E-Cigarette Flavors, Devices, and Brands Used by Youths Before and After Partial Flavor Restrictions in the United States: Canada, England, and the United States, 2017‒2020.

Objectives. To examine the impact of US restrictions implemented in February 2020 prohibiting flavors other than menthol and tobacco in cartridge-based e-cigarettes. Methods. We analyzed 5 cross-sectional waves of the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project Youth Tobacco and Vaping Surveys, conducted online with youths aged 16 to 19 years in the United States, Canada, and England, for differences in usual e-cigarette flavor, device, and brand reported by past-30-day vapers (n = 9512) before (2017, 2018, 2019), during (February 2020), and after (August 2020) implementation of US flavor restrictions. Results. In August 2020, 78.7% of vapers in the United States reported using a flavor prohibited in cartridges or pods, versus 86.3% in Canada (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.73; 95% CI = 1.25, 1.40) and 79.8% in England (AOR = 1.10; 95% CI = 0.78, 1.55). Disposable e-cigarettes (exempt from flavor restrictions) increased to a greater extent among vapers in the United States (13.2% to 36.8%) versus Canada (7.7% to 14.2%; AOR = 2.01; 95% CI = 1.33, 3.04) and England (10.8% to 16.4%; AOR = 2.33; 95% CI = 1.52, 3.57). Puff Bar (disposable) emerged as the most popular brand in the United States. Conclusions. Usual flavors used by youth vapers in the United States were unchanged after 2020 restrictions on cartridge-based e-cigarettes. Youths used brands and devices exempt from the restrictions. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(7):1014-1024. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.306780).

Evaluation of Statewide Restrictions on Flavored e-Cigarette Sales in the US From 2014 to 2020.

Importance: e-Cigarettes are the most commonly used tobacco product among US youths. Flavors are among the most cited reasons for use of e-cigarettes among youths, and therefore, some states have imposed restrictions on flavored e-cigarette sales. To our knowledge, no study has compared e-cigarette sales between states with statewide flavored e-cigarette restrictions and states without such restrictions while controlling for co-occurring events. Objective: To assess whether implementation of statewide restrictions on flavored e-cigarette sales in Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, and Washington was associated with a reduction in total e-cigarette unit sales from 2014 to 2020. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study with difference-in-differences analysis used e-cigarette retail sales data from Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Washington, which implemented restrictions on flavored e-cigarette sales in October 2019; New York, which implemented these restrictions in May 2020; and 35 states without these restrictions (control states). Sales were summed into 4-week periods from August 24, 2014, to December 27, 2020, for a total of 2988 state-period observations. Main Outcomes and Measures: A difference-in-differences analysis was conducted to compare e-cigarette unit sales in the 4 states with flavor restrictions (before and after implementation) with those in the 35 control states. The model controlled for other population-based policies and emergent events (eg, the COVID-19 pandemic). Data on 4-week e-cigarette unit sales were sorted into 4 flavor categories (tobacco, menthol, mint, and other). Unit sales were standardized to reflect the most common package sizes for each product type. Results: Statewide restrictions on non-tobacco-flavored e-cigarette sales were associated with the following reductions in mean 4-week total e-cigarette sales in intervention states compared with control states from October 2019 to December 2020: 30.65% (95% CI, 24.08%-36.66%) in New York, 31.26% (95% CI, 11.94%-46.34%) in Rhode Island, and 25.01% (95% CI, 18.43%-31.05%) in Washington. In Massachusetts, the comprehensive sales prohibition of all e-cigarette products was associated with a 94.38% (95% CI, 93.37%-95.23%) reduction in 4-week sales compared with control states. Except in Massachusetts, where all sales of flavored e-cigarettes decreased, reductions were found only for non-tobacco-flavored e-cigarette sales in the other states with restrictions. Among control states, mean sales decreased by 28.4% from August 2019 to February 2020 but then increased by 49.9% from February through December 2020. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, statewide restrictions on the sale of flavored e-cigarettes in Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, and Washington were associated with a reduction in total e-cigarette sales. These findings suggest that not all e-cigarette users who purchased non-tobacco-flavored e-cigarettes switched to purchasing tobacco-flavored e-cigarettes after policy implementation.

