Brazilian smokers are ready for the ban on flavour additives in tobacco to be implemented.

Brazil became the first country to approve a national policy to ban all flavour additives in all tobacco leaf products in 2012. However, as of February 2022, the policy remained to be implemented. Cross-sectional data come from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Brazil Wave 3 Survey among adult smokers (N = 1216) in 2016-2017. The majority of smokers supported a ban on menthol (56.0%; 95%CI: 51.7-60.2%) and a ban on all additives (61.7%; 57.5-65.8%), with no significant differences across sociodemographic groups in adjusted logistic regression models. More than half of menthol smokers reported they would either quit or reduce the amount they smoked if menthol cigarettes were banned. Findings suggest that there is support for Brazil's ban on flavour additives, which is a determinant of successful policy implemented. Continued delays will postpone an important measure with demonstrated public health gains.

Website Use and Effects of Online Information About Tobacco Additives Among the Dutch General Population: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: As a legal obligation, the Dutch government publishes online information about tobacco additives to make sure that it is publicly available. Little is known about the influence this website ("tabakinfo") has on visitors and how the website is evaluated by them. OBJECTIVE: This study assesses how visitors use the website and its effect on their knowledge, risk perception, attitude, and smoking behavior. The study will also assess how the website is evaluated by visitors using a sample of the Dutch general population, including smokers and nonsmokers. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted, recruiting participants from an online panel. At baseline, participants (N=672) were asked to fill out an online questionnaire about tobacco additives. Next, participants were randomly allocated to either one of two experimental groups and invited to visit the website providing information about tobacco additives (either with or without a database containing product-specific information) or to a control group that had no access to the website. After 3 months, follow-up measurements took place. RESULTS: At follow-up (n=492), no statistically significant differences were found for knowledge, risk perception, attitude, or smoking behavior between the intervention and control groups. Website visits were positively related to younger participants (B=-0.07, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.01; t11=-2.43, P=.02) and having a low risk perception toward tobacco additives (B=-0.32, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.02; t11=-2.07, P=.04). In comparison, having a lower education (B=-0.67, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.17; t11=-2.65, P=.01) was a significant predictor for making less use of the website. Furthermore, the website was evaluated less positively by smokers compared to nonsmokers (t324=-3.55, P<.001), and males compared to females (t324=-2.21, P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: The website did not change perceptions of tobacco additives or smoking behavior. Further research is necessary to find out how online information can be used to effectively communication about the risks of tobacco additives. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Nederlands Trial Register NTR4620; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=4620 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6oW7w4Gnj).

Review of industry reports on EU priority tobacco additives part A: Main outcomes and conclusions.

The European Union Tobacco Products Directive (EU TPD) mandates enhanced reporting obligations for tobacco manufacturers regarding 15 priority additives. Within the Joint Action on Tobacco Control (JATC), a review panel of independent experts was appointed for the scientific evaluation of the additive reports submitted by a consortium of 12 tobacco manufacturers. As required by the TPD, the reports were evaluated based on their comprehensiveness, methodology and conclusions. In addition, we evaluated the chemical, toxicological, addictive, inhalation facilitating and flavoring properties of the priority additives based on the submitted reports, supplemented by the panel's expert knowledge and some independent literature. The industry concluded that none of the additives is associated with concern. Due to significant methodological limitations, we question the scientific validity of these conclusions and conclude that they are not warranted. Our review demonstrates that many issues regarding toxicity, addictiveness and attractiveness of the additives have not been sufficiently addressed, and therefore concerns remain. For example, menthol facilitates inhalation by activation of the cooling receptor TRPM8. The addition of sorbitol and guar gum leads to a significant increase of aldehydes that may contribute to toxicity and addictiveness. Titanium dioxide particles (aerodynamic diameter <10 µm) are legally classified as carcinogenic when inhaled. For diacetyl no report was provided. Overall, the industry reports were not comprehensive, and the information presented provides an insufficient basis for the regulation of most additives. We, therefore, advise MS to consider alternative approaches such as the precautionary principle.

Review of industry reports on EU priority tobacco additives part B: Methodological limitations.

The Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) defines enhanced reporting obligations applying to 15 priority additives added to cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco. A consortium of 12 international tobacco companies submitted 14 reports that were reviewed by an independent scientific body within the Joint Action on Tobacco Control (JATC). The reports were evaluated in accordance with the TPD with regard to their comprehensiveness, methodology and conclusions. Here we present their significant identified methodological limitations. The toxicological and chemical evaluation in the industry reports was mainly based on comparative testing, which lacks discriminative power for products with high toxicity and variability, like cigarettes. The literature reviews were biased, the comparative chemical studies did not assess previously identified pyrolysis products, the toxicological evaluation did not include the assessment of inhalation toxicity, and pyrolysis products were not assessed in terms of toxicity, including their genotoxic and carcinogenic potential. For both chemistry and toxicity testing, the statistical approach applied to test the difference between test and additive-free control cigarettes resulted in a high chance of false negatives. The clinical study for inhalation facilitation and nicotine uptake had limitations concerning study design and statistical analysis, while addictiveness was not assessed. Finally, the methodology used to assess characterizing flavors was flawed. In conclusion, there are significant limitations in the methodology applied by the industry. Therefore, the provided reports are of insufficient quality and are clearly not suitable to decide whether a priority additive should be banned in tobacco products according to the TPD.

Effective Formats for Communicating Risks from Cigarette Smoke Chemicals.

OBJECTIVE: The US government requires the public display of information about toxic chemicals in cigarettes and smoke by brand in a way that is understandable and not misleading. We sought to identify risk communication formats that meet these goals. METHODS: We conducted 3 online experiments with US adult convenience samples (total N = 1866). Participants viewed a webpage displaying information about chemicals in the smoke of a cigarette brand. Experiment 1 varied the chemicals listed and format for their health effects. Experiments 2 and 3 varied the format of chemical quantities and presence/absence of a visual risk indicator. Outcomes were understandable (increasing knowledge) and not misleading (not reinforcing misperceptions). RESULTS: Information about chemicals and health effects increased knowledge of these topics by ~30% (p < .001) compared to no information. Quantity format and use of a risk indicator generally did not affect knowledge. The proportion of participants misled ranged from 0% to 92%, depending on measure. Findings indicated 52% would use a website to search for safer cigarettes. Risk communication formats did little to reduce being misled. CONCLUSIONS: Some risk communication formats successfully increased knowledge of chemicals and health effects. However, the formats did little to reduce the proportion of people misled.

Activation of the cold-receptor TRPM8 by low levels of menthol in tobacco products.

Activation of the cold-receptor TRPM8 by menthol or other tobacco additives can suppress natural defense reactions such as coughing that usually would become effective as involuntary resistance against the inhalation of fumes. In Europe menthol is only regulated as flavor, but can be used as additive as long as no characteristic mint-like aroma will become noticeable in the end-product tobacco. The question needs to be addressed of whether such comparatively minor contents would be sufficient to trigger a measurable activation of TRPM8. In this study, we have analyzed both the contents of menthol and other natural TRPM8 agonists in tobacco products and developed a bioassay to determine the minimum concentrations of selected agonists to activate the TRPM8 receptor in cultured cells. The data confirm menthol as strongest natural agonist investigated. Based on these experiments and previously published data, we have estimated both the minimum menthol concentrations in cigarette smoke and in tobacco that are expected to trigger measurable physiological effects. According to our assessments, TRPM8 activation is likely to occur when cigarettes contain more than 50 micrograms of menthol. Importantly, menthol contents in cigarettes far below the typical levels that require declaration as "mentholated" would be sufficient to activate sensory receptors.

A test strategy for the assessment of additive attributed toxicity of tobacco products.

The new EU Tobacco Product Directive (TPD) prohibits tobacco products containing additives that are toxic in unburnt form or that increase overall toxicity of the product. This paper proposes a strategy to assess additive attributed toxicity in the context of the TPD. Literature was searched on toxicity testing strategies for regulatory purposes from tobacco industry and governmental institutes. Although mainly traditional in vivo testing strategies have been applied to assess toxicity of unburnt additives and increases in overall toxicity of tobacco products due to additives, in vitro tests combined with toxicogenomics and validated using biomarkers of exposure and disease are most promising in this respect. As such, tests are needed that are sensitive enough to assess additive attributed toxicity above the overall toxicity of tobacco products, which can associate assay outcomes to human risk and exposure. In conclusion, new, sensitive in vitro assays are needed to conclude whether comparable testing allows for assessment of small changes in overall toxicity attributed to additives. A more pragmatic approach for implementation on a short-term is mandated lowering of toxic emission components. Combined with risk assessment, this approach allows assessment of effectiveness of harm reduction strategies, including banning or reducing of additives.