kT.; S AND OTHIER CHEMECAIS IN CIGARETTE 7OBACOO: AN INVESTIGATICN n?m THE KNOWIZDGE AND A=LTDIES OF ALX-4~ SMOKERS 0 Tim Stockwell, MA(OX0N) MSC PhD Nat3-onal. Centre f or Rese-A ch into the Preventi.on of Drug Abuse Robyn Rutley BSc(Hons) Consultant, Reark Research Kim Clark Health Prcmtion Services, Western Australian Health Departmant 0 cy*% CD CD Ln T;F-F: RR/CP538 NVVEMBER 1990 CD CD BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 VME OF COMMMS pXM 1.0 EXECUMFE SLMWY 1 1.1 Backgr=Id And Rationale 1 1.2 Smakers' Aumxeness Of '7he Presence Of Mar, 2 Nicotine And CaxJ= Monoxide In Cigarettes 1.3 Smokers' Awareness Of Pesticides And Other 2 Chemicals In Cigarettes 1.4 Smokers' Awareness Of Mat Contents Are Listed 3 On Tubacco Packets 49 1.5 Smokers' Satisfaction With Current 4 Ta lling RequiX~MMtS 1. 6 Additional Infozmation. Required By Smokers 4 1.7 Ef f e--ts Of Pesticide Warnings On Smoking Behaviour 5 1.8 T'le Impact Off Tl,~ 7)r~es Of Pesticide Warnings 7 On Smokers - Study 2 1.9 Conclusions 8 1.10 Recommendatiais 10 2.0 IMROD=CV 11 3.0 ORTDMVES 13 4.0 =MDCU)Tf 14 4.1 Awazeness Study 15 4.2 Reaction Study 16 40 4.3 Experimental &mkers Study 19 CYI. CD Ccntinued overleaf CD ~_n CD CD BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 TABLE OF CCUTERM Continued PAGE 5.0 DETAILED RESULTS: AWARENESS ST= 21 5.1 Desire And Likelihor-d Of GivJng Up Smaking 21 5.2 Awareness Of Ha=nful Substances In Cigarettes 23 5.3 Awareness of labelling Of Cigarette Packets 26 5.4 Reaction To Labelling Of Cigarette Packets 33 6.0 DETAILED RESULTS: REACTICV SrUDY 44 6.1 Recall Of Messages Cn Trial Brand 44 6.2 Recall Of Listing And Levels of Fiarmful 48 Substances Cn Usual Cigarette Packets: Group 1 6.3 Reaction To Wamings On Trial Packets: so Groups 2 And 3 7.0 DETAILED RESULTS: EXPERIMENTAL SMOKERS S= 52 APPENDIX 1 - The Questicnnai-re: Awareness Study APPENDIX 2 - The (uesticmaire: Reaction Study APPENDIX 3 - The Questionnaire: Experimental Smkers Study 0 - (N CD C) V1 C> BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 LIST OF TABLES PAGE TABLE 5. 1 DESIRE TO QUIT SMMCDG 21 TABLE 5. 2 IMMLIHOOD OF QUITMW. IN NEXT THREE M3MHS 22 TABLE 5.3 U:bUYKf,%= AWARENESS OF BA142M SUBSMAN=ES 23 MUND IN CIGARETTES MUZZE 5.4 PRCMPTED AWARENESS CF HAMEM SUBSTX4ZES 25 F9JND IN CIGARETTES TAME 5.5 : RECALL OF HARMFUL SUBSTANCES SHEW CN 26 CIGAREITE PAMWIM TAME 5.6 : ESTIMATIM OF 11AX-TMW1 LEVELS OF TAR IN 27 USUAL BRAND OF CIGAREIMS TAME 5.7 : SELECTION OF CIGARETTE BRAND BASED 28 CN TAR MrIMTE TABLE 5.8 : E=MATICN OF MaIMIM LEML OF CARBON 29 MCNC=E IN USUAL BRAND OF CIGARE= TABLE 5.9 SELB=ICN OF CIGARETTE BRAND BASED ON 30 CARBW MCN=E CON= TABLE 5.10 EST'IHATION-OF MAXIMEM LEVELS OF 31 NICOT=- IN USUAL BRAND OF CIGARFTMS TABLE 5.11 SEL=CN CF CIGARETTE BRAND BASED M 32 NICOTINE CCN'= TABLE 5.12 : AKMr OF INFIDR111ATION CCUMINED ON 33 CIGAREITZ PAC29GINS-7 RELATED TO THE CONTENIS OF TCEACCD TABLE 5.13 : ADDITIC1NAL INFCRMAT'ICN DESIRED CN 34 PACKEM W7ITH REGARD 70 ME CONTENTS OF TOBACCO Continued overleaf CYN C~ C) (-n C) C) PQ (-n BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 LIST OF =ZM Continued. TAEZE 5.14 . LIKELIHOOD OF CIUVGIIG BRANDS IF 35 PACKAGIbG iwAmim CF CHEMICAL Cctulm z~M,E 5.15 : LIKELIHDM OF C3N'rEKPLA= QUITTING 35 IF RAC2MGING ~~ED CF CHEMICAL CCNTENT MUM 5.16 -. LIZELIMOD OF REUXUG SMMGIC IF 37 PP,C2MGIIG WARNED OF CEDUCAL =111M TAEME 5.17 : LIKELIHOOD GF QUITTIM IF P.4CnGnG 38 'W~M OF CHEMICAL CON= 0 T>ME 5.18 : =ELIICM CF CSUGIWj SM3K= BEHAVIOUR 40 DUE TO PESTICIDE 'r~ M PRICR 1œ7rr%rATICN TO QUIT' 'TABU 5.19 : IOICELIH= CF CMUGING SMOECDIG EUEIMVIOUR 41 = TO PESTICIDE 'W~ PM PRICR ESTIMATED 1.1=.®rHCOD OF QUITT1W3 ZUME 5.20 : TMACCO OEIPANIES SHC= DISCIME 42 CrUUUCAL CCt;IlWr IN CIGARLT= TAME 5.21 : ATrl=ES TO PROPOSED MEMCCS OF 43 k-ZIUn2Z; SMM:E~ ABOUT C=CAIS ::N CIGARETTES Continued overleaf C> C> CD Ln CD CD BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 LIST OF TABLES Ccntinued. PAGE TABLE 6.1 RE1CAIL OF MESSAGE/INFCF?.1,1ATICN CCNZAINED 45 CN *TRIAL" PACKAGE TABLE 6. 2 UNPRCMP= RECALL CF INFQT~VMCN COVn%INED 46 CN "TRIAL" BRAND NOT APPARENI! CN CM BRAND TABLE 6.3 : UNPFCM= RBZALL OF MESSAGE 03q=,UD 47 ON "TRIAL" BRAND TA.BLE 6.4 : UNPROMPTED REr-UL OF MXXV SUBSTANCES 48 CWWNED IN MP= 'VMCH ARE LISTED CN PACKET OF UAN BRAND TABIZ 6.5 : UNPRCVPTED RECALL OF ESTIMATE OF HAR~TM 49 SUBS7A.NCES CERIAINED IN CM BRAND TABLE 6.6 : STATE= CU)SEST 7) FEELINGS ABOUT 51 VV9UTDG/MESSAGZ- CN PACK TABU 7.1 : RF=CNS TO 1-~ CIN CIGARETTE PA---r=- 53 LIST OF FIGURES PAGE 0 FIGURE 4.1 : The side-of-tacket pesticide uexru-ng 18 presented to Group 2 subjects FIGURE 4.2 - The pull-out slip %,Runing of pesticides 18 and other chemical residues presented to subjects in Group 3 CN C) C) Ln C) CD BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 2 - The results of the studies will be summarised here as they relate to each of the six specific objectives required by the funding body - the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse. An additional objective was arkied to these by the research team which wus to contrast the impact an smokers of two types of Pesticide/chemical warnings in comparison with current wamings on cigarette packets. 1.2 Smokers' Awareness Of The Presence Of Te--, Nicotine And Carbon Monoxide In Ciqarettes; 7here umm high levels of a%QLreness among the smokers in Study 1 of the Presence of tar and nicotine in cigarettes but 0' not.of carbon mmu.)xide. 0 Without prompting, 77% of respondents mntioned nicotine, 54% tar and only 7% carbon nmcxide as being found in cigarettes. 0 With pr=pts, respmients' awareness of nicotine and tar in cigarettes was alrast total (98% and 95% respectively), but only partial for carbon nmx:)xide (54%). All %em significantly nore likely to be "recognised" than two dunTrry substances: "glutone' and 'mmosiodim bromide". 1.3 -Smokers' Awareness Of Pesticides And Other Chemicals In Cliaarettes As was found by previous research in Victoria, levels of knowledge regarding the presence of pesticides and other chemicals in cigarettes were extraTely low. cr- C> CD (Un CD CD Co BATCo docurnent for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 - I - 1.0 EXELL= SUMMARY 1.1 Packqround And Rationale Three studies uiare designed by the Nat-Ional Centre for Research into the Preventlon of Drug Abuse and the western Australian Health Department to investigate Australian S=kers' attitudes and knowledge with xega=d.to the chemicals found in cigaxette, tobacco. A market reseaxch company, Reaxk Research was ccomissioned to undertake the data collection for these studies. The thzee, studies involved.- U) A telephone survey of 510 smkers aged 18 and over fz-cn thmee states (Study 1); 0.1) Intemviews with 204 mwkerrs aged 18 and over cmducted in shopping centres, gauging the inpact of three types of labels an cigarette packets (Study 2); and (iii) interviews with 50 "exoerimental" srmkers aged 18 and under c=Yiucted an shopping centres, gauging their reaction to a chemical/pestIcide warning cn a cigarette packet (Study 3). A response rate of over 60% uw obtained for each study. The overall obje--Live of this exercise was to investigate the potential effectiveness of including new info=raticn an tobacco packages concerning the presence of pesticides and other dangerous chernicals in cigarettes as a health prcootion stratecr .y. CY% CD C> vi CD CD %IO BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 0 Without prompts, only me substance - arserac (3.5%) - was named by more than 1% of respondents in Study 1. 0 Using prcupted recall, only two substances - arsenic (32.5%) and rmthanol (26%) -ulem recognised by significantly more respondents than ;ere two fictit.Ious: substances. 1.4 Smkers' Awareness Of What Contents Are Listed On Tbbacco Packets just over half the respondents in Study I uvxe avx=e that levels of tar and nicotine had to be stated on c.Lgarette packets. Hardly any named carbon m==ide as a listed substance. Miile a modest number of respondents rep=ted selecting their brand of cigarettes cn the basis of their tar and nicotine yields, very few did so on the basis of their ca---b= monoxide levels. Of the 54% of respondents who correctly named nicotine as a substance listed an packets, 43% stated they chose their brard accord-ingly (or 23% of the total sam:ole) 0 Of the 46% who named tar as a listed substance, 51.5% stated they based their brand selection on this information (or 24% of the total sample). 0 Of the twenty six respondents (5%) who knew that carbon =x=ide ulas listed on packets, only eight claimed to base their bzw-Ad choice on this (or 1.5% of the full -sample). CY% CD CD Un CD CD CD BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 Of the three substances, tar is the only one which m:)st smokers have arry accurate knowledge of with regard to its level in their own brand of cigarettes. The best data bearing on this issue uv.;e available from Group 1 of Study 2, 67% of whom correctly estimted the tar level stated on their own packets compared with 25% for nicotine and 4% for caiJ= no, oxide. 