Cigarettes sold in China: design, emissions and metals

Background China is the home to the world's largest cigarette maker, China National Tobacco Company (CNTC), yet little is known publicly about the design and emissions of Chinese cigarettes. CNTC is currently in the process of consolidating its brands and has ambitions to export its cigarettes. Machine-measured tar yields of many of its cigarette brands have also been reduced, similar to what occurred in Western countries from the 1970s through the 1990s with so-called 'low-tar' cigarettes introduced to address consumer concerns about health risks from smoking.Method The current study examines the design and physical characteristics, labelled smoke emissions and tobacco metals content of leading brands of Chinese cigarettes from seven cities purchased in 2005-6 and in 2007.Results Findings suggest that similar to most countries, tar levels of Chinese cigarettes are predicted primarily by tobacco weight and filter ventilation. Ventilation explained approximately 50% of variation observed in tar and 60% variation in carbon monoxide yields. We found little significant change in key design features of cigarettes purchased in both rounds. We observed significant levels of various metals, averaging 0.82 mu g/g arsenic (range 0.3-3.3), 3.21 mu g/g cadmium (range 2.0-5.4) and 2.65 mu g/g lead (range 1.2-6.5) in a subsample of 13 brands in 2005-6, substantially higher than contemporary Canadian products.Conclusion Results suggest that cigarettes in China increasingly resemble those sold in Western countries, but with tobacco containing higher levels of heavy metals. As CNTC looks to export its product around the world, independent surveillance of tobacco product characteristics, including tobacco blend characteristics, will become increasingly important.</p

Socioeconomic Differences in the Effectiveness of the Removal of the “Light” Descriptor on Cigarette Packs: Findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Thailand Survey

Many smokers incorrectly believe that “light” cigarettes are less harmful than regular cigarettes. To address this problem, many countries have banned “light” or “mild” brand descriptors on cigarette packs. Our objective was to assess whether beliefs about “light” cigarettes changed following the 2007 removal of these brand descriptors in Thailand and, if a change occurred, the extent to which it differed by socioeconomic status. Data were from waves 2 (2006), 3 (2008), and 4 (2009) of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Thailand Survey of adult smokers in Thailand. The results showed that, following the introduction of the ban, there was an overall decline in the two beliefs that “light” cigarettes are less harmful and smoother than regular cigarettes. The decline in the “less harmful” belief was considerably steeper in lower income and education groups. However, there was no evidence that the rate of decline in the “smoother” belief varied by income or education. Removing the “light” brand descriptor from cigarette packs should thus be viewed not only as a means to address the problem of smokers’ incorrect beliefs about “light” cigarettes, but also as a factor that can potentially reduce socioeconomic disparities in smoking-related misconceptions

Beliefs about the relative harm of “light” and “low tar” cigarettes: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) China Survey

BACKGROUND: Many smokers in Western countries perceive "light" or "low tar" cigarettes as less harmful and less addictive than "regular" or "full flavoured" cigarettes. However, there is little research on whether similar perceptions exist among smokers in low and middle incomes, including China. OBJECTIVE: To characterise beliefs about "light" and "low tar" cigarettes among adult urban smokers in China. METHODS: We analysed data from Wave 1 of the ITC China Survey, a face-to-face household survey of 4732 adult Chinese smokers randomly selected from six cities in China in 2006. Households were sampled using a stratified multistage design. FINDINGS: Half (50.0%) of smokers in our sample reported having ever tried a cigarette described as "light," "mild" or "low tar". The majority of smokers in our sample (71%) believed that "light" and/or "low tar" cigarettes are less harmful compared to "full flavoured" cigarettes. By far the strongest predictor of the belief that "light" and/or "low tar" cigarettes are less harmful was the belief that "light" and/or "low tar" cigarettes feel smoother on the respiratory system (p<0.001, OR=53.87, 95% CI 41.28 to 70.31). CONCLUSION: Misperceptions about "light" and/or "low tar" cigarettes were strongly related to the belief that these cigarettes are smoother on the respiratory system. Future tobacco control policies should go beyond eliminating labelling and marketing that promotes "light" and "low tar" cigarettes by regulation of product characteristics (for example, additives, filter vents) that reinforce perceptions that "light" and "low tar" cigarettes are smoother on the respiratory system and therefore less harmful

U.S. adult perceptions of the harmfulness of tobacco products: descriptive T findings from the 2013–14 baseline wave 1 of the path study

Introduction: This study is the first nationally representative survey of U.S. adults (18+) to examine perceptions of the relative harms of eight non-cigarette tobacco products. Methods: Data are from Wave 1 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study Adult Questionnaire, a nationally representative study of 32,320 adults in the United States conducted from September 2013 to December 2014. Results: 40.7% of adults believed that electronic cigarettes were less harmful than cigarettes, and 17.8% of adults believed that hookah was less harmful than cigarettes. Those less knowledgeable about the health risks of smoking were more likely to believe that the non-cigarette products were less harmful than cigarettes. Current non-cigarette tobacco product users were more likely to perceive that product to be less harmful than cigarettes (except filtered cigars). There was a significant positive correlation between beliefs that cigarettes were harmful and the likelihood of using hookah; perceptions of the harmfulness of cigarettes was not associated with the likelihood of using any other product. Conclusions: Perceptions of harmfulness varied widely across non-cigarette tobacco products. E-cigarettes and hookah in particular are seen as less harmful compared to cigarettes

What happened to smokers' beliefs about light cigarettes when "light/mild" brand descriptors were banned in the UK? Findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey

Aim: This paper reports findings of an evaluation that examined how beliefs of smokers in the United Kingdom (UK) were affected by the removal of light and mild brand descriptors which came into effect on September 30, 2003 for Member States of the European Union (EU). Participants: The data come from the first 4 waves (2002-2005) of the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation (ITC) 4 Country Survey, an annual cohort telephone survey of adult smokers in Canada, United States, United Kingdom, and Australia (15450 individual cases). Design: The UK ban on misleading descriptors occurred around the 2nd wave of data collection in the ITC survey, permitting us to compare beliefs about light cigarettes among adult smokers in the UK both before and after the ban, with beliefs in three other countries unaffected by the ban. Results: The findings reveal that high levels of misperceptions about light cigarettes existed among smokers in all four countries before and after the EU ban took effect. There was a substantial decline in reported beliefs about the benefits of Lights in the UK following the policy change and an associated public information campaign, but by 2006 (i.e., Wave 4), these beliefs rebounded slightly and the change in beliefs was no greater than in the United States, where there was no policy change. Conclusion: We cannot conclude that the policy which required removal of the misleading labels has been effective in changing beliefs about light cigarettes. What seems apparent is that efforts to correct decades of consumer misperceptions about light cigarettes will require more than simply removing brand descriptors