Perceptions of the Addictiveness of Low-Nicotine Cigarettes Versus Typical Cigarettes and Exposure to Tobacco Industry-Sponsored Corrective Campaign.

BACKGROUND: In 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a regulatory plan to reduce the nicotine content of cigarettes. This study examines the association of exposure to industry-sponsored corrective statements on perceptions of the addictiveness of low-nicotine cigarettes relative to typical cigarettes within the general US population. METHODS: The study comprised 4975 US adult respondents of the 2019 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS 5, Cycle 3). Multinomial logistic regression models were used to examine associations between exposure to tobacco industry corrective messages and perceptions of the addictiveness of low-nicotine cigarettes relative to typical cigarettes. RESULTS: In the overall population, 4.1% reported that low-nicotine cigarettes were much more addictive than typical cigarettes, 67.5% said they were equally addictive, while 28.4% reported they were slightly/much less addictive. Adults exposed to industry-sponsored corrective messages had higher odds of perceiving low-nicotine cigarettes as equally addictive as typical cigarettes (aOR 1.57; 95% CI, 1.13-2.19) than those who saw no corrective messages. Those exposed to the corrective messages specifically about the addictiveness of smoking and nicotine had higher odds of perceiving low-nicotine cigarettes as equally addictive as typical cigarettes (aOR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.07-2.81) compared to those who saw no corrective message. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that exposure to court-ordered tobacco industry corrective statements may have reinforced perceptions on the addictive potential of nicotine. However, study findings indicate a need for campaigns specifically tailored to address misperceptions observed in this study.

67.5% of US adults perceived low-nicotine cigarettes and typical cigarettes as being equally addictiveExposure to court-ordered corrective statements increased the odds of equal addictiveness perceptionExposure to corrective statements specifically tailored to addiction increased the odds of equal addictiveness perception.

Tobacco industry strategies to influence the regulation of new and emerging tobacco and nicotine products in Latin America and the Caribbean / Estrategias de la industria tabacalera para influir en la regulación de los productos de tabaco y nicotina novedosos y emergentes en América Latina y el Caribe / Estratégias da indústria do tabaco para influenciar a regulamentação de produtos novos e emergentes de tabaco e nicotina na América Latina e no Caribe

[ABSTRACT]. Objective. To document tobacco industry strategies to influence regulation of new and emerging tobacco and nicotine products (NETNPs) in Latin America and the Caribbean. Methods. We analyzed industry websites, advocacy reports, news media and government documents related to NETNPs, focusing on electronic cigarettes and heated tobacco products. We also conducted a survey of leading health advocates. We applied the policy dystopia model to analyze industry action and argument based strategies on NETNP regulations. Results. Industry actors engaged in four instrumental strategies to influence NETNP regulation coalition management, information management, direct involvement in and access to the policy process, and litigation. Their actions included: lobbying key policy-makers, academics and vaping associations; providing grants to media groups to disseminate favorable NETNP information; participating in public consultations; presenting at public hearings; inserting industry-inspired language into draft NETNP legislation; and filing lawsuits to challenge NETNP bans. The industry disseminated its so-called harm reduction argument through large/influential countries (e.g., Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico). Industry discursive strategies claimed NETNPs were less harmful, provided safer alternatives, and should be regulated as so-called harm reduction products or have fewer restrictions on their sale and use than those currently in place. Conclusion. Our analysis provides a better understanding of industry strategies to undermine tobacco and nicotine control. To help counter industry efforts, health advocates should proactively strengthen government capacities and alert policy-makers to industry attempts to create new regulatory categories (so-called reduced-risk products), provide misleading information of government authorizations of NETNPs, and co-opt so-called harm-reduction messages that serve the industry’s agenda.

[RESUMEN]. Objetivo. Documentar las estrategias de la industria tabacalera para influir en la regulación de los productos de tabaco y nicotina novedosos y emergentes (PTNNE) en América Latina y el Caribe. Métodos. Se analizaron los sitios web de la industria, los informes de defensa de la salud, los medios de información y los documentos gubernamentales relacionados con los PTNNE, prestando especial atención a los cigarrillos electrónicos y los productos de tabaco calentado. También se realizó una encuesta a líderes de la promoción de la salud. Aplicamos el modelo de distopía política para analizar las estrategias de acción y argumentación de la industria en relación con la regulación de los PTNNE. Resultados. Las partes interesadas de la industria recurrieron a cuatro estrategias instrumentales para influir en la regulación de los PTNNE: gestión de coaliciones, gestión de la información, participación directa y acceso al proceso de formulación de políticas, y litigios. Sus acciones incluyeron: trabajar con los principales responsables de la formulación de políticas, académicos y asociaciones de vapeo; conceder subvenciones a grupos de medios de comunicación para que difundan información favorable a los PTNNE; participar en consultas públicas; realizar presentaciones en audiencias públicas; introducir un lenguaje inspirado por la industria en la legislación sobre los PTNNE; y presentar demandas judiciales para dificultar las prohibiciones de los PTNNE. La industria difundió su argumentación, denominada de reducción de daños, en países grandes e influyentes como, por ejemplo, Argentina, Brasil y México. Las estrategias discursivas de la industria afirmaban que los PTNNE eran menos nocivos, proporcionaban alternativas más seguras y debían regularse del mismo modo que los denominados productos de reducción de daños o tener menos restricciones que las vigentes en la actualidad para su venta y consumo. Conclusión. Este análisis permite comprender mejor las estrategias de la industria para socavar el control del tabaco y la nicotina. Para contribuir a contrarrestar los esfuerzos de la industria, los defensores de la salud deberían fortalecer activamente las capacidades gubernamentales y alertar a los responsables políticos de los intentos de la industria de crear nuevas categorías reglamentarias (los denominados productos de riesgo reducido), proporcionar información engañosa sobre las autorizaciones gubernamentales de los PTNNE y apropiarse de los denominados mensajes de reducción de daños que responden a la agenda de la industria.

[RESUMO]. Objetivo. Documentar as estratégias usadas pela indústria do tabaco para influenciar a regulamentação de produtos novos e emergentes de tabaco e nicotina (NETNPs, sigla em inglês) na América Latina e no Caribe. Métodos. Foram analisados sites do setor, relatórios de ativistas, notícias em meios de comunicação e documentos governamentais relacionados aos NETNPs, com foco em cigarros eletrônicos e produtos de tabaco aquecido. Também foi realizada uma pesquisa com ativistas importantes na área da saúde. O modelo de distopia política foi utilizado para analisar as ações e as estratégias baseadas em argumentos do setor para a regulamentação de NETNPs. Resultados. Os agentes do setor utilizaram quatro estratégias instrumentais para influenciar a regulamentação de NETNPs: gestão de coalizões; gestão de informações; envolvimento direto e acesso ao processo de formulação de políticas; e ações legais. As ações dos agentes incluíram: trabalhar com os principais formuladores de políticas, acadêmicos e associações de cigarros eletrônicos; conceder subsídios a grupos de comunicação para disseminar informações favoráveis aos NETNPs; participar de consultas públicas; fazer apresentações em audiências públicas; inserir linguagem gerada pela indústria na legislação de NETNPs; e entrar com ações judiciais para contestar proibições de NETNPs. O setor disseminou seu argumento de “redução de danos” em países grandes e influentes (por exemplo, Argentina, Brasil e México). As estratégias discursivas do setor afirmavam que os NETNPs eram menos prejudiciais, ofereciam alternativas mais seguras e deveriam ser regulamentados como “produtos de redução de danos” ou ter menos restrições à venda e ao uso do que as atualmente em vigor. Conclusão. Nossa análise oferece uma melhor compreensão das estratégias usadas pelo setor para enfra- quecer o controle do tabaco e da nicotina. Para ajudar a combater os esforços do setor, os ativistas em saúde devem fortalecer de forma proativa a capacidade dos governos e alertar os formuladores de políticas sobre as tentativas da indústria de criar novas categorias regulatórias (os chamados “produtos de risco reduzido”), fornecer informações enganosas sobre as autorizações governamentais de comercialização dos NETNPs e cooptar mensagens de “redução de danos” para atender aos interesses do setor.

[What does Harm Reduction in Tobacco Use means to Public Health]. / Reducción de daños en tabaquismo desde la Salud Pública.

Harm reduction is a classic Public Health concept to refer to the reduction of the negative effect of drug use/abuse with a focus on justice and human rights, but the tobacco industry has been perverting this concept for years and using it as a tool for its own marketing. This publication details what real harm reduction action on tobacco use would be, when it should be implemented, and what pillars it should be based on. Different methods of reducing the harmful effects of tobacco and nicotine have been tried and tested over time, but the results have been poor; therefore, smoking cessation by the various officially recognised methods is recommended as a priority objective, using the tools that are truly supported by science. In contrast, it also explains the strategies developed by the industry to manipulate consumers and make them dependent on products that can eventually kill them: from the development of filtered cigarettes to light cigarettes, and from menthol to flavoured vapes. In all cases, they have falsely led people to believe that they were developing less toxic products when they were not. Nowadays, both light and menthol cigarettes are banned in Spain, filters have not reduced risk but increased the use, and vapes try to replace cigarettes with their attractive flavours and their false legend of healthier products when what they are really doing is maintaining the same addiction by changing the object, encouraging dual use, and attracting younger and younger non-smokers. At the same time, a strategy of dividing the opinion of health professionals has been developed, using medical doctors and researchers with recognised conflicts of interest but who manage to confuse consumers. In conclusion, we consider that, although nicotine releasing devices may be useful elements in some particular cases, they are not recommended at the population level as they can promote onset, prevent cessation, as well as maintaining the addictive capacity. The only nicotine products that are recommended are those of pharmacological use approved for the case and provided they are used as a transitional tool to complete cessation.

