Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique logoLink to Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique
. 2017 Sep 10;108(5-6):e565–e570. doi: 10.17269/CJPH.108.6197

Slim cigarette smoking prevalence among Canadian youth smokers: Implications for federal standardized packaging legislation

Leia M Minaker 117,217,✉, Hannah Tait 217, Maple Ong 317, Nghia Nguyen 217
PMCID: PMC6972237  PMID: 29356665

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Tobacco companies market to females and young people through slim cigarette design features and packaging. This study assessed the prevalence and perceptions of slim cigarette smoking in grades 9–12 student smokers across Canada using multiple data sources.

METHODS: Data from three cycles of the Youth Smoking Survey (2008/2009 to 2012/2013) and one cycle of the Cancer Risk Assessment in Youth Survey (2015) were used. The prevalence and perceptions of slim cigarette smoking among current smokers were compared by sex and grade.

RESULTS: In all surveys, the rate of slim cigarette use was higher among females than males; however, this difference was not statistically significant. In the two most recent surveys, grades 9–10 students had a significantly higher prevalence of use compared with grades 11–12 students. The majority of students (59.8% of females and 53.3% of males) responded, “I don’t know” to the survey item seeking to determine perceptions of harm of slim cigarettes compared with regular cigarettes.

CONCLUSION: Slim cigarette use among Canadian grades 9–12 students represents a small but growing problem. Youths’ uncertainty around the harms associated with slim cigarette use and the effect of slim cigarette packaging and design on harm perceptions indicate the need for product design regulations and further education in Canada.

Key words: Adolescent, smoking, product packaging

Footnotes

Acknowledgements: This manuscript was supported by the Canadian Cancer Society grant #2011-701019, through the Propel Centre. The data used for this research were taken from Health Canada’s Canadian Student Tobacco, Alcohol and Drugs Survey (CSTADS; formerly Youth Smoking Survey) and the Cancer Risk Assessment in Youth Survey (CRAYS), which was conducted by the Propel Centre at the University of Waterloo. Health Canada has not reviewed, approved, or endorsed this research. Any views expressed or conclusions drawn herein do not necessarily represent those of Health Canada. LMM gratefully acknowledges funding from the Canadian Cancer Society through a Career Development Award in Cancer Prevention (#704744).

Conflict of Interest: None to declare.