Defeating JUUL's Effort to Rewrite San Francisco's E-Cigarette Regulations.

In 2019, San Francisco, California, prohibited the sale of electronic cigarettes lacking US Food and Drug Administration authorization. JUUL then promoted a ballot initiative (Proposition C) to replace San Francisco's e-cigarette legislation with legislation JUUL wrote that required future legislation to be approved by the voters. JUUL promoted Proposition C as a way to reduce youth e-cigarette use while allowing adult choice.Health groups argued that JUUL's measure could nullify San Francisco's prohibition on selling flavored tobacco products. Health groups benefitted from having an established campaign network that recently defended the flavor ban. They successfully framed Proposition C as a tobacco industry ploy to undo San Francisco's e-cigarette regulations, particularly the prohibition on selling flavored tobacco products. JUUL ended its campaign on September 30, 2019, and the measure failed on election day, with 82% voting against it.Lessons learned from the campaign include the importance of framing an industry initiative as a threat to local public health lawmaking and the potential for the e-cigarette issue to attract parents as new leaders and engage a powerful constituency to support tobacco control measures.

The Misuse of the Precautionary Principle in Justifying Australia's Ban on the Sale of Nicotine Vaping Products.

In Australia, the precautionary principle has been used to justify an effective sales ban on nicotine vaping products (NVPs) by requiring all NVPs to be approved as medicines. Australia's policy is out of step with other English-speaking countries, which allow the sale of NVPs as consumer products. We provide a brief history of the precautionary principle, discuss guidelines on how it should be used, and examine key documents from Australian policy debates to describe how the precautionary principle has been misapplied in justifying Australian NVP policy. We argue that the precautionary principle has been inappropriately applied to NVP regulation in Australia in that it has: failed to consider the regulation of similar products, imposed regulations that are disproportionate to the level of risk, failed to assess the costs of its regulatory approach, and failed to undertake a cost/benefit analysis of a range of available regulatory options. Australian policy illustrates the risks of regulating nicotine products in isolation rather than considering NVPs as falling on a continuum of harmful nicotine products. Implications: The precautionary principle has been misapplied to NVP regulation in Australia. We recommend that the precautionary principle be used in a way that regulates nicotine products in proportion to their risks.

Vape Shop Owners/Managers' Opinions About FDA Regulation of E-Cigarettes.

INTRODUCTION: In the United States, prominent sources of vaping products are specialty vape shops, which are subject to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation. This study interviewed vape shop owners/managers to assess: (1) reasons for entering into or engaging in vape shop retail; (2) personnel training, particularly with regard to FDA and state regulations; and (3) how existing regulations are perceived and the anticipated impact of future regulation. AIMS AND METHODS: The current study involved phone-based semi-structured interviews of 45 vape shop owners/managers in six metropolitan statistical areas (Atlanta, Boston, Minneapolis, Oklahoma City, San Diego, and Seattle) during Summer 2018 as FDA regulations regarding minimum age verification, bans on product sampling, and health warnings (among others) were first being implemented. RESULTS: Vape shop owners/managers reported: (1) entering the industry with positive intentions for their customers, (2) training their personnel to adhere to regulations and provide good customer service, and (3) significant concerns about the impact of FDA regulations. With regard to the latter, participants reported mistrust of the intentions of the FDA regulations, financial implications of the regulations (particularly for small businesses), difficulty understanding and interpreting the regulations, insufficient evidence to support the regulations, negative impact on customer service, negative impact on product offerings and product innovation/advancement, and negative implications of flavor bans and/or restrictions on sale of flavors. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate the complexities in implementing tobacco regulations, particularly from the perspective of the vape shop industry. Current findings should inform future regulatory actions and efforts to assess compliance with regulations. IMPLICATIONS: Current and impending FDA regulation of vaping products present a critical period for examining regulatory impact on the vape shop industry. Current results indicated that many vape shop owners/managers reporting positive intentions for engaging in the vaping product industry and in training vape shop personnel to adhere to regulations. However, the majority reported concerns about FDA regulation and other state/local regulations that could have negative implications for their industry. Particular concerns include difficulty understanding the regulations due to complexity, vagueness, and changes in language and/or interpretation over time. These issues have implications for compliance that must be addressed.

