SHORT REPORT
Retail marketing for chewing tobacco in Los Angeles, California
 
More details
Hide details
1
Tobacco Center of Regulatory Science, Institute for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Research, Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Sabrina L. Smiley   

Tobacco Center of Regulatory Science, Institute for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Research, Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States
Publish date: 2019-03-27
Submission date: 2018-11-25
Final revision date: 2019-02-20
Acceptance date: 2019-02-28
 
Tob. Prev. Cessation 2019;5(March):11
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Retail marketing for chewing tobacco may be different across racial/ethnic neighborhoods, possibly leading to diverging patterns of use and disparate health risks relating to consumption. This study aimed to compare the frequencies of available chewing tobacco, available flavored chewing tobacco, price promotions, and exterior advertisements in tobacco retail stores in Los Angeles, California.

Methods:
In-person observational audits from tobacco retail stores (n=679) located in predominantly non-Hispanic White (n=196), non-Hispanic Black/African American (n=194), Hispanic/Latino (n=189), or Korean American (n=100) neighborhoods were conducted between January 2016 and April 2017.

Results:
There were statistically significant associations (p<0.001) between racial/ ethnic neighborhood and chewing tobacco marketing, where retailers located in non-Hispanic White neighborhoods sold and advertised chewing tobacco and flavored chewing tobacco, used price promotions, and displayed exterior advertisements more frequently than retailers located in African American, Korean American, and Hispanic/Latino neighborhoods.

Conclusions:
Stronger restrictions on chewing tobacco, price promotions and flavored versions could mitigate exposure and access to these products in the retail environment.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none was reported.
FUNDING
This study was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NCI-NIH), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) for the USC Tobacco Center for Regulatory Sciences in Vulnerable Populations (NCI P50CA180905) (Pentz/ Samet, PIs) – Project 2-Maximizing Retailers’ Responsiveness to FDA Regulatory Authority in Minority Communities (Baezconde-Garbanati, Project Leader). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of NCI-NIH, FDA, or USC.
PROVENANCE AND PEER REVIEW
Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
 
REFERENCES (13)
1.
Boffetta P, Hecht S, Gray N, Gupta P, Straif K. Smokeless tobacco and cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9(7):667-675. doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(08)70173-6
 
2.
Warnakulasuriya S, Dietrich T, Bornstein MM, Casals Peidro E, Preshaw PM, Walter C, Wennstrom JL, Bergstrom J. Oral health risks of tobacco use and effects of cessation. Int Dent J. 2010;60(1):7-30.
 
3.
Smokeless Tobacco and Some Tobacco-specific N-Nitrosamines: IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. No. 89. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2007. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/b.... Accessed November 11, 2018.
 
4.
Nelson D, Mowery P, Tomar S, Marcus S, Giovino G, Zhao L. Trends in smokeless tobacco use among adults and adolescents in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2006;96(5):897-905. doi:10.2105/ajph.2004.061580
 
5.
Food and Drug Administration. Regulations restricting the sale and distribution of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco to protect children and adolescents. Final rule. Federal Register. 2010;75:13225-13232.
 
6.
California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/. Accessed May 9, 2018.
 
7.
Henriksen L, Andersen-Rodgers EA, Zhang X, et al. Neighborhood Variation in the Price of Cheap Tobacco Products in California: Results From Healthy Stores for a Healthy Community. Nicotine Tob Res. 2017;19(11):1330-1337. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntx089
 
8.
Baezconde-Garbanati L, Cruz TB, Sussman S, Unger JB, Pentz MA, Samet JM. Maximizing Compliance with Tobacco Policy in Vulnerable Community Retail Environments: A Multicultural Case Study in Community-Based Participatory Research. SAGE Research Methods Cases; 2017.
 
9.
Henriksen L, Ribisl KM, Rogers T, et al. Standardized Tobacco Assessment for Retail Settings (STARS) dissemination and implementation research. Tob Control. 2016;25(Suppl 1):i67-i74. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053076
 
10.
SAS. Version 9.4 of the SAS System for Windows. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc; 2013.
 
11.
Kowitt SD, Meernik C, Baker HM, Osman A, Huang L-L, Goldstein AO. Perceptions and experiences with flavored non-menthol tobacco products: a systematic review of qualitative studies. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14(4):338. doi:10.3390/ijerph14040338
 
12.
Kostygina G, Ling PM. Tobacco industry use of flavourings to promote smokeless tobacco products. Tob Control. 2016;25(Suppl 2):ii40–ii49. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053212
 
13.
U.S Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents.... Accessed November 11, 2018.
 
eISSN:2459-3087