Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

January, 2016:

Dates confirmed for new tobacco restrictions

http://www.talkingretail.com/category-news/industry-announcements/dates-confirmed-new-tobacco-restrictions/

The Department of Health has confirmed the dates for the introduction of stricter controls on tobacco packaging, pack sizes and electronic cigarettes.

The new regulations will come into force in May 2016 – from May 2017 retailers cannot sell products that do not comply.

The new regulations include:
• a minimum pack size of 20 cigarettes
• a minimum weight of 30g for roll-your-own tobacco
• the size of health warnings (text and photograph) to cover 65% of the front and back of pack (previously 30% on front and 40% on back of pack)
• a ban on cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco containing characterising flavours such as menthol is also being introduced from May 2020
• new regulations coming into force in November 2016 for e-cigarettes which require the products to carry a health warning. The sell through period for retailers with existing stock will be a period of six months to May 2017

Commenting on the changes, Association of Convenience Stores (ACS) chief executive James Lowman said: “The introduction of these regulations alongside the implementation of the plain packaging rules marks a significant change for retailers that will be disruptive to their businesses.

“Government must focus its attention on tackling the harmful illicit trade in tobacco through stricter border checks and better enforcement in local areas. We are concerned that the introduction of the Tobacco Products Directive regulations alongside plain packaging will fuel the illicit trade, and urge the government to publish further details of plans to introduce a ‘track and trace’ system for legitimate tobacco products.”

227 famous people who died because they smoked…

Download (PDF, 712KB)

Comment On the Safety of E-cigarettes: “I can resist anything except temptation”

Download (PDF, 199KB)

AmCham suggests Hong Kong join Trans-Pacific Partnership

In submission to upcoming Policy Address 2016, chamber says city should consider participating in pact as non-sovereign party or observer

The American Chamber of Commerce suggests Hong Kong consider joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership and matching trading services within the pact to relevant areas under the mainland’s “One Belt One Road” initiatives.

The suggestion was made in the chamber’s submission to the upcoming Policy Address 2016, to be delivered by Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying next Wednesday.

The chamber said Hong Kong would benefit by adopting an international approach to capture opportunities offered by the mainland’s “One Belt, One Road” initiatives and the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

“AmCham submits that the government work closely with mainland authorities to elucidate the policy framework under which Hong Kong enterprises may participate,” it said.

Acknowledging Hong Kong’s role in linking up the region, the chamber suggests the city consider joining the TPP as a non-sovereign party or as an observer, and actively exploring the potential of matching trading services and goods within the pact to relevant areas under the “One Belt, One Road” initiatives.

The chamber’s submission includes recommendations on 10 policy areas, from Hong Kong-China relations, business climate, education and labour, to environment, financial services and intellectual property.

It welcomed the city’s being ranked as the freest economy for years, but said the government should be cautious of over-regulation that may hinder the city’s open and free market economy.

It also suggested that Hong Kong attract talent by raising the profile of vocational training, relaxing immigration provisions to allow mainland and overseas students to study in international business schools.

________________________________________
Source URL: http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/economy/article/1899098/amcham-suggests-hong-kong-join-trans-pacific-partnership

Tobacco investor defends £1bn of shares in the industry

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35262595

One of the UK’s best-known investors, Neil Woodford, has defended himself against claims he is endorsing an industry that other investors have shunned.

Mr Woodford, who owns over £1bn worth of shares in tobacco companies, told Wake Up to Money that during his career the industry has ‘outstripped every single other sector by a mile’.

Establishing himself as one of the UK’s best-known investors while running funds for Invesco, Mr Woodford set up his own firm in 2014, and now manages around £14bn of clients’ funds.

TransCanada Sues the US for Rejecting Keystone XL; Will This Be the New Normal Under TPP?

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/34329-transcanada-sues-the-us-for-15b-for-rejecting-keystone-xl-will-this-be-the-new-normal-under-tpp

On Wednesday, TransCanada Corporation filed a lawsuit in US federal court alleging President Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline exceeded his power under the US Constitution. TransCanada also filed legal action under the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, claiming the pipeline permit denial was “arbitrary and unjustified.” It’s seeking $15 billion as part of its NAFTA claim. TransCanada’s lawsuit comes just days before President Obama’s final State of the Union address, where he’s anticipated to tout his controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, deal. The secretive trade pact between the United States and 11 Pacific Rim nations could govern up to 40 percent of the world’s economy. After TransCanada announced its lawsuit on Wednesday, the group Friends of the Earth released a statement saying, “This is why Friends of the Earth opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other trade agreements, which allow companies and investors to challenge sovereign government decisions to protect public health and the environment.” For more, we’re joined by Lori Wallach, the director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: TransCanada Corporation has sued the US government over its rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline. On Wednesday, it filed a lawsuit in US federal court alleging President Obama’s rejection of the pipeline exceeded his power under the US Constitution. TransCanada also filed legal action under NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, claiming the pipeline permit denial was, quote, “arbitrary and unjustified.” It’s seeking $15 billion as part of its NAFTA claim.

President Obama rejected the cross-border crude oil pipeline in November, after years of review and one of the most vocal grassroots campaigns this country has seen in decades. At the time, he said approving Keystone would undermine global efforts to stop climate change.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: America is now a global leader when it comes to taking serious action to fight climate change. And frankly, approving this project would have undercut that global leadership. And that’s the biggest risk we face: not acting. Today, we’re continuing to lead by example, because, ultimately, if we’re going to prevent large parts of this Earth from becoming not only inhospitable but uninhabitable in our lifetimes, we’re going to have to keep some fossil fuels in the ground, rather than burn them and release more dangerous pollution into the sky.
AMY GOODMAN: The Keystone XL pipeline would have sent 830,000 barrels of crude every day from Alberta’s oil sands to refineries on the US Gulf Coast. TransCanada’s lawsuit comes just days before President Obama’s final State of the Union address, where he’s anticipated to tout his controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, deal. The secretive trade pact between the United States and 11 Pacific Rim nations could govern up to 40 percent of the world’s economy. After TransCanada announced its lawsuit Wednesday, the group Friends of the Earth released a statement saying, quote, “This is why Friends of the Earth opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other trade agreements, which allow companies and investors to challenge sovereign government decisions to protect public health and the environment.”

Well, Democracy Now! invited TransCanada to join us on the show today, but the company declined, citing pending litigation. In a statement, it said, quote, “TransCanada has undertaken a careful evaluation of the Administration’s action and believe there has been a clear violation of NAFTA and the US Constitution in these circumstances.”

Well, for more, we go to Washington, DC, where we’re joined by Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, the author of The Rise and Fall of Fast Track Trade Authority.

Lori, welcome back to Democracy Now! Talk about your reaction to the TransCanada suit.

LORI WALLACH: Well, what it boils down to is a foreign corporation deciding that the US taxpayers ought to give them $15 billion because they don’t like the outcome of our government decision that this pipeline was bad for our country and bad for the environment. And where they’re going to get this money extracted from us is an extrajudicial – not US court, not US law – forum: the investor-state tribunal allowed under NAFTA. And the US has faced about a dozen of these attacks under NAFTA, all from Canada, but we have 50 agreements that have this outrageous system. Hardly any of those countries with those agreements actually have investors here. So, up to now, we haven’t lost one of these cases; however, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, overnight, if implemented, would double our liability. Right now, 50 agreements, about 9,000 companies are cross-registered from one of those countries that we have the agreement with operating in the US to attack our laws in these tribunals. Overnight, the TPP would give 9,500 more companies – big multinationals from Japan, in banking, in manufacturing, mining firms from Australia – the right to do this. So this case, hopefully, is like the canary in the coal mine letting us know what we’d be getting into.

