DOCSLIB.ORG

Flavor Inconsistencies Between Flavored Tobacco Products Among US Adults

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Flavor Inconsistencies Between Flavored Tobacco Products Among US Adults Flavor Inconsistencies between Flavored Tobacco Products among US Adults Liane M. Schneller, PhD, MS Irfan Rahman, PhD Dongmei Li, PhD Scott McIntosh, PhD Zahíra Quiñones Tavárez, MD Richard J. O’Connor, PhD Maciej L. Goniewicz, PhD, PharmD Deborah J. Ossip, PhD Amanda J. Quisenberry, PhD Zidian Xie, PhD Objective: Banning flavors in some tobacco products, while allowing them in others, may shift consumer preferences towards products in which flavors are still allowed. In this study, we exam- ine flavor popularity and inconsistencies in flavor preference across non-cigarette tobacco prod- ucts among US adults. Methods: We used data from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study Wave 3 to assess the prevalence of flavor preference for users of non-cigarette to- bacco products (N = 9037), as well as flavor inconsistencies between products among polyusers (N = 3183). Results: Most users of flavored tobacco products reported using one flavor category per product. Fruit and tobacco were among the most commonly used flavor categories of ENDS, hookah, traditional cigars, and cigarillo/filtered cigars. Menthol/mint was the most common fla- vor among snus/smokeless users. Polyusers of ENDS and traditional cigars had the largest incon- sistency, where about 68%-76% used different flavors across products. Conversely, polyusers of traditional cigars and cigarillos/filtered cigars had the lowest inconsistency (25%-28%).Conclu - sions: Flavor preferences differed according to product, suggesting that consumers are not like- ly to switch across products to maintain a flavor preference. Future research should assess flavor preferences prospectively to improve understanding of the potential benefits of flavor bans. Key words: flavored tobacco products; electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS); cigars; hookah; smokeless tobacco; tobacco polyusers Am J Health Behav.™ 2020;44(5):617-630 DOI: doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.44.5.6 haracterizing flavors, excluding tobacco and May 2016,2 this policy was not immediately ex- menthol, were banned in cigarettes by the tended to currently marketed other non-cigarette United States (US) Food and Drug Ad- tobacco products. However, some states (eg, New Cministration (FDA) following the Family Smoking Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island) and localities Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009.1 Al- (eg, Chicago, and Santa Clara County) did ban though the FDA now has the authority to ban char- characterizing flavors in electronic nicotine deliv- acterizing flavors in non-cigarette tobacco products ery systems (ENDS).3-8 Furthermore, following the marketed in the US as per the Deeming Rule of spike in cases of lung injury and deaths associated Liane M. Schneller, Postdoctoral Fellow, the Clinical and Translational Science Institute, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY. Dongmei Li, Associate Professor, the Clinical and Translational Science Institute, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY. Zahíra Qui- ñones Tavárez, Doctorate Student, Translational Biomedical Science, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY. Maciej L. Goniewicz, Associate Professor of Oncology, Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY. Amanda J. Quisenberry, Assistant Professor of Oncology, Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY. Zidian Xie, Senior Analyst and Programmer, the Clinical and Translational Science Institute, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY. Irfan Rahman, Professor, Department of Environmental Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY. Scott McIntosh, Associate Professor, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY. Richard J. O’Connor, Professor of Oncology, Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY. Deborah J. Ossip, Professor, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY. Correspondence Dr Schneller; [email protected] Am J Health Behav.