References

  • 1.Lim SS, Vos T, Flaxman AD, Danaei G, Shibuya K, Adair-Rohani H, et al. A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2013;380(9859):2224–60. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61766-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.van Meijgaard J, Fielding JE. Estimating benefits of past, current, and future reductions in smoking rates using a comprehensive model with competing causes of death. Prev Chronic Dis. 2012;9:110295. doi: 10.5888/pcd9.110295. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Pipe AL, Eisenberg MJ, Gupta A, Reid RD, Suskin NG, Stone JA. Smoking cessation and the cardiovascular specialist: Canadian Cardiovascular Society position paper. Can J Cardiol. 2011;27(2):132–37. doi: 10.1016/j.cjca.2010.12.060. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Canadian Cancer Society. Smoking and Tobacco. Toronto, ON: Canadian Cancer Society; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Minaker L, Manske S, Reid JL, Hammond D, Rynard VL. Tobacco Use in Canada: Patterns and Trends. Waterloo, ON: Propel Centre for Population Health Impact, University of Waterloo; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Government of Canada [Health Canada Website]. Health Concerns: An Act to Amend the Tobacco Act. Ottawa, ON: Health Canada; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Government of Canada [Justice Laws Website]. Tobacco Products Labelling Regulations (Cigarettes and Little Cigars) SOR/2011-177. Ottawa, ON: The Minister of Justice; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.DiFranza JR, Clark DM, Pollay RW. Cigarette package design: Opportunities for disease prevention. Tob Indue Dis. 2003;1(2):97–109. doi: 10.1186/1617-9625-1-2-97. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Wakefield M. Welcome to cardboard country: How plain packaging could change the subjective experience of smoking. Tob Control. 2011;20(5):321–22. doi: 10.1136/tc.2011.044446. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Hammond D, Daniel S, White CM. The effect of cigarette branding and plain packaging on female youth in the United Kingdom. J Adolesc Health. 2013;52(2):151–57. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.06.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Kotnowski K, Hammond D. The impact of cigarette pack shape, size and opening: Evidence from tobacco company documents. Addiction. 2013;108(9):1658–68. doi: 10.1111/add.12183. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Doxey J, Hammond D. Deadly in pink: The impact of cigarette packaging among young women. Tob Control. 2011;20(5):353–60. doi: 10.1136/tc.2010.038315. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Boyd TC, Boyd CJ, Greenlee TB. A means to an end: Slim hopes and cigarette advertising. Health PromotPrac. 2003;4(3):266–77. doi: 10.1177/1524839903004003011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ford A, Moodie C, MacKintosh AM, Hastings G. How adolescents perceive cigarette packaging and possible benefits of plain packaging. Educ Health. 2013;31(2):83–88. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Siu M, Mladjenovic N, Soo E. The analysis of mainstream smoke emissions of Canadian ’super slim’ cigarettes. Tob Control. 2013;22(6):e10. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050450. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ford A, Moodie C, MacKintosh AM, Hastings G. Adolescent perceptions of cigarette appearance. Eur J Public Health. 2014;24(3):464–68. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckt161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Borland R, Sawas S. Effects of stick design features on perceptions of characteristics of cigarettes. Tob Control. 2013;22(5):331–37. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050199. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Mutti S, Hammond D, Borland R, Cummings MK, O’Connor RJ, Fong GT. Beyond light and mild: Cigarette brand descriptors and perceptions of risk in the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. Addiction. 2011;106(6):1166–75. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03402.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hammond D, Doxey J, Daniel S, Bansal-Travers M. Impact of female-oriented cigarette packaging in the United States. Nicotine Tob Res. 2011;13(7):579–88. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntr045. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Lee K, Carpenter C, Challa C, Lee S, Connolly GN, Koh HK. The strategic targeting of females by transnational tobacco companies in South Korea following trade liberalisation. Global Health. 2009;5(1):2. doi: 10.1186/1744-8603-5-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Matsunaga Y, Agaku IT, Vardavas CI. The association between cigarette rod length, slim design, and blood cadmium levels among U.S. smokers: NHANES 1999–2010. PrevMed. 2014;65:87–91. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.04.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.World Health Organisation Regional Office for Europe. Empower Women–Combating Tobacco Industry Marketing in the WHO European Region. Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Tinkler P. ‘Red tips for hot lips’: Advertising cigarettes for young women in Britain, 1920–70. Women’s Hist Rev. 2001;10(2):249–72. doi: 10.1080/09612020100200289. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kotnowski K, Fong GT, Gallopel-Morvan K, Islam T, Hammond D. The impact of cigarette packaging design among young females in Canada: Findings from a discrete choice experiment. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016;18(5):1348–56. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntv114. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Canadian Cancer Society. Cigarette Package Health Warnings: International Status Report. fifth ed. Toronto, ON: Canadian Cancer Society; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Government of Canada. Consultation on “Plain and Standardized Packaging” for Tobacco Products. Ottawa, ON: Health Canada; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Agaku IT, Vardavas CI, Ayo-Yusuf OA, Alpert HR, Connolly GN. Gender and racial differences in smoking of long/ultra-long and king size cigarettes among U.S. adult smokers, NHANES 1999–2012. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014;136:28–35. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.12.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Carpenter CM, Wayne GF, Connolly GN. Designing cigarettes for women: New findings from the tobacco industry documents. Addiction. 2005;100(6):837–51. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01072.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Amos A, Greaves L, Nichter M, Bloch M. Women and tobacco: A call for including gender in tobacco control research, policy and practice. Tob Control. 2012;21(2):236–43. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050280. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Amos A, Haglund M. From social taboo to “torch of freedom”: The marketing of cigarettes to women. Tob Control. 2000;9(1):3–8. doi: 10.1136/tc.9.1.3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.O’Keefe AM, Pollay RW. Deadly targeting of women in promoting cigarettes. ] Am Med Women Assoc. 1996;51(1-2):67–69. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Nerin I. Women and smoking: Fatal attraction. Arch Bronconeumol (English Edition) 2005;41(7):360–62. doi: 10.1016/s1579-2129(06)60241-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Hitchman SC, Fong GT. Gender empowerment and female-to-male smoking prevalence ratios. Bull World Health Organ. 2011;89(3):195–202. doi: 10.2471/BLT.10.079905. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.World Health Organization. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Queensland Government. Your future isn’t pretty if you smoke. Brisbane, Australia: The Department of the Premier and Cabinet; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Pederson A, Greaves L, Poole N. Gender-transformative health promotion for women: A framework for action. Health Promotlnt. 2015;30(1):140–50. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dau083. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Anderson SJ, Glantz SA, Ling PM. Emotions for sale: Cigarette advertising and women’s psychosocial needs. Tob Control. 2005;14(2):127–35. doi: 10.1136/tc.2004.009076. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Ford A, MacKintosh AM, Moodie C, Richardson S, Hastings G. Cigarette pack design and adolescent smoking susceptibility: A cross-sectional survey. BMJ Open. 2013;3(9):e003282. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003282. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Kaleta D, Polanska K, Bak-Romaniszyn L, Wojtysiak P. Perceived relative harm of selected cigarettes and non-cigarette tobacco products — a study of young people from a socio-economically disadvantaged rural area in Poland. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016;13(9):885. doi: 10.3390/ijerph13090885. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Minaker LM, Shuh A, Burkhalter RJ, Manske SR. Hookah use prevalence, predictors, and perceptions among Canadian youth: Findings from the 2012/2013 youth smoking survey. Cancer Causes Control. 2015;26(6):831–38. doi: 10.1007/s10552-015-0556-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Public WorksGovernment Services Canada. BILL S-5: An Act to Amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act and to Make Consequential Amendments to Other Acts. Ottawa, ON: The Parliament of Canada; 2016. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES