phase two, where participants viewed all formats, a visual risk indicator led to the highest perceived impact. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of chemicals and health effects can increase after viewing a website. Yet, websites may not correct the misunderstanding that some cigarettes are safer.

Reducing Nicotine Without Misleading the Public: Descriptions of Cigarette Nicotine Level and Accuracy of Perceptions About Nicotine Content, Addictiveness, and Risk.

SIGNIFICANCE: The public incorrectly believes very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes are less carcinogenic than current cigarettes, a belief associated with lower motivation to quit under a VLNC standard. We examined how different descriptions of the nicotine level in VLNC cigarettes affect the accuracy of the public's perceptions about nicotine content, addictiveness, and cancer risk. METHODS: Participants were a national convenience sample of 1353 US adults (22% smokers). In an online experiment, we randomized participants to a VLNC description using (1) concise language; (2) a percentage; (3) an interpretation; (4) a percentage and interpretation; (5) a percentage and a pictograph; or (6) a percentage, interpretation, and pictograph; or to a control description using (7) FDA's "minimally or nonaddictive" phrasing. We assessed accuracy of perceived nicotine content, addictiveness, and cancer risk compared to current cigarettes. RESULTS: Compared to control, the percentage description resulted in more accurate perceptions about nicotine content (76% vs. 49% accuracy) and addictiveness (44% vs. 34%), but less accurate perceptions about cancer risk (56% vs. 68%; all ps < .05). Adding interpretation or pictographs to the percentage description did not increase accuracy. The concise language description reduced accuracy of perceived nicotine content and addictiveness but increased accuracy of cancer risk (all ps < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Stating that 95% of nicotine would be removed more accurately conveyed the nicotine content and addictiveness of VLNC cigarettes. However, descriptions that better conveyed nicotine content and addictiveness misled people about cancer risk. IMPLICATIONS: Implementation of a VLNC standard should include plans for a communication campaign that conveys that VLNC cigarettes will be less addictive but equally toxic to smoke. Stating the percent reduction in nicotine is likely to more clearly communicate reduced addictiveness but may also exacerbate risk misperceptions. VLNC communication requires further study to ensure the public accurately understands a VLNC standard.

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

INTRODUCTION: The 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. METHODS: Participants 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"). RESULTS: Claims 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.

Tobacco Advertisement Liking, Vulnerability Factors, and Tobacco Use Among Young Adults.

INTRODUCTION: Young adulthood (aged 18-24) is a crucial period in the development of long-term tobacco use patterns. Tobacco advertising and promotion lead to the initiation and continuation of smoking among young adults. We examined whether vulnerability factors moderated the association between tobacco advertisement liking and tobacco use in the United States. METHODS: Analyses were conducted among 9109 US young adults in the nationally representative Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study wave 1 (2013-14). Participants viewed 20 randomly selected sets of tobacco advertisements (five each for cigarettes, e-cigarettes, cigars, and smokeless tobacco) and indicated whether they liked each ad. The outcome variables were past 30-day cigarette, e-cigarette, cigar, and smokeless tobacco use. Covariates included tobacco advertisement liking, age, sex, race or ethnicity, sexual orientation, education, poverty level, military service, and internalizing and externalizing mental health symptoms. RESULTS: Liking tobacco advertisements was associated with tobacco use, and this association was particularly strong among those with lower educational attainment (cigarettes, cigars) and living below the poverty level (e-cigarettes, smokeless tobacco). CONCLUSIONS: The association between tobacco advertisement liking and tobacco use was stronger among young adults with lower educational attainment and those living below the poverty level. Policies that restrict advertising exposure and promote counter-marketing messages in this population could reduce their risk. IMPLICATIONS: This study shows that liking tobacco advertisements is associated with current tobacco use among young adults, with stronger associations for vulnerable young adults (ie, lower education levels and living below the poverty level). Findings suggest a need for counter-marketing messages, policies that restrict advertising exposure, and educational interventions such as health and media literacy interventions to address the negative influences of tobacco advertisements, especially among young adults with a high school education or less and those living below the poverty level.

Website Designs for Communicating About Chemicals in Cigarette Smoke.