™ 2020;44(5):617-630 617 Flavor Inconsistencies between Flavored Tobacco Products among US Adults with the use of ENDS,9 several states and locali- cigars (3.9%), ENDS (3.2%), smokeless tobacco ties have issued emergency rules banning the sale (2.4%), and the use of regular pipe, water pipe of flavored ENDS.10 The has FDA prioritized the or hookah (1.0%).36 Although any form of flavor enforcement of the sale of flavored cartridge-based ban is likely implemented to reduce appeal and, ENDS, except tobacco or menthol, while leaving therefore, overall prevalence of use, the ban on fla- other ENDS and flavored tobacco products alone vored cartridge-based ENDS may not result in a to ensure that manufacturers are taking the proper change in ENDS use, but rather a shift in the type precautions to minimize youth access.11 of ENDS device used (eg, open, modifiable ENDS Flavors are added to tobacco products, in part, devices). In the event of a more intense ban on all to mask the harsh taste of tobacco or nicotine.12-17 flavored ENDS, the market share of tobacco use This facilitates consumer initiation and continua- may shift to other products that are still available in tion of tobacco use.12-17 It has been reported that flavors (eg, cigars or smokeless tobacco). flavored tobacco products are viewed as more fa- The availability of flavored tobacco products is vorable than unflavored products, as they increase known to be a top reason for using non-cigarette satisfaction, create a better feel and taste, and allow tobacco products.31,37,38 The flavor additives used consumers to customize their experience.18-20 Previ- in various tobacco products could differ in qual- ous studies have shown that young adult ENDS us- ity; hookah tobacco may be flavored with natural ers (generally 18-30 years of age) are more attracted additives, such as fruit and honey, whereas e-liquid to sweet flavors (eg, fruit and candy).21-26 Similar may be artificially flavored. The quality of flavor patterns can be seen among adult vapers, although additives in various tobacco products could alter more bitter flavors (eg, menthol/mint27 and to- the sensory perception among consumers, and bacco12-17) are also common among adults,28,29 es- therefore, alter flavor preference between tobacco pecially smokers.26 ENDS, however, are not the products. In the event of a partial flavor ban, such only tobacco products that are available in flavors. as the ban of flavored cartridge-based ENDS, the ENDS, as well as smokeless tobacco, hookah, and observation of shifts in the tobacco market is likely. cigarillos/cigars are available in flavors. In 2013- Although we would expect a reduction in the prev- 2014, more than 50% of adults reported trying fla- alence of use,39,40 the use of other tobacco products vored hookah or snus before the age of 18 years.30 that are still available in flavors could also be ex- First time use of a flavored cigar, especially cigaril- pected,39,41-43 which would continue to pose a risk los and filtered cigars, was also prevalent among the to the public health.44 Therefore, understanding youth and young adult population.30,31 Further- consistencies in flavor preference across products more, about 60% of current cigarillo and filtered may portend switching to another product with a cigar users reported using a flavored product.32 It comparable flavor rather than remaining loyal to has been shown that sweeter flavors, such as fruit, the current product. To our knowledge, the flavor candy/other sweets, chocolate or alcohol-flavors, preference across various tobacco products and are popular among young adult hookah and cigar among polytobacco users has not been assessed be- users,33,34 whereas mint flavored snus is preferred by yond flavor use among cigarette and ENDS users.45 combustible cigarette smokers.35 Using data from Wave 3 (W3) of the Population Public health officials continue to gather data Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study, on the use of flavored tobacco products to deter- the purpose of this study was to: (1) examine the mine if the flavor ban should be extended beyond popularity of flavors among exclusive and poly- that of flavored cartridge-based ENDS. However, tobacco users of various type of flavored tobacco the ban on flavored cartridge-based ENDS or the products, and (2) analyze inconsistencies in flavor implementation of any extension to this ban will preference among polytobacco users of different likely alter the tobacco market share. As of 2018, types of flavored tobacco products in the US. about 49.1 million or 19.7% of US adults reported currently using any tobacco products.36 Cigarettes METHODS were the most prevalent tobacco product used with Study Design and Population 13.7% of US adults using cigarettes followed by The PATH Study is a nationally representative, 618 Schneller et al longitudinal cohort study of tobacco use and its sweets, or some other flavor. Participants who re- health effects among non-institutionalized