La reducción de daños es un concepto clásico de la Salud Pública para referirse a la reducción del impacto negativo del consumo de drogas con un enfoque de justicia y derechos humanos, pero la industria tabacalera lleva años pervirtiendo este concepto y utilizándolo como una herramienta de su propio marketing. La presente publicación detalla qué sería una verdadera acción de reducción de daños en tabaquismo, cuándo debería aplicarse y en qué pilares debería sostenerse. A lo largo del tiempo se han probado distintos métodos de minorar los efectos perjudiciales del tabaco y de la nicotina, si bien los resultados han sido escasos; así pues, se propone como objetivo prioritario la cesación tabáquica por los distintos métodos reconocidos, utilizando como herramientas las verdaderamente amparadas por la Ciencia. En contraste, se explican también las estrategias desarrolladas por la industria para manipular a los consumidores y hacerles dependientes de unos productos que eventualmente pueden acabar con sus vidas: desde el desarrollo de los cigarrillos con filtro a los light, y de los mentolados a los vapers de sabores. En todos los casos han hecho creer falsamente que desarrollaban productos menos tóxicos cuando no era así. Hoy en día, tanto los cigarrillos light como los mentolados están prohibidos en España, los filtros no han conseguido una disminución del riesgo y sí un aumento del consumo, y los vapers intentan sustituir a los cigarrillos con sus aromas atractivos y su falsa leyenda de productos más sanos cuando lo que están haciendo en realidad es mantener la misma adicción cambiando el objeto, fomentando el consumo dual, y atrayendo a consumidores no-fumadores previos cada vez más jóvenes. Paralelamente, se ha desarrollado una estrategia de división de la opinión de los profesionales sanitarios, con médicos e investigadores con reconocidos conflictos de interés pero que logran confundir al consumidor. Como conclusión consideramos que, si bien en algún caso particular los DSLN (dispositivos susceptibles de liberar nicotina) puedan ser elementos útiles, no son recomendables a nivel poblacional ya que pueden promover el inicio del consumo e impedir la cesación, además de mantener la capacidad adictógena. Los únicos productos de nicotina que se recomiendan son aquellos de uso farmacológico aprobados para el caso y siempre que se usen como herramienta transitoria para la cesación completa.

Strategies for Effective Capacity-Building in the Fight Against Commercial Tobacco.

The Center for Black Health & Equity's approach to addressing health inequities relies on the inherent ability within community-based organizations to respond to public health priorities while addressing the political and social determinants of health. By using Dr. Robert Robinson's Community Development Model as a foundational framework, communities can address systemic barriers that impede optimal health outcomes. The model includes community engagement and mobilization activities that motivate communities to achieve equity-centered policy change and offers milestones that show progress made toward their goals and objectives. We operationalized the Community Development Model into the Community Capacity Building Curriculum to train community partners to form a multicultural coalition through asset mapping as a tool for community mobilization. This curriculum is both cost effective and efficient because it enables communities to address health disparities beyond tobacco control, such as food and nutrition, housing, and environmental issues. Coalitions are prepared to identify and make recommendations to address policies that perpetuate health disparities. Facing off against a powerful tobacco industry giant is challenging for small grassroots organizations advocating for stricter tobacco regulations and policies. Such organizations struggle for resources; however, their passion and dedication to the mission of saving Black lives can promote change.

Community Voices: A Qualitative Study Exploring Perceptions of Menthol Cigarette Sales Restrictions in Los Angeles County Among Black Adults Who Smoke Menthol Cigarettes.

