Cigarette unit sales volume for brands using ‘natural,’ ‘organic,’ and ‘tobacco and water’ pack terms in the United States, 2018–2022

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Terms such as ‘natural,’ ‘organic,’ and ‘tobacco and water’ on cigarette packs may communicate misleading reduced harm messages to consumers. This study describes sales volume and price from brands that used these misleading descriptors in the US by year, brand, and state.

METHODS:

Data come from Information Resources Incorporated (IRI) sales data collected in 44 US states from January 2018-January 2023. Trained coders used Universal Product Codes (UPCs), purchased packs, and internet searches to identify cigarettes sold with ‘natural’, ‘organic’, and ‘tobacco and water’ on packs. We report cigarette pack unit sales counts (sales volume) and average price per pack by year, as well as percent year-over-year change in sales volume and price and annual market share by descriptor terms.

RESULTS:

Overall, pack sales volume decreased year-over-year from 2019–2022. Sales volume for packs with ‘natural,’ ‘tobacco and water,’ and ‘organic’ decreased less than overall; in some cases, they increased. In 2022, packs with ‘natural’ accounted for the greatest share of cigarette unit sales (5.42% or 33,605,036 packs), followed by ‘tobacco and water’ (2.25% or 12,959,905 packs) and ‘organic’ (0.53% or 4,614,592 packs). Natural American Spirit (NAS) and Winston accounted for most sales with ‘natural’ and ‘tobacco and water’; NAS accounted for nearly all sales for ‘organic.’ Packs with ‘natural,’ ‘tobacco and water,’ or ‘organic’ made up the largest portion of sales in western (Oregon, Idaho, California, Colorado, Washington) and northeastern (Vermont, Massachusetts, New Hampshire) US states.

CONCLUSION:

Brands using ‘natural,’ ‘tobacco and water,’ and ‘organic’ on packs increased their market share between 2019–2022; in some states, market share was over 10% in 2022. Our findings emphasise the importance of regulating these terms and continually monitoring their population impact.

INTRODUCTION

The prevalence of adult (11.5%) and adolescent (1.6%) cigarette smoking in the United States (US) is at its lowest recorded point in 50 years.^{1 2} Similarly, the volume of cigarette sales continues to fall.³ As the prevalence and patterns of cigarette smoking have changed in the US, cigarette brands’ market shares have also shifted, reflecting changes in tobacco company marketing practises.⁴

At least two brands have been particularly successful in gaining market share and attracting and retaining consumers: Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company’s Natural American Spirit (NAS) and Imperial Tobacco Group’s (ITG) Winston.^4–7 Both brands have employed nature-related imagery and terms such as ‘natural’, ‘tobacco and water,’ ‘additive-free,’ and ‘organic,’ which are associated with decreased perceived harm, increased perceived healthfulness, or increased appeal relative to cigarettes without these features.^8–11 Therefore, the use of ‘natural’ and related descriptors are misleading to consumers and the youth.^{9 12} The purpose of this study was to describe change in the share of US cigarette pack sales volume using ‘natural’, ‘tobacco and water,’ and ‘organic’ between 2018 – 2022 overall and by brand. Because sales volume may differ by location due to marketing and pricing^{13 14} as well as population demographics,¹⁵ a secondary purpose of this study was to describe cigarette sales volume of ‘natural,’ ‘organic,’ or ‘tobacco and water’ cigarette by state. Additionally, given the potential influence of price on sales,^{15 16} which can help us understand changes in sales, we describe the average price changes alongside sales by year, overall, and by use of ‘natural,’ ‘organic,’ and ‘tobacco and water’ on cigarette packaging to provide appropriate context to our results.

