Cigarette filter edit
The 1950s gave birth to numerous scientific studies that proved the link between cigarettes and cancer (see Wynder and Graham, 1950 Doll and Hill, 1952, 1954 Hammond and Horn, 1958). 6 In response to these studies and their perceived threat to the tobacco industry s future profitability, tobacco companies experimented with new modifications to the cigarette design. 6 By altering the cigarette design, tobacco companies hoped to create a “safer” cigarette that would better appeal to their increasingly health conscious consumers. 7 The addition of filters to cigarettes was one of the industry s first design modifications, and filters would become essential to the later development of light and low tar products. 8 Claiming that filtered cigarettes literally filtered out much of the harmful tar and carcinogenic particles found in regular cigarettes, tobacco companies promoted relative product safety in order to convince smokers to continue smoking. 7 Because filtered cigarettes were depicted as relatively safer and less harmful, smokers who were concerned about tobacco s negative health impacts were led to believe that by switching to filtered cigarettes, they would minimize smoking’s detrimental impact on their health as a result, millions of addicted smokers switched to filtered cigarettes instead of quitting altogether. 7 By 1960, filtered cigarettes had become the leading tobacco product. 8
Creation of the “light” cigarette edit
In addition to heavily promoting the filtered cigarette as the answer to smokers health concerns, the industry also poured resources into developing a cigarette that would produce lower machine measured tar and nicotine yields when tested by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). 6 This endeavor resulted in the introduction and heavy promotion of light cigarettes during the 1970s. 8 The newly designed light cigarette employed a special filter perforated with small holes these perforated filters allegedly offset the concentration of inhaled harmful smoke with clean air. Most important to the tobacco industry, however, was that light cigarettes produced lower tar and nicotine levels when tested with the FTC s smoking machines. 6
Market share edit
By 1997, the advertising of light cigarettes constituted fifty percent of the industry s advertising spending. 8 Through heavy marketing, the tobacco industry succeeded in misleading its consumer base to believe that light products were safer than regular brands, and thus, that these products were the rational choice for smokers who cared about their health. 7 9 As a result of these implicit and widespread health claims, the popularity of light and low tar cigarettes grew considerably. In fact, the market share of light cigarettes grew from a mere 2.0 percent in 1967 to 83.5 percent of the tobacco market in 2005. 8 Due to recent federal regulations requiring that the tobacco industry s internal documents be made publicly available online, there is no doubt about the industry s underlying motives behind the development of light products. 10 These documents explicitly state that the industry sought to both maintain and expand its consumer base by manipulating smokers health concerns to the industry s advantage. 10
Health claims edit ISO machine smoking method edit
Packages of light, mild, and low tar cigarettes are often labeled as being lower tar and nicotine and also list tar and nicotine levels that are lower than those found on the packages of regular cigarettes. The lower tar and nicotine numbers found on cigarette packages represent the levels produced when machine smoked by a smoking machine test method. 3 Developed by the FTC in 1967, the smoking machine test method was created to determine the yield of a cigarette by smoking it in a standardized fashion by machine this test method is also known as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) machine smoking method. 11 While the FTC has always recognized that the smoking machine did not replicate human smoking and that no two human smokers smoke in the same way, the FTC did not initially recognize the tobacco industry s ability to design cigarettes that yielded low levels of tar and nicotine when machine smoked, but yielded much higher levels when smoked by a human being. 12
Cigarette modifications and “compensatory” smoking edit
Light cigarettes essentially fool smoking machines through several techniques. A light cigarette s filter perforated by tiny holes, for instance, is uncovered when smoked by machine, and consequently, the cigarette smoke is heavily diluted with air and causes the machines to report falsely low levels of nicotine and tar. 3 When smoked by human smokers, in contrast, this filter is usually covered by smokers lips and fingers. 3 Consequently, the tiny filter holes are covered, and the light cigarette actually becomes equivalent to a regular cigarette. 3 Some tobacco manufacturers also increased the length of the paper wrap which covers the cigarette filter this modification serves to decrease the number of puffs available to the machine test and limits the amount of tobacco that is machine smoked. 3 In reality, however, the tobacco found under this paper wrap which is not smoked by machine is still available to and smoked by the human smoker. 3
