Flavour chemicals in a sample of non-cigarette tobacco products without explicit flavour names sold in New York City in 2015

Farley, Shannon M.; Schroth, Kevin R. J.; Grimshaw, Victoria; Luo, Wentai; DeGagne, Julia Lynn; Tierney, Peyton A.; Kim, Kilsun; Pankow, James F.

doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053552

Cited by 40 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Compared with cigarette smoke, different types and values of pollutants are produced in response to waterpipe smoking. High exposure to high molecular weight PAHs and benzene, but lower exposure to propylene oxide, acrolein, acrylonitrile, butadiene-1,3, nitrosamines, ethylene oxide, and low molecular weight PAHs have been reported in tobacco cafés as compared with cigarette cafés 38 . Different rates of pollutants production by different tobacco products have been observed in previous studies 39,40 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Air pollutants associated with smoking in indoor/outdoor of waterpipe cafés in Tehran, Iran: Concentrations, affecting factors and health risk assessment

Masjedi

Taghizadeh

Hamzehali

et al. 2019

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite increasingly growth in waterpipe smoking in Tehran, so far no study has been conducted on the air quality of the waterpipe and cigarette cafés. Thirty-six cafés were selected and the concentration of three pollutants including formaldehyde, carbon monoxide and nicotine were measured in both indoor and outdoor air of cafés two times (week-day and weekend’s session). Air sampling was performed for 180 min for each pollutant. It was observed that the concentration of pollutants inside the cafés was higher during weekend session (with a higher number of “active waterpipe heads”) compared with findings during the week-day sessions. Furthermore, the concentration of pollutants in the indoor air of the cafés was significantly higher than that of the outdoors (p < 0.05). According to path analysis, the number of “active waterpipe heads” had the maximum impact on generation of pollutants inside the cafés, followed by the type of tobacco as the second influential factor. The average of lifetime cancer risk (LTCR) resulted by formaldehyde exposure through inhalation in waterpipe (WS), cigarette (CS), waterpipe and cigarette (WCS) and none-smoking (NS) cafés in week-day and weekend sessions were estimated to be 111 × 10 −5 and 61.2 × 10 −5 , 33.7 × 10 −5 and 39.4 × 10 −5 , 271 × 10 −5 and 322 × 10 −5 , and 4.80 × 10 −5 and 5.90 × 10 −5 , respectively, which exceed the limit value by the U.S.EPA and WHO. The concentration of pollutants in the indoor air of smoking cafés in Tehran is significantly high, such that it can pose serious risks for the health of both personnel and customers. Therefore, decision makers are expected to enact applicable and strict policies so as to abate this public health risk.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Air pollutants associated with smoking in indoor/outdoor of waterpipe cafés in Tehran, Iran: Concentrations, affecting factors and health risk assessment

Masjedi

Taghizadeh

Hamzehali

et al. 2019

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These are summarized in Additional file 1: Table 1. Of the nine excluded studies, one study found that adolescents had a 37% lower odds of ever trying flavored tobacco products and a 28% lower odds of ever using tobacco products post ban [54], two studies found that sales of other tobacco products fell [55,56], and six considered compliance [57][58][59][60][61][62]. The studies of compliance indicated mixed levels of compliance, with flavor products still available in up to 50% of retailers that were not allowed to sell flavored tobacco and smaller stores often continuing to carry banned products with staff oblivious to the ban [58,[60][61][62].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The actual and anticipated effects of a menthol cigarette ban: a scoping review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA), under the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, banned characterizing flavors in cigarettes; however, mentholated tobacco products were exempt. Since 2009, over 20 US jurisdictions and numerous countries around the world have extended this restriction to menthol. Currently, the FDA is reconsidering its position on a nationwide menthol cigarette ban. However, the effects of such a ban remain unclear. We conducted a scoping review to explore the impact of a menthol cigarette ban on individual behaviors (initiation, cessation, and product switching), sales, and compliance. Methods: We conducted a search of the international literature using PubMed, EBSCO, and Web of Science (to November 25, 2019). We retrieved articles relevant to the impacts of an implemented or hypothetical menthol ban. We also included studies of flavored tobacco product bans due to their potential relevance in gauging compliance and product substitutability. Results: The search identified 493 articles, of which 24 were included. Studies examined the effects of implemented menthol bans (n = 6), hypothetical menthol bans (n = 12) and implemented flavor bans that exclude menthol (n = 6). Menthol bans were found to reduce sales and increase smoking cessation with only partial substitution for non-menthol cigarettes. US smokers' reactions to a hypothetical ban indicate that about 25-64% would attempt to quit smoking and 11-46% would consider switching to other tobacco products, including 15-30% to e-cigarettes. Flavor ban studies indicate reductions in initiation of 6%. Ban compliance was high, but studies indicate that the tobacco industry and retailers have attempted to circumvent their impact via packaging changes and online sales. Conclusion: Our review finds that extending the US cigarette flavor ban to menthol products would promote smoking cessation and reduce initiation. This evidence supports further action by the FDA towards mentholated tobacco products. However, few studies have been conducted in the vaping era.

