ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of flavoured tobacco product restriction policies in reducing availability of flavoured products in Massachusetts communities.MethodsData were obtained from surveys of tobacco retailers conducted from July 2015 to March 2017. On a community level, flavoured product availability was defined as the per cent of retailers during a given 3-month quarter that sold flavoured cigars/cigarillos, electronic cigarettes and/or e-liquids. Communities that implemented the policy during the study period were grouped into wave 1 (n=18; 1481 retail surveys) and wave 2 (n=20; 483 retail surveys) by date of policy implementation; communities without a flavoured product restriction served as the control group (n=234; 4932 retail surveys). A difference-in-difference analysis was used to compare the change in flavoured product availability in wave 1 and wave 2 communities 3 months pre-policy and post-policy implementation to the change over the same time periods in the control group.ResultsFrom pre-policy to post-policy implementation period, communities in both waves experienced significant reductions in flavoured product availability (ranging from 27.2% to 50.9%), even after adjusting for community-level characteristics. In both waves 1 and 2, reductions in flavoured product availability were significantly greater compared with comparison communities during the same time frame, adjusting for community-level characteristics.ConclusionsCompliance with flavoured product restriction policies is high among tobacco retailers throughout Massachusetts, regardless of community demographic and retail characteristics. Reduced availability of flavoured tobacco in the retail environment has the potential to reduce youth exposure, access and use of these products.

No abstract

Introduction In response to high rates of youth tobacco use, many states and localities are considering regulations on flavored tobacco products. The purpose of this study was to assess whether flavored tobacco restrictions (FTRs) in Massachusetts curb youth tobacco use over time, and whether a dose-response effect of length of policy implementation on tobacco-related outcomes exists. Methods Using a quasi-experimental design, two municipalities with a FTR (adopting municipalities) were matched to a comparison municipality without a FTR. Surveys were administered before (December 2015) and after (January and February 2018) policy implementation to high school students in these municipalities (over 2,000 surveys completed at both timepoints). At follow-up, adopting municipalities had a policy in place for one and two years, respectively. In 2019, focus groups were conducted with high school students in each municipality. Results Increases seen in current tobacco use from baseline to follow-up were significantly smaller in adopting municipalities compared to the comparison (-9.4% [-14.2%, -4.6%] and -6.3% [-10.8%, -1.8%], respectively). However, policy impact was greater in one adopting municipality despite shorter length of implementation. Focus groups indicated reasons for differential impact, including proximity to localities without FTRs. Conclusions Restrictions implemented in adopting municipalities had positive impacts on youth tobacco awareness and use one to two years post-implementation. Policy impact varies depending on remaining points of access to flavored tobacco, as such policy effectiveness may increase as more localities restrict these products.

In June 2020, Massachusetts implemented a first in the nation statewide law that restricts sales of menthol and other flavored tobacco. Since implementation, sales data indicate high retailer compliance. Drastic decreases were seen in sales of all flavored tobacco. Most neighboring states did not see increases in overall tobacco sales, although New Hampshire saw an initial increase in menthol sales, which was not sustained. We found that menthol restrictions are effective and that federal-level legislation is important, as some cross-border sales highlight. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(8):1147–1150. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.306879 )

No abstract