adults ported using traditional cigars, cigarillos, filtered and youth in the US, through the National Insti- cigars, or hookah could choose from menthol/ tute of Health and the FDA. Data from W3 of the mint, clove/spice, fruit, chocolate, an alcoholic PATH Study were collected between October 19, drink, candy/other sweets, or some other flavor. Fi- 2015 and October 23, 2016 among 28,148 adult nally, those who reported using snus or smokeless and 13,651 youth respondents. More informa- tobacco could choose menthol/mint, wintergreen/ tion about the PATH Study design and methods spearmint/frost, clove/spice, fruit, chocolate, alco- can be found elsewhere.46 This analysis provides holic drinks, candy/other sweets, or some other fla- W3 cross-sectional estimates from 9037 adult fla- vor. Tobacco flavor was offered only explicitly as a vored tobacco users. Analyses were done to assess flavor option among those who used an ENDS as the popularity of flavors of various non-cigarette the other tobacco products are by default tobacco tobacco products, as well as inconsistencies in pre- flavored.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Flavored Tobacco Products, Effective As of January 1, 2021
    ORDINANCE NO. ______ (CODE AMENDMENT NO. 772) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL MONTE AMENDING CHAPTER 8.10 (RETAIL SALES OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS) OF TITLE 8 (HEALTH AND SAFETY) OF THE EL MONTE MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT THE SALE OF FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS, EFFECTIVE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2021 WHEREAS, the potential failure of tobacco retailers to comply with tobacco control laws, particularly laws prohibiting the sale of tobacco products to minors, presents a threat to the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City of El Monte (the “City”); WHEREAS, the federal Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act), enacted in 2009, prohibited candy- and fruit-flavored cigarettes,i largely because these flavored products were marketed to youth and young adults,ii and younger smokers were more likely than older smokers to have tried these products;iii WHEREAS, although the manufacture and distribution of flavored cigarettes (excluding menthol) are banned by federal law,iv neither federal law nor California law restricts the sale of menthol cigarettes or flavored non-cigarette tobacco products, such as cigars, cigarillos, smokeless tobacco, hookah tobacco, electronic smoking devices, and the solutions used in these devices; WHEREAS, flavored tobacco products are very common in California tobacco retailers as evidenced by the following: • 97.4% of stores that sell cigarettes sell menthol cigarettes;v • 94.5% of stores that sell little cigars sell them in flavored varieties;vi • 84.2% of stores
    [Show full text]
  • Snus: the Original Reduced-Harm Tobacco Product
    * Snus: the original reduced-harm tobacco product Although not risk-free independent evidence1,2 less harmful than cigarettes suggests it’s 95-99% Consumed orally by Used for centuries in placing under the lip Scandinavia* Smokeless, so lacks the Gentle heating during harmful toxicants and manufacture reduces the number carcinogens associated with of cancer-causing chemicals cigarette combustion that form in the tobacco Snus is currently banned across the EU, except in Sweden where it originates This is preventing millions of smokers from experiencing its potential harm reduction benefits NORWAY SWEDEN EU Average Thanks to the popularity of Sweden snus as a cigarette substitute, SWEDEN 24% 5% Sweden enjoys the lowest smoking rate in Europe (5%)3,4 Achieving a smoking rate of >5% is the goal of multiple European states by 2040.5 5% Thanks to snus, Sweden is decades ahead of the majority of its fellow members NORWAY Only 10% of Swedish snus 6 users also smoke cigarettes Snus is legal in More adults in Norway suggesting its potential ability Norway as it isn’t an use snus than smoke to fully ‘off-ramp’ adult smokers EU member state 12% vs. 11%10 Snus is typically used by more UK Royal College of men than women, although Physicians it’s becoming increasingly “In Norway, snus is popular with both genders7 Similar to Sweden, dual use of snus and associated with smoking cigarettes is low11 cessation”4 Primarily owing to snus, Sweden Average EU Sweden’s male adult tobacco consumption is actually slightly *Contemporary snus has evolved from an early precursor product, first used in Sweden over 300 years ago 26% 25% 3 1 higher than the EU average ..
