Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

October, 2016:

Tobacco companies ‘exaggerating need for small retailers to sell cigarettes’

Tobacco companies are exaggerating the need for small retailers to sell cigarettes and the impact it has on footfall and profits, according to Action on Smoking and Health (Ash)

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-us/cancer-news/news-report/2016-10-19-tobacco-companies-exaggerating-need-for-small-retailers-to-sell-cigarettes

A new study (link is external) found corner shops made an average profit of just £242 a week on tobacco products compared with £2,611 from everything else they sell – or less than 10 per cent of their total weekly profits.

Retailers’ average profit margins were just 6.6 per cent for tobacco products compared with 24.1 per cent for all other products, the Ash and National Addiction Centre at King’s College London study found.

The report said falling tobacco sales meant that 79 per cent of all small retailer transactions did not include the purchase of tobacco products.

A survey of 591 local newsagents included in the report found that 69 per cent “acknowledged that they do not make much profit from cigarettes compared to other products”.

Newcastle-based small retailer John McClurey, who has been a member of the Ash Advisory Council for the past four years, said: “I have little choice to sell tobacco as many of my customers still smoke. But tobacco makes me very little money while tying up plenty of cash in stock. Tobacco is a burden to me.

“The decline in the market, the disappearance of cigarettes behind gantry doors and the shift to plain packaging have made the traditional approach to selling tobacco out-dated. A better alternative for retailers is to reduce stock, shift the gantry and free up space for products that actually turn a decent profit.”

Ash chief executive, Deborah Arnott, said that tobacco companies rely on the sales from corner shops.

“Nearly half (45 per cent) of smokers buy cigarettes from corner shops, so for the tobacco industry it is essential that it puts a lot of effort into persuading retailers to maintain the profile of tobacco sales in those stores,” she said.

“Tobacco is a high-cost, low-profit product and money spent on tobacco is money not available for other more profitable purchases.

“Our report invites retailers to see the long-term decline in smoking as an opportunity, not a threat.”

Alyssa Best, Cancer Research UK’s tobacco policy advisor, said the report offered reassurance to shop owners that were worried about the effects falling tobacco sales may have on their profits.

“Contrary to tobacco industry claims, small retailers do not make large profits from selling cigarettes,” she said.

“The billions in profit are made by the large multinational companies who produce these lethal products.

“Shop owners can feel confident that their businesses will not suffer from measures to help people quit smoking, like the ban on Point of Sale displays of tobacco, and they can use this space to sell alternative products that will earn them more profit.”

MP Bob Blackman, of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on smoking and health, said that the report questioned “the core messages promoted by tobacco manufacturers that tobacco is essential to retailers’ success”.

“I hope that the findings will support and encourage small retailers to consider whether the traditional approach to selling tobacco in small shops remains in their best interests,” he added.

“A new approach to selling tobacco will benefit our corner shops, and ensure their continued place at the heart of our local communities.”

Can Flavour Make E-Cigarettes More Toxic?

https://www.chromatographytoday.com/news/bioanalytical/40/breaking-news/can-flavour-make-e-cigarettes-more-toxic-chromatography-explores/40648

The use of e-cigarettes is promoted as the healthy option when compared to traditional smoking methods. But vaping and e-cigarettes are a new experience and the evidence they might not be as safe as they are promoted is growing as researchers look closely at vaping — both the devices and the constituents of the e-liquids consumed.

Research shows that long-term users risk regular exposure to respiratory irritants and toxic substances — and as more teams look into vaping, more health related issues could be uncovered. Chemical studies indicate that the aerosol generated in vaping contains lower levels of toxins and carcinogens that are present in traditional cigarettes.

Hence the recommendations that they are preferable to cigarettes and could be used by smokers to cut down on the levels of toxins they inhale.

ENDS products and vaping

However, the rapid growth of vaping and its numerous products is too fast for regulatory bodies and clinical studies to keep up. With so many different flavours and flavour chemicals being used, users really have no idea about the potential inhalation toxicity of the products they are using and the damage that might be caused to cells.

Vaping using e-cigarettes — or to give them their technical name electronic nicotine delivery systems or ENDS — use a heating system to generate a vapour or aerosol that the user then inhales. This delivers the nicotine hit, usually in a synthetic flavour. The nicotine and flavouring are carried in an e-liquid — which usually contains propylene glycol as the main carrier.