1.5 Samkers' Sat-isfaction with Current Labellina 'RemArements Exactly half the respondents in Study 1 stated that there ues 'not enough" info=ratian on cigarette packets, 4% thought there was "too nuch", 35% thought the anount of info=ration vas "about right" and 11% had no opinion. 1.6 Add i t i onal Information Reauired B%r Smokers The 50% of smokers in Study 1 who felt that "not enough" infomn-atim was provided on cigarette packets UIP-M also asked what extra information they would prefer. At this stage they had not been info=red that cigarette tobacco contained pesticides, but "arry pesticides" was offered as a prompted zesconse option, as uns a "stronger or diffnxent health wa=ing". These two opticns were selected by 21% Ard 22% of these resp=Yients respectively - with 23% being unsure of their prefe=ed nwsage and a large number of "other" suggestions being given eg. the number of cigarettes in a packet (10%) and -smoking causes lung cancer" (9%). CD ui CD CD (A BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 5 - After being infonred that cigarettes do contain very small arm=ts of pesttcids and other chemicals but at levels thought by health experts to be insignificant, the na~crity of study i respondents (85%) stated that tobacco companies should inform smokers of this fact. 7he favoured Ynethcd for so doing was a short wa=ng on the outside of the packet (88%) followed by a list of chemicals in each PBc)cBt (80%) and a f e pamphlet at all tz)bacco outlets (76%). .rL 1.7 Effects of Pesticide Wainincts On Smokina Be~oviour A majority of smokers in the thn~-- studies believed that a pesticide warning would lead to a reduction or cessation of their sm.;:king. in Study 1, prior to being infonred about the actual presence of pesticides in cigarettes, respondents were asked hypothetical questions as to how a pesticide warning speciñying "small quantities of axserdc, DDT, lead and asbestos" would affect theix wroking behavlour. 0 A n-ajority of the zespondents stated that they would "probably" or "definitely" change their smoking behaviour in the following *ays: switch brands (52%), cut clown (61%) or quit (61%). 16 C) BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 6 - 0 PzsPcndents in Study 1 Who already expressed a desire to quit and felt confident that they would Silt within the next three nmths, were espealally likely to state that pesticide warnings would lead to the above changes. Fio~&rver, even anong those resPcn:kmtS who stated they had little or no desire to quit or were unlikely to quit In the next three rwnths, there %--re many who believed such wa=ungs w=ld lead to these changes in the= smok~ing behaviour. 0 Respondents in Study 2 were confronted with packets with two types of pesticide um=Lings added, albeit with less strmg %,mrding than that in Stiid~y 1. A brief wan-dng on the side of the packet caused 41% of respmdents to state that it would nake them think of qUttingwhile 47% did so in response to pull-out slip listing the nalres c.9 sare chemical additives in the packet. 0 A clear rmjority of the young sackers in Study 3 felt that the pesticide ;,RLrning woUd nkike then nore likely to quit (82%), -Iiat they would be worried by the wazning (86%) 'and would f--,jcy smk~ing less. M-Lis was especially true for the fernale resp=xlents. 0 CY¯% CD CD i-n C> C) BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 A,"o-"um feir fnot nf pa(70- *7 0 most respondents presented with pesticide warnings in Study 2 claimed they "already knew" of the presence of these substances and did not wish to find out more. These findings might appear to contradict those of Study I in which very low levels of knowledge were demonstrated with iegard to specific pesticides and other chemicals, as well as a strong feeling that tobacco companies should provide "more information" about the contents Of cigarette tobacco. Again, it would appear to have been the mention Of such well known toxins as arsenic and DDT which surprised respondents in Study 1 and caused them to want 'nformation about these to be printed on packets. 0 The P-111 out slip had Tmre visual iupact since it UMS recalled by 56% of respondents conpared with only 15% who recalled seeing the general pesticide wa='dng on the side of the packet. By contrast, three quarters of al-1 responidents, recalled having seen a health warning an the front of the pack. 0 Men respondents had their attention drawn to the pesticide warning on the trial packs,M)st respmdents (84%) found the Message believable. Nearly half (44%) said the nessage nade them feel 11 quitting and a najority said that the chendcals in question vere "a=ng the ncs dangerous things in tobadco". Only slightly zwre resPcndents shown the Pall out slip :fo=rat (47%) said it rade thein think of quitting than did those skzxm the Wieral wa=iLng on the side of the packet (41%). It should be noted that these percentages are caisiderably lower -than for CYN respondents in Study I given a wa=iing which C:) specified "arsenic, Mr, lead and asbestos- as C) U7 being c=itained in cigarette taacco (67%). C) C) (A -J:~b BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 8 - 1.9 Conclusions A ntmter of conclusions appear uerranted by the results of these studies. 0 swkers bave high levels of knowledge about the presence of tar and nicotine in cigarette tobacco but very few Are aware of the presence of carbon m=Y=Lde - despite it being stated on all packets - or of other toxic chemicals incltxUng pesticides. 0 Marry mmkers are aware of the tar yield of their own cigarettes and have selected their brand on this basis. Fe6eer srrokers can accurately recall nicotine levels but rany clam their brand selection is influenced by this information. 0 Half the =okers in the three state survey wanted rore info=et3.cn an cigarette packets prior to being infonred about pesticides in tobacco. The nature of this extra infonration ;,as quite di,A,---se. 0 Even with the knowledge that the levels of toxic chernicals in tobacco pose little threat to health, a great rejo=ity of smokers believe tobacco ccupanies s~=ld provide info=raticn about tbeir presence. CY% CD CD Ln CD C) BATCo document for Legal Services Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 9 - 0 A great :majority Of wokers stated that pesticide/ciwinical wa=Lings which specifica22y mmticned arsenic, Mr, lead and asbestos wadd induce them to cut down or quit smoking. 7his was especially true for smokexs v*jo were alxeady contemplating quitting and was also true for the majority of those who had said they did not wish to quit prior to being exposed to the vmuming. 0 A great majority of smokers IS and under stated that pesticide/chemical warnings wmld worry them and induce them to quit - especially fenales. 0 A brief wa=ing in snk-LU print regarding the presence of "pesticides and other chemical residues" on the side of the packet had Iittle irmiediate inpact on smkers. V&ken such a ua=iing wes placed on a pull out slip also carrying a list of selected chemical residues, Just over half the smokers recalled this neassage. Even after a minute of examining trial packets, nost smokers did not even notice the wa=ing. By contrast, three quarters of respondents noticed and recalled the standard health wa=.ing. on the front of the packet. In sammary, irdo=ration about the presence of toxic chemicals other than tar and nicotine is both new and distm:bing to smokers. Most feel they should be info=ed in some way about their presence and that this will induce t1yem to cut down or quit. CY% CD CD Ln CD C) CY% BATCo document for Legal Services Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 10 - 1.10 Recompendations If warnings regarding pesticides in cigareette tobacco are to be introduced, then great attention needs to be paid to the wordinq of the warning and its placement on the packet, if it is to have arry inpact on smokexs. The above findings suggest that pesticide/chemical wa=iings: 0 Should not be placed in well print on the side of the packet. 71-Lis is already insufficient for cart= :m=xide, the presence of utuch in cigarettes is v3--t-ua-Uy unknown to -cmkers despite being so depicted on all packets. 0 Should be rotated with other current health warn.ings on the front of packets or provided on a pull out slip inside. 0 Should specify the rost notorious toxic chemicals (viz. arsen~c, cyanide, lead, D17r and asbestos) in order to maximse psychological inpact. 0 In keeping with other research conce--ung the presentation of health- warnings, pesticide ue=Lings should be varied, coloturful, use eqpkesis and a large print size.