AMY GOODMAN: In May, President Obama delivered a speech at Nike in Beaverton, Oregon, where he defended the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Critics warn that parts of this deal would undermine American regulation, food safety, worker safety, even financial regulations. This – they’re making this stuff up. This is just not true. No trade agreement is going to force us to change our laws.
AMY GOODMAN: President Obama also said the TPP improves on NAFTA.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: When you ask folks, specifically, “What do you oppose about this trade deal?” they just say, “NAFTA.” NAFTA was passed 20 years ago. That was a different agreement. And in fact, this agreement fixes some of what was wrong with NAFTA by making labor and environmental provisions actually enforceable. I was just getting out of law school when NAFTA got passed.
AMY GOODMAN: Lori Wallach, your response to President Obama? He was speaking at Nike headquarters.

LORI WALLACH: Well, first of all, the making stuff up comment is going to have to get shelved, because not only is this attack by TransCanada on our domestic, democratic government decision not to have a pipeline the exact kind of case he said couldn’t possibly happen – well, it just did, $15 billion being demanded by a – from a tribunal of three private sector attorneys, because this investor-state system, it’s not judges. There are no conflict-of-interest or impartiality rules. These are folks who rotate between one day suing a government for a corporation and the next day being the judge. And they all hear cases amongst themselves. They call themselves “the club.” And there’s no outside appeal, and there’s no limit on how much money they can order a government to pay. And if a government doesn’t pay, by the way, the company has the right to seize government assets – seize government assets – to extract our tax dollars. So, number one, this case is exactly the kind of case President Obama said folks were making things up when they were worried about this. Well, now it’s happened.

But this follows one month after the US Congress, because the WTO threatened billions in trade sanctions, gutted another consumer law. Hate to tell folks, if they didn’t notice in the grocery store, but those customer meat – the country-of-origin labels we all use to figure out where our meat comes from, the WTO said we couldn’t have those anymore. And so, Congress, at the face of these sanctions, said, “Oh, better get rid of that law.” So, two examples, live and real, compared to what President Obama promised.

But more broadly about the TPP, here’s the thing folks need to know. The actual language that TransCanada is using in this case, because they filed a brief, is the same language that, word for word, is replicated in TPP. So there are bells and whistles that have been changed between the investor-state language in NAFTA and TPP. In many ways, actually, TPP expands investor-state. It allows more kinds of challenges. Hell, it even allows challenges of government contracts for foreign companies’ concessions on natural resources in foreign land. That was not in NAFTA. However, the actual claims being made by TransCanada, that language is word for word in the TPP. And you can see the analysis of that on our website, TradeWatch.org. You can look at the text now and use our analysis as basically a guided tour.

AMY GOODMAN: Lori, can you explain why they’re asking $15 billion?

LORI WALLACH: So, this is a question a lot of folks asked me yesterday: “Well, wait a minute, this is supposed to” – everyone who’s read the newspaper. “This is a $3 billion pipeline. How the heck can they be asking for $15 billion from us taxpayers?” And the answer is, under the outrageous investor-state system, not only can a foreign corporation get all these special rights – go around our courts, go around our laws and demand compensation – but they don’t just get money for what they’ve spent on a project, they get to get compensated for expected future profits. Yep, they are calculating – and the brief goes through this – what they think they would have made in the future for the lifetime of the pipeline had it been allowed. And that’s what we taxpayers are supposed to give them, because we had a democratic decision of our government that their commercial project wasn’t in the national interest. That’s the $15 billion.

AMY GOODMAN: Lori, can you talk about how trade rules have affected how countries can deal with climate change? Like in, what, 2014, the US launched a WTO challenge against India’s solar incentives.

LORI WALLACH: So, there’s been really terrific work done on this by Sierra Club, NRDC, 350.org. If you go to their websites, for instance, Sierra Club has a terrific report that goes systematically through all the ways that our trade rules have undermined the efforts both to counter climate chaos, but also some of the adaptations, the efficiencies in energy policy we’d like to take on. And the overarching sum of it is, there are three problems.

One problem is, once we have a trade agreement with a country, we’re no longer allowed to stop exports of, for instance, liquid natural gas. It’s just deemed mandatory that we continue to send out energy. So, to the extent part of the answer to the climate disaster is we need to keep some carbon-based fuels not being processed and shipped around, we lose the right, as a policy, to do that. It’s considered zero quota. We’re not allowed to limit trade.

