The U.S. Tobacco Control Act restricts advertising or labeling that suggests one tobacco product is less harmful than another. We sought to examine how “organic,” “natural,” and “additive-free” advertising claims and corresponding disclaimers affect perceptions of cigarettes’ harm.
Participants were a national probability sample of adults in the U.S. (n = 1,114, including 344 smokers). We conducted a 5 (claim) × 2 (disclaimer) between-subjects factorial experiment. Participants viewed a Natural American Spirit cigarettes ad claiming they were “organic,” “natural,” “additive-free,” “light,” or “regular;” and with or without a corresponding disclaimer. The outcome was perceived harm of the advertised cigarettes. Among smokers, we also assessed interest in switching within their current brand to cigarettes with this characteristic (e.g., “additive-free”).
Claims in the ad had a large effect on perceived harm (Cohen’s d = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.47–1.29). Claims of cigarettes being “organic,” “natural,” or “additive-free” reduced perceived harm from the advertised cigarettes, as compared to “regular” and “light” claims. Disclaimers had a small effect, increasing perceived harm (d = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.08–0.41). The problematic claims also increased smokers’ interest in switching. Disclaimers had no effect on smokers’ interest in switching.
“Organic,” “natural,” and “additive-free” claims may mislead people into thinking that the advertised cigarettes are less harmful than other cigarettes. Disclaimers did not offset misperceptions of harm created by false claims. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration should restrict the use of these misleading claims in tobacco advertising.