    [Show full text]
  • Other Tobacco Products (OTP) Are Products Including Smokeless and “Non-Cigarette” Materials
    Other tobacco products (OTP) are products including smokeless and “non-cigarette” materials. For more information on smoking and how to quit using tobacco products, check out our page on tobacco. A tobacco user may actually absorb more nicotine from chewing tobacco or snuff than they do from a cigarette (Mayo Clinic). The health consequences of smokeless tobacco use include oral, throat and pancreatic cancer, tooth loss, gum disease and increased risk of heart disease, heart attack and stroke. (American Cancer Society, “Smokeless Tobacco” 2010) Smokeless tobacco products contain at least 28 cancer-causing agents. The risk of certain types of cancer increases with smokeless tobacco: Esophageal cancer, oral cancer (cancer of the mouth, throat, cheek, gums, lips, tongue). Other Tobacco Products (OTP) Include: Chewing/Spit Tobacco A smokeless tobacco product consumed by placing a portion of the tobacco between the cheek and gum or upper lip teeth and chewing. Must be manually crushed with the teeth to release flavor and nicotine. Spitting is required to get rid of the unwanted juices. Loose Tobacco Loose (pipe) tobacco is made of cured and dried leaves; often a mix of various types of leaves (including spiced leaves), with sweeteners and flavorings added to create an "aromatic" flavor. The tobacco used resembles cigarette tobacco, but is more moist and cut more coarsely. Pipe smoke is usually held in the mouth and then exhaled without inhaling into the lungs. Blunt Wraps Blunt wraps are hollowed out tobacco leaf to be filled by the consumer with tobacco (or other drugs) and comes in different flavors. Flavors are added to create aromas and flavors.
    [Show full text]
  • Snus: a Compelling Harm Reduction Alternative to Cigarettes Elizabeth Clarke1* , Keith Thompson2, Sarah Weaver1, Joseph Thompson1 and Grant O’Connell1
    Clarke et al. Harm Reduction Journal (2019) 16:62 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-019-0335-1 REVIEW Open Access Snus: a compelling harm reduction alternative to cigarettes Elizabeth Clarke1* , Keith Thompson2, Sarah Weaver1, Joseph Thompson1 and Grant O’Connell1 Abstract Snus is an oral smokeless tobacco product which is usually placed behind the upper lip, either in a loose form or in portioned sachets, and is primarily used in Sweden and Norway. The purpose of this review is to examine the reported effects of snus use in relation to specified health effects, namely lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, pancreatic cancer, diabetes, oral cancer and non-neoplastic oral disease. The review also examines the harm reduction potential of snus as an alternative to cigarettes by comparing the prevalence of snus use and cigarette smoking, and the reported incidence of tobacco-related diseases across European Union countries. The scientific literature generally indicates that the use of snus is not a significant risk factor for developing lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, pancreatic cancer or oral cancer. Studies investigating snus use and diabetes have reported that high consumption of snus (estimated as being four or more cans per week) may be associated with a higher risk of developing diabetes or components of metabolic syndrome; however, overall results are not conclusive. Snus use is associated with the presence of non-neoplastic oral mucosal lesions which are reported to heal rapidly once use has stopped. The most recent Eurobarometer data from 2017 reported that Sweden had thelowestprevalenceofdailycigaretteuseintheEuropeanUnionat5%whilstdaily“oral tobacco” use was reported to be 20%.
