Tobacco packaging provides a direct link between consumers and manufacturers, and serves as a vital marketing channel for the tobacco industry. Package design is primarily used to reinforce brand imagery, to minimize perceptions of risk, and to communicate deceptive differences in the risk of different brands.¹ There are three primary types of potentially misleading information on cigarette packages:

BRAND DESCRIPTORS
Packages incorporate a variety of words into the name of their cigarette brands to shape consumer perceptions. Words such as light and mild are ostensibly used to denote flavour and taste; however, light and mild brands are often promoted as “healthier” products and are typically applied to brands with filter ventilation that generate lower machine levels of tar.¹ These words are inherently misleading to consumers and promote the false impression that brands called light and mild offer lower tar exposure and risk compared to other varieties.² Internal tobacco industry research indicates that these descriptors are targeted towards health-concerned smokers and can delay or prevent quitting.^2,3

A number of jurisdictions have prohibited the words light, mild, and low tar. Manufacturers have substituted words such as smooth, as well as the names of colours, such as silver and blue, which capitalize on perceptions of these colours as being “lighter” and “healthier”. These replacement words have the same misleading effect as light and mild: a recent study found that more than 70% of smokers reported that packages with words such as smooth and silver would have lower health risks than regular and full flavour brands.⁴

REFERENCES TO PRODUCT DESIGN AND EMISSIONS
Numbers are commonly used in the name of cigarette brands to distinguish between different varieties.² These numbers often correspond to the machine levels of tar emissions.¹ When shown packages with different numbers in the brand name, as many as 80% of smokers report that the brand with the lower number would deliver less tar and may lower risk.⁴ Packages with pictures and references to special cigarette filters are also rated as having less tar and lower health risk.⁴ These references to product design and chemical profile on the package are meaningless in terms of actual risk; however, as internal tobacco industry documents indicate, the illusion of improved filtration and technology falsely reassures consumers.⁵

COLOURS AND BRAND IMAGERY
Colour is routinely used in package design to shape consumer perceptions of risk.^6,7 Research has shown that consumers associate the “lightness” and “strength” of a brand with different colors. For example, blue tones are perceived as “lighter” than red, while products in grey and white packages are perceived to be the “lightest.” Different shades of the same color, as well as the proportion of white space on the package, can also be used to manipulate perceptions of strength.^4,6 Cigarette packaging throughout the world is remarkably consistent in the application of these basic principles.

“PLAIN” PACKAGING
Removing the colour, brand imagery, and logos from packages significantly reduces their attractiveness and appeal, particularly among youth.^4,6,8 “Plain” packaging also increases the credibility and recall of health warnings on the package.⁹ In general, any measure that helps to standardize packaging across different brands – including restrictions on the type of fonts and shape of packs – will help to minimize the deceptive potential of packaging.⁶

SUMMARY
• Tobacco packaging misleads smokers regarding the health risks of tobacco products.
• Words such as light, mild, and low tar are inherently misleading and should be prohibited; however, prohibitions on brand descriptors must be broader in order to eliminate misleading substitutes.
• Removing misleading information will also require prohibitions on the use of colour and brand imagery.
• Regulations that “standardize” the appearance of packaging will reduce the deceptive potential of packaging and will increase the effectiveness of health warnings.

Prepared by David Hammond, University of Waterloo (Canada) with support from IUATLD.

To download a copy of the fact sheet, click here.