Background As of 1 January 2017, the Canadian province of Ontario banned the distribution and sale of menthol tobacco products. There is limited knowledge about how tobacco companies will adapt their packaging in response to a menthol ban.
Methods We conducted a content analysis of preban traditional menthol (no capsule) and menthol capsule cigarette packs and their postban replacements. Preban and postban packs were matched using tobacco company descriptions of replacement brands in business-to-business marketing materials, advertising on cigarette pack cellophane and a tobacco company website.
Results A total of 63 menthol (n=30) and ‘non-menthol alternative’ (n=33) cigarette packs were included in the analysis. Approximately half of the preban packs were menthol capsule cigarettes and half traditional menthol cigarettes. While some postban brands continued to convey menthol-like qualities via the colour and/or brand descriptor ‘green’, ’blue' was the most common colour and brand descriptor postban. Packs shifted from using ‘menthol’ and/or ‘fresh’ as taste descriptor preban to using ‘smooth’ postban; some postban packs had ‘non-menthol alternative’ or ‘without menthol/capsules’ written on their cellophane. The presence of innovative filter technologies continued in the postban samples.
Conclusion Results suggest that tobacco companies attempted to maintain menthol smokers in Ontario by aggressive preban promotion of menthol capsule cigarettes, continued promotion of innovative filter technologies and by directing smokers to non-menthol alternatives whose packaging both in text and in colour connoted menthol-like qualities (eg, green) and reduced harshness or harm (eg, blue, white, silver, smooth taste).
- advertising and promotion
- packaging and labelling
- tobacco industry
- public policy
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors RS and MOC conceived the study and the analysis plan. TB purchased the packs. TB and SAD coded the data and conducted the analysis. SO consulted throughout the data collection, coding and analysis process. TB drafted the manuscript. RS, MOC, SO and SAD reviewed the manuscript and provided input to its finalisation.
Funding Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number FP00003667.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.