Introduction The 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act banned characterizing flavors other than menthol in cigarettes, but did not restrict their use in other forms of tobacco (e.g., smokeless, cigars, hookah, e-cigarettes). Methods A cross-sectional analysis of Wave 1 data from 45,971 U.S. adults and youth, aged ≥12 years in the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study collected in 2013–2014, was conducted in 2016. This study examined: (1) the prevalence and reasons for use of flavored tobacco products; (2) the proportion of ever tobacco users reporting that their first product was flavored; and (3) correlates of current flavored tobacco product use. Results Current flavored (including menthol) tobacco product use was highest in youth (80%, aged 12–17 years), and young adult tobacco users (73%, aged 18–24 years), and lowest in older adult tobacco users aged ≥65 years (29%). Flavor was a primary reason for using a given tobacco product, particularly among youth. Eighty-one percent of youth and 86% of young adult ever tobacco users reported that their first product was flavored versus 54% of adults aged ≥25 years. In multivariable models, reporting that one’s first tobacco product was flavored was associated with a 13% higher prevalence of current tobacco use among youth ever tobacco users and a 32% higher prevalence of current tobacco use among adult ever users. Conclusions These results add to the evidence base that flavored tobacco products may attract young users and serve as starter products to regular tobacco use.

Objective Tobacco industry documents show systematic targeting by race, ethnicity, and income at the point of sale (POS). We sought to systematically review evidence of disparities in tobacco marketing at tobacco retailers by socio-demographic neighborhood characteristics. Methods We identified 43 relevant papers from 893 results of a systematic search in 10 databases updated on May 28, 2014. We found 148 associations of marketing (price, placement, promotion, or product availability) with a neighborhood demographic of interest (socioeconomic disadvantage, race, ethnicity, and urbanicity). We conducted a narrative review and present results stratified by neighborhood characteristics and types of tobacco product marketing. Results There are disparities in the marketing of tobacco products by neighborhood demographics. Socioeconomic disadvantage is associated with more tobacco marketing. Disparities in menthol marketing are starkly present, with targeting toward more urban neighborhoods and neighborhoods with more black residents. Smokeless tobacco products are targeted toward more rural neighborhoods and neighborhoods with more white residents. Differences in store type partially explain these disparities. Conclusion Geodemographic market targeting, a standard marketing practice across industries, represents an issue of social and environmental injustice for youth exposure to tobacco marketing and for smokers whose quit attempts may be stymied by disproportionate marketing in lower-income neighborhoods and neighborhoods with more black residents.

BackgroundSince their introduction in 2007, electronic cigarette (‘e-cigarette’) awareness and use has grown rapidly. Little is known about variation in e-cigarette availability across areas with different levels of tobacco taxes and smoke-free air policies. This paper looks at US retail availability of e-cigarettes and factors at the store, neighbourhood and policy levels associated with it.MethodsIn-person store audit data collected in 2012 came from two national samples of tobacco retailers in the contiguous US. Study 1 collected data from a nationally representative sample of tobacco retailers (n=2165). Study 2 collected data from tobacco retailers located in school enrolment zones for nationally representative samples of 8th, 10th and 12th grade public school students (n=2526).ResultsIn 2012, e-cigarette retail availability was 34% in study 1 and 31% in study 2. Tobacco, pharmacy and gas/convenience stores were more likely to sell e-cigarettes than beer/wine/liquor stores. Retail availability of e-cigarettes was more likely in neighbourhoods with higher median household income (study 1), and lower percent of African–American (studies 1 and 2) and Hispanic residents (study 2). Price of traditional cigarettes was inversely related to e-cigarette availability. Stores in states with an American Lung Association Smoke-Free Air grade of F (study 1) or D (study 2) compared with A had increased likelihood of having e-cigarettes.ConclusionsCurrently, e-cigarette availability appears more likely in areas with weak tax and smoke-free air policies. Given the substantial availability of e-cigarettes at tobacco retailers nationwide, states and localities should monitor the sales and marketing of e-cigarettes at point of sale (POS).