Exploring the Point-of-Sale Among Vape Shops Across the United States: Audits Integrating a Mystery Shopper Approach.

INTRODUCTION: Vape shops represent prominent, unique retailers, subject to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation in the United States. AIMS AND METHODS: This study assessed compliance of US vape shop retail marketing strategies with new regulations (eg, required age verification, prohibited free samples) and pre-implementation conditions for other regulations (eg, health warning labels on all nicotine products, required disclosures of e-liquid contents). RESULTS: 95.0% of shops displayed minimum-age signage; however, mystery shoppers were asked for age verification at 35.6% upon entry and at 23.4% upon purchase. Although 85.5% of shops had some evidence of implementing FDA health warnings, 29.1% had signage indicating prohibited health claims, 16.3% offered free e-liquid samples, 27.4% had signage with cartoon imagery, and 33.3% were within two blocks of schools. All shops sold open-system devices, 64.8% sold closed-system devices, 68.2% sold their own brand of e-liquids, 42.5% sold e-liquids containing cannabidiol, 83.2% offered price promotions of some kind, and 89.9% had signage for product and price promotions. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicated that most shops complied with some implementation of FDA health warnings and with free sampling bans and minimum-age signage. Other findings indicated concerns related to underage access, health claims, promotional strategies, and cannabidiol product offerings, which call for further FDA and state regulatory/enforcement efforts.

Accessing Vaping Products When Underage: A Qualitative Study of Young Adults in Southern California.

INTRODUCTION: California implemented multiple strategies, such as a Tobacco 21 law and compliance checks, to reduce high rates of youth e-cigarette use. However, the prevalence of use among underage youth and young adults continues rising. Little is known about how underage individuals obtain e-cigarettes. AIMS AND METHODS: We conducted structured qualitative interviews with 61 young adult (18-25 years old) vapers in the Los Angeles, CA area between June 2018 and June 2019. Interviews were comprehensive and designed to elicit information on participants' thoughts, feelings, and experiences related to vaping. We queried participants on where and how they obtained vaping products, and participants discussed their experiences accessing products while under the legal age for sale. Directed content analysis was used to analyze interviews. RESULTS: Four concepts emerged: (1) early experimentation of e-cigarettes with peers often occurred in a school setting, (2) continued use of e-cigarettes commonly obtained through peer sales, (3) inconsistent implementation of age restrictions at in-person retailers, and (4) at online retailers. Participants had peers purchase products on their behalf and frequented in-person and online retailers with few to no age verification processes. Few participants faced challenges when purchasing products from retailers. CONCLUSIONS: The current study's findings offer insight into where and how underage individuals obtain vaping products despite restrictions to prevent them from doing so. Participant accounts of mixed ease of underage purchasing in-person and online suggest retailer education is needed, along with additional research to inform more effective policies to reduce underage access to vaping products. IMPLICATIONS: Despite legal age restrictions, e-cigarettes remain accessible to underage individuals, but specific strategies that underage youth utilize to evade legal age restrictions are largely unknown. We found that participants often accessed vaping products for the first time at school. Sales between peers were common, and participants also reported frequenting in-person retailers that inconsistently enforced age restrictions. Many participants reported little to no age verification online, though some believed online age verification measures were increasingly difficult to surpass. Knowledge of strategies underage youth utilize to access e-cigarettes can inform enforcement efforts.