Now a team from the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, NY has carried out research that suggests some flavourings are more toxic than others. In a paper published in the British Medical Journal Tobacco Control they show that flavourings used in e-cigarettes may induce inhalation toxicity in some cells — and that strawberry flavour was the most toxic flavour tested.

Air-liquid interface culture (ALI)

The team used a testing method known as ALI — which allows the direct exposure of cell to the aerosols generated by the ENDS. Six different ENDS were tested along with five different flavours of e-liquids. The team exposed human bronchial epithelial cells to puffs from ENDS aerosol, tobacco smoke and an air control. The nicotine levels were measured using gas chromatography — the use of GC in health research is discussed in the article, Volatile Organic Compound Determination in Health-related

Research: A Review.

The tests confirmed that conventional tobacco smoke had a greater negative effect on the cells than the ENDS aerosols. But the ENDS aerosol had a negative effect on the cells when compared with the air control — with the strawberry flavour having a greater impact on the cells than the other flavours tested. Interestingly, they found that it is not the nicotine that affected the respiratory cells but the added flavourings.

In an unregulated market — can you be sure what you are exposing yourself to?

Tobacco giants return to court in battle against new plain-packaging rules

http://www.aol.co.uk/news/2016/10/18/tobacco-giants-return-to-court-in-battle-against-new-plainpackaging-rules/

Tobacco giants return to court today in their battle against the Government’s new plain-packaging rules.

They suffered what anti-smoking campaigners described as a ”crushing defeat” at the High Court in May.

The day before new regulations come into force, a judge in London declared that they were ”valid and lawful in all respects”.

Mr Justice Green rejected a judicial review action brought against Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt.

The judge declared: “There is no basis upon which I could or should strike down the regulations or prevent them coming into effect tomorrow.”

Philip Morris International, British American Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco and Japan Tobacco International had challenged the legality of the ”standardised packaging” regulations.

The judge heard submissions that the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015 would destroy valuable property rights and render products indistinguishable from each other.

But he ruled: “The regulations were lawful when they were promulgated by Parliament and they are lawful now in the light of the most up-to-date evidence.”

His decision that the regulations were ”justified and proportionate in the public interest” came after Europe’s highest court rejected a series of legal challenges.

Action on Smoking and Health (Ash) chief executive Deborah Arnott, said at the time: “This landmark judgment is a crushing defeat for the tobacco industry and fully justifies the Government’s determination to go ahead with the introduction of standardised packaging.”

After the ruling, one of the companies, Philip Morris International (PMI) said it was ”disappointed”, but although there were ”strong grounds”, it would not be appealing.

Three Court of Appeal judges in London will now hear a challenge against the judge’s ruling, expected to last four days.

E-Cigarettes: Good Idea? Bad Idea?

To vape or not to vape subject of SPH Bicknell Lecture tomorrow

https://www.bu.edu/today/2016/2016-william-j-bicknell-lecture-e-cigarettes-good-idea-bad-idea/

To anyone who has followed the controversy around the perceived merits and health risks of e-cigarettes, the research and reactions can seem a jumble.

The handheld electronic devices, which vaporize a flavored liquid containing nicotine, have been touted as effective quit-smoking tools, safer than conventional cigarettes.

They’ve also been slammed as a gateway to tobacco cigarette use in young adults, with studies showing they contain detectable levels of toxic chemicals.

The School of Public Health will wade into the debate tomorrow, Wednesday, October 19, when two of the world’s leading experts on electronic cigarettes share the stage at the 2016 William J. Bicknell Lecture. Headlined E-cigarettes: Good Idea? Bad Idea? it is free and open to the public.

Linda Bauld, a University of Stirling professor of health policy and deputy director of the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, says that while e-cigarettes are not risk-free, they are an important alternative to “a uniquely deadly product that kills one in two of its regular users.” She says there is no firm evidence that e-cigarettes are a gateway to conventional cigarette use among young adults.

Andrea Villanti, director for regulatory science and policy at the Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies at Truth Initiative, agrees that the devices are effective quit-smoking aids, but says there is a need for clear, accurate information about their potential harms. She says vaping devices are “a diverse product class and must not be treated as a single product.”

The discussion comes in the wake of the recent decision by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to extend its tobacco oversight authority to e-cigarettes. The controversial FDA regulations require manufacturers to detail what is in their products and apply for marketing permission by 2018.

