"Natural" and "Organic" cigarette descriptors: association with expectancies, subjective effects, topography, and biomarkers of exposure among daily smokers

项目摘要 消费者认为，带有“有机”、“天然”或类似描述的香烟明显更具吸引力， 比没有这些描述符的香烟更健康，或者危害更小。在全国范围内，超过45%的美国吸烟者认为 有机烟草产品比传统烟草产品危害小。这些误解甚至更多 在吸食天然美国精神(NAS)香烟的人中尤为明显，他们吸烟的可能性是其他人的22倍 让吸烟者相信他们的品牌可能危害较小。有一些证据表明，这些误导性的描述会影响 潜在和当前消费者的吸烟行为，但结果是基于自我报告。这项研究的现状并没有 告诉我们吸烟者如何解释使用“天然”或“有机”烟草产品的主观效果，我们也不知道 吸烟者对其主观体验的解释影响其实际吸烟行为和随后的生物学行为 曝光。在反应预期理论的指导下，本研究的目的是考察两者之间的关系 “天然”或“有机”描述符和健康风险预期、主观影响、地形和由此产生的生物 曝光。先前的实验研究仅限于检验健康风险变化的在线短暂暴露研究 预期和意图，并不包括NAS吸烟者，他们可能已经存在的信念，“自然”或 “有机”香烟导致更极端的“天然”或“有机”香烟的好评率和更极端的 与其他吸烟者相比，传统香烟的负面评级更高。这项拟议的研究将检验预期如何 关于“天然的”或“有机的”描述符影响主观效果(例如，味道)，地形(例如，总的泡芙体积)， 和急性暴露(例如唾液醛浓度)，将描述符与吸烟行为和生物标记物联系起来 NAS和非NAS香烟的日常吸烟者的暴露情况。为了实现这些目标，我们将招收250名成年人 在受试者内的人体实验室研究中，NAS或非NAS品牌的每日吸烟者(每组125人) 操控四种预期条件(自有品牌比较、“天然”广告、“有机”广告、 “传统”广告)。考虑到NAS吸烟者可能对天然/有机烟草产品预先存在的信念，我们 将在每个假设中检验NAS偏好的节制。鉴于女性对有机食品更有信心 根据我们团队的产品和初步数据，我们还将检查每个假设中按性别划分的适度性。这部作品 满足FDA烟草产品中心(CTP)的目标，即了解烟草产品的变化 特征(即描述符)与知识、态度和行为相关联。了解如何 描述符不仅影响感知，而且对使用香烟的主观解释也很重要，因为FDA的CTP 不仅对包装进行监管，还对烟草产品的设计进行监管。这些描述符可以 影响消费者对吸烟主观影响的解读，导致监管机构意外反应 旨在减少产品的滥用、责任或吸引力的行为。

PROJECT ABSTRACT Consumers believe that cigarettes with “organic,” “natural,” or similar descriptors are significantly more appealing, healthier, or less harmful than cigarettes without these descriptors. Nationwide, over 45% of US smokers believe that organic tobacco products are less harmful than conventional tobacco products. These misperceptions are even more pronounced among smokers of Natural American Spirit (NAS) cigarettes, who are 22 times more likely than other smokers to believe that their brand might be less harmful. There is some evidence that these misleading descriptors affect potential and current consumers’ smoking behavior, but results are based on self-report. The state of the research does not tell us how smokers interpret the subjective effects of using a “natural” or “organic” tobacco product, nor do we know if smokers’ interpretation of their subjective experience affects their actual smoking behavior and subsequent biological exposures. Guided by response expectancy theory, the purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between “natural” or “organic” descriptors and health risk expectancies, subjective effects, topography, and resulting biological exposures. Prior experimental research is limited to online brief exposure studies examining changes in health risk expectancies and intentions and has not included NAS smokers, who may have preexisting beliefs about “natural” or “organic” cigarettes that lead to more extreme favorable ratings of “natural” or “organic” cigarettes and more extreme negative ratings of conventional cigarettes than other smokers. The proposed research will examine how expectancies regarding “natural” or “organic” descriptors affect subjective effects (e.g., taste), topography (e.g., total puff volume), and acute exposures (e.g., salivary aldehyde concentrations), linking descriptors with smoking behavior and biomarkers of exposure among daily smokers of NAS and non-NAS cigarettes. To accomplish these aims, we will enroll 250 adult daily cigarette smokers of NAS or non-NAS brands (125 in each group) in a within-subjects human laboratory study manipulating four expectancy conditions (own brand comparator, “natural” advertising, “organic” advertising, “conventional” advertising). Given NAS smokers’ likely preexisting beliefs about natural/organic tobacco products, we will examine moderation by NAS preference in each hypothesis. Given women’s more favorable beliefs about organic products and preliminary data from our team, we will also examine moderation by gender in each hypothesis. This work addresses the FDA Center for Tobacco Products’ (CTP) goal to understand how changes in tobacco product characteristics (i.e., descriptors) are associated with knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. Understanding how descriptors affect not only perceptions but also the subjective interpretation of using a cigarette is important as FDA CTP moves forward with regulating not just the packaging, but also the design of tobacco products. These descriptors may affect consumers’ interpretation of the subjective effects of smoking, leading to unexpected responses to regulatory actions meant to reduce the abuse liability or appeal of a product.