Communities respond to the dangers of flavors in tobacco, other nicotine products

In response to a recent opinion article (Record Bee, March 22), the California Health Collaborative's NorCal 4 Health project would like to offer readers additional information they may wish to consider when weighing the issue of banning flavors (including menthol) of tobacco and vaping products.

Firstly, we have chosen through our democracy to task government with protecting individuals and communities from harmful products and business practices, as is evidenced through various regulating agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Whether it is through warnings, regulations, product recalls or prohibitions, these agencies are here to protect the greater good.

In the case of tobacco, while there has been significant decline in product usage (by approximately 2/3 in the more than 50 years since the first Surgeon General's warning), the use of flavors, including menthol, has been an industry tactic to initiate and retain users of their dangerous products. According to a 2008 study in the American Journal of Public Health, “Tobacco companies manipulate the sensory characteristics of cigarettes, including menthol content, thereby facilitating smoking initiation and nicotine dependence. Menthol brands that have used this strategy have been the most successful in attracting youth and young adult smokers and have grown in popularity.”

In a 2013-14 study, then current flavored (including menthol) tobacco product use was highest in youth (80%, aged 12-17 years); and young adult tobacco users (73%, aged 18-24 years); and lowest in older adult tobacco users aged 65 years or older (29%). Flavor was a primary reason for using a given tobacco product, particularly among youth. Eighty-one percent (81%) of youth and 86% of young adult ever tobacco users reported that their first product was flavored versus 54% of adults aged 25 years or older.

Coupling flavors with advertising efforts, of which there is ample evidence that exposure to tobacco marketing in stores increases tobacco experimentation and use by youth and is more powerful than peer pressure, our young people are at great risk of a lifetime of addiction and illness, eventually leading to death. In 2018, then Surgeon General, Jerome Adams, declared youth vaping an epidemic. Tobacco is not “potentially harmful,” as was stated in the OP ED, but rather tobacco is the only legal consumer product that kills up to half of its users when used exactly as intended by the manufacturer. It is the leading cause of preventable death and disability in the U.S.

While there will be people that resort to illegal means to obtain products, the potential benefits could far outweigh this concern. In a recent report weighing the potential effects of a ban on the sale of flavored tobacco products in California by Tobacconomics, a nonpartisan program of the University of Illinois that is not affiliated with any tobacco manufacturer, the report concluded:

• 27,000 smokers (5.6% of menthol smokers) would quit as a result of the policy.

• 6,300 premature smokingcaused deaths would be avoided.

• Fewer youth initiation into smoking with menthol cigarettes would occur.

• More than $423 million in annual health care cost savings, including $144 million in MediCal savings.

• Net increase of 1,926 jobs and $336.6 million in California economic activity and associated state and local income and sales tax revenues, due to money no longer spent on tobacco products staying inside California and contributing to state economic activity instead of leaving the state to out-out-state tobacco producers.

Additionally, while it is true that nearly 70% of adult African American smokers in California use menthol tobacco products (the highest rate of any group)vii, this speaks to the effectiveness of the intentional use of menthol and marketing tactics as recruitment tools in African American communities.

Since flavor ban legislation is specifically directed toward retail sales and not usage, consumers would not be subjected to interactions with police, including investigative stops and stop-question-frisk cases, as was mentioned in the editorial, but rather tobacco retailers would be held accountable through their existing licensing.

I hope this information is helpful to readers in making a decision around this issue. If you are interested in more information on how communities are responding to the dangers of flavors in tobacco and other nicotine products, you can visit www. FlavorsHookKids.org. If you are interested in learning more about racial disparities and the tobacco industry, visit https://tobaccofreeca.com/we-are-not-profit/.

For information on how our local communities are protecting children from these harmful products, visit www.NorCal4Health. org.