Number two, the nontrade regulatory limits in all these trade agreements – because, you know, the rule is, every country has to change its domestic laws to meet all these nontrade rules. TPP has got 30 chapters. Only six have to do with trade. There’s a whole chapter on services, and it covers energy services. For instance, it does not allow you, in your policies, to discriminate between how you regulate, say, fossil fuels versus wind or solar. If it’s fuel, it’s fuel. And there’s a whole set of specific constraints around those kind of energy and conservation policies.

And then, the third thing it does is it limits the kind of procurement policies you can have. So, typically, the government is the cutting edge in using our tax dollars when they’re buying things for government to set up a market. So, you know, the car efficiency standards, fuel efficiency standards, we all know there’s CAFE standards in our cars when we buy them. That started as a government program for the government fleet, so that the companies had a market to try and make efficient cars. So, right now, for instance, we have something called renewable portfolio standards, where when the government buys energy, a certain percentage has to be from renewable sources. Those kind of conditionalities are limited in the procurement chapter of an agreement like the TPP. So, basically, it hits, for the fuel industry – that’s why they love it – on all grounds, in handcuffing governments with their policy options.

E-cigarettes and the tobacco companies

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/06/e-cigarettes-and-the-tobacco-companies

Letters

So the University of Rochester found that flavouring in e-cigarettes can deliver free radicals (DNA-damaging, cancer-causing agents), heavy metals and inflammation agents to lung tissue (Report, 31 December). The lung lining is, after all, specifically designed to exchange materials between our body and the air. The main defences that we have evolved are against particles, as in smoke, and foreign bodies, not the vapours, often of volatile organic chemicals, found in e-cigarettes.

Of course, it is not surprising that British American Tobacco scientists concluded otherwise. Tobacco companies see vaping as a wonderful market for the creation of addicted customers. Come on, wake up and smell the vapour.

Dr Brian Curwain
Christchurch, Dorset

6 January 1639: Virginia orders the destruction of its tobacco crop

http://moneyweek.com/6-january-1639-virginia-orders-the-destruction-of-its-tobacco-crop/

The Virginia colonists became obsessed with growing tobacco

King James I of England found smoking tobacco repugnant. It was “a custom loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs”. But when it came to the tax revenues it raised, well, that was different.

In 1607, John Rolfe and his band of colonists had been dispatched to the Americas to find and send back gold. They didn’t find it. But they did discover that tobacco plants flourished in the surroundings of the colony they established in Virginia, and it turned out to be the next best thing. Smoking became all the rage back home.

The king granted English merchants a monopoly on the supply, which was subject to duty upon being unloaded in London. To keep prices (and the tax-take) high, growing tobacco in your back garden was banned (although many did it anyway).

In Virginia, tobacco became so valuable that it replaced coins (which were in short supply) as the main medium of exchange. Everything from debts, wages and taxes were paid for in tobacco, while warehouses stuffed with the leaves became de facto reserve banks. Even the governor’s salary was calculated on the price of tobacco.

The colonists became fixated with growing the crop – so much so that farmers had to be forced to grow food. Immigration rose and slaves were brought in from Africa, swelling the exportation of tobacco to Europe from ten tons in 1619 to 750 tons by 1639. In that time, the price plummeted from 27 pence per pound to just three.

The colonial authorities panicked. Yield restrictions were imposed, and the leaves were subject to quality controls. Yet, the price of tobacco plunged so far that it became no longer economical to grow it. In January 1639, half of the tobacco crop was ordered to be destroyed.

But it was to no avail. To the north, Maryland had since sprung up as a competitor, and with its more diversified economy, it was better able to weather the storm. Virginia was condemned to suffer years of economic depression.

Experts Speak Out On Tobacco Industry Bribery Claims

http://www.newvision.co.ug/new_vision/news/1414235/experts-speak-tobacco-industry-bribery-claims

In a BBC investigation, it is alleged that Bugangaizi West MP Kasirivu-Atwooki took $20,000 from BAT as an inducement to doctor a parliamentary report

THE war against smoking will still be won, despite recent revelations that the tobacco industry has been using bribes to influence policy, experts have said.

