Search

Objectives: Researchers have identified associations between neighborhood-level factors (eg, income level, tobacco retailer density) and smoking behavior, but few studies have assessed these factors in urban environments. We explored the effect of tobacco retailer density, neighborhood poverty, and housing type (multiunit and public) on smoking in a large urban environment (New York City).Methods: We used data on smoking prevalence and individual sociodemographic characteristics from the 2011-2013 New York City Community Health Survey, data on tobacco retailers from the 2012 New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, data on neighborhood sociodemographic characteristics and population density from the 2009-2013 American Community Survey, and data on multiunit and public housing from the 2012 New York City Primary Land Use Tax Lot Output data set. We used aggregate neighborhood-level variables and ordinary least squares regression, geographic weighted regression, and multilevel models to assess the effects of tobacco retailer density and neighborhood poverty on smoking prevalence, adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics (age, sex, race/ethnicity, and education) and neighborhood population density. We also assessed interactions between tobacco retailer density and poverty and each housing type on smoking.Results: Neighborhood poverty positively and significantly modified the association between tobacco retailer density and prevalence of neighborhood smoking (β= 0.003, P= .01) when we controlled for population density, sociodemographic characteristics, and types of housing. Neighborhood poverty was positively associated with the prevalence of individual smoking (β= 0.0099, P< .001) when we adjusted for population density, sociodemographic characteristics, and type of housing.Conclusion: More research is needed to determine all the environmental factors associated with smoking prevalence in a densely populated urban environment.

BackgroundYouth who experiment with tobacco often start with flavoured products. In New York City (NYC), local law restricts sales of all tobacco products with ‘characterising flavours’ except for ‘tobacco, menthol, mint and wintergreen’. Enforcement is based on packaging: explicit use of a flavour name (eg, ‘strawberry’) or image depicting a flavour (eg, a fruit) is presumptive evidence that a product is flavoured and therefore prohibited. However, a tobacco product may contain significant levels of added flavour chemicals even when the label does not explicitly use a flavour name.MethodsSixteen tobacco products were purchased within NYC in 2015 that did not have explicit flavour names, along with three with flavour names. These were analysed for 92 known flavour chemicals plus triacetin by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry.Results14 of the 16 products had total determined flavour chemical levels that were higher (>0.3 mg/g) than in previously studied flavour-labelled products and of a chemical profile indicating added flavour chemicals.ConclusionsThe results suggest that the tobacco industry has responded to sales restrictions by renaming flavoured products to avoid explicitly identifying them as flavoured. While chemical analysis is the most precise means of identifying flavours in tobacco products, federal tobacco laws pre-empt localities from basing regulations on that approach, limiting enforcement options. If the Food and Drug Administration would mandate that all tobacco products must indicate when flavourings are present above a specific level, local jurisdictions could enforce their sales restrictions. A level of 0.1 mg/g for total added flavour chemicals is suggested here as a relevant reference value for regulating added flavour chemicals in tobacco products.

IntroductionThe availability of flavoured tobacco products is associated with increased initiation and youth smoking. New York City prohibited all sales of flavoured cigars, cigarillos, little cigars, chew, snuff, snus, tobacco, pipe tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and dissolvables, excluding menthol, in October 2009; enforcement began in November 2010. This paper describes the sales ban evaluation.MethodsData on retail tobacco sales of cigars, smokeless and other tobacco products such as pipe tobacco and roll-your-own, were analysed using interrupted time series methods, estimating changes in flavoured and non-flavoured tobacco product inflation-adjusted dollar sales overall, and by product type. Changes in ever use of flavoured tobacco products, any tobacco product use, and smoking prevalence among adolescents were estimated using multivariable logistic regression.ResultsSales of flavoured tobacco products declined overall (87%; p<0.001), and for flavoured cigars (86%; p<0.001) and flavoured pipe and roll-your-own (91%; p<0.001) following ban enforcement, while non-flavoured sales increased for cigars (5%; p=0.003) and pipe and roll-your-own (4%, p=0.030). In adjusted models, teens in 2013 had 37% lower odds of ever trying flavoured tobacco products (p<0.001), 28% lower odds of using any type of tobacco product (p=0.025), and a non-significant change in current smoking prevalence (p=0.114) compared with teens in 2010.ConclusionsFlavoured tobacco product sales and odds of ever using flavoured tobacco products or using any tobacco products among teens declined significantly after ban enforcement began. Collectively these findings demonstrate significant evidence that the flavoured tobacco products sales ban was successful in New York City, and could succeed elsewhere.