Flavour spectrum of the Puff family of disposable e-cigarettes.

BACKGROUND: In January 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration prohibited the sale of flavours (except for menthol and tobacco) in prefilled pod devices such as JUUL to decrease youth vaping. Excluded from the prohibition were disposable devices. OBJECTIVES: To determine the scope and scale of flavours marketed by Puff Bar, a leading disposable brand, and related products. METHODS: Disposable e-cigarette flavours were identified via online searches encompassing vendor websites, wholesale distributors, manufacturers (eg, made-in-china.com), and social media channel, Instagram, between June and August 2020. RESULTS: The 'Puff' brand name and iconic cloud logo appear on a variety of products of differing sizes and nicotine e-liquid volumes. Among Puff Bar and its copycats (Puff-a-Likes), 139 flavours were identified. Fruit flavours predominated comprising 82.2% of the flavour varieties (fruit 50%, fruit and menthol/mint 23.6%, and fruity drinks 8.6%). A prevalent new flavour category which combines fruit with menthol/mint (Ice) was offered in 33 varieties such as Lychee Ice, Lush Ice and Banana Ice. Disposable e-cigarette brands are undertaking measures to escape tobacco regulation (eg, non-tobacco-sourced nicotine) and flavour limitations via post-market flavour additions to unflavoured nicotine e-liquid. CONCLUSIONS: The proliferation of flavoured disposable e-cigarette products, many of which are designed to emulate popular pod devices, illustrates that narrowly limited flavour regulations covering only a single category are destined to fail. To be effective in youth protection, flavour regulations need to apply to all recreational nicotine-containing products and need to include measures to counter post-market flavour addition.

Inside the adolescent voice: A qualitative analysis of the appeal of different tobacco products.

INTRODUCTION: While cigarette use has decreased, adolescents' overall use of tobacco (e.g. e-cigarettes, cigars, and hookah) has increased. The purpose of this qualitative study is to highlight the decision-making process of adolescents to use certain products over others and why certain tobacco products appeal to them. METHODS: Twenty-five participants were recruited from a larger study surveying adolescents' perceptions and tobacco use (772 high school students). The participants were involved in one-on-one semi-structured phone interviews on the appeal of different tobacco products. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed by identifying relevant codes and themes. RESULTS: Participants for this study had a mean age of 16.4 (SD=1.2) years; over half (14/25) were female. Three major themes emerged from the interviews: 1) social context and circumstances to use, including using and sharing with peers, and reducing boredom; 2) importance of flavors, smell, taste, smoke tricks, and accessibility of products; and 3) misperceptions and misinformation of product risks. CONCLUSIONS: The findings that emerged showed why participants favored certain tobacco products, especially e-cigarettes, over others. The results support areas for future research and practice, and inform how interventions can better address the appeal of different tobacco products to ultimately prevent adolescent use.

Promoting Tobacco Use Among Students: The U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company College Marketing Program.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: From the 1970s-1990s the U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company (USST) conducted aggressive campaigns to solicit college students to buy their smokeless tobacco (ST) products. The scope, scale, methods, and impact of this youth marketing campaign have yet to be analyzed in the academic literature. STUDY DESIGN: Historical research study. METHODS: Internal industry documents describing the USST campaigns were obtained via the University of California, San Francisco's repository of tobacco company records. Marketing materials were obtained from Stanford University's Research Into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising (SRITA) collection of 657 USST advertisements. RESULTS: USST's College Marketing Program (1978-mid 1980s) sponsored events in some 350 campuses and hired student representatives in at least 175 colleges and universities across America. College representatives were trained to provide free samples to fellow students. Over a typical school year approximately a quarter million Happy Days, Skoal, and Skoal Bandits samples were handed out to undergraduates. USST paid their student representatives well and offered them a variety of incentives based upon sales growth. During the 1990s, USST's Skoal Music program engaged students on campuses and at "spring break" venues such as Daytona Beach. CONCLUSIONS: Targeting of college students on campus was a common tobacco industry practice between the 1940s and early 1960s. From the 1970s through 1990s USST resurrected the method and pursued it with vigor including: distribution of free samples; sponsored events and concerts, branded intramural teams; visits by sports celebrities; logo wearables and merchandise; contests and incentives; and displays and promotions in stores on and surrounding campuses. Laryngoscope, 131:E1860-E1872, 2021.

Youth's Perceptions of E-cigarette Advertisements with Cessation Claims.

