12.10 Concluding remarks

Show / hide chapter menu

12.0 Introduction

12.1 Tobacco in Australian cigarettes

12.2 Measuring cigarette smoke constituents

12.3 Labelling of 'tar', nicotine and carbon monoxide yields of Australian cigarettes

12.4 General engineering features of Australian cigarettes and their relation to compensatory smoking

12.5 Comparison of Australian and United States cigarettes

12.6 Comparison of Australian cigarettes in different yield categories

12.7 Additives in Australian cigarettes

12.8 Flavoured cigarettes

12.9 Specific carcinogens and cardiovascular toxicants in Australian cigarettes

12.10 Concluding remarks

Acknowledgments

References

Attachment 12.1 Health warnings

Attachment 12.1 References

Attachment 12.2 Reduced fire risk (RFR) cigarettes

Attachment 12.2 References

Attachment 12.3 Smokeless tobacco and harm reduction

Attachment 12.3 References

The prudent assumption about the cigarettes currently available on the Australian market at the time of writing is that they do not differ in harmfulness. The weight of evidence is now strongly against 'low tar' cigarettes providing any relative health benefits. However, evidence is not currently available to make any reliable claims about whether differences in machine-tested emissions of specific carcinogens and cardiovascular/respiratory toxins could provide any possibilities for producing relative health benefits. Adequate evidence is available to conclude that cigarettes currently available in Australia do differ in the impressions of harmfulness that are likely to be gained by many smokers.

Cigarettes now labelled with such descriptors as 'smooth' and 'fine' (and previously labelled 'light' or 'mild' ) have milder taste and reduced harshness when compared with 'full flavour' or 'regular' cigarettes. The principal mechanism for producing the differences in taste and harshness between 'full flavour/regular' and 'smooth/fine' cigarettes is filter ventilation. Prohibiting filter ventilation would greatly reduce the ability of the tobacco industry to persuade some smokers that they are making less harmful product choices, whereas prohibiting the use of 'light' and 'mild' descriptors while allowing the use of 'smooth' and 'fine' descriptors and putting no restrictions on how cigarettes are constructed arguably left the main basis of the 'light/mild' deception in place.

The sensations arising from smoking menthol cigarettes are also likely to persuade some smokers that they are gaining a relative health benefit from smoking a menthol cigarette, rather than a 'regular' one. While far fewer Australian smokers use menthol cigarettes than 'smooth/'fine' cigarettes, the numbers are far from insignificant in absolute terms.14

Regardless of the particular means by which 'smoothness' is achieved, some smokers can be expected to believe that 'smoother' cigarettes are less harmful. Future directions for tobacco control in Australia potentially include efforts to regulate how cigarettes are constructed as well as how they are labelled to remove this source of misapprehension that some cigarettes are 'safer' than others.