Are California’s Local Flavored Tobacco Sales Restrictions Effective in Reducing the Retail Availability of Flavored Tobacco Products? A Multicomponent Evaluation

Abstract

Introduction Flavored tobacco appeals to new users. This paper describes evaluation results of California’s early ordinances restricting flavored tobacco sales. Methods A multicomponent evaluation of proximal policy outcomes involved the following: (a) tracking the reach of local ordinances; (b) a retail observation survey; and (c) a statewide opinion poll of tobacco retailers. Change in the population covered by local ordinances was computed. Retail observations compared availability of flavored tobacco at retailers in jurisdictions with and without an ordinance. Mixed models compared ordinance and matched no-ordinance jurisdictions and adjusted for store type. An opinion poll assessed retailers’ awareness and ease of compliance with local ordinances, comparing respondents in ordinance jurisdictions with the rest of California. Results The proportion of Californians living in a jurisdiction with an ordinance increased from 0.6% in April 2015 to 5.82% by January 1, 2019. Flavored tobacco availability was significantly lower in ordinance jurisdictions than in matched jurisdictions: menthol cigarettes (40.6% vs. 95.0%), cigarillos/cigar wraps with explicit flavor descriptors (56.4% vs. 85.0%), and vaping products with explicit flavor descriptors (6.1% vs. 56.9%). Over half of retailers felt compliance was easy; however, retailers in ordinance jurisdictions expressed lower support for flavor sales restrictions. Conclusions The proportion of California’s population covered by a flavor ordinance increased nine-fold between April 2015 and January 2019. Fewer retailers in ordinance jurisdictions had flavored tobacco products available compared to matched jurisdictions without an ordinance, but many still advertised flavored products they could not sell. Comprehensive ordinances and retailer outreach may facilitate sales-restriction support and compliance.

Policies restricting flavors and non-cigarette tobacco product availability: A study of vape shops in San Francisco and Alameda Counties, California, USA

“…Consistent with previous studies ( Andersen-Rodgers et al, 2021 , Rogers et al, 2021 , Welwean et al, 2022 ), our findings support the need for federal restrictions on sales of all flavored tobacco products, including bottled nicotine liquids and flavored non-nicotine e-cigarettes and liquids. In line with emerging research ( Welwean et al 2022 ), results of our sensitivity analyses indicate the importance of comprehensive policies prohibiting sales of all flavored non-cigarette tobacco without exemptions for specific flavors (e.g., menthol/mint flavors) or retailer type (e.g., adult-only tobacco/vape shops).…”

“…Compared to surveillance of conventional tobacco retailers ( Rogers et al, 2021 ), fewer studies have investigated impacts of local flavored sales restrictions within the vape shop environment, which is likely due to the lack of sales surveillance of vape shops conducted by sales-tracking companies ( Ali et al 2022 ) or due to a low number of stores per jurisdiction. A study of a random sample of California licensed tobacco retailers in matched communities, while excluding SF, reported reduced availability of flavored e-cigarette products in localities with versus without flavored sales restrictions; but vape shops, tobacco shops and headshops were collapsed in one category due to small cell sizes ( Andersen-Rodgers et al 2021 ). After adjusting for flavored sales restrictions, Welwean et al (2022) reported no differences in flavored non-cigarette tobacco availability for vape shops and tobacco shops combined.…”

The actual and anticipated effects of restrictions on flavoured electronic nicotine delivery systems: a scoping review

“…Additionally, the restrictions did not increase the likelihood of online sales access but did increase the odds of social access. Andersen-Rodgers et al [ 56 ] also compared local California jurisdictions to determine their impact on flavoured product availability. From observations of 325 stores, a significantly lower proportion of stores in flavour ordinance jurisdictions compared to those in jurisdictions without restrictions sold menthol cigarettes (40.6% vs. 95.0%), cigarillos/cigar wraps with explicit flavour names (56.4% vs. 85.0%) and ENDS with explicit flavour names (6.1% vs. 56.9%).…”

Associations between living in localities with e-cigarette sales restrictions and e-cigarette use change among young adults in Los Angeles County

“…To assess the potential impact of ESRs, especially flavoured ESRs, among localities and states, an increased number of research studies were conducted. These studies mainly examined the retail sales data for e-cigarette products9–12 in the localities of interest (or in comparison with similar or adjacent localities) or assessed individuals’ tobacco use behaviour data to examine the change of current or recent e-cigarette use cross-sectionally at one or multiple points in time 13–16. Specifically, studies using e-cigarette retail sales data most consistently found an impact of flavoured ESRs on reducing retail sales of e-cigarette products 9–12.…”

“…These studies mainly examined the retail sales data for e-cigarette products9–12 in the localities of interest (or in comparison with similar or adjacent localities) or assessed individuals’ tobacco use behaviour data to examine the change of current or recent e-cigarette use cross-sectionally at one or multiple points in time 13–16. Specifically, studies using e-cigarette retail sales data most consistently found an impact of flavoured ESRs on reducing retail sales of e-cigarette products 9–12. Much less research, however, has leveraged longitudinal data to examine e-cigarette use behaviour change among individuals over time in relation to living in localities with various ESR characteristics.…”