According to a recent BBC investigation, British American Tobacco (BAT) paid bribes to officials in East Africa, including two members of a convention created under the World Health Organization (WHO) to combat smoking.

However, experts are still confident that the battle against tobacco will be accomplished.

In an interview with New Vision, Anna Gilmore, a professor of Public Health and Director of the Tobacco Control Research Group at the University of Bath, UK stated: “We can absolutely win the anti-tobacco war and we are winning. We have a global tobacco control treaty that looked impossible to achieve at the time; this treaty is now being implemented – more and more tobacco control policies are being implemented globally.”

Gilmore particularly noted that Uganda has recently passed strong tobacco control legislation, which was a big step forward.

“This was achieved despite enormous opposition from the tobacco industry,” observes Gilmore.

However, she stressed that this progress was only possible “if everyone stands up to the tobacco industry and hold it accountable.”

“Tobacco companies are like cockroaches, they thrive in the dark. Progress is only possible if we shine a light on their corrupt activities and expose their lies. This is starting to happen in Uganda and it was key to getting the Tobacco Control Bill passed. But the bill must now be gazetted and we need to keep shining that light.”

She called for the need for BAT to be held accountable over the bribery claims.

“No company should be allowed to put their profits above the health and economic well-being of states.”

“We need to remember that tobacco kills one in two of its long-term users, that tobacco control policies save lives and enable economic development. That means that every one of these payments that leads to a tobacco control policy being weakened, delayed or blocked causes unnecessary deaths. In other words, these payments have a death count attached to them,” she said.

“It is essential therefore that BAT is held to account. Bribery is illegal under the 2010 UK Bribery Act & under the Anti-Corruption Act, 2009 (Uganda). We now need a series of full and public inquiries into BAT’s conduct. We need to know who else has been bribed, where else is this happening, what else is the company up to, what did those at the highest level know?” Gilmore added.

However in a separate interview with New Vision, Dr. Sheila Ndyanabangi, the principal medical officer and anti-tobacco activist described the evidence in the report were hugely biased.

In the BBC investigation, it is alleged that Bugangaizi West MP Kasirivu-Atwooki took $20,000 (about sh67m) from BAT as an inducement to doctor a parliamentary report.

But Ndyananagi stated: “Our problem is that the Ugandan people implicated in that report are people who helped us come up with a bill. We took the findings with mixed feelings. When it comes to implementation those people may not help us at the time we need them.”

Exposure to Electronic Cigarette Advertising Among Middle School and High School Students — United States, 2014

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6452a3.htm?s_cid=mm6452a3_w

Abstract

Introduction:

Electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use has increased considerably among U.S. youths since 2011. Tobacco use among youths in any form, including e-cigarettes, is unsafe. Tobacco product advertising can persuade youths to start using tobacco. CDC analyzed data from the 2014 National Youth Tobacco Survey to estimate the prevalence of e-cigarette advertisement exposure among U.S. middle school and high school students.

Methods:

The 2014 National Youth Tobacco Survey, a school-based survey of middle school and high school students in grades 6–12, included 22,007 participants. Exposure to e-cigarette advertisements (categorized as “sometimes,” “most of the time,” or “always”) was assessed for four sources: retail stores, Internet, TV and movies, and newspapers and magazines. Weighted exposure estimates were assessed overall and by school type, sex, race/ethnicity, and grade.

Results:

In 2014, 68.9% of middle and high school students (18.3 million) were exposed to e-cigarette advertisements from at least one source. Among middle school students, exposure was highest for retail stores (52.8%), followed by Internet (35.8%), TV and movies (34.1%), and newspapers and magazines (25.0%). Among high school students, exposure was highest for retail stores (56.3%), followed by Internet (42.9%), TV and movies (38.4%), and newspapers and magazines (34.6%). Among middle school students, 23.4% reported exposure to e-cigarette advertising from one source, 17.4% from two sources, 13.7% from three sources, and 11.9% from four sources. Among high school students, 21.1% reported exposure to e-cigarette advertising from one source, 17.0% from two sources, 14.5% from three sources, and 18.2% from four sources.