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act requires the US government to inform the public about the quantities of toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke. A website can accomplish this task efficiently, but the site's user interface must be usable to benefit the general public. We conducted online experiments with national convenience samples of 1,451 US adult smokers and nonsmokers to examine the impact of four interface display elements: the chemicals, their associated health effects, quantity information, and a visual risk indicator. Outcomes were perceptions of user experience (perceived clarity and usability), motivation (willingness to use), and potential impact (elaboration about the harms of smoking). We found displaying health effects as text with icons, providing quantity information for chemicals (e.g., ranges), and showing a visual risk indicator all improved the user experience of a webpage about chemicals in cigarette smoke (all p < .05). Displaying a combination of familiar and unfamiliar chemicals, providing quantity information for chemicals, and showing a visual risk indicator all improved motivation to use the webpage (all p < .05). Displaying health effects or quantity information increased the potential impact of the webpage (all p < .05). Overall, interface designs displaying health effects of chemicals in cigarette smoke as text with icons and with a visual risk indicator had the greatest impact on the user experience, motivation, and potential impact of the website. Our findings provide guidance for accessible website designs that can inform consumers about the toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke.

Public misperception that very low nicotine cigarettes are less carcinogenic.

OBJECTIVE: The USA is considering a very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarette standard. We sought to characterise the prevalence and correlates of the incorrect belief that VLNC cigarettes are less carcinogenic than current cigarettes, as this could reduce motivation to quit. METHODS: Participants were a nationally representative sample of 650 adult smokers in the USA. In 2015-2016, before the VLNC proposal became public, these smokers took part in an online survey. We used multivariate weighted analyses to calculate ORs and percentages and a χ2 test to examine the association between variables. RESULTS: Overall, 47.1% of smokers believed that smoking VLNC cigarettes for 30 years would be less likely to cause cancer than smoking current cigarettes. This misperception was more common among smokers who were aged above 55 (56.6%) and black (57.4%). Additionally, 23.9% of smokers reported they would be less likely to quit if the USA adopted a VLNC standard. Thinking that VLNC cigarettes would be less carcinogenic was associated with smokers reporting they would be less likely to quit (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Many smokers had the misperception that smoking VLNC cigarettes is less likely to cause cancer, and some stated that they would be less likely to quit. A VLNC standard may be more effective if accompanied by a communication campaign that emphasises the continued dangers of smoking VLNC cigarettes due to the many toxic chemicals in smoke.

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.

Adolescent tobacco coupon receipt, vulnerability characteristics and subsequent tobacco use: analysis of PATH Study, Waves 1 and 2.

OBJECTIVES: We examine adolescent receipt of tobacco coupons and subsequent tobacco use. METHODS: Data were from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study (2013-2015). We identified correlates of coupon receipt at Wave 1 (youth sample age 12-17 ; n = 13 651) including demographics, additional vulnerability factors that may place youth at risk of tobacco use and correlates of coupon receipt by channel. We examined associations of Wave 1 coupon receipt with Wave 2 tobacco use using weighted multivariable models. RESULTS: Overall, 7.6% of US youth received tobacco coupons in the 6 months before Wave 1. Coupon recipients were more likely to be women, living outside urban areas, living with a tobacco user, current and former (vs never) tobacco users, having high internalising mental health symptoms and having a favourite tobacco advertisement. Coupons were received primarily through direct mail (56%), product packs (28%) and online (25%). Never tobacco users at Wave 1 who received coupons were more likely to be ever users at Wave 2 (adjusted OR (aOR)=1.42; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.91). Coupon recipients were more likely to use a new tobacco product between waves (aOR=1.67; 95% CI 1.18 to 2.36) and report past 30-day tobacco use at Wave 2 (aOR=1.81; 95% CI 1.31 to 2.49). CONCLUSIONS: One in 13 US youth (7.6%) received coupons. Vulnerable youth had the greatest odds of coupon receipt. Coupon recipients had greater odds of tobacco use among never users, trying a new tobacco product and current use. Coupon bans, limits on youth coupon exposure, stronger age verification, pack inserts or restricting coupon redemption may help reduce tobacco use among adolescents, particularly for those at greatest risk.

"That's probably what my mama's lungs look like": how adolescent children react to pictorial warnings on their parents' cigarette packs.

BACKGROUND: Pictorial cigarette pack warnings discourage smoking, but most evidence comes from studies of adults. Our qualitative study explored adolescents' reactions to pictorial warnings on their parents' cigarette packs. METHODS: We interviewed 24 adolescents whose parents received pictorial warnings on their cigarette packs as part of a randomized clinical trial. We conducted a thematic content analysis of the interview transcripts. RESULTS: Pictorial cigarette pack warnings led adolescents to imagine the depicted health effects happening to their parents, which elicited negative emotions. The warnings inspired adolescents to initiate conversations with their parents and others about quitting smoking. Adolescents believed the warnings would help smokers quit and prevent youth from starting smoking. Some current smokers said the warnings made them consider quitting. CONCLUSIONS: Conversations about the pictorial warnings may amplify their effectiveness for smokers, their adolescent children, and friends of the adolescent children. Cigarette pack warnings may reach a broad audience that includes adolescent children of smokers.

