Natural American Spirit (NAS) – a leading cigarette brand in the United States1 – markets its products using descriptors such as “organic” and “tobacco & water.” Consumers believe that cigarettes with these and similar descriptors are more appealing, healthier, and/or less harmful than cigarettes without these descriptors.2–11 Moreover, NAS advertising prominently features nature-related imagery, highlights the brand’s sustainable farming practices, and exploits Native American symbolism, all of which may also misrepresent product risk.12–15 This combination of brand characteristics has yielded a consumer base that, compared to those who smoke other brands, is more likely to misunderstand the relative harm of NAS compared to other cigarettes.16 There is no evidence that smoking NAS cigarettes reduces disease risk, and emission studies find substantial variability in exposure to harmful constituents in NAS cigarettes depending on the NAS variety tested, the study’s methods, and the compounds under investigation.17–23
Federal regulators have recognized that NAS uses deceptive marketing tactics and have taken limited regulatory action against the brand, resulting in the addition of disclaimer statements on packs and advertisements about the relative harm of “natural” or “organic” commercial tobacco, and the removal of “additive-free” and some instances of “natural” from NAS labeling and marketing.24 The US Food & Drug Administration’s (FDA) Center for Tobacco Products has not publicly initiated regulatory action against the use of “organic,” perhaps because the descriptor’s use is allowed under the United States Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company (SFNTC) is a defendant in at least one ongoing class-action lawsuit alleging that SFNTC’s marketing and sales practices falsely convey that their products are less harmful or safer than other cigarettes.1
Despite regulatory and legal attention, NAS continues to use potentially misleading marketing and advertising tactics to position the brand as “different” from other cigarette brands.25 In November 2020, NAS debuted two magazine ads introducing a new style of NAS cigarettes: “Sky,” a charcoal-filter cigarette made with organic tobacco (Figure 1). Presented in a light blue pack, the name “Sky” and the variety’s advertising featuring clear blue sky and green farmland align the brand with connotations of nature and naturalness. According to ad copy, Sky is the company’s “smoothest tasting and most innovative cigarette to date,” with “charcoal derived from coconut shells” in the filter (Figure 1). On the NAS website, Sky’s charcoal filter is described as mellowing the taste of their “whole-leaf tobacco, providing a smooth taste that is deliberately different” (Figure 2). Although SFNTC makes two other cigarette varieties with charcoal filters (Celadon and Hunter), this is the first style with both a charcoal filter and organic tobacco, and the first time NAS has prominently featured a charcoal filter in print and direct-to-consumer advertising.
Figure 1.

Advertisement from November 2020 in Vanity Fair magazine for Natural American Spirit’s new variety, “Sky.” (Source: https://www.trinketsandtrash.org/detail.php?artifactid=15533&page=1)
Figure 2.

Screen shot taken of the Natural American Spirit website on April 1st, 2021 promoting the Sky launch. (Source: www.americanspirit.com)
Popularly understood as a “detoxifier,” charcoal has many applications in medicine and consumer products. For example, activated charcoal is commonly used in unintentional poisonings to absorb and safely eliminate toxins from the gastrointestinal tract,26 and activated charcoal water filters from brands like Brita are popular for drinking water purification. More recently, charcoal’s purifying reputation has made it a trendy addition to wellness and beauty products, though its utility in these products is dubious and generally scientifically unsupported.27 Sky’s launch showcases this detoxifying agent in the cigarette “filter,” a term that itself connotes purification; the tobacco industry historically used filtered cigarettes to suggest risk reduction, raising concerns about Sky’s consumer appeal.28 Though several major US tobacco companies developed and launched charcoal filter cigarettes as early as the 1960s,29 only the Japanese and South Korean cigarette markets are dominated by charcoal filter brands today.30 Studies show that, in sufficient quantities, with the appropriate cigarette design, and under the right smoking conditions, the addition of charcoal to filters could reduce exposure to harmful smoke constituents.31, 32 However, it is unclear whether any hypothetical reduction in toxic emissions translates to reduced risk for smoking-related disease. Furthermore, use of charcoal filters may introduce additional threats to health associated with inhaling charcoal filter debris.33
Sky’s marketing builds upon both public misconceptions that filters equate to safer cigarettes34 and the popular understanding of charcoal as a purifier, while also connecting the brand to themes of naturalness and purity and using descriptors which are demonstrably misleading. While charcoal filters could possibly reduce smokers’ exposure to harmful smoke constituents, SFNTC has not applied for a modified exposure designation with the FDA – a classification that could appropriately communicate risk reduction to consumers. In fact, based on information available to the public via the FDA website, the company has not an FDA secured marketing authorization for Sky, which is required for all “new” tobacco products introduced after February 15, 2007. It is possible that SFNTC considers Sky to be a “grandfathered” product and therefore not “new”, as charcoal-filter NAS cigarettes existed pre-2007. This would not necessarily require an application to FDA, but the brand’s recent marketing campaigns certainly characterize Sky as a new product and raise new questions about Sky’s public health impact. For example, Sky’s advertising “introduces” (Figure 1) Sky with claims that it has a “unique filter” (Figure 2) and is “our smoothest tasting and most innovative cigarette to date” (Figure 2). Whether and to what extent the addition of 1) a charcoal filter to an organic cigarette, and 2) use of the name “Sky” exacerbate current and potential consumers’ misunderstanding of the relative harm of this new NAS cigarette variety is a clear next research step.
