Search

Background We model the potential impact of relaxing current nicotine vaping product (NVP) restrictions on public health in Australia. Aims and Methods A Restricted NVP Scenario was first developed to project current smoking and vaping rates, where a U.S. smoking model was calibrated to recent Australian trends. To model less restrictive NVP policies, a Permissive NVP Scenario applied rates of switching from smoking to vaping, initiation into NVP and cigarette use, and cessation from smoking and vaping based on U.S. trends. The model measures vaping risk relative to the excess mortality rate of smoking. The public health impacts are measured as the difference between smoking- and vaping-attributable deaths (SVADs) and life years lost (LYLs) in the Restricted and Permissive NVP Scenarios. Sensitivity analysis is conducted regarding the NVP excess risk and other factors. Results Assuming an NVP excess risk of 5% that of smoking, 104.2 thousand SVADs (7.7% reduction) and 2.05 million LYLs (17.3% reduction) are averted during 2017–2080 in the Permissive NVP Scenario compared to the Restricted NVP Scenario. Assuming 40% NVP excess risk, 70 thousand SVADs and 1.2 million LYLs are averted. The impact is sensitive to the rate at which smokers switch to NVPs and quit smoking, and relatively insensitive to the smoking initiation and NVP initiation and cessation rates. Conclusions The model suggests the potential for public health gains to be achieved by relaxing NVP access regulations. However, the model would benefit from better information regarding the impact of NVPs on smoking under a relaxation of current restrictions. Implications Australia has implemented a strong array of cigarette-oriented policies, but has restricted access to NVPs. The Smoking and Vaping Model offers a framework for modeling hypothetical policy scenarios. The Australian model shows the potential for public health gains by maintaining cigarette-oriented policies while relaxing the current restrictive NVP policy. Modeling results under a permissive NVP policy are particularly sensitive to the estimated rates of smoking cessation and switching to vaping, which are not well established and will likely depend on past and future cigarette-oriented policies and the specific NVP policies implemented in Australia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In May 2020, the European Union Tobacco Products Directive mandated that EU member states, including Poland, ban the sale of menthol cigarettes. With menthol making up 28% of cigarette sales before the ban, Poland is the country with likely the largest menthol cigarette sales share in the world to ban their sale. We analyze how this ban changed the Polish tobacco market. Methods We use monthly NielsenIQ data (May 2018–April 2021) on sales of cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco by menthol and standard flavor in eight regions of Poland. We set up a bite-style regression model controlling for pre-ban menthol share, climate, border opening status, and Apple movement data to estimate the effect of the May 2020 menthol ban. Results We find menthol cigarette sales fell at least 97% after the menthol cigarette ban across Poland and standard cigarette sales replaced them. Regression modeling indicates that total cigarette sales fell, after the ban, an average of 2.2 sticks per capita per month, equal to a 2.9% decline, however, results were not significant (P  = 0.199). The bite component of our model reveals total cigarette sales did decline significantly in the regions with the highest pre-ban menthol sales shares. Roll-your-own tobacco sales increased by a statistically insignificant 0.03 stick-equivalents after the ban (P  = 0.798). Product prices also fell in the wake of the menthol ban. Conclusions In Poland, the EU state with the one of the largest pre-ban menthol shares, we find mixed evidence that the ban is working as intended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Sales data analyses are increasingly used to guide tobacco regulatory science. However, such data do not cover specialist retailers like vape shops or tobacconists. Understanding the extent of the cigarette and electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) markets covered by sales data is critical to establishing such analyses' generalizability and potential biases., Methods: Using retail sales data from Information Resources Incorporated (IRI) and Nielsen, we conduct tax gap analyses comparing states' cigarette and ENDS tax revenue to tax collection estimates based on retail sales data. For the 23 US states in both retail sales datasets, cigarette tax gap analyses were conducted for each year from 2018 to 2020. Four (Louisiana, North Carolina, Ohio, and Washington) of those 23 states levied per-unit ENDS taxes and provided monthly tax revenue data covering January 2018 to October 2021, where we conducted monthly tax gap analyses for both cigarettes and ENDS., Results: Across states covered by both sales datasets, annual mean cigarette sales in IRI and Nielsen account for 92.3% (95% CI = 88.3% to 96.2%) and 84.0% (95% CI = 79.3% to 88.7%) of state cigarette tax revenue, respectively. Monthly average coverage rates for ENDS sales were lower, ranging from 42.3% to 86.1% for IRI and 43.6% to 88.5% for Nielsen, but remained stable over time., Conclusions: IRI and Nielsen sales data capture almost the entire US cigarette market and a substantial but lower portion of the US ENDS market. With proper care to address shortcomings, sales data analyses can capture changes in the US market for these tobacco products., Implications: Policy evaluations and analyses using e-cigarette and cigarette sales data are often criticized because these data do not cover online sales or sales by specialty retailers like tobacconists. Cigarette sales data consistently cover nearly 90% of taxed sales, while e-cigarette sales data cover around 50% of taxed volumes. Retail sales data capture nearly all cigarette sales and a substantial portion of ENDS sales with relatively stable rates of coverage over time, supporting their continued use in tobacco surveillance and policy evaluation work., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Terms such as 'natural', 'organic' and 'tobacco and water' on cigarette packs may communicate misleading reduced harm messages to consumers. This study describes sales volume and price for brands that used these misleading descriptors in the USA by year, brand and state., Methods: The data come from Information Resources Incorporated sales data collected in 44 US states from January 2018 to January 2023. Trained coders used Universal Product Codes, purchased packs and internet searches to identify cigarettes sold with 'natural', 'organic' and 'tobacco and water' on packs. We report cigarette pack unit sales counts (sales volume) and average price per pack by year, as well as per cent year-over-year change in sales volume and price and annual market share by descriptor terms., Results: Overall, pack sales volume decreased year-over-year from 2019 to 2022. Sales volume for packs with 'natural', 'tobacco and water' and 'organic' decreased less than overall; in some cases, they increased. In 2022, packs with 'natural' accounted for the greatest share of cigarette unit sales (5.42% or 33 605 036 packs), followed by 'tobacco and water' (2.25% or 12 959 905 packs) and 'organic' (0.53% or 4 614 592 packs). Natural American Spirit (NAS) and Winston accounted for most sales with 'natural' and 'tobacco and water'; NAS accounted for nearly all sales with 'organic'. Packs with 'natural', 'tobacco and water' or 'organic' made up the largest portion of sales in western (Oregon, Idaho, California, Colorado and Washington) and northeastern (Vermont, Massachusetts and New Hampshire) US states., Conclusion: Brands using 'natural', 'tobacco and water' and 'organic' on packs increased their market share between 2019 and 2022; in some states, market share was over 10% in 2022. Our findings emphasise the importance of regulating these terms and continually monitoring their population impact., Competing Interests: Competing interests: No, there are no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)