* * TheWestexn Australian Health Departmmt hold unpublished reports on this issue. Dr M. laugesen 01. of the Wellingtcn Departnent of Health, New C) CD Zealand has rade similar conclusions re the Ln presentation of health ummings on cigarette C) packets. --4 BATCo document for Legal Services: Health Canada 21 October 1999 - il - 2.o I:RrRCD=C)N The studies described in this report we-re commissioned by the Natia*al Campaign Against Drug Abuse (W-MA) in order to establish whether the pmvvision of info=raticn about the presence of pesticides and other dangerous chemicals in tobacco might induce some smokers to quit and deter others fram taking up the habit. Factory nede cigarettes contain residues of over 4,000 chemicals scme of which are well known to the genexal public as being highly poisonous eg. arsenic, cyanide, Mr and asbestos. The actual danger to health posed by the levels of those substances typically found in cigazettes is thought to be tiny Compared with that fra, tar, nicotine and carbon nanoxide (the presence of which is already stated in small print on the side Of the packets). Nonetheless, the possible Psychological impact of this knowle:1ge On actual and would be smokers has -b~*m the basis of recent public jnf0mmtic:,n campa.igns in both Victoria and Western Australia. This issue has cam to light as a consequence of jecmt research undertaken by the Victorian iQuit campaign. In a sample of 315 Victorians, only 27% of smokerss and 20% of non wokers; could identify one or :mcre of rune chemicals other than tar and nicortine which are found in cigarettes. Following a madia canpa-ign these knowledge levels rose to 48% and 54% respectively (Borland, personal coarmniicatIon). 0 CY% CD CD ~LJn CD CD LM Co BATCo document for Legal Services: Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 12 - At the present tive, the Federal Government conducts a regular testing programme in order to ascertain the levels of tar, nicotine and caxt= mcncvide in tobacco as a carisequence of their significan~ contribution to the risk of lung cancer and hea-T-t disease. In additicn to information provided to smokers about levels of these substances cn cigarette packets, a SWke Yield Table is produced twice yearly. An agreement has been reached with tobacco mazuifacturers for the levels of these substances to be reduced over time. Me Cigarette Tezting P=gzanue enables this agreement to be m=nitored. 'The Naticnal Health and Fledical Research Council has recently advised that it is unnecessary to set maxu= levels for the other s=stances found in tobacco. (7% C) CD Un CD CD BATCo docurnent for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 13 - 3.0 09MMVES mie overall objective of this research was to investigate the attitude of the ommxiity towards the inclus-IM of infolzation about pesticides and other additIves an tobacco packages. !Me specific objectives of this reseaxch uvxe to investigate: 0 The level of awareness among smokers of the presence of tar, nicotine and carbon moncxLde in tobacco; 0 The level of awareness among smokers of the presence of pesticides and other additives in tobacoo; 0 Smokers' awu-eness of wbat contents are listed on tobacco packets; 0 Smokers' satisfaction with the current labelling requirements; 0 Addit-tanal information prefer-red by smokers; and if am J ticnal information about the presence of pesta.cides and other additives was included on the packet, would this induce people to quit smoking or choose not to smoke? cIII~ c~ CD ~.n CD BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 14 4. D METEMCE= Illie objectives as outlined in Section 2. 0 urze not by comiucting three separate surveys - the first a telephone survey to rreasure strakers' avareness of pesticides in tobacco, the second an -.intercept" study which zmasured smakers' awareness of current labelling of cigarette packs and reaction to two different proposals for I a 11 J ng of cigarette packs, and the third an "intercept" study of young, exper-brental sm3kers gauging thei r reaction to a chemical/pesticide warning on cigarette packets. (NB. An "intercept" study is one in which respondents are recruited or "intercepted" in public places - in this case wi-Ule shopping - rather than in their houses). Both telephone and intercept interviewt followed a st-ructured questionria-tre 4iich ulas supplied by N--RPDA and the western Aust-rallan Health Department and finalised by Reark Re-saarch in consultation with NCRMA. A copy of each questionnaire is included in this report as Appendices 1, 2 and 3. The ne-thodology for each of the surveys is detailed below. I* 0% CD C) Url C) BATCo document for Legal Services: Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 15 - 4.1 Awareness StWv A total of sio telephonie. interviews wem conducted with smokers aged 18 years and over. Interviews wem carried out in Perth, Brisbane and Sydney fxtn Saturday, 13th Cctober to Taesday 16th Ocwber, 1990 based an the following quota: 0 103 in Western Australia; 0 201 in Queensland; and 0 206 in New South Wales. 0 one half of the resp=idents in each state i-esided in the ccxmtry and one half in the net-ropolitan area. Randcrn digit dialling procedures were used with three call backs a) if there xes no ansu-er and b) if an identified smoker ums not inTnExiiately available for interview. For the purposes of this stLidy a "woker" was defined as anyone who had smoked at least one cigarette every day for the last thirty days. Knowledge concerning the contents of factory mde mgarettes was first elicIted without prcapts and then with prcrq:rts frm a standard list of eleven substances actually found in cigarettes and two fictitLious substances for control purposes. is BATCo document for Legal Services Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 16 - Prior to asking respondents to assess the =qzct of pesticide/ chemical warning labels on their smoking behaviour it ums explained to all respondents that amounts, of these substances in cigarettes were very small and that "health experts" considered their risk to health to be 'tiny". Two preliminary questicns were designed to assess resp=ients, basel-ine "preparedness to change' in order to assess tl~ differential impact of pesticide/chenacal umznings on mmkers with different levels of zortivation to qait (P=chaska and DiClemente, 1986). A summary of fieldwork is as follows: 40 STATE TOZAL WA INSW 'Nt24BER CF lhll=E~-S 510 103 201 206 NUMEER CF REFUSAIS 305 54 101 150 NUMBER ELIGM3LE - 815 157 302 356 RESPCNSE RAM 62.6% 65.6% 66.6% 57.9% NLZMER NOT EZJGI= 1904 275 912 717 4.2 Reaction Study A total of 204 intercept interviews %vXe conducted with sirokers; aged 18 ye5xs and over. Interviews were ca-iducted on Thursday 11th Cctobe_- and Saturday 13th October, 1990 at two -locations of Frerrantle and Garden City, Booragoon, Weestern Australia. CD CD Cn BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 1 7 - These interviews uvare based on the reactions of smokers to labelling on cigarette packets. Three different labelling scenarios uvre used, with sixty eight people responding to each of the three scenarios. The three different packets were labelled as follows: Group I Cigarette packet labelled to comply with current label-ling requirements. Group 2 Cigarette packet labelled to comply with C=xmt labelling x9guixements with the addition of a warning on the side of the pacJcet (see Figure 4.1). Group 3 Cigarette packet labelled to comply with current labelling reciuirements with the addition of a card inserted inside the packet containing the above %,;arning, and a list of chernicals and pesticides contained in tobacco (see Figure 4.2). 0 C> CD CD un CD CD BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 18 - V"w4edik ~P :~ - CX1^JF117r1E SUOKX "*.., SSIMOES L C'.* C~EwC,,L E 'S." . = - FIGURE 4.1 : The side-of -packet pesticide warning presented to Group 2 subjects WARNING CIGAAE'rrE SMOKE =)NTA3KS 4 PESMIDES AND CANCEP CAUSING CHEWCALS INCX.7U~: AcetaldehM - Acatic &icl Acetone - Methand Nit"X)en Oxides - Fm , -c Aod Hydre"n Cyanide Hyoroquinon* CaiscriN Arnmor4a Benzene Acrolein Phendi - CtMOn Aldehyd@ Fonna$iJehy0e Pyridine 3-Met"Widine 2-CresoF - 3- and 4-Cresol 3- and A- metrycalecr*1 Cartiazoie 2-Nitroworiane N-Nilrosonornictione 4.(M@1hyfni1roSarr"no) -1.1 3-pynd~l) A- butarione N-Nnrosanabasine N.Nit, iethanola"ne N-Nitrosooyffofiaine WNW imeirrviam.ne % EM hm MEO I . i -~ a. TWJ 2 SMOKING DAMAGES YOuR WNGS UE C . . g ; CM, a- ee Z E - E : = i ! , 'Ic b"Di ~VSA 20 CLASS A CIGARETTES L_ - cr% C) F7GURE 4.2 - The pull-out slip warning of C> pesticides and other chemical residues presented to subjects in Group 3 C> .C:b U1 BATCo document for Legal Services: Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 19 - The sane brand of cigarettes -.as used for all three groups - naTrely "L & M" which has a "tar" yield of l6mg CPM or less, 0.9mg of nicotine or less and 13mg of carbon monoxide or less. A srunuary of field~;ork is as follows- TOM NUMBER OF =RVIDS 204 NUMEOER OF REFUSAIS 126 NrJMBM EIZGIME 330 RESPONSE RATE 61.8% NUKBER NOT ELIGIEME 235 4.3 Experimental srrokers; study A total of fifty intercept intexvie~,m wexe conducted with experilmntal smokers aged 18 years and under. An experimental smoker .as def;ned as one u;ho had =wked a cigarette in the last fo= weeks, does not usually smoke every day and ;,~ unsure about or definitely not going to be smoking when aged over 16 years. CY*% CD CD Ln CD C> BATCo document for Legal Services: Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 20 - Interviews up-re conducted on Mmiday 22nd and Tuesday 23rd of October 1990 at t%,;o locations of Ybrley and Y.