OBJECTIVES: E-cigarettes are not FDA-approved smoking cessation aids. Nevertheless, content analyses have shown that e-cigarette companies make claims about cessation efficacy. Some advertisements are explicit (directly mentioning their product can help smokers quit or stop smoking), while others are implicit (not containing cessation-related language, but implying cessation efficacy through subtle wording and imagery). This is the first study to examine directly how adolescents and young adults (AYAs) perceived these ads, and specifically whether they identify the cessation claims in e-cigarette advertisements. METHODS: 248 AYAs in California viewed 4 e-cigarette advertisements with cessation claims, then selected claims made by each advertisement. Descriptive statistics and multi-level logistic regression models were used to examine the relationship between the type of claims and perception. RESULTS: The claim "helps me quit smoking" was most frequently selected after viewing advertisements with explicit cessation claims, but not after viewing implicit claims. No significant effect of tobacco use and age on claim selection was observed. CONCLUSIONS: E-cigarette manufacturers make claims about cessation efficacy, and AYAs can identify such claims in advertisements, especially the explicit ones. FDA should regulate these advertisements as making therapeutic claims.

Promotion of Vape Tricks on YouTube: Content Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The ability to perform vape tricks (ie, blowing large vapor clouds or shapes like rings) using e-cigarettes appeals to youth. Vape tricks are promoted on social media, but the promotion of vape tricks on social media is not well understood. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine how vape tricks were promoted on YouTube to youth. METHODS: Videos on vape tricks that could be accessed by underage youth were identified. The videos were coded for number of views, likes, dislikes, and content (ie, description of vape tricks, e-cigarette devices used for this purpose, video sponsors [private or industry], brand marketing, and contextual characteristics [eg, model characteristics, music, and profanity]). RESULTS: An analysis of 59 sample videos on vape tricks identified 25 distinct vape tricks. These videos had more likes than dislikes (11 to 1 ratio) and a 32,017 median view count. 48% (28/59) of the videos were posted by industry accounts (27% [16/59] provaping organizations, 15% [9/59] online shops, and 3% [2/59] vape shops) and 53% by private accounts (55% [17/31] private users, 26% [8/31] vape enthusiasts, and 19% [6/31] YouTube influencers); 53% (31/59) of the videos promoted a brand of e-cigarette devices, e-liquids, or online/vape shops, and 99% of the devices used for vape tricks were advanced generation devices. The models in the videos were 80.2% (160/198) male, 51.5% white (102/198), and 61.6% (122/198) aged 18 to 24 years; 85% (50/59) of the videos had electronic dance music and hip hop, and 32% (19/59) had profanity. CONCLUSIONS: Vape trick videos on YouTube, about half of which were industry sponsored, were accessible to youth. Restrictions of e-cigarette marketing on social media, such as YouTube, are needed.

A cigarette pack by any other color: Youth perceptions mostly align with tobacco industry-ascribed meanings.

•Youth interpret cigarette pack-colors in line with industry-intended associations.•Product-packaging restrictions may be circumvented by use of colors that misrepresent product harms.•43.2% of participants attributed extra strong to the black cigarette pack.•35.6% of participants ascribed rich to gold.•31.1% of participants ascribed menthol to green.

Nicotine arms race: JUUL and the high-nicotine product market.

OBJECTIVE: Until recently, purveyors of vaping products marketed e-liquids in the 1%-3% range of nicotine concentration with those at 3% described as 'super high' intended for two packs/day smokers. The goal of this study is to evaluate the degree to which JUUL, with its 5% nicotine and 75% US market share, has spurred other e-liquid vendors to raise the nicotine levels of their products. METHODS: Online search to identify brands offering e-liquid in exceptionally high nicotine concentration (≥5%) and to catalogue the appearance of devices which emulate JUUL. RESULTS: JUUL compatible pods (14) and JUUL knock off devices (39) were identified which offer equal or higher nicotine than JUUL. More than 70 e-liquid brands sell high-nicotine products (≥5%) in bulk (≥30 mL) equivalent to >40 cigarette packs. All of these products come in multiple youth appealing sweet and fruity flavours. It was noted that nicotine percentage is inconsistently reported (eg, JUUL is 5% by weight vs 5.9% by volume). CONCLUSIONS: JUUL has triggered a widespread rush among aerosol purveyors to market e-liquid in unprecedentedly high nicotine concentrations. The rapidly rising popularity of high-nicotine e-liquids threatens to addict a generation of youth. When sold in large quantity bottles (eg, 30 mL) they represent a childhood poisoning risk. Labelling of nicotine concentration in e-liquids needs to be standardised to avoid consumer confusion. The addictiveness and toxicity of these products makes it imperative that regulators act swiftly to enact protective measures.