Conclusions and Implications for Public Health Practice:

Approximately seven in 10 U.S. middle and high school students were exposed to e-cigarette advertisements in 2014. Exposure to e-cigarette advertisements might contribute to increased use of e-cigarettes among youths. Multiple approaches are warranted to reduce youth e-cigarette use and exposure to e-cigarette advertisements, including efforts to reduce youth access to settings where tobacco products, such as e-cigarettes, are sold, and regulation of youth-oriented e-cigarette marketing.

Introduction

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are battery-powered devices capable of delivering nicotine and other additives (e.g., flavorings) to the user in an aerosol form. E-cigarette use has increased considerably among U.S. youths in recent years. During 2011–2014, past-30-day e-cigarette use increased from 0.6% to 3.9% among middle school students and from 1.5% to 13.4% among high school students; in 2014, e-cigarettes became the most commonly used tobacco product among middle school and high school students (1). Youth use of tobacco in any form (combustible, noncombustible, or electronic) is unsafe (2,3). E-cigarettes typically deliver nicotine derived from tobacco, which is highly addictive, might harm brain development, and could lead to sustained tobacco product use among youths (2). In April 2014, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a proposed rule to deem all products made or derived from tobacco subject to FDA jurisdiction (4).

In the United States, e-cigarette sales have increased rapidly since entering the U.S. marketplace in 2007, reaching an estimated $2.5 billion in sales in 2014 (5,6). Corresponding increases have occurred in e-cigarette advertising expenditures, which increased from $6.4 million in 2011 to an estimated $115 million in 2014 (7,8). Tobacco product advertising is causally related to tobacco product initiation among youths (9). Many of the themes used in conventional tobacco product advertising, including independence, rebellion, and sexual attractiveness, also are used to advertise e-cigarettes (9,10). Moreover, almost all tobacco use begins before age 18 years, during which time there is great vulnerability to social influences, such as youth-oriented advertisements and youth-generated social media posts (9). This report assesses exposure to e-cigarette advertisements among U.S. middle school and high school students.

Methods

Data from the 2014 National Youth Tobacco Survey (NYTS) were analyzed to assess exposure to e-cigarette advertisements from four sources: retail stores (convenience stores, supermarkets, or gas stations); Internet; TV and movies; and newspapers and magazines. NYTS is a cross-sectional, school-based, self-administered, pencil-and-paper questionnaire administered to U.S. middle school (grades 6–8) and high school (grades 9–12) students.* A three-stage cluster sampling procedure was used to generate a nationally representative sample of U.S. students who attend public and private schools in grades 6–12. In 2014, 207 of 258 selected schools (80.2%) participated, yielding a sample of 22,007 participants (91.4%) among 24,084 eligible students; the overall response rate was 73.3%.

Sources of exposure to e-cigarette advertisements were assessed by participants’ responses to the following four questions: 1) Internet: “When you are using the Internet, how often do you see advertisements or promotions for electronic cigarettes or e-cigarettes?” 2) Newspapers and magazines: “When you read newspapers or magazines, how often do you see advertisements or promotions for electronic cigarettes or e-cigarettes?” 3) Retail stores: “When you go to a convenience store, supermarket, or gas station, how often do you see advertisements or promotions for electronic cigarettes or e-cigarettes?” 4) TV and movies: “When you watch TV or go to the movies, how often do you see advertisements or promotions for electronic cigarettes or e-cigarettes?” For each question, respondents could select the following options: they do not use the specific source (e.g., “I do not read newspapers or magazines”), “never,” “rarely,” “sometimes,” “most of the time,” or “always.” Respondents who said they saw promotions or advertisements “sometimes,” “most of the time,” or “always” were considered to have been exposed to advertisements from the source; those who selected “never” or “rarely” were considered not exposed. Respondents who did not use a source were also classified as not exposed.† Data were weighted to account for the complex survey design and adjusted for nonresponse. National prevalence estimates with 95% confidence intervals and population estimates were computed; population estimates were rounded down to the nearest tenth of a million. Estimates of exposure for each source were assessed overall and by school type, sex, race/ethnicity, and grade. T-tests were used to calculate differences between groups; a p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. The number of exposure sources were summed for each student and reported as the proportion who were exposed to one, two, three, or four sources.