=:inyup ShoWing Centres, Western Australia. These interviews were based an the feelings and reacucns of experimental smokers towards smoking in general, and towards warnings on cigarette packets. A summary of fieldwork is as follows: 7= NUMBER OF INTI~EKS 50 NUMBER OF REFUSALS 28 NUMBER ELIGTIK 78 RESPCNSE RATE 64.1% NUMBER NOT ELIGI= 253 CY% CD C) Ln C) C) BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 21 - 5.0 DETA= RESULTS: AWARENESS S= 5.1 Desire And Likelihood Of Givincz Uo Smc)kizxT Alzost a third of the sample (31%) bave no desire at all to give up smoking. older respondents (aged 55 years or rr ) uvare wore definite about this issue with 41% stating no desire to give up, whiLst only 26% of younger respondents (aged 18 to 34 years) have no desire at all to give up. 43% of respondents wxad like to give up smoking "quite a lot" or "very much". Respondents with tertiary education have itiox desi=9 to give up (55%) than respondents with high school only education (36%) TAME 5.1 : DESZRE M QZM SMCKENG Base: All resp=xknts. S7ATE DESIRE 7UM WA QLD NSW (n=51n) (zi--103) (n=201) (n=206) Not at all 30.6 34.0 29.9 29.6 A little 26.1 16.5 32.3 24.8 Quite a lot 24.3 32.0 18.4 26.2 Very much 19.0 2~.5 19.4 19.4 0 TC71AL 1DO.0% 100.0% IDO.0% 100.0% 0~% CD CD ui CD CD CD BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 22 - The likelihood of respondents giving up smoking in the rx= three Rmths is low, with only 8% "very likely- and 11% 'likely" to give up. Only 3% of New South Wales resparxients are "very likely" to give up smoking in the mm three =:nths. In line with thei= desize to give up, respondents with higher education are more likely to give up smoking -in the next three =mths (27%) than those less formally educated (14%). - VM=- 5.2 : LIKELIHOM OF QUITIMG, IN NEXT THREE MMS T%% : An ZesT'rjn[jjM=. S7ATE T= TOM NA am Nsw (n=510) (n--103) (n--201) (n--206) Vezy likely 8.4 10.7 12.4 3.4 Likely 10.6 11.7 10.9 9.7 UM-.U_---3 12.4 12.6 8.0 16.5 UnLi.kely 26.7 33.0 24.9 25.2 Ve=y =-1-i3cely 42.0 32.0 43.8 45.1 TOMAL 100.0% 100.0% J(0.0% 100.0% 0 CY% CD CD ~_n CD %D BATCo document for Legal Services: Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 23 - 5.2 Aw=eness Of Harmful Substances In Cigarettes Ur4=vpted awmeness of ha=nful substances usually found in factory made cigarettes is high for nicotine (77%) and tar (54%), uiille carbcn monoxide (7%) and arsenic (0) u;ere the Only other substances naned by mn-e than 1% of respondents. TAMZ 5.3 : tNPRCMPTED AWARENESS OF HAMOM SUBSTANCES FULM IN CIGARE= Base: JUI mspanderits. 0 SIDUE SUR=ANC:'E FWJND TVIAL WA NS;q IN CIGARETTES (n=510) (n=103) (n=201) (n--206) KiLcotine 76.5 70.9 72.6 83.0 TB-- 53.7 49.5 53.7 55.8 Car-bon rronoxide 6.7 5.8 8.0 5.8 Arsenic 3.5 5.8 5.0 1.0 h~xjen Cyanide 0.8 1.0 1.5 - DDT 0.6 1.9 0.5 - Naprthalene 0.6 0.5 0.5 Ammn-Lia 0.2 - 0.5 Teed 0.2 - 0.5 "Pesticides" 0.2 0.5 - bse-J-1anol Asbestos - - - Other 11.2 10.7 11.9 10.7 Don't Know 16.3 19.4 16.9 14.1 TOTAL Note: Totals exceed 100% due to nultiple response. C:) (-n C:) C:) BATCo document for Legal Services: Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 24'- Prarpted awareness of the presence of nicotine and tar in cigarettes was almost total (98% and 95% respectively), followed by carbon mmmmide (54%) and arsenic (33%). Aux=eness of the remaining, substances range from 5% to 25% including the tl~;o "dummY" Substances monosodiurn bramide and glutone. This casts some doubt on the "real* awareness.of harmful substances other than nicotine, tar, carbm moncadde and arsenic (see Table 5. 4). Prarpted aw!m-eness of the presence of harmful substances is higher In Western, Australia than in Queensland and New South Wa-les, with airm=iia, DIM, hydrogen cyanide and methanol all having an awareness of around 30%. Respondents with a tertiary education tended to have a higher prarpted awareness of these harmful substances contained in cigarettes, than less educated resp=xients . 0 C7% C=) C:) t.n CD BATCo document for Legal Services Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 25 - TAME 5.4 : PRCE4= ;MDUU2= CF HARMFUL SUBSTAN= FUMD IN CIGARETrES Pbi : A%U respmde=. SUBSTAN= FOUND TOTAL WA MD NSW IN CICARE= (n=510) (n=103) (n=201) (n--206) Nicotine 98.0+ 98.1+ 98.0+ 98.1 Tar 94.7+ 96.1+ 96.0+ 92.7 Carbon Yjonoxide 53.9+ 58.3+ 55.7+ 50.0 Arsenic 32.5+ 52.4+ 30.8+ 24.3 Methanol 25.7+ 31.1+ 26.9+ 21.8 DDT 18.0 30.1 19.4 10.7 Amonia 17.8 34.0+ 17.4 10.2 Hydrogen Cyanide 17.1 28.2 15.9 12.6 Lead 14.7 16.5 15.9 12.6 Napthalene 12.5 18.4 14.9 7.3 Asbestos 4.7 8.7 5-0 2.4 Mcnosodium Bz-a~ide 18.2 23.3 19.9 14.1 Glutone 12.7 15.5 12.4 11.7 =ZL * Note: Totals exceed 100% due to nultiple, response. + Note: Denotes suh6ftznces .ath awareness levels sign.Lfican~a-y higher than hmosodium Bromide on a Z test. cyl~ C) C) U1 Ln rQ BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 26 - 5.3 Aumxeness Of Labellinq of Cicrarette Packets About half the sanple were awnre that riLcotine and tar must be listed on cigarette packets, wftile only 5% were aware that cazJ= =ncxide nx= be listed. 40% of resporxients didn't know of any harmful sm tances that bad to be listed. In general, nales were m=e aware than females of the substances to be listed, as were younger respcridents than their older countatpartz. TAMZ 5.5 : RBZALL OF HARMFUL SUBSTANKMS S97wN ON CIGAREM PACKAGIM All respcrAdents. S=- SUBSMUCE SHONN TOTAL Wk cm NSW CN PACY;~Z= (n--510) (n=103) (n=201) (n=206) Tar 45.7 44.7 48.3 43.7 Carbon Yjonoxide 5.1 5.8 5.0 4.9 Nicotine 53.7 53.4 50.7 56.8 Other 1.2 1.9 1.5 0.5 Don't Y=)w 39.8 40.8 39.8 39.3 0 * Note: Tztals exoeed 100% due to nultiple respxise. CD un CD BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 27 - The respmidents who had rvmd tar as a listed substance on cigarette packs were asked to estimate the level of tar in their cigaxettes, 43% respcnded with between 1 arxi 5mg. 72% of respcridents estimated the level of tar to be below 1-5mg, uiiich is the maxi== level of tar in local brands, with 19% not able to make an estimate (see Table 5.6). TA33LE 5.6 - ESTXKA=CN OF 19002aM IEVELS OF TAR IN USUAL BRAND CF CIGAREITES Base: Respa-62nts vibo rk=d tar as a listed substance. STATE ES77MATZD T= NA QM NSW LEVELS OF TAR (n=233) (n--46) (n--97) (n=90) inig to -91n; 42.9 43.5 53.6 31.1 6ing to 10mg 13.3 10.9 14.4 13.3 lirrig to 15-mg 15.5 23.9 9.3 17.8 16rng to 20rig 8.2 4.3 8.2 10.0 21nq to 40mg 1.3 2.2 1.0 1.1 Don't Know 18.9 15.2 13.4 26.7 TUM 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0 (I% C) C) BATCo document for Legal Services: Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 28 - Abcxt half of this gmxV of xespon:1ents: (52%) choose their cigarettes based on -car content (see Table 5.7). Wnm are =.re likely to choose their cigarettes hased on the tar =%tent (62%) than men (43%). TAE-LX 5.7 - S CN OF CIGARETTE BRAND BASED CU TAR MMNT PkRse: 1-bes-p6widt-art wbo, named tar as a I i sted substance. SMUT RZESPCME T= WA QLZ) NSW (n=233) (n--46) (n=97) (n=90) Yes 51.5 50.0 55.7 47.8 No 48.5 50.0 44.3 52.2 T= 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0 CY% CD (:D Ln CD CD Ln un BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 29 - Alrost a third of respondents (31%) who mured carbon =wxide as a listed substance on cigarette packets, estivated the level of carbon m==cide in cigarettes to be betvxxm 1 and 5TM. All respondents who rade an estanate, estirrated the carbon mmoxide level to be less than 15ag per cigarette which is the maximum level in local brands of cigarettes. A large PzvPc)ztim of respondents (42%) did not kncw the level of carbon ronoxide, in cigarettes (qep Table 5.8). IA= 5. 8 -. ESZEMATION OF MAXEMUK IZVEL OF IN USUAL ERAND OF C Base: Resp=xknts %*x3 named cwl= ncrA=dde as a list-4 substance- EMMA= LEE~L T= OF CARBW MUCXIDE (n=26) 1M9 to 5TrG 30.8 6nig to I Om-- 11.5 lirg to 15.4 Don't Rnaw 42.3 TCT.rAL 100.0% 0 C.) C> BATCo document for Legal Services: Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 30 - Only 31% of this group of respondents choose their cigarettes I-sed on theix carbon monoxide level (see Table 5.9). Yen are rmre likely to choose their cLgarettes based an the carbon monoxide content (37%) than wamn (14%). MBLE 5.9 : SEL=ON CF CIGAR= BRAND BASED ON CARBW MCM=E COW= Base: ResPMrxkff1tS who --4 CM13oft _r-VV_Mne1_ as a I i st-swi substanc3a. TOM R-'SPCNSE M=26) % yes 30.8 No 69.2 TOM 100.0% 0 CY% CD Cz> Ln Ln 1-4 BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 31 - ResPandents who naned nicotine as a listed substance on cigarette packs grossly overestiuated the level of nicotine in their usual brand of cigarettes. Most cigarettes have a nicotine content between 0.5 and l.Qrrg per cigazette, yet the najorlty of respondents who rade an estumt1cn, estirrated a n-icotine content of between I and 10mq per cigarette, pointing to scrre confusion on this issue. 