Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 108, Issue 5–6, pp e565–e570 | Cite as

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

  • Leia M. MinakerEmail author
  • Hannah Tait
  • Maple Ong
  • Nghia Nguyen
Quantitative Research


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 


OBJECTIFS: Les fabricants des produits du tabac ciblent les femmes et les jeunes en utilisant les caractéristiques de conception et les emballages des cigarettes minces. Nous avons évalué la prévalence et les perceptions de l’usage des cigarettes minces chez les élèves fumeurs de la 9e à la 12e année au Canada à l’aide de sources de données multiples.

MÉTHODE: Nous avons utilisé les données de trois cycles de l’Enquête sur le tabagisme chez les jeunes (2008–2009 à 2012–2013) et d’un cycle de l’enquête Cancer Risk Assessment in Youth Survey (2015). La prévalence et les perceptions de l’usage des cigarettes minces chez les fumeurs actuels ont été comparées par sexe et par classe.

RÉSULTATS: Dans toutes les enquêtes, le taux d’utilisation des cigarettes minces était supérieur chez les filles que chez les garçons; l’écart n’était toutefois pas significatif. Dans les deux enquêtes les plus récentes, les élèves de 9e et de 10e année présentaient une prévalence d’utilisation sensiblement plus élevée que les élèves de 11e et de 12e année. La majorité des élèves (59,8 % de filles et 53,3 % de garçons) ont répondu « je ne sais pas » à la question d’enquête visant à déterminer les perceptions des méfaits des cigarettes minces comparativement aux cigarettes ordinaires.

CONCLUSION: L’utilisation des cigarettes minces chez les élèves canadiens de la 9e à la 12e année représente un problème petit mais croissant. L’incertitude des jeunes quant aux méfaits associés à l’utilisation des cigarettes minces, et l’effet des emballages et de la conception des cigarettes minces sur les perceptions des méfaits, indiquent qu’il faut réglementer la conception de ces produits et y sensibiliser la population au Canada.

Mots clés

adolescent tabagisme emballage de produit 


  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. 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. PMID: 21459259. doi: 10.1016/j.cjca.2010.12.060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Canadian Cancer Society. Smoking and Tobacco. Toronto, ON: Canadian Cancer Society, 2014. Available at: (Accessed September 21, 2016).Google Scholar
  5. 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. 6.
    Government of Canada [Health Canada Website]. Health Concerns: An Act to Amend the Tobacco Act. Ottawa, ON: Health Canada, 2009. Available at: (Accessed September 28, 2016).Google Scholar
  7. 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. Available at: (Accessed September 28, 2016).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    DiFranza JR, Clark DM, Pollay RW. Cigarette package design: Opportunities for disease prevention. Tob Indue Dis 2003;1(2):97–109. PMID: 19570250. doi: 10.1186/1617-9625-1-2-97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wakefield M. Welcome to cardboard country: How plain packaging could change the subjective experience of smoking. Tob Control 2011;20(5):321–22. PMID: 21846931. doi: 10.1136/tc.2011.044446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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. PMID: 23332478. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.06.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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. PMID: 23600674. doi: 10.1111/add.l2183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Doxey J, Hammond D. Deadly in pink: The impact of cigarette packaging among young women. Tob Control 2011;20(5):353–60. PMID: 21478476. doi: 10.1136/tc.2010.038315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boyd TC, Boyd CJ, Greenlee TB. A means to an end: Slim hopes and cigarette advertising. Health PromotPrac 2003;4(3):266–77. PMID: 14610997. doi: 10.1177/1524839903004003011.Google Scholar
  14. 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. 15.
    Siu M, Mladjenovic N, Soo E. The analysis of mainstream smoke emissions of Canadian ’super slim’ cigarettes. Tob Control 2013;22(6):e10. PMID: 228 21751. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ford A, Moodie C, MacKintosh AM, Hastings G. Adolescent perceptions of cigarette appearance. Eur J Public Health 2014;24(3):464–68. PMID: 24158317. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/cktl61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Borland R, Sawas S. Effects of stick design features on perceptions of characteristics of cigarettes. Tob Control 2013;22(5):331–37. PMID: 22396209. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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. PMID: 21481054. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03402.X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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. PMID: 21486994. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntr045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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. PMID: 19183443. doi: 10.1186/1744-8603-5-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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. PMID: 24794088. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.04.021.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    World Health Organisation Regional Office for Europe. Empower Women–Combating Tobacco Industry Marketing in the WHO European Region. Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO, 2010. Available at: (Accessed October 12, 2016).Google Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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. PMID: 26014454. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntvll4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Canadian Cancer Society. Cigarette Package Health Warnings: International Status Report, fifth ed. Toronto, ON: Canadian Cancer Society, 2016. Available at: tte-Package-Health-Warnings-International-Sta tus-Report-English-CCS-Oct-2016.pdf (Accessed November 1, 2016).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Government of Canada. Consultation on “Plain and Standardized Packaging” for Tobacco Products. Ottawa, ON: Health Canada, 2016. Available at: (Accessed November 12, 2016).Google Scholar
  27. 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. PMID: 24417962. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.12.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Carpenter CM, Wayne GF, Connolly GN. Designing cigarettes for women: New findings from the tobacco industry documents. Addiction 2005;100(6):837–51. PMID: 15918814. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01072.X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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. PMID: 22166266. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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. PMID: 10691743. doi: 10.1136/tc.9.1.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    O’Keefe AM, Pollay RW. Deadly targeting of women in promoting cigarettes. ] Am Med Women Assoc 1996;51(1-2):67–69. PMID: 8868553.Google Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hitchman SC, Fong GT. Gender empowerment and female-to-male smoking prevalence ratios. Bull World Health Organ 2011;89(3):195–202. PMID: 21379415. doi: 10.2471/BLT.10.079905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    World Health Organization. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO, 2008. Available at: (Accessed November 16, 2016).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Queensland Government. Your future isn’t pretty if you smoke. Brisbane, Australia: The Department of the Premier and Cabinet, 2014. Available at: (Accessed November 26, 2017).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pederson A, Greaves L, Poole N. Gender-transformative health promotion for women: A framework for action. Health Promotlnt 2015;30(1):140–50. PMID: 25231058. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dau083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Anderson SJ, Glantz SA, Ling PM. Emotions for sale: Cigarette advertising and women’s psychosocial needs. Tob Control 2005;14(2):127–35. PMID: 15791 023. doi: 10.1136/tc.2004.009076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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. PMID: 24056481. doi: 10.1136/bm]open-2013-003282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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. PMID: 27608034. doi: 10.3390/ijerph13090885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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. PMID: 25783457. doi: 10.1007/sl0552-015-0556-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Public Works and Government 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. 1st Reading, November 22, 2016, 42nd Parliament, 1st Session, 2015–2016. Ottawa, ON: The Parliament of Canada. Available at: (Accessed November 29, 2016).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leia M. Minaker
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Hannah Tait
    • 2
  • Maple Ong
    • 3
  • Nghia Nguyen
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Planning, Faculty of EnvironmentUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.Propel Centre for Population Health ImpactUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  3. 3.School of Public Health and Health Systems, Faculty of Applied Health SciencesUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations