» Articles » PMID: 34693773

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

Overview
Journal Eval Rev
Publisher Sage Publications
Specialty Health Services
Date 2021 Oct 25
PMID 34693773
Citations 13
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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.

Citing Articles

Assessing tobacco retailer compliance with flavoured tobacco product sales restrictions: a cross-sectional study of four California cities.

Yang J, Cuomo R, Nguyen Q, Merrill R, McMann T, Nali M BMJ Public Health. 2025; 1(1):e000210.

PMID: 40017884 PMC: 11812718. DOI: 10.1136/bmjph-2023-000210.


Flavored E-Cigarette Sales Restrictions and Young Adult Tobacco Use.

Friedman A, Pesko M, Whitacre T JAMA Health Forum. 2024; 5(12):e244594.

PMID: 39729302 PMC: 11681375. DOI: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.4594.


Commercial Tobacco Retailers Need to Be Included in Research on Policies Restricting the Sale of Menthol Cigarettes.

Mei K, Shin H, Smiley S Nicotine Tob Res. 2024; 26(Supplement_2):S143-S146.

PMID: 38817023 PMC: 11140219. DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntad252.


Evaluations of Compliance With California's First Tobacco Sales Bans and Tobacco Marketing in Restricted and Cross-Border Stores.

Henriksen L, Andersen-Rodgers E, Voelker D, Johnson T, Schleicher N Nicotine Tob Res. 2024; 26(9):1159-1165.

PMID: 38430219 PMC: 11339157. DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntae043.


The Impact of Menthol Cigarette Bans: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Mills S, Peddireddy S, Kurtzman R, Hill F, Catalan V, Bissram J Nicotine Tob Res. 2024; 27(2):179-191.

PMID: 38379278 PMC: 11750744. DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntae011.


References
1.
Rogers T, Brown E, Siegel-Reamer L, Rahman B, Feld A, Patel M . A Comprehensive Qualitative Review of Studies Evaluating the Impact of Local US Laws Restricting the Sale of Flavored and Menthol Tobacco Products. Nicotine Tob Res. 2021; 24(4):433-443. PMC: 8887583. DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntab188. View

2.
Tang H, Cowling D, Lloyd J, Rogers T, Koumjian K, Stevens C . Changes of attitudes and patronage behaviors in response to a smoke-free bar law. Am J Public Health. 2003; 93(4):611-7. PMC: 1447799. DOI: 10.2105/ajph.93.4.611. View

3.
Tang H, Cowling D, Stevens C, Lloyd J . Changes of knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and preference of bar owner and staff in response to a smoke-free bar law. Tob Control. 2004; 13(1):87-9. PMC: 1747827. DOI: 10.1136/tc.2003.004390. View

4.
Luke D, Hammond R, Combs T, Sorg A, Kasman M, Mack-Crane A . Tobacco Town: Computational Modeling of Policy Options to Reduce Tobacco Retailer Density. Am J Public Health. 2017; 107(5):740-746. PMC: 5388950. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2017.303685. View

5.
Brock B, Carlson S, Leizinger A, DSilva J, Matter C, Schillo B . A tale of two cities: exploring the retail impact of flavoured tobacco restrictions in the twin cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul, Minnesota. Tob Control. 2018; 28(2):176-180. DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-054154. View