Results

All students. Overall, 68.9% of participants (an estimated 18.3 million students) were exposed to e-cigarette advertisements from ≥1 source (Figure). Retail stores were the most frequently reported exposure source (54.8% of respondents, or an estimated 14.4 million students), followed by the Internet (39.8%, 10.5 million), TV and movies (36.5%, 9.6 million), and newspapers and magazines (30.4%, 8.0 million) (Table). Exposure to e-cigarette advertisements on the Internet and in newspapers and magazines was reported more frequently by females than males. Exposure in retail stores was higher among non-Hispanic whites (whites) than non-Hispanic blacks (blacks) and students of other non-Hispanic races/ethnicities. Exposure from TV and movies was higher among blacks and Hispanics than whites. Exposure was higher among students in higher grade levels for all sources. Overall, 22.1% of participants (5.8 million students) reported exposure to e-cigarette advertising from one source, 17.2% (4.5 million) from two sources, 14.1% (3.7 million) from three sources, and 15.4% (4.1 million) from four sources (Figure).

Middle school students. Among middle school students, 66.4% (7.7 million) were exposed to e-cigarette advertisements from at least one source (Figure). Retail stores were the most frequently reported source of exposure (52.8% of respondents, or an estimated 6.0 million middle school students), followed by the Internet (35.8%, 4.1 million), TV and movies (34.1%, 3.9 million), and newspapers and magazines (25.0%, 2.8 million) (Table). Exposure to e-cigarette advertisements on the Internet was higher among female than male middle school students. Exposure in retail stores was higher among whites than blacks and other non-Hispanic race/ethnicities. Exposure from TV or movies was higher among blacks than whites. A single source of exposure was reported by 23.4% of participants (2.7 million middle school students); two sources by 17.4% (2.0 million), three sources by 13.7% (1.5 million), and four sources by 11.9% (1.3 million) (Figure).

High school students. Among high school students, 70.9% of respondents (an estimated 10.5 million high school students) reported exposure to e-cigarette advertisements from at least one source (Figure). Similar to middle school students, more than half of reported e-cigarette advertising exposures (56.3%, 8.3 million) occurred in retail stores, followed by the Internet (42.9%, 6.3 million), TV and movies (38.4%, 5.6 million), and newspapers and magazines (34.6%, 5.1 million) (Table). Exposure in retail stores was higher among whites than blacks and other non-Hispanic race/ethnicities. Exposure from TV and movies was higher among blacks than whites. One source of exposure was reported by 21.1% of participants (3.1 million high school students), two sources by 17.0% (2.5 million), three sources by 14.5% (2.1 million), and four sources by 18.2% (2.7 million) (Figure).

Conclusions and Comments

In 2014, nearly seven in 10 (18.3 million) U.S. middle school and high school students were exposed to e-cigarette advertisements from at least one source, and approximately 15%, or 4.1 million students, were exposed to e-cigarette advertisements from all four sources. Approximately half were exposed to e-cigarette advertisements in retail stores, whereas approximately one in three were exposed on the Internet, on TV or at the movies, or while reading newspapers or magazines. Although there were slight variations by sex and race/ethnicity, the magnitude of exposure was consistent across groups. Implementation of comprehensive efforts to reduce youth exposure to e-cigarette advertising and promotion is critical to reduce e-cigarette experimentation and use among youths.