Promotion of tobacco products on Facebook: policy versus practice.

BACKGROUND: Facebook has a comprehensive set of policies intended to inhibit promotion and sales of tobacco products. Their effectiveness has yet to be studied. METHODS: Leading tobacco brands (388) were identified via Nielsen and Ranker databases and 108 were found to maintain brand-sponsored Facebook pages. Key indicators of alignment with Facebook policy were evaluated. RESULTS: Purchase links (eg, 'shop now' button) on brand-sponsored pages were found for hookah tobaccos (41%), e-cigarettes (74%), smokeless (50%) and cigars (31%). Sales promotions (eg, discount coupons) were present in hookah tobacco (48%), e-cigarette (76%) and cigar (69%) brand-sponsored pages. While conventional cigarettes did not maintain brand-sponsored pages, they were featured in 80% of online tobacco vendors' Facebook pages. The requirement for age gating, to exclude those <18 from viewing tobacco promotion, was absent in hookah tobacco (78%), e-cigarette (62%) and cigar (21%) brand-sponsored pages and for 90% of online tobacco stores which promote leading cigarette brands (eg, Marlboro, Camel). Many of the brand-sponsored tobacco product pages had thousands of 'likes'. CONCLUSIONS: It is laudable that Facebook has policies intended to interdict tobacco promotion throughout its platform. Nevertheless, widespread tobacco promotion and sales were found at variance with the company's policies governing advertising, commerce, page content and under age access. Vetting could be improved by automated screening in partnership with human reviewers.

Youth say ads for flavored e-liquids are for them.

INTRODUCTION: E-cigarettes are the most popular tobacco product among adolescents and young adults ("AYA") and are available in many flavors. The e-cigarette industry argues that flavors are not meant to appeal to youth, yet no study has asked youth what age group they think ads for flavored e-liquids are targeting. We asked AYA which age group they thought ads for flavored e-liquids targeted. METHODS: In 2016 as part of a larger survey, a random sample of 255 youth from across California (62.4% female, mean age = 17.5, SD = 1.7) viewed eight ads, presented in randomized order, for fruit-, dessert-, alcohol-, and coffee-flavored e-liquids and indicated the age group they thought the ads targeted: younger, same age, a little older, or much older than them. Population means and 95% confidence intervals were estimated using bootstrapping (100,000 replicate samples). RESULTS: Most participants (93.7%) indicated the cupcake man flavor ad targeted an audience of people younger than they. Over half felt ads for smoothy (68.2%), cherry (63.9%), vanilla cupcake (58%), and caramel cappuccino (50.4%) targeted their age and for no flavor ad did most feel the primary target age group was much older. CONCLUSIONS: Youth believe ads for flavored e-liquids target individuals about their age, not older adults. Findings support the need to regulate flavored e-liquids and associated ads to reduce youth appeal, which ultimately could reduce youth use of e-cigarettes.

JUUL and other stealth vaporisers: hiding the habit from parents and teachers.

BACKGROUND: Some consumers wish to use vapour devices discreetly so that family members, teachers and coworkers do not recognise their use of nicotine ortetrahydrocannabinol (THC) laden vapour. METHODS: Stealthy vapour devices, as well as low-odour and low-vapour e-juices, were identified via a comprehensive online search between March and June 2018. RESULTS: As evidence of their popularity, a search for 'stealth vaping' on YouTube found 18 200 videos. A variety of cleverly designed vapour devices disguised as USB sticks, pens, remote controls, car fobs, smart phones, sweatshirt drawstrings and even asthma inhalers are on the market. JUUL, which resembles a USB stick, is the archetype of these devices and is especially popular among youth. A search of 'JUUL' on YouTube yielded 148 000 videos with 57 videos having >100 000 views. Searches on 'JUUL at school' (15 500), 'JUUL in class' (6840), 'hiding JUUL in school' (2030) and 'JUUL in school bathroom' (1040) illustrate the product's popularity among students. Some e-juices promote themselves as having low visibility plumes while others profess to be of subtle odour to avoid detection. Numerous techniques have been described to hide the exhaled vapour plume such as by swallowing it or blowing it into one's clothing or into a backpack. CONCLUSIONS: The vaping industry has demonstrated much ingenuity in devising discreet vaporisers and de-emphasising exhaled vapour plumes and their aroma. The US market for vaping devices with stealthy characteristics is anything but inconspicuous, with JUUL alone accounting for 70.5% of sales (July 2018).