    [Show full text]
  • Tobacco Use Behaviors for Swedish Snus and US Smokeless Tobacco
    Tobacco Use Behaviors for Swedish Snus and US Smokeless Tobacco Prepared for: Swedish Match, Stockholm, Sweden and Swedish Match North America, Richmond, Virginia Prepared by: ENVIRON International Corporation Arlington, Virginia Date: May 2013 Project Number: 2418132C Snus and US Smokeless Tobacco Contents Page Executive Summary 1 1 Introduction 6 1.1 Background 6 1.2 Literature search and methods 8 2 Temporal, Geographic and Demographic Patterns of Smokeless Tobacco Use. 10 2.1 Scandinavia 10 2.1.1 Current and Historical Temporal Trends of Swedish Snus 10 2.1.2 Geographic variations in snus use 12 2.1.3 Age and gender 12 2.1.4 Socioeconomic and occupational variations in snus 14 2.1.5 Other individual level characteristics related to snus 15 2.1.6 Exposure estimates: frequency, amount and duration of snus 15 2.2 United States 17 2.2.1 Temporal trends 18 2.2.2 Geographic variations in smokeless tobacco use 19 2.2.3 Age and gender 20 2.2.4 Race/ethnicity 21 2.2.5 Socioeconomic and occupational variations in smokeless tobacco use 22 2.2.6 Other individual level characteristics related to smokeless tobacco use 23 2.2.7 Exposure estimates: frequency, amount and duration of smokeless tobacco use 23 2.3 Summary and Conclusions 23 3 Relationship of Smokeless Tobacco to Smoking 25 3.1 Population-level transitioning between tobacco products 26 3.1.1 Scandinavia 26 3.1.2 United States 27 3.2 Individual-level transitioning between tobacco products: Gateway and transitioning from smokeless tobacco to cigarettes 27 3.2.1 Scandinavia 28 3.2.2 United States 31 3.3 Transitioning from cigarettes to smokeless tobacco and smoking cessation 35 3.3.1 Scandinavia 36 3.3.2 United States 41 3.4 Snus/Smokeless Tobacco Initiation 45 3.4.1 Scandinavia 45 3.4.2 United States 46 3.5 Dual Use 47 3.5.1 Scandinavia 47 3.5.2 United States 52 4 Summary and Conclusions 57 Contents i ENVIRON Snus and US Smokeless Tobacco 5 References 60 List of Tables Table 1: Recent Patterns of Snus Use in Sweden (Digard et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Surveillance and Characterisation of Online Tobacco and E-Cigarette Advertising Amanda Richardson,1,2 Ollie Ganz,1 Donna Vallone1,2
    Research paper Tob Control: first published as 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051246 on 14 February 2014. Downloaded from Tobacco on the web: surveillance and characterisation of online tobacco and e-cigarette advertising Amanda Richardson,1,2 Ollie Ganz,1 Donna Vallone1,2 ▸ Additional material is ABSTRACT Advertising influences the initiation and contin- published online only. To view Background Despite the internet’s broad reach and ued use of tobacco products among both youth and please visit the journal online fl 9–12 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ potential to in uence consumer behaviour, there has adults. Given the restrictions on tobacco adver- tobaccocontrol-2013-051246). been little examination of the volume, characteristics, tising in the USA arising from the Master and target audience of online tobacco and e-cigarette Settlement Agreement,13 14 which banned tobacco 1Department of Research, Legacy, Washington, DC, USA advertisements. advertising from broadcast media, and the restric- 2Department of Health, Methods A full-service advertising firm was used to tions set forth restricting advertising to youth in Behavior and Society, Johns collect all online banner/video advertisements occurring the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Hopkins Bloomberg School of in the USA and Canada between 1 April 2012 and 1 Control Act15 16 as well as the almost complete Public Health, Baltimore, April 2013. The advertisement and associated meta-data restrictions on advertising set forth in Tobacco Act Maryland, USA – on brand, date range observed, first market, and spend of Canada and its 2009 Amendment,17 19 online Correspondence to were downloaded and summarised. Characteristics and advertising has allowed the tobacco industry to Dr Amanda Richardson, themes of advertisements, as well as topic area and promote their products in a space that has broad Department of Research, target demographics of websites on which reach and is largely unregulated.20 This may, in Legacy, 660 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Washington, DC advertisements appeared, were also examined.
