Search

Introduction: We evaluated the tobacco odor intensity of cigarettes based on a large consumer panel and explored the differences of odor intensity perception based on sex, age and smoking habits., Methods: The perceived intensity of tobacco odor of cigarettes was evaluated using a consumer group method. A consumer panel of 240 volunteers (80 smokers, 80 ex-smokers and 80 non-smokers) was asked to smell eleven unlit cigarettes and then report their tobacco odor intensity in a specific questionnaire., Results: All volunteers clearly determined the presence of tobacco odor in all cigarettes. There is a general decrease of the perceived odor intensity with age, for both males and females. Moreover, tobacco odor perceived intensity, among all volunteer groups (smokers, non-smokers, ex-smokers), was higher for females than for males. Non-smokers declared the highest perceived tobacco odor intensities, followed by ex-smokers and smokers, who recorded the lowest perceived odor intensity. Perceived odor intensity decreased with age, with a higher rate for females compared to males, but independently of the smoking habits., Conclusions: Regular and untrained consumers confirmed that a tobacco odor of different intensity can be perceived during the smelling of unlit cigarettes. This perceived intensity depends on sex, age and smoking habits., Competing Interests: The authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none was reported., (© 2023 Zervas E. et al.)

The Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) defines enhanced reporting obligations applying to 15 priority additives added to cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco. A consortium of 12 international tobacco companies submitted 14 reports that were reviewed by an independent scientific body within the Joint Action on Tobacco Control (JATC). The reports were evaluated in accordance with the TPD with regard to their comprehensiveness, methodology and conclusions. Here we present their significant identified methodological limitations. The toxicological and chemical evaluation in the industry reports was mainly based on comparative testing, which lacks discriminative power for products with high toxicity and variability, like cigarettes. The literature reviews were biased, the comparative chemical studies did not assess previously identified pyrolysis products, the toxicological evaluation did not include the assessment of inhalation toxicity, and pyrolysis products were not assessed in terms of toxicity, including their genotoxic and carcinogenic potential. For both chemistry and toxicity testing, the statistical approach applied to test the difference between test and additive-free control cigarettes resulted in a high chance of false negatives. The clinical study for inhalation facilitation and nicotine uptake had limitations concerning study design and statistical analysis, while addictiveness was not assessed. Finally, the methodology used to assess characterizing flavors was flawed. In conclusion, there are significant limitations in the methodology applied by the industry. Therefore, the provided reports are of insufficient quality and are clearly not suitable to decide whether a priority additive should be banned in tobacco products according to the TPD., Competing Interests: The authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none was reported., (© Bolling A. K. et al.)

The European Union Tobacco Products Directive (EU TPD) mandates enhanced reporting obligations for tobacco manufacturers regarding 15 priority additives. Within the Joint Action on Tobacco Control (JATC), a review panel of independent experts was appointed for the scientific evaluation of the additive reports submitted by a consortium of 12 tobacco manufacturers. As required by the TPD, the reports were evaluated based on their comprehensiveness, methodology and conclusions. In addition, we evaluated the chemical, toxicological, addictive, inhalation facilitating and flavoring properties of the priority additives based on the submitted reports, supplemented by the panel's expert knowledge and some independent literature. The industry concluded that none of the additives is associated with concern. Due to significant methodological limitations, we question the scientific validity of these conclusions and conclude that they are not warranted. Our review demonstrates that many issues regarding toxicity, addictiveness and attractiveness of the additives have not been sufficiently addressed, and therefore concerns remain. For example, menthol facilitates inhalation by activation of the cooling receptor TRPM8. The addition of sorbitol and guar gum leads to a significant increase of aldehydes that may contribute to toxicity and addictiveness. Titanium dioxide particles (aerodynamic diameter <10 µm) are legally classified as carcinogenic when inhaled. For diacetyl no report was provided. Overall, the industry reports were not comprehensive, and the information presented provides an insufficient basis for the regulation of most additives. We, therefore, advise MS to consider alternative approaches such as the precautionary principle., Competing Interests: The authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none was reported., (© Havermans A. et al.)