INTRODUCTION: The commercial tobacco industry has long targeted Black communities by making menthol cigarettes not only appealing but affordable through marketing, advertising, and pricing strategies, particularly in the retail environment. Policies that focus on restricting the sale of menthol cigarettes have the potential to significantly reduce the death toll from smoking while also mitigating health inequities and advancing racial equity. However, limited qualitative research exists on the perceptions of menthol cigarette sales restrictions, including local policies, among Black adults who smoke menthol cigarettes. AIMS AND METHODS: In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted between January and September 2021 with self-identified non-Hispanic Black adults who reported current menthol cigarette use (n = 26). Participants were asked open-ended questions about awareness and perceptions of the Los Angeles County law banning the retail sale of menthol cigarettes in unincorporated communities, including how it influences their smoking and purchasing behaviors. RESULTS: We used three thematic categories to structure the results: (1) Are People Aware of Local Menthol Cigarette Sales Restrictions? Levels of Awareness and Strategies to Increase Awareness, (2) Why Ban Menthol? Concerns About Equity and Fairness, and (3) Will Menthol Cigarette Bans Decrease Smoking? Mixed Perceptions About Potential Impact. Most participants (88.5%) had heard about the menthol ban in their communities. Participants described ambivalence towards the ban and identified several factors that hinder support, participation, and well-being, including uncertainty regarding the rationale for banning menthol cigarettes; perceptions that the ban specifically targets Black communities; and concerns regarding government overreach and constraining individual choice. Participants had differing views on whether the ban would likely help them and others who smoke menthol cigarettes reduce or quit smoking. Participants also described situations in which they would purchase menthol cigarettes in another state, country, online, or in the illicit market. Furthermore, participants often viewed the ban as perpetuating criminalization and over-policing of Black communities-arguments used by the commercial tobacco industry to oppose menthol bans. CONCLUSIONS: Our community-based sample of Black adults who smoke menthol cigarettes face challenges and concerns about local menthol bans. Community-centered interventions, messages, and materials about racial equity in menthol bans, access to free cessation services, and countering commercial tobacco industry interference, in addition to measurable steps toward rectifying injustice from the commercial tobacco industry and repeated exemptions of menthol cigarettes from federal legislation through tangible reparations, would be helpful to this community. IMPLICATIONS: We sought to add to the literature on flavored nicotine and commercial tobacco policies in the United States by centering the voices of Black adults who smoke menthol cigarettes regarding their awareness, perceptions, and opinions of local laws restricting menthol cigarette retail sales and how such polices influence their smoking and purchasing behaviors. Our findings suggest that Black adults who smoke menthol cigarettes are aware of local laws restricting menthol cigarette retail sales and are ambivalent about the rationale. Our findings have implications for the development and delivery of equity-focused strategies and resources to increase awareness of and rationale for the ban; counter commercial tobacco industry interference; and facilitate smoking cessation among Black adults who experience more combustible tobacco-related morbidity and mortality than their racial/ethnic counterparts. By understanding this relevance, we can also recognize how individual awareness and perceptions are moored within and contextualized by broader social structures and systemic inequities that warrant policy considerations.

Youth and Young Adult Awareness of and Perceptions About Tobacco Marketing as a Social Justice Issue.

INTRODUCTION: Systemic racism and tobacco-industry targeting contribute to disparities in communities of color. However, understanding tobacco as a social justice issue and the industry's role in perpetuating inequities remains limited. This study explored youth and young adult awareness of tobacco marketing and perceptions of tobacco marketing as a social justice issue. AIMS AND METHODS: Focus groups were conducted with youth and young adults in 2020 and 2021, including individuals who used tobacco and e-cigarettes and those who did not use either. Online surveys were conducted in 2021 with youth (n = 1227) and young adults (n = 2643) using AmeriSpeak's nationally representative panel, oversampling for black and Hispanic Americans and people who smoke. Perceptions of flavor bans, social justice, and industry marketing were assessed. RESULTS: Most (>80%) survey respondents agreed that tobacco companies target youth. However, only 20% saw tobacco as a social justice issue. Focus group participants regardless of their tobacco or e-cigarette use, reported higher prevalence of tobacco advertising in their communities relative to survey respondents but did not view it as targeting communities of color. Black non-Hispanic (20.9%) and Hispanic (21.4%) survey respondents perceived tobacco as a social justice issue more than white non-Hispanic (16.1%) respondents. The majority (>60%) of survey respondents supported bans on menthol and flavored tobacco, regardless of race or ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents broadly supported menthol and flavored tobacco bans and recognized tobacco-industry influence on youth. Low awareness of tobacco as a social justice issue highlights the need to raise awareness of the underlying factors driving tobacco-related disparities. IMPLICATIONS: The majority of young people see the tobacco industry as targeting them. Most young people support bans on menthol and flavored tobacco bans, with support across racial and ethnic groups. While few young respondents perceived tobacco as a social justice issue, some perceived tobacco companies as targeting low-income and communities of color. Black non-Hispanic and Hispanic respondents were more likely to perceive tobacco as a social justice issue than white non-Hispanic respondents. Efforts to raise awareness among young people of tobacco as a social justice issue may be key in addressing tobacco disparities and advancing support for flavor tobacco bans.