Retail store exposure to e-cigarette advertising in this study (54.8%) was lower than levels of exposure to conventional cigarette and other tobacco product advertising reported in the NYTS in 2014 (80.6%), but comparable to exposure on the Internet (39.8% versus 46.8%, respectively) and in newspapers and magazines (30.4% versus 34.3%, respectively) (11).§ Advertising for conventional tobacco products, such as cigarettes, has been shown to prompt experimentation as well as increase and maintain tobacco product use among youths (9). Similarly, according to a recent randomized controlled study, adolescents who were exposed to e-cigarette advertisements on TV were 54% more likely to say they would try an e-cigarette soon, and 43% more likely to say they would try an e-cigarette within the next year, compared with adolescents who were not exposed to e-cigarette advertisements (12). The study also determined that youths exposed to e-cigarette advertisements were more likely to agree that e-cigarettes can be used in places where smoking is not allowed (12). This is consistent with findings that certain e-cigarette marketers are using advertising tactics similar to those used in the past to market conventional cigarettes, including youth-oriented themes, and promoting e-cigarette use as an alternative in places where smoking is not allowed (2,9,10). An analysis of 57 online e-cigarette vendors determined that 70.2% of vendors used more than one social network service to market e-cigarettes (13). Moreover, 61.4% of vendors only required users to click a pop-up or dialog box to self-verify age, and 35.1% of vendors had no detectable age verification process. This unrestricted marketing of e-cigarettes, coupled with rising use of these products among youths (1), has the potential to compromise decades of progress in preventing tobacco use and promoting a tobacco-free lifestyle among youths (2,9).

Research supports the importance of a multifaceted approach to youth tobacco prevention involving multiple levels of government (2,9,14). Local, state, and federal efforts to reduce youth access to the settings where tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, are sold could reduce youth e-cigarette initiation and consumption, as well as advertising exposure. Potential strategies include requiring that tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, be sold only in facilities that never admit youths; limiting tobacco outlet density or proximity to schools; and requiring that e-cigarette purchases be made only through face-to-face transactions. Adding e-cigarettes and other tobacco products to the list of current tobacco products prohibited from being sent through U.S. mail and requiring age verification for online sales at purchase and delivery could also prevent sales to youths. In addition, potential strategies at the federal or state level include regulation of e-cigarette advertising in media, Internet, and retail settings that are demonstrated to appeal to youths or are viewed by a substantial number of youths. The evidence base for restricting advertisements for conventional tobacco products indicates that these interventions would be expected to contribute to reductions in e-cigarette advertisement exposure and use among youths as well (2,9). To effectively implement these strategies, there is a need for fully funded and sustained comprehensive state tobacco control programs that address all forms of tobacco use, including e-cigarettes (14). These programs are critical to support the implementation and maintenance of proven population-based interventions to reduce tobacco use among youths, including tobacco price increases, comprehensive smoke-free laws, and high impact mass media campaigns (14). However, in 2015, states appropriated only 1.9% ($490.4 million) of combined revenues of $25.6 billion from settlement payments and tobacco taxes for all states on comprehensive tobacco control programs,¶ representing <15% of the CDC-recommended level of funding ($3.3 billion) for all states combined (14). Only two states (Alaska and North Dakota) currently fund tobacco control programs at CDC-recommended levels. Additionally, parents, caregivers, and health care providers can talk to children about the dangers of tobacco use, encourage or set limits on media use, and teach children critical media viewing skills to increase their resistance to pro-tobacco messages (15).

These findings are subject to at least three limitations. First, advertising exposure was self-reported and is subject to recall bias. Second, data were collected only from students who attended public or private schools and might not be generalizable to middle school- and high school-aged youths who are being homeschooled, youths who have dropped out of school, or youths in detention centers. However, data from the Current Population Survey indicate that 97.5% of U.S. youths aged 10–13 years and 95.4% of those aged 14–17 years were enrolled in a traditional school in 2014.** Finally, exposure to e-cigarette advertisements might have been underestimated, as survey questions asked only about exposure from four sources, and did not assess exposure from other potential sources such as sporting events, radio, or billboards.

This report highlights youth exposure to e-cigarette advertisements, which might be contributing to increasing youth experimentation with and use of e-cigarettes in recent years. Multiple approaches are warranted to reduce youth e-cigarette use and exposure to e-cigarette advertisements, including efforts to reduce youth access to the settings where tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, are sold, and regulation of youth-oriented e-cigarette marketing. The implementation of these approaches, in coordination with fully funded and sustained comprehensive state tobacco control programs, has the potential to reduce all forms of tobacco use among youths, including e-cigarette use.