Moderating tomorrow’s Bicknell lecture is Ronald Bayer, a Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health professor of sociomedical sciences, whose research focuses on issues of social justice and ethics related to tobacco and other health concerns. Bayer says he views the e-cigarette hand-wringing as “not just a scientific controversy—it’s also political.” He plans to explore why public health groups in the UK “have seen in the evidence a justification for enthusiastically embracing e-cigarettes as a harm-reduction strategy for smokers, while in the United States there has been deep skepticism, if not hostility, in the tobacco control community.”

According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 12.6 percent of adults tried an e-cigarette in 2014. Only 3.2 percent of adults who had never smoked cigarettes tried them, but the CDC and some public health advocates have been alarmed by a dramatic rise in their use among teenagers. The CDC reports that in 2015, 16 percent of high school students said they had used electronic cigarettes in the past 30 days—an increase from 1.5 percent in 2011.

BU Today spoke to Bauld and Villanti about their views on the subject.

BU Today: Proponents of strict regulations say e-cigarettes are a gateway to regular cigarette use, especially for young adults. Is that just a worry or is it a fact?

Bauld: This may be a worry, but it is not an established fact. There is no firm evidence from anywhere—despite a couple of US studies and one Swiss study that followed up nonsmokers who used e-cigarettes and found some of them had tried tobacco—that this is occurring. There are high rates of experimentation with e-cigarettes among teenagers in the United States and some evidence of this in the UK and other jurisdictions. However, regular use is confined to teenagers and young adults who already smoke tobacco.

Villanti: A primary goal of tobacco control is to keep all youth from using tobacco or nicotine products, and it’s important to know how new tobacco or nicotine products impact use among young users. While we have long-term population surveillance data on cigarettes in youth, we only have a few data points on e-cigarettes, as they are a relatively new product.

Cross-sectional data have shown declines in past 30-day youth cigarette use at the same time that there has been a rise in past 30-day youth e-cigarette use. In fact, the most recent data show that youth cigarette use is at an all-time low, which is encouraging. The data also indicate that past 30-day youth e-cigarette use did not increase significantly from 2014 to 2015 and may be leveling off. The largest proportion of youth e-cigarette use is infrequent, which is more consistent with experimentation than regular use.

Focusing only on the gateway between e-cigarette and cigarette use detracts from understanding the full picture of youth tobacco and nicotine use and its impact on public health.

Do you think the FDA was right to regulate e-cigarettes as tobacco products? What’s your view on requiring premarket approvals for companies?

Bauld: E-cigarettes are not tobacco products, and in my view, a separate regulatory framework would have been more appropriate. However, I do appreciate the view of my FDA colleagues, which is that they wished to create a regulatory framework that includes all nicotine products. In the United States, it is disappointing to see that nicotine replacement therapy does not have a harm-reduction license to allow usage while cutting down on cigarette smoking or longer-term usage to avoid relapse to smoking. That needs to change.

I also appreciate the need for product standards of e-cigarettes and other vaping devices and am aware that the FDA regulations had this as one aim. However, the required premarket approval process and the rather arbitrary cutoff for products already on the market that won’t need approval will in my view create advantages for tobacco and tobacco companies over independent e-cigarette manufacturers. This is a potential unintended consequence of the FDA regulations and will perpetuate smoking.

Villanti: The short answer is yes. If prudently regulated, e-cigarettes hold promise as one means to move smokers to a less harmful product and reduce the devastating death and disease burden caused by combustible tobacco products such as cigarettes, cigars, or hookah.

Despite noncombustible tobacco and nicotine without tobacco being less toxic than combustible tobacco, e-cigarettes (and other new nicotine delivery devices) cannot fulfill any promise they may have of harm reduction if we do not know what is in them, who is manufacturing them, and how they are marketed and advertised. So, regulation is essential to ensure they are of good quality and as safe as possible and that the benefits are maximized while harms are minimized.

Shouldn’t we applaud e-cigarettes as a smoking-cessation device?

Bauld: The evidence on smoking cessation with e-cigarettes is positive overall, although the quality of evidence remains weak. The update of the Cochrane Review, published earlier this year, makes that clear. In the UK, we have a public health consensus statement endorsed by our main health charities, government agencies, and professional bodies. This makes clear that all the evidence suggests e-cigarettes are significantly less harmful than tobacco and smokers should not be discouraged from using them. In addition, smokers choosing to use e-cigarettes can receive free support (counseling and the offer of additional, licensed stop-smoking medications) through our National Health Service smoking cessation services. Smokers who access these services and also use an e-cigarette have very good cessation rates.