Clearing the Haze: What Do We Still Need to Learn about Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems?

Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS; i.e., electronic cigarettes, e-cigarettes, vaping devices, vape pens) were introduced to the U.S. market in 2007 as a potential harm reduction alternative for people who smoked combustible cigarettes. Since that time, ENDS popularity grew very quickly, particularly among individuals who smoke cigarettes. However, young people and never smokers also started using ENDS, cohorts for whom these products were not intended. There are now a broad range of devices and e-liquid constituents. ENDS devices vary considerably in their design and generation of potentially toxic chemicals, with higher power devices likely much more hazardous than lower power devices. This landscape may further change after September 9, 2020, when all ENDS manufacturers are required to submit a premarket tobacco product application to the FDA to obtain authorization for marketing. Research has not kept pace with this rapidly changing technology and important questions remain regarding the relative benefits versus risks of ENDS. In light of these challenges, we propose key ENDS research priorities to address these gaps.

Statewide Prevalence of Smoke-Free and Vape-Free Homes, by Tobacco Product Use, Minnesota, 2018.

INTRODUCTION: Securing clean indoor air laws is a major tobacco control accomplishment of the past 15 years. The public quickly adopted and supported such policies both in public and private spaces. Clean indoor air is now threatened by the emergence of e-cigarettes. E-cigarette aerosol contains nicotine, heavy metals, and carcinogens, and the long-term effect of secondhand exposure is unknown. Surveillance is necessary to track voluntary rules on smoking and vaping in the home. METHODS: The Minnesota Adult Tobacco Survey (MATS) is a series of cross-sectional, random-digit-dial telephone surveys on smoking, vaping, and other tobacco-related behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs among Minnesota adults. MATS measured voluntary smoke-free rules in the home in 2014 (N = 9,304) and measured both smoke-free and vape-free home rules in 2018 (N = 6,055). RESULTS: The prevalence of smoke-free home rules among Minnesota adults in 2018 was 91.5% (95% CI, 90.5%-92.5%), up slightly from 89.3% (95% CI, 88.4%-90.2%) in 2014. In comparison, 84.0% (95% CI, 82.7%-85.3%) reported vape-free home rules. Although 70.0% (95% CI, 66.0%-73.0%) of smokers in 2018 reported smoke-free home rules, only 23.3% (95% CI, 15.0%-31.6%) of e-cigarette users reported vape-free home rules. Living with children younger than 18 years significantly increased the odds of having smoke-free and vape-free home rules. CONCLUSION: Although widespread adoption of voluntary smoke-free and vape-free home rules demonstrates a positive change in social norms, most e-cigarette users allow vaping in their homes, including those who live with children younger than 18. Tracking voluntary smoke-free and vape-free home rules and efforts to encourage them are important to improve the public's health.

Retail violations of sales to minors on e-cigarettes and cigars.

OBJECTIVES: The finalized 'Deeming Rule' extended the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority to regulate e-cigarettes, cigars, and other newly deemed tobacco products. We seek to assess the neighborhood characteristics associated with retail violations of sales to minors (RVSM) by tobacco product. STUDY DESIGN: We collected national inspection data on tobacco retailers during August 8, 2016, and May 31, 2018, from the FDA compliance check database. METHODS: A web scraping tool was applied to text mine the FDA decision letters and extract information on the tobacco product involved in RVSM. Separate logistic regression models with random effects were performed to examine the association between zip code-level neighborhood characteristics and RVSM by tobacco product. RESULTS: Of 268,317 minor-involved compliance inspections, 35,403 (13.2%) were identified as RVSM. Among 23,352 warning letters included in the final analysis, e-cigarettes, cigars, cigarettes, and smokeless tobacco accounted for 20.0% (n = 4673), 40.4% (9439), 35.6% (8303), and 4.0% (937) of RVSM, respectively. Flavored tobacco products were abundant among underage sales. For e-cigarettes, RVSM were more likely to occur in zip codes with a larger proportion of youth population aged 10-17 years (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.17 [1.02-1.34]). A larger proportion of African Americans was associated with a higher risk of RVSM for cigars (AOR = 1.09 [1.07-1.11]) but a lower risk of RVSM for e-cigarettes (AOR = 0.90 [0.87-0.93]). CONCLUSIONS: Retail violations of underage sales for cigars and e-cigarettes are prevalent and neighborhood characteristics associated with violations differ by tobacco product. Continued inspections with tailored strategies to reduce RVSM of all tobacco products are needed.

