Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28400490›Full record

ArticleTobacco control2018

Flavour chemicals in a sample of non-cigarette tobacco products without explicit flavour names sold in New York City in 2015.

Shannon M Farley, Kevin Rj Schroth, Victoria Grimshaw, Wentai Luo, Julia L DeGagne, Peyton A Tierney, Kilsun Kim, James F Pankow

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tobacco control, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Flavored Tobacco and Nicotine Use Among California Adolescents: Preferences by Use Experience and Survey Format Effects.The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Dissonance in Young Adult Cigarillo Users' Categorization of Concept Flavored and Unflavored Products.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  11. A Comprehensive Qualitative Review of Studies Evaluating the Impact of Local US Laws Restricting the Sale of Flavored and Menthol Tobacco Products.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2022
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Shannon M FarleyNYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Bureau of Chronic Disease Prevention and Tobacco Control, Long Island City, New York, USA.
Kevin Rj SchrothNYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Bureau of Chronic Disease Prevention and Tobacco Control, Long Island City, New York, USA.
Victoria GrimshawNYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Bureau of Chronic Disease Prevention and Tobacco Control, Long Island City, New York, USA.
Wentai LuoDepartment of Chemistry, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Julia L DeGagneDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Peyton A TierneyDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Kilsun KimDepartment of Chemistry, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, USA.
James F PankowDepartment of Chemistry, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

CommerceFlavoring AgentsNew York CityTobacco ProductsFlavoring AgentsIllegal tobacco productsPackaging and LabellingPublic policySurveillance and monitoringTobacco industry

Identifiers

PMID28400490
PMCPMC5870443

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.