Villanti: The great opportunity of e-cigarettes is that they have been adopted by large numbers of smokers. Current research suggests that e-cigarettes can increase quit attempts, reduce symptoms of nicotine withdrawal, prevent relapse, and potentially serve as a pathway to cessation of cigarettes. Further high-quality, randomized controlled trials and rigorous observational studies are important to confirm findings from the research to date.

Given the wide variety of products and ingredients, it is hard to know which specific e-cigarette products are most effective as cessation devices. We also do not know the quality or safety specifications of those products, as we do with cessation medications and nicotine replacement therapies that have been FDA-approved. Smokers seeking a pathway to quitting deserve a device that is effective and meets quality and safety standards.

If the biggest concern is youth starting to vape, what can be done to keep e-cigarettes away from kids?

Bauld: In the European Union, the Tobacco Products Directive, which was introduced in May 2016, prohibits all broadcast advertising of e-cigarettes. In my own country, Scotland, further advertising restrictions (on billboards, free samples) will be introduced next year. Some limits on marketing are proportionate because of concerns about marketing to children, and age-of-sale laws are also in place in the UK. However, I believe some promotion is needed, particularly at the point of sale, to provide adult smokers with accurate information about these products and support switching. We can’t completely ignore the UK’s eight million adult smokers because of fears about youth uptake. An appropriate balance has to be struck.

Villanti: A first step in preventing youth from starting to use tobacco or nicotine products was the FDA’s decision to bring all products under its authority. This provided youth access restrictions across all products, including cigars, hookah, and e-cigarettes. Minimum age of e-cigarette purchase enacted at the federal level, and enforcement of these laws by state and local agencies, will reduce youth access.

Our experience in tobacco control has identified other interventions, like advertising restrictions. A novel intervention would be to extend the ban on flavored cigarettes to all tobacco products, especially the most harmful combustible products. Other possible interventions include adopting standards that reduce the toxicity and addictiveness of products to the lowest possible levels; additional limits on youth access, like raising the nationwide minimum age of sale for tobacco to 21; or taxing products in proportion to their harms.

The 2016 William J. Bicknell Lecture in Public Health is tomorrow, Wednesday, October 19, from 10 a.m. to noon at the School of Medicine Instructional Building Hiebert Lounge, 72 East Concord St. The event is free and open to the public. The lectureship is named in honor of the late William J. Bicknell, founder and chair emeritus of the SPH global health department (formerly the international health department). Live streaming will be available here.

Lisa Chedekel can be reached at chedekel@bu.edu.

VAPING MIGHT NOT BE A TOBACCO ALTERNATIVE

http://www.themonitordaily.com/vaping-not-tobacco-alternative/212620/

Although vaping is regarded as a safer alternative compared to tobacco, recent research suggests that e-cigarettes may be as dangerous as traditional cigarettes.

The primary reason is that both of them contain nicotine, the only difference consisting in the fact that these electronic devices vaporize the flavored nicotine liquid. This hotly debated topic will be discussed Wednesday on October 19 at the School of Public Health, where many experts will gather.

According to a Linda Bauld, the deputy director of the United Kingdom Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, e-cigarettes cannot be regarded as a safe alternative because they come with certain risks.

Therefore, they can only be seen as a possible short-term solution to ‘a uniquely deadly product that kills one in two of its regular users.’ She further adds that there is no current evidence that e-cigarettes can be a life-safer for young adults.

The director for regulatory science and policy at the Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies at Truth Initiative, Andrea Villanti, supports Bauld by saying that solid proof is needed in order to label these vaping devices as excellent quit-smoking tools.

Also, everyone knows that e-cigarettes are most likely harmful to a certain extent, but maybe not as harmful as tobacco. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently decided to focus not just on reducing tobacco use but also to prevent e-cigarettes from becoming widely popular across the country.

Needless to say that these new regulations are quite controversial because they require companies to specify exactly what their vaping devices contain by 2018 in order to receive marketing permission.

According to a professor of socio-medical sciences at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, Ronald Bayer, e-cigarette use and tobacco are more than controversial topics as they are also quite political.

Based on the statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), around 12.6 percent of American adults tried e-cigarettes in 2014, while 3.2 percent of them never smoked before.