How hearing about harmful chemicals affects smokers' interest in dual use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes.

Substantial harm could result from concurrent cigarette and e-cigarette use (i.e., dual use) were it to undermine smoking cessation. Perceptions of chemical exposure and resulting harms may influence dual use. We conducted a probability-based phone survey of 1164 U.S. adult cigarette smokers in 2014-2015 and analyzed results in 2016. In a between-subjects experiment, smokers heard a hypothetical scenario in which cigarettes and e-cigarettes had the same amount of harmful chemicals or cigarettes had more chemicals than e-cigarettes (10× more, 100× more, or chemicals were present only in cigarettes). Smokers indicated how the scenario would change their interest in dual use and perceived health harms. Few smokers (7%) who heard that the products have the same amount of chemicals were interested in initiating or increasing dual use. However, more smokers were interested when told that cigarettes have 10× more chemicals than e-cigarettes (31%), 100× more chemicals than e-cigarettes (32%), or chemicals were present only in cigarettes (43%) (all p<.001). Individuals told that cigarettes have more chemicals were more likely than those in the "same amount" scenario to perceive that cigarettes would be more harmful than e-cigarettes (79% vs. 41%, OR=5.41, 95% CI=4.08-7.17). These harm perceptions partially explained the relationship between chemical scenario and dual use interest. Smokers associated higher chemical amounts in cigarettes versus e-cigarettes with greater health harms from cigarettes and thus expressed increased interest in dual use. The findings suggest that disclosing amounts of chemicals in cigarette smoke and e-cigarette aerosol could unintentionally encourage dual use.

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.

Icons for health effects of cigarette smoke: a test of semiotic type.

We sought to identify icons to effectively communicate health harms of chemicals in cigarette smoke. Participants were a convenience sample of 701 U.S. adults. A within-subjects online experiment explored the effects of icon semiotic type: symbolic (arbitrary, most abstract), indexical, and iconic (representative, most concrete). Outcomes were perceived representation, affect toward smoking, elaboration, perceived severity, and perceived effectiveness. For not-easy-to-visualize harms of cancer and addiction, symbolic icons received the highest ratings (all p < .001). For easy-to-visualize symptoms of heart attack/stroke, indexical icons received the highest ratings (all p < .001). For easy-to-visualize harm of reproductive organ damage, the iconic image did best (all p < .001). Icon type often had a larger impact among participants with higher health literacy. Symbolic icons may be most effective for health effects not easily visualized. Iconic or indexical icons may be more effective for health effects attributable to specific body parts or symptoms.

Communicating about cigarette smoke constituents: an experimental comparison of two messaging strategies.

Federal law now requires FDA to disseminate information on chemicals in cigarette smoke, but it is unclear how best to do so. In a 2 × 2 between-subjects experiment, participants received a message about chemicals in cigarette smoke (e.g., "Cigarette smoke has benzene.") along with an additional randomly assigned messaging strategy: a "found-in" (e.g., "This is found in gasoline."), a health effect (e.g., "This causes heart disease."), both, or neither. Participants were U.S. probability phone samples of 5000 adults and 1123 adolescents, and an online convenience sample of 4130 adults. Adding a health effect elicited greater discouragement from wanting to smoke cigarettes (all p < .05) as did adding a found-in (all p < .05). However, including both messaging strategies added little or nothing above including just one. These findings can help the FDA and other agencies develop effective and parsimonious messages about cigarette smoke constituents.

Communicating Tobacco Product Information to the Public.

The 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA) requires tobacco companies to disclose information about the harmful chemicals in their products to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The law requires the FDA, in turn, to communicate this information to the public "in a format that is understandable and not misleading to a lay person." But how should the FDA comply with this requirement? What does it mean for information about complex chemicals to be "understandable and not misleading to a lay person"? These questions are not easy ones to answer. Disclosures about the amount of harmful chemicals (constituents) in different tobacco products may help to inform consumers, but may also conversely prompt consumers to reach incorrect or unsupported conclusions about products' relative health risks. This paper first analyzes the FDA's legal obligation to publish tobacco constituent information so that it is "understandable and not misleading to a layperson." Second, it discusses how that legal analysis has guided scientific research examining how members of the public interpret messages regarding tobacco constituents. Lastly, this paper concludes with policy recommendations for the FDA as it considers how to comply with the law's constituent disclosure requirement while still furthering its overall objective of promoting public health.