Alcohol-flavoured tobacco products.

BACKGROUND: In 2009, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned characterising flavours in cigarettes (except for menthol) due to their appeal to teen starter smokers. In August 2016, the agency deemed all tobacco products to be under its authority and a more comprehensive flavour ban is under consideration. OBJECTIVES: To determine the scope and scale of alcohol-flavoured tobacco products among cigars & cigarillos, hookahs and electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). METHODS: Alcohol-flavoured tobacco products were identified by online search of tobacco purveyors' product lines and via Google search cross-referencing the various tobacco product types versus a list of alcoholic beverage flavours (eg, wine, beer, appletini, margarita). RESULTS: 48 types of alcohol-flavoured tobacco products marketed by 409 tobacco brands were identified. Alcohol flavours included mixed drinks (n=25), spirits (11), liqueurs (7) and wine/beer (5). Sweet and fruity tropical mixed drink flavours were marketed by the most brands: piña colada (96), mojito (66) and margarita (50). Wine flavours were common with 104 brands. Among the tobacco product categories, brands offering alcohol-flavoured e-cigarettes (280) were most numerous, but alcohol-flavoured products were also marketed by cigars & cigarillos (88) and hookah brands (41). Brands by major tobacco companies (eg, Philip Morris, Imperial Tobacco) were well represented among alcohol-flavoured cigars & cigarillos with five companies offering a total of 17 brands. CONCLUSIONS: The widespread availability of alcohol-flavoured tobacco products illustrates the need to regulate characterising flavours on all tobacco products.

Leading-Brand Advertisement of Quitting Smoking Benefits for E-Cigarettes.

OBJECTIVES: To provide regulators and the US Food and Drug Administration with a description of cessation-themed advertising among electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) brands. METHODS: We performed a content analysis of 6 months (January through June 2015) of advertising by e-cigarette brands on their company-sponsored social media channels and blogs as well as user-generated content (testimonials) appearing within brand-sponsored Web sites. An explicit claim of cessation efficacy unambiguously states that e-cigarettes help in quitting smoking, and implicit claims use euphemisms such as "It works." We selected a cohort of 23 leading e-cigarette brands, either by their rank in advertising spending or their prevalence in Internet searches. RESULTS: Among leading e-cigarette brands, 22 of 23 used cessation-themed advertisements. Overall, 23% of the advertisements contained cessation claims, of which 18% were explicit and 82% were implicit. CONCLUSIONS: Among leading e-cigarette advertisers, cessation themes are prevalent with implicit messaging predominating over explicit quit claims. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: These results can help the Food and Drug Administration clarify whether tobacco products should be regulated as drugs with therapeutic purpose or as recreational products.

Prevalence and Framing of Health Disparities in Local Print News: Implications for Multilevel Interventions to Address Cancer Inequalities.

BACKGROUND: Americans remain under-informed about cancer and other health disparities and the social determinants of health (SDH). The news media may be contributing to this knowledge deficit, whether by discussing these issues narrowly or ignoring them altogether. Because local media are particularly important in influencing public opinion and support for public policies, this study examines the prevalence and framing of disparities/SDH in local mainstream and ethnic print news. METHODS: We conducted a multi-method content analysis of local mainstream (English language) and ethnic (Spanish language) print news in two lower income cities in New England with substantial racial/ethnic minority populations. After establishing intercoder reliability (κ = 0.63-0.88), coders reviewed the primary English and Spanish language newspaper in each city, identifying both disparities and non-disparities health stories published between February 2010 and January 2011. RESULTS: Local print news coverage of cancer and other health disparities was rare. Of 650 health stories published across four newspapers during the one-year study period, only 21 (3.2%) discussed disparities/SDH. Although some stories identified causes of and solutions for disparities, these were often framed in individual (e.g., poor dietary habits) rather than social contextual terms (e.g., lack of food availability/affordability). Cancer and other health stories routinely missed opportunities to discuss disparities/SDH. CONCLUSION: Local mainstream and ethnic media may be ideal targets for multilevel interventions designed to address cancer and other health inequalities. IMPACT: By increasing media attention to and framing of health disparities, we may observe important downstream effects on public opinion and support for structural solutions to disparities, particularly at the local level. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(4); 603-12. ©2016 AACR SEE ALL ARTICLES IN THIS CEBP FOCUS SECTION, "MULTILEVEL APPROACHES TO ADDRESSING CANCER HEALTH DISPARITIES".