show abstract

“…Local, state, and national policymakers should consider bans on cigarillo packaging with overt flavor descriptors or imagery that connotates a flavor, or packaging that implies a certain flavor through generic descriptors such as “Tropical” [ 37 ]. Prohibiting non-overt flavor descriptors is particularly important, as the tobacco industry has been able to circumvent flavor bans by removing explicit flavor names while maintaining flavor chemicals in products [ 52 ]. Further, bans on flavor descriptors and associated flavor imagery could be accompanied by bans in actual product flavoring, similar to the flavor bans on cigarettes [ 53 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of cigarillo packaging elements on young adult perceptions of product flavor, taste, smell, and appeal

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionProduct packaging has long been used by the tobacco industry to target consumers and manipulate product perceptions. This study examines the extent to which cigarillo packaging influences perceptions of product flavor, taste, smell, and appeal.MethodsA web-based experiment was conducted among young adults. Participants viewed three randomly selected cigarillo packs, varying on pack flavor descriptor, color, type, branding, and warning—totaling 180 pack images. Mixed-effects models were used to estimate the effect of pack elements on product perceptions.ResultsA total of 2,664 current, ever, and never little cigar and cigarillo users participated. Cigarillo packs with a flavor descriptor were perceived as having a more favorable taste (β = 0.21, p < .001) and smell (β = 0.14, p < .001) compared to packs with no flavor descriptor. Compared to packs with no color, pink and purple packs were more likely to be perceived as containing a flavor (β = 0.11, p < .001), and were rated more favorably on taste (β = 0.17, p < .001), smell (β = 0.15, p < .001), and appeal (β = 0.16, p < .001). While warnings on packs decreased favorable perceptions of product taste (pictorial: β = -0.07, p = .03) and smell (text-only: β = -0.08, p = .01; pictorial: β = -0.09, p = .007), warnings did not moderate the effects of flavor descriptor or color.ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this study provides the first quantitative evidence that cigarillo packaging alters consumers’ cognitive responses, and warnings on packs do not suffice to overcome the effects of product packaging. The findings support efforts at federal, state, and local levels to prohibit flavor descriptors and their associated product flavoring in non-cigarette products such as cigarillos, along with new data that supports restrictions on flavor cues and colors.

show abstract

Flavour chemicals in a sample of non-cigarette tobacco products without explicit flavour names sold in New York City in 2015

Cited by 40 publications

References 9 publications

Air pollutants associated with smoking in indoor/outdoor of waterpipe cafés in Tehran, Iran: Concentrations, affecting factors and health risk assessment

Air pollutants associated with smoking in indoor/outdoor of waterpipe cafés in Tehran, Iran: Concentrations, affecting factors and health risk assessment

The actual and anticipated effects of a menthol cigarette ban: a scoping review

The effect of cigarillo packaging elements on young adult perceptions of product flavor, taste, smell, and appeal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About