    [Show full text]
  • Stopping When Knowing: Use of Snus and Nicotine During Pregnancy in Scandinavia
    ORIGINAL ARTICLE NICOTINE AND PREGNANCY Stopping when knowing: use of snus and nicotine during pregnancy in Scandinavia Ina Kreyberg1,2, Karen E.S. Bains1,2, Kai-H. Carlsen1,2, Berit Granum3, Hrefna K. Gudmundsdóttir1,2, Guttorm Haugen1,4, Gunilla Hedlin5,6, Katarina Hilde1,4, Christine M. Jonassen7,8, Live S. Nordhagen1,2,9, Björn Nordlund5,6, Katrine D. Sjøborg10, Håvard O. Skjerven1,2, Anne C. Staff1,4, Cilla Söderhäll6, Riyas M. Vettukatil 1,2 and Karin C. Lødrup Carlsen1,2 on behalf of the PreventADALL study group11 Affiliations: 1Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. 2Division of Paediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. 3Dept of Toxicology and Risk Assessment, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway. 4Division of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. 5Astrid Lindgren Children’s Hospital, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 6Dept of Women’s and Children’s Health, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. 7Faculty of Chemistry, Biotechnology and Food Science, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway. 8Genetic Unit, Centre for Laboratory Medicine, Østfold Hospital Trust, Kalnes, Norway. 9VID Specialized University, Oslo, Norway. 10Dept of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Østfold Hospital Trust, Kalnes, Norway. 11For a list of the PreventADALL study group members and their affiliations see the Acknowledgements section. Correspondence: Ina Kreyberg, Division of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Oslo University Hospital and the University of Oslo, Postboks 4956 Nydalen, 0424 Oslo, Norway. E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT In young women, the use of snus increases in parallel with decreasing smoking rates but the use in pregnancy is unclear.
    [Show full text]
  • Sell Little Cigars Sell Them in Flavored Varieties
    CITY OF OROVILLE ORDINANCE NO. 1841 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OROVILLE AMENDING SECTIONS 17.04.060 AND 5.28.010 AND ADDING SECTIONS 5.28.095, 5.28.130 AND 5.28.140 OF THE OROVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PROHIBITING THE SALE OF FLAVORED TOBACCO WHEREAS,tobacco use remains the leading cause of preventable death In the United States, killing more than 480,000 people each year. It causes or contributes to many forms of cancer, as well as heart disease and respiratory diseases, among other health disorders. Tobacco use remains a public health crisis of the first order. In terms of the human suffering and loss of life It causes, the financial costs It Imposes on society, and the burdens It places on our health care system; and WHEREAS,flavored tobacco products are commonly sold by California tobacco retailers. For example: 97.4% of stores that sell cigarettes sell menthol cigarettes; 94.5% of stores that sell little cigars sell them In flavored varieties; 84.2% of stores that sell electronic smoking devices sell flavored varieties; and 83.8% of stores that sell chew or snus sell flavored varieties; and WHEREAS, each day, approximately 2,500 children In the United States try their first cigarette; and another 8,400 children under 18 years of age become new regular, dally smokers. 81% of youth who have ever used a tobacco product report that the first tobacco product they used was flavored. Flavored tobacco products promote youth Initiation of tobacco use and help young occasional smokers to become dally smokers by reducing or masking the natural harshness and taste of tobacco smoke and thereby Increasing the appeal of tobacco products.
    [Show full text]
  • Randomised Clinical Trial of Snus Versus Medicinal Nicotine Among
    TC Online First, published on October 27, 2015 as 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-052080 Research paper Tob Control: first published as 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-052080 on 19 May 2015. Downloaded from Randomised clinical trial of snus versus medicinal nicotine among smokers interested in product switching Dorothy K Hatsukami,1,2 Herbert Severson,3 Amanda Anderson,2 Rachael Isaksson Vogel,1 Joni Jensen,2 Berry Broadbent,3 Sharon E Murphy,1 Steven Carmella,1 Stephen S Hecht1 ▸ Additional material is ABSTRACT to substitution of cigarettes with snus. Smokers published online only. To view Background An essential component of evaluating who switch to snus appear to have similar risks for please visit the journal online potential modified risk tobacco products is to determine cancer and cardiovascular disease as those who quit (http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ 7 tobaccocontrol-2014-052080). how consumers use the product and resulting effects on tobacco. 1 biomarkers of toxicant exposure. Furthermore, several cross-sectional survey Masonic Cancer Center, 289–11 University of Minnesota, Study design Cigarette smokers (n=391) recruited in studies conducted in Scandinavia and 12 Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA Minnesota and Oregon were randomised to either snus the USA show that smokers who have ever 2Department of Psychiatry, or 4 mg nicotine gum for 12 weeks. Participants were used or used snus or snuff daily have a higher University of Minnesota, instructed to completely switch from cigarettes to these probability of quitting smoking than non-snus or Minneapolis,