The human act of “compensating” is perhaps the most important method by which light cigarettes cheat the ISO machine smoking method. Unlike machines, human smokers are often heavily addicted to the nicotine in cigarettes, and consequently, smokers alter their smoking behaviors in order to consume the amount of nicotine required to satisfy their cravings. Compensatory behavior especially occurs if a smoker switches from regular cigarettes to light cigarettes. 3 12 4 13 Numerous scientific studies reveal that the smoker actually compensates for the lower amount of nicotine by actively changing his or her smoking habits and even increasing the number of cigarettes that are smoked per day. 3 12 4 13 Smokers adjust their smoking techniques by smoking their cigarettes more intensively. 4 More intensive smoking is achieved by taking larger, more rapid, and more frequent puffs, by inhaling more deeply, by smoking more cigarettes per day, and/or by reflexively blocking the cigarette s filter. 3 4 14 Due to these compensatory smoking behaviors, smokers inhale significantly more nicotine and tar levels than what are measured by the ISO machine smoking method. 10 3 4 13
Scientific conclusions edit
With these factors in mind, it is unsurprising that switching from regular to light or low tar cigarettes does not reduce the health risks of smoking or lower the smoker s exposure to the nicotine, tar, and carcinogens present in cigarette smoke. 3 4 15 According to the 2004 Surgeon General s report, Smoking cigarettes with lower machine measured yields of tar and nicotine provides no clear benefit to health. 16 The tobacco industry s own internal documents, too, reveal that cigarette manufacturers are more than aware of the difference between machine measured levels of nicotine and tar, and those actually inhaled by smokers. 3 The industry is equally aware of the compensatory behaviors that smokers engage in when smoking light cigarettes. 3 Nonetheless, these health truths are not widely publicized or understood by the average smoking population, and even today, the tobacco industry’s implicit health claims lead countless smokers to switch from regular cigarettes to light cigarettes, rather than quitting altogether.
Research into low nicotine cigarettes and effects on smoking frequency edit
A recent small scale study led by nicotine researcher Neal Benowitz found that smokers who were switched to cigarettes with tobacco that contained progressively less nicotine did not compensate by smoking more cigarettes, although a significant minority of the smokers in the research withdrew from the study citing a dislike of the taste of the reduced nicotine cigarettes. These results differ greatly from those obtained in earlier studies by Benowitz and others, where fil
ter based nicotine reduction was found to result in compensatory smoking behaviours. According to a USCF article on the study, Benowitz wanted to simulate a societal scenario in which the nicotine content of cigarettes would be progressively regulated downward.
According to a more recent Washington Post article, the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) has backed low nicotine cigarette research as it weighs its new regulatory power. That new power includes the power to regulate the level of nicotine in cigarettes and was given to the FDA by the 2009 Tobacco Control Act, described below.
2009 anti smoking legislation edit
In June 2009, the United States Senate passed anti smoking legislation described by USA Today as the most sweeping tobacco control measure ever passed by Congress, and this legislation directly impacts the marketing and consumption of light tobacco products. 2 In addition to giving the FDA regulatory power over all tobacco products, the bill severely restricts the tobacco industry s previous marketing strategies, many of which relied on making implicit health claims about their products. 2 17 According to the bill, cigarette manufacturers are also forbidden from using product descriptors such as light, low tar, and mild. 17
Critics of the legislation question whether it will have a significant impact on today s pervasive tobacco market. 7 For one, the bill does not specify acceptable words for differentiating light cigarettes from other cigarettes. 2 Cigarette manufacturers quickly responded to this loophole by strategically color coding their products so that Camel Lights, for example, is now Camel Blue. Nik Modi, a tobacco industry analyst, concedes that prohibiting terms like “light” and “low tar” will hardly affect the tobacco market because smokers have already become acclimated to color coding. 18
Eve (cigarette) – wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Eve cigarettes used very feminine art and marketing, starting with the cigarette itself which was long and slim, originally 100mm but lengthened to 120mm within two years, in order to be more readily identified with the feminine ideals of slimness and length. The filter and box of earlier generation Eves were decorated with flowers to look feminine and fashionable, specifically signifying that this was a lady’s cigarette, as well as to catch the eye of consumers.