Funding:
JLP, DPG, MJL, and OG were supported by in part by NCI and FDA Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) under U54CA229973. DPG was supported by a grant from the Office of The Director at the National Institutes of Health (DP5OD023064). MBM’s effort is supported by NIDA and FDA Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) (R01DA049814). OG was also supported in part by the Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey under P30CA07270-5931. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the views of the NIH or FDA.
Footnotes
Competing interests: Dr. Pearson is a paid expert witness for the Plaintiffs in a Multi-District Litigation invoking American Spirit Cigarettes. Dr. Moran is also a paid expert witness in litigation sponsored by the Public Health Advocacy Institute against RJ Reynolds. This arrangement has been reviewed and approved by the University of Nevada, Reno and Johns Hopkins University in accordance with their conflict of interest policies.
Contributor Information
Jennifer L. Pearson, Division of Health Administration and Policy/Social and Behavioral Health, School of Community Health Sciences, University of Nevada, Reno.
Daniel P. Giovenco, Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY.
M Jane Lewis, Rutgers Center for Tobacco Studies, Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences, New Brunswick, NJ; Department of Health Behavior, Society and Policy, Rutgers School of Public Health, Piscataway, NJ.
Meghan Moran, Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD.
Ollie Ganz, Rutgers Center for Tobacco Studies, Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences, New Brunswick, NJ; Department of Health Behavior, Society and Policy, Rutgers School of Public Health, Piscataway, NJ.
REFERENCES
- 1.Reynolds American Inc. Annual report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Accessed 11 Dec, 2018. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1275283/000156459017001245/rai-10k_20161231.htm
- 2.Arnett JJ. Winston’s “No Additives” campaign: “straight up”? “no bull”? Public Health Rep. Nov-Dec 1999;114(6):522–7. doi: 10.1093/phr/114.6.522 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Moran MB, Pearson JL. Real. Simple. Deadly. A Pilot Test of Consumer Harm Perceptions in Response to Natural American Spirit Advertising. Tobacco Regulatory Science. 2019;5(4):360–368. doi: 10.18001/trs.5.4.6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Iles IA, Pearson JL, Lindblom E, Moran MB. “Tobacco and Water”: Testing the Health Halo Effect of Natural American Spirit Cigarette Ads and Its Relationship with Perceived Absolute Harm and Use Intentions. Health Commun. Jun 2021;36(7):804–815. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2020.1712526 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Gratale SK, Maloney EK, Cappella JN. Regulating language, not inference: an examination of the potential effectiveness of Natural American Spirit advertising restrictions. Tob Control. Aug 2019;28(e1):e43–e48. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054707 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Gratale SK, Maloney EK, Sangalang A, Cappella JN. Influence of Natural American Spirit advertising on current and former smokers’ perceptions and intentions. Tob Control. Sep 2018;27(5):498–504. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-053881 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Czoli CD, Hammond D. Cigarette packaging: Youth perceptions of “natural” cigarettes, filter references, and contraband tobacco. J Adolesc Health. Jan 2014;54(1):33–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.07.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Byron M, Baig S, Moracco K, Brewer N. Adolescents’ and adults’ perceptions of ‘natural’, ‘organic’ and ‘additive-free’ cigarettes, and the required disclaimers. Tob Control. 2016;25(5):517–20. doi:doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015-05256 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Pearson JL, Richardson A, Feirman SP, et al. American Spirit Pack Descriptors and Perceptions of Harm: A Crowdsourced Comparison of Modified Packs. Nicotine Tob Res. Aug 2016;18(8):1749–56. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntw097 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Baig SA, Byron MJ, Lazard AJ, Brewer NT. “Organic,” “Natural,” and “Additive-Free” Cigarettes: Comparing the Effects of Advertising Claims and Disclaimers on Perceptions of Harm. Nicotine Tob Res. Jun 21 2019;21(7):933–939. doi: 10.1093/ntr/nty036 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.McDaniel PA, Malone RE. “I always thought they were all pure tobacco”: American smokers’ perceptions of “natural” cigarettes and tobacco industry advertising strategies. Tob Control. Dec 2007;16(6):e7. doi: 10.1136/tc.2006.019638 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.D’Silva J, O’Gara E, Villaluz NT. Tobacco industry misappropriation of American Indian culture and traditional tobacco. Tob Control. 2018;27(e1):e57–e64. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-053950 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Moran MB, Brown J, Lindblom E, et al. Beyond ‘Natural’: Cigarette Ad Tactics that Mislead about Relative Risk. Tobacco Regulatory Science. Sep 2018;4(5):3–19. doi: 10.18001/trs.4.5.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Epperson AE, Lambin EF, Henriksen L, Baiocchi M, Flora JA, Prochaska JJ. Natural American Spirit’s pro-environment packaging and perceptions of reduced-harm cigarettes. Prev Med. Sep 2019;126:105782. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.105782 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Epperson AE, Henriksen L, Lambin EF, Flora JA, Prochaska JJ. Health Beliefs of American Indian Imagery on Natural American Spirit Packs. Tobacco Regulatory Science. 2019;5(4):369–380. doi: 10.18001/trs.5.4.7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Pearson JL, Johnson A, Villanti A, et al. Misperceptions of harm among Natural American Spirit smokers: results from wave 1 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) study (2013–2014). Tob Control. Mar 2017;26(e1):e61–e67. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053265 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Iffland Y, Muller R, Groneberg D, Gerber A. High particulate matter emission from additive-free Natural American Spirit cigarettes. Springerplus. 2016;5(1):1958. doi: 10.1186/s40064-016-3635-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Fresquez MR, Pappas RS, Watson CH. Establishment of Toxic Metal Reference Range in Tobacco from U.S. Cigarettes. J Anal Toxicol. 2013;37(5):298–304. doi: 10.1093/jat/bkt021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Goel R, Bitzer Z, Reilly SM, et al. Variation in Free Radical Yields from U.S. Marketed Cigarettes. Chem Res Toxicol. 2017;30(4):1038–1045. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.6b00359 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Vu AT, Taylor KM, Holman MR, Ding YS, Hearn B, Watson CH. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in the Mainstream Smoke of Popular U.S. Cigarettes. Chem Res Toxicol. 2015;28(8):1616–1626. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.5b00190 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Pazo DY, Moliere F, Sampson MM, et al. Mainstream Smoke Levels of Volatile Organic Compounds in 50 U.S. Domestic Cigarette Brands Smoked With the ISO and Canadian Intense Protocols. Nicotine Tobacco Res. 2016;18(9):1886–1894. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntw118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Edwards SH, Rossiter LM, Taylor KM, et al. Tobacco-Specific Nitrosamines in the Tobacco and Mainstream Smoke of U.S. Commercial Cigarettes. Chem Res Toxicol. 2017;30(2):540–551. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.6b00268 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Reilly SM, Goel R, Trushin N, et al. Brand variation in oxidant production in mainstream cigarette smoke: Carbonyls and free radicals. Food and Chemical Toxicology. 2017;106:147–154. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2017.05.035 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Warning letter to Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. 8/27/15. Accessed October 6, 2015. https://www.truthinadvertising.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/FDA-warning-letter-Santa-Fe-Natural-Tobacco-Co.pdf
- 25.Dewhirst T Natural American Spirit cigarettes are marketed as ‘made different’: the role of brand positioning and differentiation. Tob Control. Mar 16 2021;doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2020-056442 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Juurlink DN. Activated charcoal for acute overdose: a reappraisal. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2016;81(3):482–487. doi: 10.1111/bcp.12793 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Sanchez N, Fayne R, Burroway B. Charcoal: An ancient material with a new face. Clin Dermatol. 2020;38(2):262–264. doi: 10.1016/j.clindermatol.2019.07.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Evans-Reeves K, Lauber K, Hiscock R. The ‘filter fraud’ persists: the tobacco industry is still using filters to suggest lower health risks while destroying the environment. Tob Control. 2021:tobaccocontrol. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2020-056245 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.O’Connor RJ, Hurley PJ. Existing technologies to reduce specific toxicant emissions in cigarette smoke. Tob Control. 2008;17(Supplement 1):i39–i48. doi: 10.1136/tc.2007.023689 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Mochizuki-Kobayashi Y, Samet JM, Yamaguchi N. Tobacco Free* Japan: Recommendations for tobacco control policy. 2004. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9x27v23m
- 31.Reilly SM, Goel R, Trushin N, et al. Effects of Charcoal on Carbonyl Delivery from Commercial, Research, and Make-Your-Own Cigarettes. Chem Res Toxicol. 2018;31(12):1339–1347. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.8b00211 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Coggins CRE, Gaworski CL. Could charcoal filtration of cigarette smoke reduce smoking-induced disease? A review of the literature. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. 2008;50(3):359–365. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2008.01.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Pauly JL, Stegmeier SJ, Mayer AG, Lesses JD, Streck RJ. Release of carbon granules from cigarettes with charcoal filters. Tob Control. 1997;6(1):33–40. doi: 10.1136/tc.6.1.33 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Hammond D, Parkinson C. The impact of cigarette package design on perceptions of risk. J Public Health (Oxf). Sep 2009;31(3):345–53. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdp066 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