CDC reports further reveal that last year, 16 percent of teenagers admitted they had used vaping devices in the past month before the study, showing a 1.5 increase compared to 2011. About 17,000 teenagers start smoking every year in California, and around 35 percent of them will most likely die because of nicotine and tobacco-related diseases

E-liquids that ‘look like children’s sweets’ taken off shelves

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-37679902

Concern has been raised over potentially harmful e-liquids being sold to look like “children’s sweets”.

Trading standards officers in Knowsley on Merseyside seized a “large number” of the vaping liquids which are used in e-cigarettes.

A council spokesman said they were packaged to appeal to children and lacked the necessary warning signs.

E-liquids contain nicotine and can be “extremely dangerous” if swallowed by mistake.

The council removed the items from five business premises in Huyton, Prescot and Kirkby in September.

Image copyright Knowsley Council Image caption Trading standards officers took the e-liquids off the shelves during the first week of September.

The products taken off the shelves include:

• Mech Shakes
• Drippy Lee Pounding Clouds
• Milky Cones Vapory
• ‘Murica
• Milkshake Man
• Kreamy Vapes

According to the Food Imitations Safety Regulation 1989, it is an offence to supply products which are not food, but could easily be confused with food due to their packaging or shape, particularly by children.

Eddie Connor, councillor responsible for public health wellbeing, said: “I’m pleased that our Trading Standards team have investigated and removed these potentially harmful products from sale in Knowsley.

“The safety of customers is always our highest priority and I’m concerned that young children could be attracted to these products because of their appearance.

Mr Connor added that Knowsley’s trading standard officers are investigating the supply chain for the e-liquids.

Introduction of plain packaging and new, enlarged graphic health warnings in the Australian state of Victoria

Change in public support for the introduction of plain packaging and new, enlarged graphic health warnings in the Australian state of Victoria, 2011–2013

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2016/10/17/tobaccocontrol-2016-053238

Introduction

Since December 2012, all Australian tobacco products have been supplied in packaging that is a standardised drab brown colour with uniform fonts. The implementation of plain packaging coincided with the introduction of refreshed graphic health warnings (GHWs) that increased in size from 30% to 75% of the pack face, with coverage of the pack rear maintained at 90%.1

A slight rise in opposition to plain packaging among Australian smokers was reported immediately prior to implementation, followed by a significant increase in support, from 28% preimplementation (late 2011 to early 2012) to 49% postimplementation (early 2013).2 No data on the views of former or never smokers have previously been published.

**PART 2** | POLITICIZING SCIENCE | SIEGEL ON GLANTZ & E-CIGS

The China National Tobacco Corporation: From domestic to global dragon?

Download (PDF, 2.4MB)

The debate on regulation of e-cigarettes in China

China manufactures 80% of the world’s e-cigarettes.1

The domestic Chinese e-cigarette market has expanded since 2014, with a 33% increase in sales in 2015 alone.2 The 2014 China Global Youth Tobacco Survey, which studied 155 117 students aged 13–15 years, showed that 45·0% of them had heard about—and 1·2% had used—e-cigarettes.3 Some members of the global public health community are calling for regulation of e-cigarettes, but, owing to inconclusive evidence on their impact,4 no simple and unified guidelines exist to assist countries in such regulation. In China, a regulatory framework has been debated between the public health community and government agencies since 2005. We aim to analyse the development of a regulatory system for e-cigarettes and the interests and strategies of policy makers in China, and hope that this Comment might assist other countries undergoing similar debates on the regulation of e-cigarettes.

There have been dramatic changes in the way that e-cigarettes are marketed in China since they first emerged in 2005. Back then, e-cigarette companies promoted their products as a cigarette-like but healthier alternative to tobacco, as a tool to help quit smoking, and as gifts,5 which attracted attention from tobacco control advocates and government agencies.

However, with little evidence on the health effects of e-cigarettes, and little international experience in their regulation, government agencies were initially hesitant to take over regulatory responsibility. The ensuing debate centred on whether to categorise e-cigarettes as tobacco, medicinal, general, or harmful products—each coming under different agencies with different regulatory mechanisms.

Over a decade later, this issue is still unresolved.

The China Food and Drug Administration expressed its position in 2006 that “Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) should not be managed as medical equipment.”6 The State Tobacco Monopoly Administration (STMA) refused to classify e-cigarettes as tobacco products but rather as potentially harmful chemical products, recommending regulation under State Administration of Work Safety.

