Effects of exposure to snus marketing with versus without modified risk tobacco product claims on snus use intention and perceived harm among young adults

Abstract

BackgroundWe tested whether snus marketing with modified risk tobacco product (MRTP) claims: (a) promotes accurate knowledge about snus’s health effects in young adults and (b) encourages use intentions in only those who use combustible tobacco without attracting other young adult populations.MethodsA randomised between-subjects experiment was embedded in a 2020 web survey of participants from Los Angeles (aged 19–23 years). Participants viewed mass-marketed snus advertising materials with (n=1212) vs without (n=1225) US Food and Drug Administration-authorised MRTP claims. After advertising exposure, snus use intention and perceptions of snus harms relative to cigarettes or e-cigarettes were measured.ResultsAdvertisements with versus without MRTP claims did not affect snus use intention (18.0% vs 19.4%) but produced a higher prevalence of perceptions that snus was less harmful than cigarettes (12.6% vs 9.1%; p=0.007) and e-cigarettes (8.0% vs 5.8%; p=0.04). MRTP claim exposure effects did not differ by past 30-day e-cigarette or combustible tobacco use. Snus use intentions after marketing exposure, collapsed across MRTP claim conditions, were higher in those who did versus did not report past 30-day use of e-cigarettes (38.4% vs 14.3%; adjusted OR (95% CI) 2.95 (2.28 to 3.81); p<0.001) or combustible tobacco (44.0% vs 16.2%; adjusted OR (95% CI) 2.26 (1.62 to 3.16); p<0.001).ConclusionAlthough some young adults who vape or smoke may have snus use intentions, snus MRTP claims might not affect young adults’ snus use intentions, regardless of whether they vape/smoke. MRTP claims might modestly increase the accuracy of perceived harms of snus relative to cigarettes while also slightly causing unsubstantiated perceptions of lower harm than e-cigarettes.