Search

INTRODUCTION E-cigarette use is most prevalent among adolescents and young adults - and there are often misperceptions about product risk. The purpose of this study was to determine what nicotine information is provided on e-cigarette brand websites. METHODS Based on national and local surveys, we identified 44 e-cigarette brands commonly used in the US by adolescents and young adults. For each of these brands, their associated websites were analyzed for disclosed nicotine information. Specifically, for each brand's website, we coded whether there was information on nicotine concentration (recorded if a numerical value was provided such as '5% nicotine'), nicotine form (free-base, nicotine salts, or not stated), and nicotine type (tobacco-derived, synthetically derived, or not stated). Coding allowed for both lay (e.g. 'nic salts') as well as scientific (e.g. 'isomers') terms. RESULTS Of the 44 brands examined, all provided basic information on nicotine concentration (e.g. '5% nicotine'). However, 23% of brands did not disclose information on nicotine form (i.e. nicotine salt vs free-base), and 66% of brands did not disclose information on nicotine type (i.e. synthetic vs tobacco-derived). CONCLUSIONS Overall, these results suggest that the e-cigarette industry is not fully informing its consumers about the nicotine in their products. Given that nicotine form and type have implications for e-cigarette addiction potential, these findings highlight a public health concern. There is a need for more comprehensive national regulations for mandating product constituents and emissions disclosures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Nationwide implementation of Tobacco 21 (raising the legal sales age for all tobacco products to 21) is occurring against the backdrop of an electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) epidemic among young people, which makes Tobacco 21 evaluation difficult. To address this issue, we examined young adult use of e-cigarettes separately from use of other tobacco products. Our objective was to determine whether use changed after Tobacco 21 implementation and whether those changes differed by product. Methods: In Columbus, Ohio, which began enforcing Tobacco 21 in 2017, we surveyed incoming first-year undergraduates at a large, public university in 2016 (Cohort 1; n = 529) and re-contacted them in 2018. We surveyed a new sample of incoming first-year students in 2018 (Cohort 2; n = 611). Survey items assessed tobacco use, sources for obtaining tobacco, and attitudes surrounding Tobacco 21. Results: Both cross-sectional (Cohort 1 vs Cohort 2) and prospective (pre–post Tobacco 21 in Cohort 1) analyses indicated a slight decline in most tobacco use from 2016 to 2018, but e-cigarette use more than doubled during the same period. Students enrolled throughout the transition to Tobacco 21 (Cohort 1) perceived little effect of Tobacco 21 on peer use. The largest proportions (35.3%-43.5%) of combustible tobacco were obtained outside Columbus; 61.8% of e-cigarette users reported obtaining e-cigarettes through borrowing. Conclusions: Tobacco 21 was associated with reductions in combustible and smokeless tobacco use, but its impact was not sufficient to curb the surge in e-cigarette use. Tobacco 21 should be contextualized as part of a broader network of tobacco control efforts, including additional youth-access regulations, that may be needed to address e-cigarette use among young people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Competing Interests: Disclosures: The authors have no relevant financial disclosures or conflicts of interest.