45% of respondents did not know the nicotine content of their usual brand of cigaxettes (see Table 5.10). TAME 5. 10 : ESTIMATICN OF MAXIMUM LEVEZS oe NICD= IN USUAL BRAND OF CIGARE= Base: Respcndents viho namnd nicotine as a 1 i ste-ri substance. S= ESTLvL= IZv-aS am NSW OF NICCTINE (n=274) (n=55) (n=102) (n=117) lirg to -9ng 28.5 32.7 30.4 24.8 6mg to 10mg 10.9 9.1 13.7 9.4 llug to 15rng 9.1 3.6 8.8 12.0 16rixg to 20rrq 6.2 5--5 4.9 7.7 21n-g, to 45rrg 0.4 - - 0.9 Don't Enow 44.9 49.1 42.2 45.3 TOM 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0 CD CD CD BATCo document for Legal Services: Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 32 - 43% of this group of respcndents choose their Cigarettes ksed on the nicotine content (see Thble 5.11), partimilarly waren (52%). TABLE 5 - 11 : SELECTIM CP CIGAREMM BRAM BASED CN NICOTINE CCU= Base: %mPcmdents who x-ed nicotine as a I i sted substance. STATE RESPCHSE TOM WA QLZ) NSW (n=274) (n=55) (n=102) (n=117) % % % % Yes 42.7 38.2 38.2 48.7 No 57.3 61.8 61.8 S1.3 TMAL 100.0% 100.0% 1(0.0% 100.0% ~ je (31% C) CD Lri C) (il %0 BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 33 - 5.4 Reaction To L-%bellincr Of Ciqamtte Packets Half of the respondents stated that the anount, of information on cigarette packets relevant to the cmtents of tcbacco w3s -not enough". This ums the - particularly anx:ngst younger respondents (60%), and those with trade qualLficatia's (66%). TABLE 5.12 : AMDUNr OF INFUMQMCN CCM:AD= CN CIGAREITE PACKAGEG RELA= M THE COMMOE CF MBX= Base: Au respmderits. ;Mxwr OF INFCFQQ=CN TOTAL WA MD NSW (n=510) (n=103) (n--201) (n=206) Too nuch 4.1 1.0 6.5 3.4 About right 35.3 36.9 29.4 40.3 Not enough 50.0 50.5 55.2 44.7 No opinion 10.6 11.7 9.0 11.7 TMAL 100.0'1 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0 0% CD CD un CD CD BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 34 - Those resp=yJents; who believed that there was not enough info=ration an packaging stated that they would like to see the inclusion of pesticide content and strcnger health wa=iLngs. Some of the c , mnents. of significance indlizied In the 47% that gave "other" reasons than those stated in Table 5.13 were; "Should state the nunter of cigarettes contained in a pack" (10%) and "Should carry a message that smking causes lung cancer" (9%). TAELE 5.13 - AM=CNAL INFCP=CN DESIRED CN PAOEETS 0 WrM REGARD TC THE CCNIMUS OF MEACXDD Base: Fiespondents %*%o believe there is mat enotxjh information about contents on cigarette packets. S= AMCXVT OF INFCRM=CN TOTAL TAX NSW (n=255) (n--52) (n=111) (n=92 Any pest~icides 20.6 26.9 .12.6 27.2 Different/Stronger 22.0 25.0 12.6 31.5 health wan-ling Don't care 5.1 - 7.2 5.4 Don't Know 16.0 11.5 18.9 20.7 Other 47.1 51.9 56.B 32.6 0 TOTAL * * Note: Totals exceed 100% due to nultiple response. CY% CD CD un CD CD S BATCo document for Legal Services: Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 35 - Respondents reacted favourably to the concept of warnings on cigarette packets stating the presence of chemicals such as arsenic, DDT, lead and a- tos. They were definite in their Opinions, although ro~stern Australians were slightly less definite. In particular: Over half of all respondents (52%) are likely to change brands if cigarette packets warned that the cigarette tobacco contained very sffall quantities of chemicals such as arsenic, =, lead and asbastos. Half of this group, would "definitely" change brands due to such ma=nJings on packets. Only 10% of Westexn Australian men would "definitely" change brands due to such warnings, although 45% would "probably"change brands. TABLE 5.14 : LIKELIHOOD OF MAW= BRANDS IF PAL--FqZIM ;-~ OF CRE-1-ar-AL CCM21r TbR : All respondia=s. S=-- LIKELIHOOD T= WA TZ NSW (n=510) (n=103) (n=201) Cn=206) Definitely 25.9 19.4 28.4 26.7 Probably 26.1 33.0 25.9 22.8 unsure 7.5 3.9 4.5 12.1 Probably not 22.5 27.2 22.4 20.4 Definitely not 18.0 16.5 . -18.9 18.0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Cr% C) CD (.n CD CD BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 36 - About a third of resp=Ients (35%) would "definitely* think about stopping smAing, while a further 32% stated they would "probably" thlrlk about qu;Ltting in response to a pesticide waming. older respondents axe less likely to think of quitting (22%) than their younger counterparts. Western Australian resp=jents are not as defini~te about this issue, particularly older resp=xients; and less educated resp=)dents. TAMES. 15 : LIKELIK)OD CF CCNTEXPLA= Q=IG IF PACKAGUG T-~ OF CHEMICAL CUT= 0 Base: AU respordents. STAXE LIKELIMOD TOM NA. OLD 1UR (n=510) (n--103) (n--201) (n--206) % 96 % % r)efinitely 34.7 26.2 36.8 36.9 Probably 32.2 41.7 30.8 28.6 unsure 6.5 4.9 4.o 9.7 Probably not 14.7 14.6 16.4 13.1 Def initely not 12.0 12.6 11.9 11.7 TOTAL 100-0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0 0 CY% CD C-D (Jn CD CD ~J4 BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 37 - About a third of respondents (34%) wou.Id 'definitely" cut down smoking, with a further 27% of respondents stating they would "Probably" reduce their smoking. Females are rore likely (37%) than nales; to cut down, as are younger resporxIents (39%). Again, V;este=n Australians were riot as definitive in their resolve to reduoe smoking with only 24% stating they would definitely cut dcx#.m and 39% commenting that they would Pz6bably cut dcAm. TAIME LIMMall= W%RN 4 % : AU responjeffrts. S= LIKELIE= TOM WA MW (n=510) (n=103) (n--201) Cn=206) Definitely 33.9 24.3 36.8 35.9 1- I -obably 27.1 38.8 23.4 24.8 LI-Isure 8.0 4.9 5.5 12.1 P-robably not 19.2 24.3 13.9 15.5 Definitely no-, 11.8 7.8 13.9 11.7 TUM 100.0% 100.096 100.0% 100.0% CD CD BATCo.docurnent for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 38 - Pesticide warnings on cigarette packets were likely to lead to 34% of respcndents deciding to "definitely" C;Uit MOkingi while a further 27% felt they would 'probably" cease SEEking. Rm-en are xm=e. likely (39%) to stop smoking, as are respondents in the 18 to 34 age group (37%). Cnly 14% of resp=ients would definitely not be likely to stop smoking. TAELE 5.17 - LIKELIHDM OF QUITTIM IF P-ACKAG-ZbG TQARNED OF CIU>OECAL CCNTENT r,A - All respondents. LIKELM= TOTAL M QLD NSW (n=510) (n=103) (n=201) (n=206) Definitely 33.9 28.2 38.3 32.5 Probably 27.5 30.1 25.9 27.7 Unsure 9.4 12.6 6.5 10.7 Probably not 14.9 15.5 13.9 15.5 Definitely not 14.3 13.6 15.4 13.6 TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0, CY% CD CD ~-n CD CD BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 39 - A najor:Lty of zesp=xlents stated that if packets carried pesticide wan-iings they wmld probably or definitely change their smoking behaviour in each of the four categories suggested: changing brand (52%), think about. quitting (671t),' cut down (61%) and quit (61%). As shown in Table 5.18 this ums especia-Ily true for smokers %ho bad already stated that their desire to quit was "quite a lot" or 'very nuch" (62%, 79%, 71% and 76% respectively), but .as also true for a large ram1ber of those who had expressed little or not desire to quit (44%, 57%, 54% and 50% respectively). It was also aspecia.Uy true for smokers who had rated the likelihood Of their quitting in the next three nonths as being likely or very likely (67% 90%, 78% and 86% respectively) - Table S. 19. 9b C> CD CD CD C) ci% C7111 BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 40 - MV3LE 5.18 - LIKELIHOOD OF CHANGIM SMMDG MMVICUR ME TO PESTICIDE WAFU41M AND PRICR M31T=CN M QUIT Base: All zespanients- DESIRE TO QUIT NOT AT Q= A ALL CR A A IDr CR T= Lrl= VERY MUM (n--510) (n--289) (n=221) 96 % % LIKELIMOD OF CFVMIW, EWDS Probably/definitely 52.0 43.9 62.4 Unsure 7.5 9.0 5.4 Probably/definitely not 40.5 47.1 32.1 TO M 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% L=IHOQD QF.C0NMMPI.A= 0=24G P--obably/definite2y 66.9 57.4 79.2 Unsure 6.5 5.9 7.2 Probably/definitely not 26.7 36.7 13.6 TOM 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% LIFT~r OF CUITIM. DOW Probably/definitely 61.0 53.6 70.6 Unsure 8.0 9.3 6.3 Probably/definitely not 31.0 37.0 23.1 TOML 100.0% 100.0% 10(.0% 0 MISLIHOOD OF QUIMTNC; Probably/definitely 61.4 50.2 76.0 Unsure 9.4 9.3 9.5 C) Ln Probably/definitely not 29.2 40.5 14.5 CD TOM 100.0% 100.0% 100.01 a, -%j BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 TAEM 5. 