Electronic cigarettes and e-cigarette/vaping product use associated lung injury (EVALI).

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are noncombustible tobacco products that have been promoted as safer alternatives to conventional cigarettes and beneficial tools for smoking cessation. However, e-cigarettes have been shown to produce aerosols with high concentrations of propylene glycol, glycerol, volatile organic compounds, and free radicals, which can lead to lung damage. Furthermore, e-cigarettes can deliver nicotine at concentrations higher than traditional combustibles, making them highly addictive. As delivery devices became smaller, less expensive, and refillable, the use of e-cigarettes dramatically increased, especially among adolescents and young adults in the United States. This rise in popularity of noncombustible products led to an outbreak of e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) in the fall of 2019. In this article, we review the history of e-cigarettes and its prevalence among American youth, the EVALI outbreak and clinical presentation of EVALI patients, and recent legislative efforts to regulate e-cigarette use.

Compliance With FDA Nicotine Warning Statement Provisions in E-liquid Promotion Posts on Instagram.

INTRODUCTION: Effective August 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) required that nicotine addiction warnings be placed on ads for nicotine containing e-liquids. As per FDA comments, this provision pertains to visual ads communicated via social media, raising questions about compliance within the large e-liquid promotion community on Instagram. AIMS AND METHODS: This study examines use of warnings on promotional Instagram posts before and after provisions took effect on August 10, 2018. Netlytic was used to gather a sample of 500 promotional #eliquid and #ejuice posts from: May 2017, October 2017, March 2018, August 2018, and September 2018. The 1500 prewarning and 1000 postwarning posts were coded using content analysis. Changes in products and marketing strategies were also considered. Post volume was tracked monthly between May 2017 and February 2020. RESULTS: In the prewarning period, nicotine warning statements were absent on all posts. Following August 10, 2018, FDA compliant warnings were present on 13.6% of posts. Among US-based posts, 36.4% used the warnings, with warnings more common on posts made by e-liquid brands (52.3%) and posts promoting e-liquids with nicotine (40.0%). Promotional strategies and products did not significantly change. The share of posts made by US Instagram users decreased by 11%, although total post volume continued to grow. CONCLUSIONS: Many e-liquid promotion posts on Instagram remained noncompliant with nicotine warnings after FDA provisions took effect. The large volume of international users also limited the impact of FDA-mandated warnings on the social media environment. IMPLICATIONS: Further guidance and enforcement are needed to ensure that US e-liquid marketers on visual social media platforms adhere to current provisions, particularly for individual social media users who are sponsored by industry. The inherently global span of social media also indicates the importance of a shared approach to marketing regulations. Further work is needed to assess enforcement strategies viable for the social media environment.

Vaping epidemic: challenges and opportunities.

This article is a timely, concise, and unbiased analysis of the national and international responses to the spate of vaping-related lung illnesses and deaths and the epidemic of teen vaping. In view of the recent outbreak of vaping-related lung injuries and deaths in the USA and the epidemic of teen vaping, the viewpoints and recommendations presented in this article have immediate policy implications in the USA and around the world. The perspectives and recommendations are expected to assist medical communities, public health professionals, and regulatory authorities in addressing complex issues related to vaping regulation, which are intertwined with public health, economy, and politics of nations, worldwide.