Tobacco control has made strides in prevention and cessation, but deaths will not decline rapidly without massive behavior change. Currently, inhaled smoke from combusting tobacco is chiefly responsible for prematurely killing 7.2 million people worldwide and 530,000 in the United States annually. An array of noncombustible nicotine products (NNPs) has emerged and has disrupted the marketplace. Saving lives more speedily will require societal acceptance of locating a "sweet spot" within a three-dimensional framework where NNPs are simultaneously: 1. Less toxic, 2. Appealing (can reach smokers at scale), and 3. Satisfying (adequate nicotine delivery) to displace smoking. For this harm minimization framework to eliminate smoking, a laser focus on "smoking control" (not general tobacco control) is needed. By adopting these economically viable NNPs as part of the solution, NNPs can be smoking control's valued ally. Synthesis of the science indicates that policy and regulation can sufficiently protect youth while speeding the switch away from smoking. Despite some risks of nicotine dependence that can be mitigated but not eliminated, no credible evidence counters the assertion that NNPs will save lives if they displace smoking. But scientific evidence and advocacy has selectively exaggerated NNP harms over benefits. Accurate communication is crucial to dispel the misperception of NNPs harms and reassure smokers they can successfully replace smoking cigarettes with NNPs. Saving more lives now is an attainable and pragmatic way to call for alignment of all stakeholders and factions within traditional tobacco control rather than perpetuate the unrealized and unrealizable perfection of nicotine prohibition.

Key PointsQuestionWhat is the association between first flavored use of a given tobacco product and subsequent tobacco use, including progression of tobacco use, among US youth (aged 12-17 years), young adults (aged 18-24 years), and adults (aged ≥25 years)?FindingsIn this cohort study of 11 996 youth and 26 447 adults who participated in waves 1 and 2 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study, most youth and young adult new tobacco users first tried a flavored product. First use of flavored tobacco products was positively associated with subsequent product use compared with first use of a nonflavored product.MeaningFirst use of flavored tobacco products may place youth and adults at risk of subsequent tobacco use.

IntroductionThe Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act regulates the sales and marketing of tobacco products in the United States; poor adherence by tobacco retailers may reduce the effectiveness of the Act’s provisions. The objectives of this study were 1) to assess whether and to which provisions retailers were adherent and 2) to examine differences in adherence by county, retailer neighborhood, and retailer characteristics.MethodsWe conducted multivariate analysis of tobacco retailers’ adherence to 12 point-of-sale provisions of the Tobacco Control Act in 3 North Carolina counties. We conducted observational audits of 324 retailers during 3 months in 2011 to assess adherence. We used logistic regression to assess associations between adherence to provisions and characteristics of each county, retailer neighborhood, and retailer.ResultsWe found 15.7% of retailers did not adhere to at least 1 provision; 84.3% adhered to all provisions. The provisions most frequently violated were the ban on sales of cigarettes with modified-risk labels (eg, “light” cigarettes) (43 [13.3%] retailers nonadherent) and the ban on self-service for cigarettes and smokeless tobacco (6 [1.9%] retailers nonadherent). We found significant differences in rates of nonadherence by county and type of retailer. Pharmacies and drug stores were more than 3 times as likely as grocery stores to be nonadherent.ConclusionMost tobacco retailers have implemented regulatory changes without enforcement by the US Food and Drug Administration. Monitoring rates of adherence by store type and locale (eg, county) may help retailers comply with point-of-sale provisions.

Identifying tobacco retail outlets for U.S. FDA compliance checks or calculating tobacco outlet is difficult in the 13 states without tobacco retail licensing or where licensing lists are unavailable for research. This study uses primary data collection to identify tobacco outlets in three counties in a non-licensing state and validate two commercial secondary data sources. We calculated sensitivity and positive predictive values (PPV) to validate the secondary data sources, and conducted a geospatial analysis to determine correct allocation to census tract. ReferenceUSA had almost perfect sensitivity (0.82) while Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) had substantial sensitivity (0.69) for identifying tobacco outlets; combined, sensitivity improved to 0.89. D&B identified fewer “false positives” with a PPV of 0.82 compared to 0.71 for ReferenceUSA. ReferenceUSA geocoded over 90% of outlets to the correct census tract. Combining two commercial data sources resulted in enumeration of nearly 90% of tobacco outlets in a three county area. Commercial databases appear to provide a reasonably accurate way to identify tobacco outlets for enforcement operations and density estimation.

The majority of NAS smokers inaccurately believes that their cigarettes are less harmful than other brands. Given the brand's rapid growth and its more common use in vulnerable groups (eg, young adults, lesbian, gay, bisexual, 'other' or 'questioning' adults), corrective messaging and enforcement action are necessary to correct harm misperceptions of NAS cigarettes.