METHODS

We obtained cigarette Universal Product Code (UPC) retail sales data at the US state level split into four-week time periods covering 7^th January 2018 and 1^st January 2023. The data were purchased from the company known as Information Resources Inc. [IRI] before it was rebranded to Circana in March 2023. We therefore refer to the data’s provenance as being from IRI since the data were purchased under the company name IRI and the data ends in January 2023 before the name change. The IRI dataset includes sales data from brick-and-mortar retail locations in 44 US states, covering over 90% of the US population (listed in Supplemental Table 1).¹⁷ The IRI dataset includes the number of units sold (e.g., cigarette packs and cartons) and the price (which includes excise tax) by UPCs (corresponding to cigarette brands and sub-varieties), date (4-week period), and state. All cigarette volume units and prices were standardised to single packs for analyses.

Cigarette pack data:

To obtain data on the presence/absence of ‘natural,’ ‘organic,’ or ‘tobacco and water,’ on the 5,683 unique cigarette UPC codes in the IRI dataset, a team of eight coders searched online tobacco pack repositories (i.e., Rutgers’ Trinkets and Trash),¹⁸ tobacco retail store and brand sites, and tobacco chat rooms (i.e., Reddit, Facebook). Packs were defined as having ‘natural,’ ‘organic,’ or ‘tobacco and water’ if any side of the packaging had the terms or a derivation of the terms (e.g., ‘naturally’ on Winston packs or ‘nature’s blend’ on Great Country packs), including in the brand name (e.g., ‘Natural American Spirit’). Coders noted when online discussion posts or conflicting pack images indicated that the cigarette packaging for that sub-variety may have changed during the study period; these cases were discussed and resolved by the team, with mid-year pack design changes assumed to take full effect in the next calendar year to account for sales of the old pack design already on shelves. Following the initial coding stage, two coders (OE and AH) reviewed every tenth sub-variety or at least one sub-variety of each unique cigarette brand and discrepancies were resolved via team discussion. There was 98.4% level of agreement between the coders.

Statistical analyses:

We divided available data into 13 equally-sized 4-week periods to yield 5 ‘years’ of 364 days each: 2018 (January 7^th, 2018 – January 6^th, 2019); 2019 (January 7^th, 2019 to January 5^th, 2020); 2020 (January 6^th, 2020 to January 3^rd, 2021); 2021 (January 4^th, 2021 to January 2^nd, 2022); and, 2022 (January 3^rd, 2022 to January 1^st, 2023). We report cigarette pack unit sales counts by year, as well as percent year-over-year change in sales ((current year unit sales total − prior year unit sales total)/prior year unit sales total) * 100). We also provide the proportion of cigarette unit sales counts for each term by US state in 2022. For brand sub-analyses, only those with sales volume data in all 44 states in 2022 were included in Supplemental Table 1. Data analyses were conducted using Stata version 17 (Stata Corp, College Station, TX).

RESULTS

Sales volume.

In 2018, over 10.5 billion cigarette packs were sold in the 44 US states included in the sample, decreasing year-over-year by −4.8% in 2019, −4.7% in 2020, −8.0% in 2021, and −8.8% in 2022 (Table 1). In every year, unit sales for packs with ‘natural,’ ‘tobacco and water,’ and ‘organic’ terms decreased less than overall cigarette sales; in some cases, they increased. For example, unit sales for packs with ‘tobacco and water’ fluctuated year-over-year, decreasing as much as −2.8% between 2019–20 and increasing as much as 151.7% between 2021–22 (Table 1); year-over-year unit sales of cigarette packs using ‘organic’ decreased as much as −1.3% between 2018–19 and increased as much as 6.7% between 2020–21 (Table 1). Sales of cigarette packs with ‘natural’ terms most closely approximated those of the overall cigarette market, decreasing by −4.6% between 2018–19 (vs. −4.8% overall), −2.3% between 2019–20 (vs. −4.7% overall), −4.4% between 2020–21 (vs. −8.0% overall) and −8.5% between 2021–22 (vs. −8.8% overall; Table 1). Cigarette packs with ‘natural’ terms accounted for the greatest share of cigarette unit sales in 2022 (5.4% or 436,865,472 packs), followed by ‘tobacco and water’ (2.3% or 181,478,752 packs) and ‘organic’ (0.7% or 59,989,692 packs; Table 1).