Nonetheless, the e-cigarette industry was challenged by the media and public health advocates for its marketing ploys. The industry then changed its strategy to promote e-cigarettes as fashionable, innovative, leisure consumer goods, and built a fan base, both online and offline. Many e-cigarette centres, clubs, and bars were established in major cities to help disseminate and portray the culture of vaping, and to increase sales of e-cigarettes.

As the e-cigarette industry developed, the Chinese tobacco monopoly decided to include e-cigarette development in its own strategy. It established a task force led by the STMA’s leaders to coordinate issues related to all new tobacco products. Its local branches, an affiliated research centre, and two e-cigarette companies agreed to cooperate in development of e-cigarettes co-branded with the key existing cigarette brands.7

The trajectory of e-cigarette regulatory development has also been affected by the changing policy context in China. First, many tobacco control measures have been implemented, such as increases in tobacco tax, revision of advertising laws, non-smoking directives to government officials, and a national smoke-free law under process.

Second, as China’s economy has begun to slow down since 2009, a core strategy of the Chinese administration to stimulate economic vitality is through deregulation of industries. The government also encourages industries to form associations for improved self-regulation. With more than 1000 brands, 6000 products, and over 1800 companies in the industry, leading e-cigarette companies echoed this central policy by establishing the first National Association of Electronic Cigarettes in 2015.8

The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT)—the supervising ministry for STMA—seems to support the self-regulation of the e-cigarette industry. By encouraging small and medium e-cigarette companies to form into associations, MIIT might be able to manage the industry more easily.

However, MIIT suggested that the STMA should seriously consider and push forward the regulation of e-cigarettes and other tobacco products.9 At the time of writing, the central government has yet to make a decision on how to regulate e-cigarettes.

Whether e-cigarettes end up being regulated by the STMA or through self-regulation by the e-cigarette industry, we call upon the central government to include e-cigarettes in all future tobacco surveys, and establish a regulatory system as soon as possible to at least ban sales to children, prevent e-cigarette marketing towards youth and non-smokers, and require disclosure of ingredients and labelling—as a first step until the science is clear.

Xiaoxin Xu, *Xinsong Wang, Xiulan Zhang, Yanli Liu, Huan He, Judith Mackay

School of Social Development and Public Policy, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China (XX, XW, XZ, YL); School of Public Administration, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, Chengdu, Sichuan, China (HH); and Vital Strategies, Kowloon, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (JM)

xinsong@bnu.edu.cn
We declare no competing interests.

1 Shan J. E-cigarette controls considered for safety. China Daily, Jan 7, 2015. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2015-01/07/content_19255939. htm (accessed May 31, 2016).
2 Beijing Hua Yan Zhong Shang Yanjiu Yuan. Analysis of e-cigarettes market status in China and trend forecasting, 2015–2020. Beijing: Beijing Hua Yan Zhong Shang Yanjiu Yuan, 2015 (in Chinese).
3 Global Youth Tobacco Survey. Fact sheet: China 2014. Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, WHO, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. http://www.wpro.who.int/china/gyts_china_fs_en_20140528.pdf?ua=1 (accessed May 24, 2016).
4 Levy DT, Cummings KM, Villanti AC, et al. A framework for evaluating the public health impact of e-cigarettes and other vaporized nicotine products. Addiction 2016; published online April 25. DOI:10.1111/ add.13394.
5 Tobacco China Online. Healthy “cigarettes” appearing at Canton Fair, customers mostly from overseas. 2005. http://www.tobaccochina.com/zt/ruyan/meiti_07.html (in Chinese) (accessed May 24, 2016).
6 China State Food and Drug Administration. Notice on classifi cation of products including the system of re-leveling of leukocyte (2006, No 268, State Food and Drug Administration), Article 41. In: China State Food and Drug Administration, ed. Beijing: China State Food and Drug Administration, 2006.
7 Jiang Z, Gu M. Shanghai Lvxin and CNTC cooperate on e-cig, taking the high ground. 2014. http://fi nance.sina.com.cn/stock/s/20140417/141418831669.shtml (in Chinese) (accessed May 4, 2016).
8 Cecmol. National Association of Electronic Cigarettes established. 2015. http://www.aiweibang.com/yuedu/70936775.html (in Chinese) (accessed May 4, 2016).
9 Dongfang Yancao Wang. The speech by Miao Yu at the 2016 Tobacco Work Meeting (excerpt). 2016. http://www.eastobacco.com/pub/web/zxbk/dyzxzx/zxjdtpxw/201601/t20160115_392417.html (in Chinese) (accessed May 4, 2016).