19 - LIKELIMOD OF CHANGINS SHOKINZ BEENVIOM MM M PESTICIDE WAFIOEG M PRICR ESTIWMM LI~MLIFMD OF QUr=MiG Rp : AU respoedents. FRICR LIKELIH= OF QUITIMG UNSURE CR L=Y CR TUZAL UNLJ2=Y VERY LIMIY (n=510) (n--413) (n=97) LI:KELIHOOD OF CHAIr.= BRAMS Probably/definitely 52.0 48.4 67.0 Unsure 7.5 8.2 4.1 Probably/definitely not 40.5 43.3 28.9 TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.Ot LIXQIkKX)D OF C0ffI'-:'~-AZ32r7 QUIT= Probably/definitely 66.9 61.5 89.7 Unsuxe 6.5 7.5 2.1 Probably/definitely nat 26.7 31.0 8.2 TOTAL IDO.0% 100.0% 100.0% l~==D OF CUITINS DOW Probably/definitely 61.0 56.9 78.3 Unsume 8.0 9.0 4.1 Probably/definitely not 31.0- 34.1 17.5 TOTAL IDO. 0% IDO.0% 100.0% L=IHQQD OF QL7= Probably/definitely 61.4 55.7 85.6 CY% Unsure 9.4 10.4 5.2 CD Probably/definitely not 29.2 33.9 9.3 CD TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% CD CD BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 42 - The rajority of " :1 -rwients (85%) believe that tobacco companies should tell smokers that cigatettes contain very sma-U awunts of chemicals such as arsenic, Mr, lead and asbestos. Support for this is higher amongst women (89%) and younger respondents (89%). TAMœ 5. 20 -. TCBACCO COMPANIES MKOED DISCIMSE CIIDUCAL CCNIIEW IN CIGARETIES Base: AU zespondents. RESPCNSE TVIAL 'WA NSW (n=510) (n=103) (n=201) (n=206) Yes 84.5 83.5 84.6 85.0 No 10.0 13.6 9.5 8.7 Unsure 5.5 2.9 6.0 6.3 TMAL IDO.0% 100.0% 100.G% 100.0% Mie three methods for prcmding this L,-Ifo=et:Lcn that were -investigated in this study, namely a short umrning on tky_. outside of packets, a list of contents inside the packet, arld a parphlet ocntaining informat-jon on cl-lemical cmItent In tobacco available at all cigarette outlets, were all very uln supported, particularly the short uaxning on the outside of packets (89%). Support for these methods .as particularly high in Western Australia. CD CD Cr% - D BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 43 - TAEZ 5.21- A=TUDES M PFMOEED METMMS OF T-~G SFOEERS PIK= CIUMCALS IN CIGARETTES Base: nespcndents wbo believe that tcba camgmi abould tell smcke= abalt chemirals in cigarettes. STATE 70M IWA 011) MW (n--431) (n=86) (n--170) (n=175) SHMT ',,~trG ON THE CUMIDE OF PACKEIS yes 88.6 94.2 88.8 85.7 No 8.6 3.5 9.4 10.3 ilisIL-e 2.8 2.3 1.8 4.0 TMAL 1DO.0% 1DO. 0% 1M.0% IDO.0 LIST OF CHE>ffCAIS IN =Y PA= Yes 79.6 82.6 76.5 $1.1 No 18.1 14.0 2;. 9 15.4 Unsure 2.3 3.5 0.6 3.4 TOM 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0 A PAWQMET CCRMTINING IIECF09MON A= CHEZ-11CATS AVAIIABLE ALL CIGAREME CLMZ-r!S 011% yes 75.6 74.4 76.5 75.4 CD CD No 20.6 19.8 22.4 19.4 ‡-n U~1sure 3.7 5.8 1.2 5.1 C) TOM 100.0% 100.0% 1(0.0% 100.0% --4 CD BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 44 - 6.0 I)EM=D RESULTS: REA=CN S= The info=rat-ion commented upozi in this section is based on the results of data obtained frm interviewing by intexcept. Me sample Is comprised of three separate groups based on the three (3) "trial" packets of cigarettes. Group I - Carrent I a 11ing; Group 2 - TA 11ing on outside of package ue=-jing of pesticides and chemicals; and Group 3 - label-Ling on inside of package IistLng chemicals and pesticides contained in cigarettes. Throughout this sectiM the above groups wall be xsfe---red to as; "Group 1", "Group 2" and "Group 3". 6.1 Recall Of Messaces Cn Trial Brand A large proportion of xesparxients in each group were of the standard health u;axning on the front of the pdck. 68% of resp=-4ents in Group 1 were aware of the listing* of tar, nicotine and ca=bcn MmOxide levels On the packr with G=3p 2 and 3 respondents not as auere of this massage (46% in both groups) - Presumably, the messages uxare cmpeting with each Other for respondents' recall- Cnly 15% of Group 2 respcndents %,,-am Agr of e pesticide and chemical vanling v 56% of Group 3 respondents umem a~,;are of the list of pesticides and dwraicals inside the pack. 01% CD CD Ln CD CD BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 45 - TAZZ 6. 1 : RECALL OF MESSAGE/INFUR~MMCN C=nINED ON "TRIAL" PACKAGE Base: AU zmspmldmts. GRCUPS MESSAGES TOTAL GROUP I GROUP 2 GROUP 3 (n=204) (n=68) (n--68) (n=68) Health waLming on ñ=mt 74.5 69.1 73.5 80.9 of packet Am=t tar/carban 52.9 67.6 45.6 45.6 nc-noxide/nicotine Pesticide/chemical 25.9 - 14.7 55.9 waming Tax eocwpt~ 4.4 2.9 8.8 1.5 Made in U.S.A. 30.4 26.5 26.5 38.2 wa_=Ing non-specific 15.2 30.9 8.8 5.9 Flavour 14.7 11.8 27.9 4.4 P_-and narre 31.9 33.8 36.8 25.0 01-he= 33.3 38.2 51.5 10.3 7= * Nbte: Tot~ exceed 100% due to =ltiple zesponse. 0% C:) C) C:) BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 46 - CrLly 28% of Group 2 and 44% of Group 3 respondents uv--e aware of extra infoxmation an the trial pack compared to their usual brand of cigarettes. Of these however, the nejority zec.ognised the waniing as being a pesticide and chemical warning- TAEU 6.2 : UNPRCMPTED RECALL CF INFUMAZUON CCMUNM CN "TRIAL" EPLAND NOT APPARMIT CN OWN ERAND Base., , llx)se respczxJer&z %ibo, crxild recall %mripromptedr that there vias . - - - n cccrtairied an 'tzial* bat r=lt on own hr;~- 0 GROUPS INFMIAMON TCTAL GRCUP 2 GRCUP 3 (n=49) (n=19) (n--30) Tar/ca=tcn/mcncxide/nicotine 18.4 30.0 Pesticides/chemical waxning 73.5 7B.9 70.0 Other/Don't Know 8.2 21.1 - TOM * Note: Totals my exceed 100% due to nultiple response. 0 CD BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 47 - TAEW 6.3 - MZPRCMP= RECALT, OF M]~SAGE CONTAINED CH "TRIAL" EPPM Base: Mwee 1 1 1 -oEm recalled pestir-ide massage cn *tT-ii%l ' bmmid. GROUPS MESSAGES TOM GROUP 2 GROUP 3 (n=36) (n=15) (n--21) Contained tar/cwtcn 8.3 20.0 - zmoxide nicotine Brarxi had pesticides 66.7 93.3 47.6 and other chemicals Other 38.9 26.7 47.6 Dm't Know 2.8 - 4.8 TOM * Note- Tatals ray exceed 100% due to nultiple response. ilo CD Ln C) C) BATCo document for Legal Services: Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 48 - 6.2 Recall of Listincz And levels Of Harmful Substances On Usual Ciqarette Packets- Grow I All Group 1 respondents u;ere asked to name substances that are contained in their usual brand of cigarettes. 82% of these respondents named nicotine, 81% rmned - tar, and 21% named carbon =ncxide (see 720ble 6-4). VME 6.4 : UNPFœM= RECALL OF KNOW SURSTAN= CONZAIMM IN MBA= ~,MCEi AM ZJSTED CIN PACK= CF CWN EP.6M 0 Basse: AU Group 1 respondents. 7= suasmul= (n=68) Tar 80.9 Calñr,n mcnoxide 20.6 Nicotine 82.4 Other 4.4 Don't Yzww 7.4 * Note: I Ittall exceeds 100% due to nultiple respo:Lse. 0 Responderr-ts ueze then asked to estimate the level of these substances in their own hm-and of cigarettes. Two thirds of Group 1 -respondents est:Urated the corzect level C) of tar with the majority of the remaining respondents over C) (-n estlirating the ww4mt of tar. C1 C) BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 0 AVPMMIX 3 The Quest:Lcnnalre.. nq)=riniental Smokers Study CY% CD C) BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 Rea=k Rase=ch Pty Ltd Faf i C2545-RR 317 Rokeby Road Perth Subiaco IWK 6008 Oatober, 1990 Phore: 388 2334 TU-M egms Good ( ... ) my nam is (...) fx= Roark Research, a naticrua nax3cet research comparry. Today ue are surveying pecple like yourself to find out ~dzt you think about scme lifestyle isstm. REFUSM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SCRM I Can you tell me if you've smoked a cigarette in the last four wBeks? 0 Yes mmrtinm) I No Mmminate) 2 SCREEN 2 Do you usually stnake every day? Yes (TentLnate) I No ( ) 2 SCMEN 3 Can you tell me whether you think you'32 be smzking cigarettes ym're 18? TAbuld that be... mead cut) I'm certain to be smoking (Terminate) ............... I'm certain I w:)n't smnke (Clontinue) 2 CR I'm not sure whether I'll be smaking 3 Wr ELIGTI:U 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 0% C) U1 C) CD BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 2 - Q.1 First, I'd like you to think Akxmrt ya= smaking. For each of the following statements I'd like you to sety how often you feel this wty or do these things. After I say each statement just say: I never feel that usy, I oo=icn&Uy feel that way, or, I often feel that uzy. Let's start with~: Mute ox"deg) NEVER CCCASICNAILY CFTEN a) I think about the cbemicaas In cigazettes and how they might affect my health 1 2 3 b) I think about the warning on cigarette packets and think about stopping smoking 1 2 3 c), I want to know more about what's in cigarette snake 1 2 3 d) I think that If I knew what was in cigarettes I'd be =xe likely to quit 1 2 3 e) I look for reasons to stop smoking altogether 1 2 3 f) I look for info-sticn about smoking 1 2 3 g) I don't beliem the wa=%ings on cigarette packets 1 2 1 h) I read the infc=raticn on the cigarette packets I buy 1 2 3 0 01.1 CD c:) Ln CD CD BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 3 - o.2 N ow, I'd like ycu to think Akxxtt how you waild feel if the following information was acmzlly printed an the brand of cigarettes you usually "C.igarette amn)M Contains pestie-i and other clxxnical resirh ." (ftmat As I read out the following pairs of statements, please say ul~ich one is closest to how you wcxild feel if this warning was on cigarette packets. motate order) a) I'd be more likely to quit smoking altogether. 