The advertising approach was to make Eve appear to be a beautiful cigarette which made the woman who chose to smoke Eves more attractive, creating a sense of appeal to feminine vanity. Accordingly, the objective was to capture the market share from other brands, particularly other brands targeted to women, and to recruit non smokers, suggesting that an Eve smoker is more attractive than a woman who did not smoke.
The marketing approach was designed to be very feminine. Models were very elegant, ladylike, and elaborately made up. Advertising text complemented the feminine imagery. In 1976 Eves were even marketed in association with a fashion line with colors and floral prints similar to Eve cigarette packs. The message was that women who smoked Eves were feminine, ladylike, and ladies of leisure. Slogans used included “Finally a cigarette as pretty as you” and “Every inch the lady”.
For almost 40 years Eve cigarettes have been aimed at the same niche market, women and young girls who wish to appear ladylike. They have not sold as well as the competing Virginia Slims cigarettes, which have always had broader appeal.
The packaging has evolved to keep up with the times. Packaging went from a soft pack with the trademark flowers and drawing of Eve in the garden (gen. 1) to losing the female figure and retaining only the flowers (gen. 2) then moving the flowers to a band lengthwise on a white cardboard box (gen. 3). This packaging went unchanged until 1992 when the small multicolored flowers were replaced by thin orchid like flowers in jewel tones on the box, and a single small colored flower on the filter band of the cigarette (gen. 4). In Germany the packaging and cigarette design did not change, retaining the floral band. Menthol versions of Eve used similar designs but with more green tones. Shorter 100mm Eves in Regular and Menthol boxes were reintroduced in 1985 but gradually disappeared due to lack of interest. In 1990 Eve Ultra Lights 120s were introduced in Regular and Menthol, promising lowered tar and nicotine, and milder flavor. Packaging was white flip top box with long stemmed flowers done in pale pastels, with a single pale pastel flower on the filter band. Menthols were similar but with more green. After 1992 packaging remained unchanged until 2002, except for yet another unsuccessful reintroduction of 100mm length Eve Lights and Eve Ultra Lights in 1991. In 2002 the flowers were replaced by butterflies (gen. 5). Ultra Lights lost the long stemmed flowers they had since their introduction and unified with the regulars for the first time by assuming the butterfly motif, with different colors identifying Ultra Lights (blue) and Menthol Ultra Lights (teal), to complement the colors identifying Lights (purple) and Menthol Lights (green). In 2002 soft pack 100s were reintroduced yet again, using the butterfly design of the 120s. And as before, 100s gradually disappeared.
As of 2010 update four styles of Eve cigarettes were available Eve Lights 120s, Eve Ultra Lights 120s, Eve Menthol Lights 120s, and Eve Menthol Ultra Lights 120s. The butterfly band around the filter and above the rings with the Eve logo was done in a subtle watermark, instead of bright colors as had been done in the past. By July 2010, in keeping with the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the words “lights” and “ultralights” had been removed. Eve Lights 120s were renamed Eve Amethyst 120s, Eve Ultralights 120s were renamed Eve Sapphire 120s, Eve Menthol Lights 120s were renamed Eve Menthol Emerald 120s, and Eve Menthol Ultralights 120s were renamed Eve Menthol Turquoise 120s.
See also edit
- Fashion brands
- Smoking culture
- Tobacco smoking