    [Show full text]
  • September 13-14, 2018: FDA Briefing Document
    FDA Briefing Document September 13-14, 2018 Meeting of the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC) Modified Risk Tobacco Product Applications (MRTPAs) MR0000068-MR0000073 R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Office of Science Center for Tobacco Products Food and Drug Administration FDA Briefing Document: September 13-14, 2018 Meeting of TPSAC on MRTPAs MR0000068-MR0000073 from R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company CENTER FOR TOBACCO PRODUCTS OFFICE OF SCIENCE TABLE OF CONTENTS Memorandum ............................................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 5 Draft Topics for TPSAC Discussion ................................................................................................................ 7 Preliminary FDA Review Findings.................................................................................................................. 8 I. Evidence Related to Modified Risk Information ............................................................................... 8 A. Product Chemistry ........................................................................................................................ 8 B. Nonclinical Evidence of Disease Risk .......................................................................................... 15 C. Clinical Evidence of Disease Risk ................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • An Assessment of Camel Snus Abuse Liability
    An Assessment of Camel Snus Abuse Liability Prepared for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company by: Jack E. Henningfield, PhD Reginald V. Fant, PhD Bethea A. Kleykamp, PhD February 1, 2017 Page 1 of 132 Contents 1 Executive Summary of Abuse Liability of Camel Snus ............................................. 4 2 Background .............................................................................................................. 8 2.1 Defining Abuse Liability ...................................................................................... 8 2.2 Relationships Among Abuse Liability, Product Appeal, and Consumer Perception ................................................................................................................. 13 2.3 Relationship Between Abuse Liability and Modified Risk ................................. 14 3 Assessment of the Abuse Liability of Camel Snus ................................................. 20 3.1 Objectives of this report ................................................................................... 20 3.2 Search Strategy ............................................................................................... 20 3.3 Chemistry ......................................................................................................... 21 3.3.1 Camel Snus overview ................................................................................ 21 3.3.2 Nicotine ...................................................................................................... 22 3.3.3 Nicotine levels in
    [Show full text]
  • Advancing Tobacco Plain and Standardized Packaging in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Advice from Experts
    Advancing Tobacco Plain and Standardized Packaging in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Advice from Experts www.globaltobaccocontrol.org Introduction Tobacco packs can be colorful, attractive, and come in exciting shapes and sizes. Plain and standardized packaging removes the potential for companies to use these attractive elements by only allowing the tobacco pack to be presented in one color, shape, and size that is designed to be minimally attractive. This policy stipulates that packs may contain no brand imagery, and also that the brand name be written in a specific font, color, and size. Australia was the first country to introduce plain and standardized packaging for cigarettes in 2011, with the law taking effect in 2012. As of January 2020, France, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Norway, Ireland, and Saudi Arabia have fully implemented plain and standardized packaging laws at the retail level. Thailand, Uruguay, Slovenia, Turkey, Israel, Canada, Singapore, Belgium, and Hungary have all passed or adopted plain and standardized packaging laws and are awaiting full implementation. Many additional countries are either debating or considering similar policies. We were interested in identifying specific studies or bodies of evidence that were viewed as crucial in the successful passage and implementation of tobacco plain packaging policy. Our goal is to inform low- and middle- income countries (LMIC) looking to pursue plain and standardized packaging with recommendations on critical research components, including study designs, study populations, and relevant research questions. Cigarette packs from New Zealand Advancing Tobacco Plain and Standardized Packaging in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Advice from Experts 1 Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with 23 participants who played significant roles, as policymakers, tobacco control advocates, or researchers, in the passage of tobacco product plain and standardized packaging policies in their countries (Australia, New Zealand, UK, France, Ireland, Norway, Canada, Thailand, and Uruguay).
    [Show full text]