Strong preference for mint snus flavor among research participants

Liane M. Schneller, Bruce R. Lindgren, Peter G. Shields, Dorothy K. Hatsukami, Richard J. O'Connor

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Scopus citations

Abstract

Introduction The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 allows the US FDA to regulate tobacco products, including the banning of characterizing flavors, such as fruit and candy, cigarettes. The availability of mint flavored snus may facilitate the use of the product if consumers find it more palatable with respect to taste, odor, pleasantness, and intensity. Methods This study assessed product evaluation (PES), odor identification, odor intensity, and odor hedonics among 151 smokers enrolled in a clinical trial of snus substitution for cigarettes. Results Far more participants selected Winterchill (N = 110) than Robust (N = 41), regardless of their menthol cigarette smoking status. Nicotine dependence was higher among those who selected Winterchill (4 vs 3 on Fagerstrom scale, p = 0.017). Those who found Winterchill to be more satisfying, less aversive, and having a more intense, more pleasant odor than Robust were substantially more likely to select Winterchill for their one week trial. Conclusions Findings indicate that subjective effect measures such as the PES and DEQ are capable of differentiating products in terms of flavor preference, and that smokers express a strong preference for mint flavored snus.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)51-55
Number of pages5
JournalAddictive Behaviors Reports
Volume6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2017

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
Funding for this study was provided by NCI Cooperative Agreement U19-CA157345. NCI had no role in the study design, collection, analysis or interpretation of the data, writing the manuscript, or the decision to submit the paper for publication.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2017

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Strong preference for mint snus flavor among research participants'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this