Introduction

The 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act requires the US to inform the public about the toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke [1]. Messages that communicate this information could have the unintended consequence of steering smokers and susceptible non-smokers towards cigarettes described as “organic,” “natural,” or “additive-free.” Some consumers have the misperception that these cigarettes are less harmful [2–4], even though no cigarettes are safer than any others [5]. Before the terms were banned in 2010 [6], consumers were similarly misled by cigarettes marketed as “low-tar” and “light” [7]. Concern about cigarettes marketed as “natural” is important because the brand Natural American Spirit has rapidly grown in market share in recent years [8]. While some tobacco companies recently agreed to cease using the descriptor “additive-free,” the US still allows the descriptor “organic,” and the descriptor “natural” in the “Natural American Spirit” brand name) [9]. We sought to understand how the terms “organic,” “natural,” or “additive-free” affects smokers’ interest in cigarettes, in the context of information about the chemicals in cigarette smoke.

Methods

Results

The majority (72.1%) of participants smoked every day, and 33.4% smoked “light” or equivalent cigarettes (Table 1). More than three-quarters (76.8%, 95% CI: 74.2–79.3) of participants indicated at least “a little” expected interest in cigarettes with the experimentally assigned descriptor after learning that lead and hydrogen cyanide were in cigarette smoke. The majority of smokers also indicated at least “a little” expected interest in each of the 4 descriptors: “ultra-light” cigarettes (62.3%, 95% CI: 56.2–68.1), “organic” cigarettes (77.2%, CI: 72.2–81.7), “natural” cigarettes (86.0%, CI: 81.2–90.0), or “additive-free” cigarettes (82.4%, CI: 77.1–86.9).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Participant characteristics (unweighted).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212480.t001

Expected interest was lowest for “ultra-light” (control) cigarettes (M = 1.34, SD = 1.22) and higher for “organic” (M = 1.67, SD = 1.15; p = .001). Expected interest was even higher for “natural” (M = 1.95, SD = 1.08; p = .003) which did not differ from “additive-free” (M = 2.03, SD = 1.13; p = .38). Expected interest varied by cigarette descriptor (F(3, 1,097) = 19.3, p <.001; Fig 1).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Expected interest in “ultra-light,” “organic,” “natural,” and “additive-free” cigarettes after learning about the toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke.

Error bars show simple standard errors.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212480.g001

Smokers who intended to quit within the next 6 months expressed greater expected interest (M = 2.02, SD = 1.11) in the 4 cigarette types than those who did not (M = 1.49, SD = 1.18; p <.001). Quit intentions moderated the effect of descriptor (F(3, 1,093) = 3.39, p_interaction = .02; Fig 1). Among smokers who did not intend to quit, descriptors affected expected interest in the same rank order (“ultra-light” < “organic” < “natural” = “additive-free”) as for the full sample (all p <.01). Among smokers who intended to quit, the pattern was slightly different, with “organic” also being similar to “natural” (p = .85). Frequency of smoking (p = .82), smoking “light” or equivalent cigarettes (p = .44), and demographic characteristics (all p≥.32) did not moderate the impact of descriptor.

Discussion

The descriptors “organic,” “natural,” and “additive-free” led to higher interest in cigarettes while learning about toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke. This finding was consistent regardless of intent to quit within the next 6 months, frequency of current smoking, and use of “light” or equivalent cigarettes. This finding also did not differ by demographic characteristics. In general, expected interest was lower for “organic” than “natural” or “additive-free” cigarettes. This pattern follows from prior studies showing that some people are skeptical of “organic” descriptors [15], but clearly think that additives are the main source of harm from smoking [2,16,17]. The only exception to the pattern was participants intending to quit within the next 6 months, who did not show a difference in expected interest between “organic” and “natural” or “additive-free” cigarettes, potentially because their quit intentions were motivated by health concerns that overrode any skepticism toward “organic” descriptors.

Descriptors of “organic,” “natural,” and “additive-free” may steer some smokers, especially those intending to quit, toward putatively “healthier” cigarettes rather than encouraging quitting. In a previous experiment, we found that “organic,” “natural,” and “additive-free” descriptors reduced the perceived harm of cigarettes and increased interest in switching to cigarettes with those descriptors [18]. We speculate that, in the current study, these descriptors may have similarly reduced perceptions of cigarettes’ harm, making these cigarettes more appealing in the context of new information about chemicals. Some cigarette promotion appears to capitalize on the public’s misunderstanding about these chemicals.

Conclusions

A growing body of literature shows that “organic,” “natural,” and “additive-free” descriptors are misleading [3,4,15,19–22]. These findings take on new importance in the context of federal law requiring disclosure of information about the toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke. Misleading cigarette descriptors may be especially worrisome without contextualizing information that toxic chemicals are in the smoke from all cigarettes. In the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the government restricted “light,” and in the recent settlements, “additive-free” has also been restricted. It is now appropriate to likewise fully restrict the terms “organic” (and “natural” in the brand name Natural American Sprit) for offering smokers a false sense of reduced harm.