European Tobacco Product Directive: How to address characterizing flavors as a matter of attractiveness?

Henkler, Frank; Luch, Andreas

doi:10.1007/s00204-015-1563-0

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The TPD has banned flavoured cigarettes and RYO products, and defines a characterising flavour as ‘a clearly noticeable smell or taste other than one of tobacco, resulting from an additive or a combination of additives, including, but not limited to, fruit, spice, herbs, alcohol, candy, menthol or vanilla, which is noticeable before or during the consumption of the tobacco product’ 2. This definition provides a challenge for European regulators to clearly distinguish tobacco flavour from a ‘characterising flavour’ 35. We used tobacco leaves and commercial products marketed as unflavoured as reference products, and thus examples of ‘tobacco flavour’.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensory analysis of characterising flavours: evaluating tobacco product odours using an expert panel

Krüsemann¹,

Lasschuijt

Graaf

et al. 2018

Tob Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensory analysis of characterising flavours: evaluating tobacco product odours using an expert panel

Krüsemann¹,

Lasschuijt

Graaf

et al. 2018

Tob Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… 7 While all innovative strategies were open to discussion, three were given particular attention: (1) the “sinking lid” because of its high probability of success, 16 (2) the prospect of government-controlled tobacco outlets being modelled after Alko, 19 Finland’s hard alcohol retailer and (3) reasons why Finnish policymakers are no longer pursuing the “tobacco-free generation”. Participants were then queried about the impact of the EU’s 2014 TPD on the endgame, including new regulations on electronic cigarettes, notification requirements for new products, prohibition on characterising flavours versus all additives 20 and invocation of Article 24 of the TPD to ban a certain category of tobacco. Participants were then queried about Finland’s exclusion of “harm reduction strategies” in the goal of becoming a nicotine– versus smoke–free society.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategies and barriers to achieving the goal of Finland’s tobacco endgame

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesFinland boldly legislated the end of tobacco use in its 2010 Tobacco Act, and subsequently expanded the goal in 2016 to eradicate other nicotine-containing products. This study explored stakeholders’ perceptions about the strengths, barriers, solutions and rationale for Finland’s comprehensive but conventional strategy to achieve its nicotine-free goal.DesignStudy participants were selected based on expertise in policy or practice of tobacco control (n=32). Semi-structured interviews, conducted in 2017 and 2018, covered topics ranging from consensus among stakeholders to Finland’s ranking on the 2016 Tobacco Control Scale. The framework method was chosen for analysing interview transcripts.ResultsA perceived strength of Tobacco-Free Finland 2030 was the consensus and cooperation among members of the tobacco control community. The objective of becoming a nicotine- versus smoke-free society had almost unanimous support, challenged by a small minority who argued for greater discussion of harm reduction approaches. The need for maintaining legitimacy and historical successes in tobacco control were reasons for using a conventional strategy. Barriers to achieving the endgame goal included insufficient funding and over-reliance on non-governmental organisations, political/legal constraints, impact of institutional practices on tobacco disparities, ambivalence about the role of mass media and lack of prioritising smoking cessation.ConclusionsStakeholders’ broad confidence in reaching the goal of Finland’s tobacco endgame suggests that future policy initiatives will reflect the current, conventional strategy. If the Finnish government chooses to continue this approach, then it should designate separate funds for Tobacco-Free Finland 2030 and implement structural changes that will facilitate tobacco control initiatives.

show abstract

“…Given the regulatory interest in characterizing flavors in the USA and EU, developing methods to assess flavor awareness and preference is important ( Henkler and Luch, 2015 , Talhout et al, 2016 ). This report aimed to determine the preference of menthol vs. tobacco flavored snus among smokers, and to provide validation of sensory measures of product preference and adoption.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strong preference for mint snus flavor among research participants

Schneller

Lindgren

Shields

et al. 2017

Addictive Behaviors Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 allows the US FDA to regulate tobacco products, including the banning of characterizing flavors, such as fruit and candy, cigarettes. The availability of mint flavored snus may facilitate the use of the product if consumers find it more palatable with respect to taste, odor, pleasantness, and intensity.MethodsThis study assessed product evaluation (PES), odor identification, odor intensity, and odor hedonics among 151 smokers enrolled in a clinical trial of snus substitution for cigarettes.ResultsFar more participants selected Winterchill (N = 110) than Robust (N = 41), regardless of their menthol cigarette smoking status. Nicotine dependence was higher among those who selected Winterchill (4 vs 3 on Fagerstrom scale, p = 0.017). Those who found Winterchill to be more satisfying, less aversive, and having a more intense, more pleasant odor than Robust were substantially more likely to select Winterchill for their one week trial.ConclusionsFindings indicate that subjective effect measures such as the PES and DEQ are capable of differentiating products in terms of flavor preference, and that smokers express a strong preference for mint flavored snus.

show abstract

European Tobacco Product Directive: How to address characterizing flavors as a matter of attractiveness?

Cited by 3 publications

References 6 publications

Sensory analysis of characterising flavours: evaluating tobacco product odours using an expert panel

Sensory analysis of characterising flavours: evaluating tobacco product odours using an expert panel

Strategies and barriers to achieving the goal of Finland’s tobacco endgame

Strong preference for mint snus flavor among research participants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About