Table 1.

Number of cigarette packs sold (sales volume) and year-over-year (YOY) change in sales volume, overall and by use of ‘natural,’ ‘organic,’ and ‘tobacco and water’ on cigarette packaging

Year	All cigarette pack sales volume	‘natural’ cigarette pack sales volume	‘tobacco and water’ cigarette pack sales volume	‘organic’ cigarette pack sales volume	YOY All cigarette pack sales volume	YOY ‘natural’ cigarette pack sales volume	YOY ‘tobacco and water’ cigarette pack sales volume	YOY ‘organic’ cigarette pack sales volume
2018	10,584,374,646	536,031,712	72,213,800	56,881,516	---	---	---	---
2019	10,082,080,622	511,239,776	74,503,472	56,140,772	−4–8%	−4.6%	3.2%	−1.3%
2020	9,608,335,816	499,426,080	72,453,864	56,618,604	−4–7%	−2.3%	−2.8%	0.9%
2021	8,840,541,680	477,358,656	72,092,456	60,396,840	−8.0%	−4.4%	−0.5%	6.7%
2022	8,060,184,580	436,865,472	181,478,752	59,989,692	−8.8%	−8.5%	151.7%	−0.7%

NOTE - 2018 corresponds to February 4^th, 2018 – January 6^th, 2019; 2019 corresponds to February 3^rd, 2019 to January 5^th, 2020; 2020 corresponds to February 2^nd, 2020 to January 3^rd, 2021; 2021 corresponds to January 31^st, 2021 to January 2^nd, 2022; and 2022 corresponds to January 30^th, 2022 to January 1^st, 2023.

In the US, NAS accounted for the highest proportion of cigarette packs with ‘natural’ terms, increasing from 53.0% in 2018 to 57.2% in 2022, and was the only major brand that sold cigarette packs with ‘organic’ in the 44 states in our sample between 2018–2022. However, share of sales volume for NAS cigarette packs with ‘tobacco and water’ decreased from 95.6% in 2018 to 38.4% in 2022, while Winston’s share of cigarette sales volume for ‘tobacco and water’ increased from 0 in 2018 to 60.6% in 2022. Winston’s share of ‘natural’ term cigarette sales volume decreased from 45.2% in 2018 to 41.2% in 2022; Nat Sherman’s share of ‘natural’ term sales volume also decreased (Supplemental Table 2).

By state, packs with ‘natural’ terms, ‘tobacco and water,’ or ‘organic’ made up the largest portion of cigarette unit sales in 2022 among western states, particularly Oregon, Idaho, California, Colorado, and Washington (Supplemental Table 1). Oregon had the highest proportion of sales volume from packs using ‘natural’ terms (12.7%), ‘tobacco and water’ (2.7%), and ‘organic’ (4.0%; Supplemental Table 1). On the other hand, Oklahoma had the lowest portion of cigarette unit sales in 2022 with ‘natural’ terms (2.6%) and ‘tobacco and water’ (1.0%), while Mississippi had the lowest proportion of cigarette unit sales with the term ‘organic’ (0.1%).

Number of UPCs.

The total number of UPCs for packs using ‘organic’ and ‘tobacco and water’ increased over time (Supplemental Table 3). For example, in 2018, only 5 UPCs used ‘organic’; this increased to 20 UPCs in 2022. UPCs for ‘tobacco and water’ also increased from 49 in 2018 to 154 in 2022. Use of ‘natural’ terms increased from 263 in 2018 to 293 in 2020, then dropped to 251 in 2021 and 253 in 2022 (Supplemental Table 3).

Price.

Table 2 presents the average price (including excise tax) of cigarettes overall and by terms. The average price of a pack of cigarettes in 2018 was $6.18, increasing to $7.53 in 2022. In every case, packs with ‘natural’ terms, ‘organic’ and ‘tobacco and water’ sold for more than the national average.

Table 2.

