Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

April 8th, 2016:

Recall, appeal and willingness to try cigarettes with flavour capsules: assessing the impact of a tobacco product innovation among early adolescents

Apr 8th, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2016/04/08/tobaccocontrol-2015-052805.short?g=w_tobaccocontrol_ahead_tab

Abstract

Background

Use of flavour capsule varieties (FCVs) of cigarettes has rapidly increased in many countries. Adolescents are attracted to flavours; yet, surprisingly, no quantitative study has explored adolescents’ perceptions of these products.

Objective

To characterise the appeal of FCVs for young adolescents in Mexico.

Methods

In 2015, surveys were conducted with a representative sample of Mexican middle school students (n=10 124; ages 11–16 years; mean 12.4 years). Students viewed and rated packs for FCVs and non-FCVs from major brands (Marlboro, Camel, Pall Mall), with brand names removed. For each pack, students were asked to write the brand name (ie, brand recall), to evaluate pack attractiveness, and to indicate the pack they were most interested in trying (including a ‘none’ option). Logistic generalised estimating equation (GEE) models regressed brand recall, pack attractiveness and interest in trying on brand and FCV (yes vs no), controlling for sociodemographics and smoking risk factors.

Results

Marlboro regular, Camel regular, Camel light and Pall Mall FCVs were most often recalled (25%, 17%, 9%, 8%). Packs for Pall Mall FCVs and Camel FCVs were most often rated as very attractive (13%, 9%, respectively) and of interest for trial (22%, 13%) along with Marlboro regular (14%). In GEE models, FCVs were independently associated with greater attractiveness (adjusted OR (AOR)=1.83, 95% CI 1.72 to 1.94) and interest in trying (AOR=1.74, 95% CI 1.54 to 1.96). Perceived pack attractiveness was also independently associated with greater interest in trying (AOR=5.63, 95% CI 4.74 to 6.68).

Conclusions

FCVs appear to be generating even greater appeal among young adolescents than established non-FCVs in dominant brand families.

Retailer licensing and tobacco display compliance

Apr 8th, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

Are some retailers more likely to flout regulations?

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2016/04/08/tobaccocontrol-2015-052767.short?g=w_tobaccocontrol_ahead_tab

Abstract

Objectives

To assess retailer compliance with a licensing scheme requiring tobacco retailers to list their business details with the government, to examine whether listed retailers are more likely to comply with a point-of-sale (POS) display ban and other in-store retailing laws and to explore variations in compliance between different retailer types and locations.

Method

An audit of 1739 retailers in New South Wales, Australia, was used to assess compliance with tobacco retailing legislation. Auditors actively searched for and audited unlisted retailers and all listed retailers in 122 metropolitan and regional postcodes. Multivariate generalised linear regression models were used to examine associations between compliance and retailer type, remoteness and demographic characteristics (socioeconomic level, proportion of population under 18 years and proportion born in Australia).

Results

One unlisted tobacco retailer was identified for every 12.6 listed tobacco retailers. Unlisted retailers were significantly more likely than listed retailers to breach in-store retailing laws (p<0.001). Compliance with the POS display ban was observed in 91.3% of tobacco retailers, but compliance with all retailing laws was only 73.4%. Retailers in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas had lower compliance than those in high socioeconomic areas.

Conclusions

Some tobacco retailers did not list their business details with the government as required, even though there was no financial cost to do so. Unlisted retailers were more likely to violate in-store regulations. The results suggest licensing schemes can be useful for providing a list of retailers, thus facilitating enforcement, but require a system to search for, and respond to, unlisted/unlicensed retailers.