1 CR it woialdn't m5ke me more Mely to quit sm::king 2 b) I think I'd ignore the warning if it was on cigarettes I CR I don't think I'd ignore this warning if it uns an cigarettes 2 This ~.a=ning wouldn't worry Me at a-11 1 CR This uitumLng would wm=y ne 2 d) This wemung would vake me think that cigarettes were nore dangerous than I thought they were 1 CR 7his warning wouldn't make ze think that cigarettes were zo dangexous 2 e) I think I'd enjoy smDking a lot less if this warning was on cigarettes I OR I'd enjoy smoking just as nuch as I do rx:Pw if this warning -was an cigarettes 2 C71% f) This uerning would rake me think nuch C:) more about my chances of getting sick frtxn C:> my smoking 1 Ln C) CR Th1s waining wmadn't vake ve think C) more about my chances of getting sick from my smoking 2 ND BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 4 - Q.3 would you please tell zre Ixw old you are? 13 years old 1 14 years old 2 15 yean old 3 16 years old 4 17 years old 5 18 years old 6 Other (Please 7 0.4 Sex. (Rec=d automatiat.11y) Male 1 Female .... 2 Fbr auditimg purposes only ran you please tell ire your and contact telephone ramber? j TNANK RESTICINDUC AM CICSE ACCMDIKM INrENVTEW DATE: / 10 / 90 VrEWIEWER'S NAME: 0 INMRVTEWER'S NUMBER: II I- I I I C> CD CD BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 49 - Only a quaxter of respondents from Group I estirmted the correct level of nicotine in their usual by-nd of cigarettes. 29% ovex- estimated and 38% did not know how nuch nicotine ums in,their cigirettes. M-ie nzjority of Group 1 respondents did not know the COMMect level of cazbon monoxide in their usual brand of cigaxettes, -with only 4% estirating the correct level. TAB= 6.5 . UNPRCMP= RECJUZ OF EMMATE OF HARMFUL 0 SUBSTAN= CON`ZU= IN (MN EPLAM Base: All Group I zespondents. HARMFUL SUBSTAN=- CARBON TAR KICO= maz=E ESTD=-- (n=68) cc_-ze-__ 67.6 25.0 4.4 Highe=- 20.6 29.4 7.4 5.9 7.4 4.4 Dm't Know 5.9 38.2 83.8 7MAL 100.0% 100.0% 1DO.0% 0 cY~ C) CD (-n CD CD BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 - so - 6.3 Reaction lb Warnings On Trial Packets: Grouns 2 And 3 41% of Group 2 respondents felt that the umXniM on the outside of the pack made them think about 9=tting- 88% found tj~ awsage believable, while 63% knew that cigarettes contained these substances. 63% felt that these substances a am=lgst the rx~st dangerous, and 66% expressed no interest in finding out rore about the contents of cigarettes. Group 3 respondents reacted similarly to GraV 2 respondents in relation to the inserted list of tobacco contents in their cigarette packs. 47% felt that the ue=Ling rrede them think about quitting, 79% found the message believable and 84% claimed knowledge of the substances in tobacco. More than half (54%) believed that these substances axe amxx_;st the mst danger,mm, and 82% wvxe not interested in finding out more about what is in cigazettes. 01, CD CD (Un CD CD CC) r%j BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 51 - TABLZ 6.6 : S=MT CLOSEST TO FEEL= ABOUT MARNIMMESSAGE ON PACK Basez. Group 2 and 3 respandmts. GROW STATEMENr TOTAL GROUP 2 GROUP 3 (n=136) (n=68) (n--68) message n-ekes ne think of quittIng 44.1 41.2 47.1 . essage does not make ire think of quitting 55.9 58.8 52.9 Messace believable 83.8 88.2 79.4 hessage not believable 16.2 11.8 20.6 Did not know of substances 26.5 36.8 16.2 Ynew of substances 73.5 63.2 83.8 Ywch core dange-zous substances than these 41.2 36.8 45.6 Arong rost dangerous substance s 58.8 63.2 54.4 Would like more knowledge of substances 25.7 33.8 17.6 M,= interested in kncw3.ng of substances 74.3 66.2 82.4 cy\ CD C) Ln BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 52 - 7.0 D=A= RESUMS: EXPERIME= SMCFERS S7= Reactions by yotmg eqperinental smokers to the following waining on cigarette packets were favaurable, particularly arrong females. 'Cigxrette smoke contiLins pesticides and other chemical rwid, .' 82% of respondents felt that they uvuld not ignc)re the v;&rning and that it uv.~Lld rake them :more likely to quit. Similarly, 82% of respondents believed that the ue=Ling wmad na_ke them Is think =ch vcre about their chances of get=g sick from wroking, and that cigarettes ur-re =re dangerous than they PrL-iously thought they ulere. 70% of respondents believed that they would enjoy smoking less due to the %uraing (see Table 7. 1). (3'~ CD CD Un CD CD CD J~b BATCo docurnent for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 53 - Mk= 7 -1 , REAC=CNS TO VVUUMG ON CIGARETTE PACKETS Base: All respcndents. SEX T= MALE FEMALE (n=50) (n=25) (n--25) L=IHOM TO cur-r More likely 82.0 72.0 92.0 Not nore likely 18.0 28.0 8.0 TOM 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% IGNME TFM Te~? Wmdd ignore the va=ung 18.0 20.0 16.0 Wo-Ud not ignore the warning 82.0 80.0 84.0 TOM 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% TN~ ABOUr THE VV*UTIM? Wmad not uarry m 14.0 20.0 8.0 WoUd worry ire 86.0 80.0 92,0 TUM 100.0% 1(0.0% 100.0% Ccntinued overleaf.... cy% CD CD (jn CD CD 00 ui BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 - 54 - TAMM 7 - 1 -. REA=CNS TO WAFdUM CN CIGARETTE PAr-T=-'S Continued . AU zespondents. SEX TOM b= FEMALE (n=50) (n=25) (n--25) CIGARE'l= MORE DANGEROUS THAN I THD= Would nake ne think they were 82.0 72.0 92.0 Would not make rre think they w~ 18.0 28.0 8.0 TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% ENJO=- ZT Enjoy smoking less 70.0 72.0 68.0 Enjoy smoking just as rmich 30.0 28.0 32.0 To = 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% SIM= = TO SM3U2G Would m3ke ne think about it 82.0 76.0 88.0 Would not make ire think abcut it 18.0 24.0 12.0 701AL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% CY\ (Z CD ui ~ CD C) CD C> BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 0 APPENDIX I The (Xiestiarzoixe: Ai-a-reness Study 0% CD CD (-n CD CD CD --4 BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 Reark ;e%e8r'Ch Pty Ltd Ref: CPS39-RA 317 R 0 troy Road Perth SUBIACO WA 6008 Octow 1990 Phone: 3M 2334 TMACED LASFtLtKG Gooc my name is from Reark 0.2c) Now I would like you to 't brand (Give resocindent "ZI& 'j Rest r~h.'a national market research company. t fifit d C d glue Today we are sur~ey igarette smokers about aid) their attitudes to IngrCand of cigarette. In comparison to the first pack I gave REFUSED 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 you ~ow likely do you think it is that smoking thi I brand of cigarettes would cause a person to become sick or get a SCREr!( disease? Q.1a) Do you sroke cigarettes? Less likely I Yes (Continue I Just as likely 2 No (Terminate 2 A little sore likely 3 0.1b) Are , the cigarettes you smoke faCtory-4Mde Much more likely 4 or roll your own'? Factory-made (Coctime I Q.2d) Why do you say that? Roll your own (Tfroinate 2 (Probe fullv- What do ZN mean by that?) Q.1c) Nave yo, smoked at least one cigarette every cay for the list amith? Yes (rontinue I No (Terminate 2 Q-2e) What brand of cigarettes do you usually NOT ELIGIBLE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 91 smoke? PLFPSE RE . An OUT Before we start I would like (FIrobe- full brand i-,-- Winfield glue to u on t look at your own Cket 0 as. a t ciq~r,-!rels du~orin; the survey. as it coulad affec! your answers. (Shor oactet of cigaretles We ve interested in the information smokers would like on these packets to tell thes what is 0.3 As best as you can remember from looking in V-iis brand o! cigarettes. I would like you to at the packet. what Nessages or ima;ine that yo~ are considering whether ym will information was given about the try this brand tf cigarettes. cigarettes? Please take a ft. minutes to examine the outside (Probe fully- Was there IM]Cthing elle of the Dacket and open the lid of the packet. an the nackel Just look for things that might tell some*hing about the Cigarettes. and X~h might tlealth warning on front of packe I influence your decision about whether you would smoke this brand. Please take your time. Amount of tar/carbon monoxide (CO)/nicotine 2 (Give resoonden, I itinute to examine Dactet- then take aacket free restiondent Pesticides/chemicals warning I would like you to think about the brand I just an side of packet 3 showed you and the things you know :bout.the Pesticidesichemicals warning branc from the informtion an the p cket inside packet 4 Q.2a) In comparison to the brand of cigarettes Tax exempt 5 you usually smoke, how likely do you think it is that smoking this brand of Nadt in USA 6 ciga tte& would cause a person to become sickrer 9 et a disease? 