Average price (including excise tax) of cigarette packs sold and year-over-year (YOY) change in average price, overall and by use of ‘natural,’ ‘organic,’ and ‘tobacco and water’ on cigarette packaging

Year	Average cigarette pack price	Average ‘natural’ cigarette pack price	Average ‘tobacco and water’ cigarette pack price	Average ‘organic’ cigarette pack price	YOY All cigarette pack average price	YOY ‘natural’ cigarette pack average price	YOY ‘tobacco and water’ cigarette pack average price	YOY ‘organic’ cigarette pack average price
2018	$6.18	$6.88	$7.72	$8.12	---
2019	$6.41	$7.18	$8.04	$8.38	3.7%	4.3%	4.1%	3.2%
2020	$6.68	$7.52	$8.38	$8.70	4.2%	4.7%	4.2%	3.8%
2021	$7.14	$8.04	$9.10	$9.40	6.9%	6.9%	8.6%	8.0%
2022	$7.53	$8.60	$7.98	$10.25	5.5%	6.9%	−12.3%	9.0%

NOTE - 2018 corresponds to February 4^th, 2018 – January 6^th, 2019; 2019 corresponds to February 3^rd, 2019 to January 5^th, 2020; 2020 corresponds to February 2^nd, 2020 to January 3^rd, 2021; 2021 corresponds to January 31^st, 2021 to January 2^nd, 2022; and 2022 corresponds to January 30^th, 2022 to January 1^st, 2023.

NOTE – The average cigarette pack price includes the price of the packs with ‘natural,’ ‘tobacco and water’, and ‘organic.’ Excluding packs with these terms from the overall average calculation decreased the average price of packs by at most $0.06. For example, the average price of cigarettes without ‘natural’ terms in 2022 was $7.47, while the average price of all cigarettes was $7.53.

DISCUSSION

The volume of cigarette packs sold featuring ‘natural’ terms, ‘organic,’ and/or ‘tobacco and water’ decreased less between 2018–2022 than overall cigarette sales volume, indicating that packs with these terms gained market share, despite their consistently higher price than the national average. While still making up a relatively small proportion of cigarette sales in our overall sample, the share of pack sales volume with these terms is much higher in states such as Oregon, California, Colorado, Vermont, and Washington, states with below average adult smoking prevalence.¹⁹ The state-specific variation in sales observed in the study may be explained by differences in marketing and pricing of cigarette products within states and regions across the US.^{13 14 20} This suggests that consumers find cigarette brands using these terms appealing, particularly in certain states, a concerning fact given evidence that these and similar terms erroneously communicate reduced harm.^{8 9}

Cigarette brands NAS, Winston, and Nat Sherman used ‘natural’ terms, ‘organic,’ and/or ‘tobacco and water’ during the study period. While NAS is the dominant brand in this sector, Winston’s addition of ‘tobacco and water’ to their packs in 2022 explains the 151.7% increase in sales volume for packs with this term and highlights the brand’s commitment to its longstanding ‘natural’ positioning.²¹ Winston’s notable increase in 2022 may be due to targeted marketing and reward programs with multipack offers for their premium segment as indicated in their company reports,²² possibly for packs using ‘tobacco and water.’ Nat Sherman also used ‘natural’ and ‘tobacco and water,’ but the company discontinued production of packs with ‘natural’ during the study period.²³ A 2017 settlement agreement between the FDA and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company (the makers of NAS), ITG (the makers of Winston), and Sherman’s 1400 Broadway N.Y.C. (the makers of Nat Sherman) prohibited the use of ‘natural’ in their packaging and advertising.^24–26 This has yielded the unintended consequence of giving NAS sole use of ‘natural’ since it is part of their brand name. However, Winston also continues to use derivatives of ‘natural’ such as ‘naturally smooth’ on their packaging. Other small brands, such as Manitou and Signal, also sold packs with ‘natural’ and/or ‘tobacco and water,’ but their distribution and sales volume were low.²⁷ Discount brands such as L&M and Basic also tested packaging with ‘tobacco and water’ in select US states in 2022 and 2023.²⁸ NAS is the only brand with ‘organic’ products; this may be due to the US Department of Agriculture’s regulations, which require specific farming specifications and incur additional costs for tobacco companies using the term. This likely explains why ‘organic’ is not as widely used as ‘natural’ or ‘tobacco and water.’ Overall, these trends suggest that tobacco brands recognise the value of positioning their products as ‘natural’ as a strategy to distinguish their products from others in the mind of the consumer,¹⁰ and signal that more brands may be attracted to this positioning in the future.

