Perceptions of Cigarette Variants Names Amongst Young Adults: Names Still Signal (Reduced) Harm

Introduction Cigarette brand variant names remain a key marketing tool despite restrictions under Article 13 of the EU Tobacco Products Directive. This study investigates whether variant names of popular cigarette brands evoke associations that violate the Directive’s prohibitions on harm and flavour-related claims in the Netherlands.Methods 1,354 participants (younger adult (aged 18-25) and adult (26+) daily smokers, younger adult non-daily smokers, and younger adult non-smokers) offered unprompted and prompted associations with 9 variants from three major brands to explore perceptions of harm and taste to assess for differences in perceptions between groups and variant types.Results Variant names referring to former ‘mild’ variant names (e.g., “Gold”, “Blue”) were perceived as less harmful than ‘full flavour’ variants (e.g., “Red”). Variant names referring to former ‘menthol’ variants (e.g., “Green”, “Alpine”) elicited strong associations with menthol flavour, particularly among younger participants. Findings indicate systematic misperceptions about harm and flavour, contrary to regulatory intent.Conclusion This study highlights the continued influence of brand variant names on consumer perceptions, particularly among young smokers and non-smokers. Linguistic and colour cues in variant names were found to reinforce misperceptions of reduced harm, undermining efforts to convey the universal harms of smoking. Policymakers could consider stricter regulation, such as neutral numerical naming systems, to mitigate misleading associations and further reduce product appeal. Strengthened oversight can further align tobacco control policies with public health goals, advancing efforts to prevent smoking initiation and achieve a smoke-free generation.