'ReAlth w&MiAg - non specific or Less likely I don't know which one 7 Rich mellow distinctive flavour 6 just as likely 2 Brand name 9 A little more likely 3 much more likely 4 Other (Please snecify 10 Q.2b) Why do you say that? CY\ CD (Probe fully- What da 3= mean br that? Q.44) Was there any information on the packet about what is in this brand. which does riot &~pejkr on the cigarette Packet% you usual y buy? (Continue - Yes No CGO TO.0.51 L unsure 3 CID BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 2 - Q. 4b) What as it? b I find this message believable; or I (P"Obe- anythil3a Elie?) I find this message is not very be I levab le 2 Tar/carbon monoxide/nicotine (90 M Qj I C) I didn't know cigarettes contained these Pest icides/chemical warning (Continue .. 2 substances. or I I already knew Cigarettes contained these 0.4c) As best as you can remember, what did substances 2 the sessaVs say about this brand of cigarettes. d) I think there are such more dangerous things in tobacco than these Contained tar/ substances; or I carbon monoxideinicotine I I think these substances are among the brand had pesticide, and most dangerous things in tobacco 2 other chemical rtsi ues 2 0 This message makes me interested to find other (Please Averify 3 out more about whats in cigarette smoke. or I This wells" d n, ke we want to find out more rtoerhat%ali. Cigarette snake. 2 FOO GROUP I RFSPONDENTS O&Y Q.9 Could you tell me which of the following age groups you fall into? Without looking at your own cigarettes. can you tell me the names of any Is to 24 I sutstances which are in tobacco snake and are I isted an packets of your own brand 25 to 34 2 of cigarettes. 35 to 44 3 Tar ....................... Carbon Monoxide (CO) 2 45 to 54 4 55 to 64 5 Nicotine 3 65 plus 6 Othet 4 (Refused) 7 Don't know 5 9 Which of the following best describes r0a GRoup I oMLy - ksr jr You CAN LOOK kT your current marital status? A DACK OF IF-79 CIG 1Ii-GQmATI0w nk THFIR PACKr' TO CHECK Married with no children I .,"Poy~rs AISr THF FOLIOVINr OUrSTION Married with children 2 0.6 Please estimate the amosints of the following substances in your usual brand Never married 3 of cigarettes. Divorced/Separated/Widowed 4 CORRECT HIGNER LOWER DON'T KNOW (Refused) 5 Tar 1 2 3 4 SHOW CARD A Nicotine 1 2 3 4 Q.20 What i I the hichest level of formal Carbon monoxide 1 2 3 4 education you have comelleted? Oon't know 1 2 3 4 Card Code r", GROUP 2 &Wn 'k InconunruTc Q.11 Sex (Record automatically) Q.7 There was 4 message on the pack which said: KkIe I (Aroun 21 - *Cigarette smoke contains Female 2 pesticides and other chemical residues' For auditing purposes only please can you tell (grcuo I - *Cigarette smoke contains me your name and contact telephone Mticides and cancer numberl caus ing chemicals' I am now going to readfoutLsome pairs Of I tatements. For eaCh a th following pairs of INTERVIEWER XAME ,taterm.-~ts, please say whi Ch one is closest to your own feelings about the warning which was on the pack I showed you. 0% (Read warning again- rotate order Of tbC C) INTERVIEWER NUMBER C) This message really sakes me think about ~Xl Quitting smoking; or C) This message doesn't make me think about C> tt 9 a Qui in at I I 7 .... .. ..... ..... 2 I Co %0 BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 0.11b) DO You think tobacco comognies should be made to tell smokers about these chemicals in cigarettes by: A short warning on the outside of packets telling smokers that Cigarettes contain chemicals? yet ............ No 2 Unsure 3 ii) A list of all such chemicals inserted so that it would be seen every time a smoker opened a new packet of cigarettes? Yes ............ No 2 Unsure 3 iii) A parphlet containin% information about the chemicals in cigarettes available without charge anywhere that sell 5 cigarettes? Yes I 90 2 Unsure 3 12 Could YOU tell be Which Of the following age groups you fall into? Is to 24 1 25 to 34 2 35 to 44 3 45 to 54 4 55 to 64 5 65 plus 6 (Refused) 7 Q.13 Which of the following best describes your Current marital status? Married with no children ...... Married with children ......... Never married 3 Divai,ced/Separated/Vicio~ed . 4 (Refused) ..................... Swow CkRD-A Q.14 What is the hichest level of forml tOuchtion you have completed? Card Code Q.15 Sex (Record automatically Kale I CN Female 2 C) C) C) BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 0 APPEDMIX 2 The Questicmuze: React-im Study 0 01\ CD CD U®l CD CD BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 o,ty to Ref: CP539-QQ ~ "C" ;'1*7'R*Zeby'RoA Perth SUBIACO WA 6008 October 1990 Phone: 338 2334 PFSTICIDF~ fK TDROCCO Good my na e is from Reark I . '10. going ", ask you a IM 11 atsearch. a national market research comoon ~fflr W%uM ions about cigarette packaging. Today we art conducting a study amongst jmo~;rs can youjItase ensure that your cigarette pack around Australia. I out sight QEFUSE0 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 a 9 Q.3 Coulduiw he names of any S sugive me t harof stances usually found in SCREEN factory-64de cigarettes? (Probe but do not wawt) Q.1a) Do you smoke cigarettes? Ammia Yet (Continue I Arsenic 2 No (Terminate 2 Asbestos 3 (If sk Jf L 11,-F-fAftttgrislg~Iltthe bou%&ehold) Carbon Monoxide a DDT 5 Q.1b) Are , the cigarettes you smoke factory-4made or rell your own'? Hydrogen Cyanide 6 Factory-eade (Continue I Lead 7 Roll your own rltTsinat . 2 Methanol a (If resoondent soctes roli z= am- ask Napthalene , 9 10 s es factorv-made Nicotine 10 richrettr%) Tar 11 Q.1c) Have you smoked at least one cigarette 'Ptsticides* 12 every day for the last month? Don't Know 13 les (Continue) I No (Teolinat@ 2 Other (Please Soecify 14 (If resDondent smokes.1 clahrette A dAX act tMllolalnother if -the, poter in ;he household iMo smotes at 4east one factorly-made clearette a day) Q.4 0 law, cigarette packets have to she. I content of certain harmful MDT ELI~IBLE 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 8 9 substances in tach cigarttt can you give me the names of thest Lb S stances? Q.2a) how much do you want to give up smoking? (Vithout looking 9% your packetl) Not at all I (]!robe- anything elst-7) A little 2 Tar I Ouite a lot 3 Carbon Monoxide 2 Very such 4 Nicotine 3 Other 4 0.2b) How likely is it that you will give up Don't know 5 smoking in the next thrte months? Very likely I ASK n.; IF TAP MD(TIONFD TW 11-4 Liktly 2 Q.51) A ain without looking at your packet. I Mast estimate the maximum levels of Unsure 3 tar in your usual brand of cigarettes? Unlikely 4 Very unlikely 5 (Code * 9' for don't know) Q.5b) Do you ever stlect your brand of Cig4rCtttS According to its tar content? Yes 1 No 2 C7% CD CD ui CD 11.0 r1%) BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 21 October 1999 Q.9b) What other information about the contents Asr o-o; ir _rApa NOW MEKTtONFI) of tobacco would you like to see an IN 0.4 packets? 0.6a) A in without looking at your packet Any pesticides 1 olease estimate the maximum levels of carbon monoxide in your usual brand of Offferent/Stronger health warning 2 cigarettes? I Don't Carl 3 Don't know 4 (Code .9g. other (FIgase InerAfy 5 Q.6b) Do you ever select your brand of cigarettes according to its carbon monoxide Content? Yes ........... Q.10 If the packets warned you that the NO 2 Cigarette tobacco you smoke contained very small quantities of such chemicals as arsenic, COT, land and asbestos, would ASK 0.7 IF NICOTINE MEKTInWTI) TV 0.4 this make you: Q.7a) Again without looking at your packet, a) change brand? please estimate the maximum levels of Definitely I nicotine in your usual brand of cigarettes? Probably 2 Unsure 3 (fode '99' for d0fl't know) Probably not 4 Q.7b) Do you ever select your brand of Definitely not 5 cigarettes according to its nicotine b) Think about whether to stop smoking? content? Yes Definitely I No 2 probably 2 Unsure 3 I ill now read out a list of substances Probably not 4 one at a time. After each substance, please $a . Yes, if you believe it is Definitely not 5 found in factory made cigarettes. C) Cut down your smoking? Arsenic 2 Definitely I Asbestos 3 Probably 2 Unsure 3 Carbon Monoxide 4 DOT 5 Probably not 4 Hydrogen Cyanide 6 Definitely not 5 Lead 7 d) More likely to stop smoking? Methanol a Definitely I Kapthalene 9 Probably 2 Nicotine ......... 10 Unsure 3 Tar 11 Probably not A Ronosodium bromide 12 Definitely not Glutone 13 tiCigarette tobacco does *ASE 951Fqu e, C ILE Ccon ontain I ant of htsi-cals like arsenic. DOT, lead and asbestos. Health experts believe that the risk to health from these is Q.9a) Is the amount of information an ci arette tiny compared with the risk from carbon packets about what tobacco contains? monoxide, tar and nicotine. Too much (GO TO 11-10 I Q.11a) Do you believe that tobacco companies should tell smokers that cigar!ttes About right (90 TO 0.11) 2 contain very small amounts of c ~Ricals or Not enough 3 like arsenic, DOT, lead and asbestos? C) (Continue) Yes I (No opinion) (GO TO 0.10 C) (Go to 0-171 Unsure 3 C) C> 1~0 ~A BATCo document for Legal Services: Health Canada 21 October 1999