The current study has several limitations. First, the IRI dataset was limited to sales volume from 44 of 50 US states; this incomplete coverage may limit the generalisability of the results to the entire US. The IRI dataset does not include non-chain local convenience stores and tobacconists as well as online retailers in contrast to well-known multi-state retail chain stores, which could result in an underestimation of sales. In addition, because of the search method used to identify cigarette pack images, there is a likelihood of underestimating the proportion of cigarette packaging with the terms ‘natural’, ‘organic’, or ‘tobacco and water’, as some packs were not found in any repository and the description provided by the IRI dataset did not indicate any of the three terms and their derivatives under study. Furthermore, while the IRI dataset’s product descriptions are potentially useful for coding, they are also limited by infrequent updates, likely yielding a conservative representation of the market. Our approach incorporated a sensitivity analysis to compare descriptor terms from the IRI dataset against those from online tobacco pack repositories (i.e., Rutgers’ Trinkets and Trash),¹⁸ tobacco retail store and brand sites, and tobacco chat rooms (i.e., Reddit, Facebook). This revealed that using only the IRI-provided data identified only 37.7% of UPCs using natural, only 20.0% of the UPCs using organic, and only 2.7% for the UPCs using tobacco and water. These differences highlight the need to enhance the IRI dataset with extensive external searches to ensure a comprehensive representation of product packaging descriptors.

CONCLUSION

Despite regulatory attention from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the proportion of unit sales of cigarette products labeled as ‘natural,’ ‘organic,’ and ‘tobacco and water’ has increased relative to overall cigarette unit sales. This upward trend highlights the necessity of closely regulating such terms and consistently monitoring their potential effects on the population given widespread misperceptions of harm associated with these terms.²⁹ It is crucial to ensure that consumers are not misled by deceptive labeling that can promote appeal, increase switching, and discourage quitting. Furthermore, cigarette packs with misleading labels such as ‘natural,’ ‘organic,’ and ‘tobacco and water’ consistently had higher average prices from 2018 to 2022 compared to the national cigarette pack average. This suggests that these products might be premium-priced, a trend also observed with NAS brands in other studies.^{15 16} Thus, future studies may use purchase task methods to explore the interaction between pricing and demand for a broad range of cigarette brands using misleading labels ‘natural,’ ‘organic,’ and ‘tobacco and water.’

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC:

• The use of ‘natural’ and related descriptors on tobacco packaging are misleading to tobacco consumers and the youth.

2. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS:

• The proportion of unit sales of cigarette products labeled as ‘natural,’ ‘organic,’ and ‘tobacco and water’ has increased between 2018–2022, relative to overall cigarette unit sales.

• Market share for cigarette brands with ‘natural,’ ‘organic,’ and ‘tobacco and water’ is increasing even as cigarette sales fall.

• Cigarette packs labeled with ‘natural,’ ‘organic,’ or ‘tobacco and water’ consistently sold for higher average prices than the national average of cigarette packs.

3. HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE, OR POLICY:

• The upward trend in the use of misleading ‘natural’ and related terms on cigarette packaging, despite their higher prices, emphasises the need for regulation and continuous monitoring. This is important to prevent deceptive labeling practices that may enhance appeal, promote uptake, and encourage tobacco consumers to switch to cigarette brands with ‘natural’ descriptors on their packaging.

Data availability:

Data were obtained from a third party and are not publicly available. The data-sharing agreement with IRI does not allow us to share the underlying data with third parties.