Back to Annual Meeting

Back to Annual Meeting

APHA Scientific Session and Event Listing

Vaughan W. Rees, PhD, Geoffrey Ferris Wayne, MA, Colleen Bouzan, MS, and Gregory N. Connolly, DMD, MPH. Division of Public Health Practice, Harvard School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave, Landmark Building, Level 3 East, Boston, MA 02115, 617-496 1395, vrees@hsph.harvard.edu

Tobacco manufacturers have introduced what the Institute of Medicine describes as potential reduced (tobacco) exposure products (PREPs). Implied and explicit tobacco industry claims of reduced harm have prompted independent evaluations of PREPs, including measurement of toxic smoke emissions and disease biomarkers. Tobacco manufacturers have also manipulated PREP physical design features to enhance consumer appeal. However, the consumer response to PREPs has received limited evaluation and consumer acceptance remains unclear. We investigated the influence of altered flavor enhancement and filter design of a major new PREP, Marlboro UltraSmooth (MUS), on consumer acceptability. Marlboro Lights smokers were recruited in a brand-switching design in which they smoked their own brand before switching to MUS and a conventional control, Marlboro Ultra Lights, each for 2 days. Measures of smokers' puffing behavior (topography), sensory perceptions, subjective measures of craving and withdrawal relief, abuse liability and exposure were compared with the conventional cigarette. Smokers rated a MUS brand with flavor enhancement as more acceptable than a MUS brand without such enhancement, although MUS received overall lower consumer acceptance and abuse liability ratings than the control brand. However, smokers puffed MUS more intensively and received similar levels of harmful toxic emission exposure. Tobacco companies appear to be committed to improving consumer acceptability of PREPs. Effective understanding of the influence of PREP design on consumer response can complement existing research on harm reduction, and may help to counter the negative public health influence of tobacco products, whether they claim to reduce harm or not.

Learning Objectives:

• Describe key issues in evaluating reduced exposure tobacco products
• Articulate the role of subjective reponses smokers' acceptance of tobacco products
• Discuss public health strategies to counteract tobacco industry manipulation of new product design

Keywords: Tobacco Control, Public Health Advocacy

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

Not Answered