OBJECTIVE: Regulations that reduce nicotine and eliminate menthol in cigarettes have been proposed to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as product alterations that could reduce smoking prevalence in the USA. This study sought to assess the public response to either action. METHODS: A mail survey of a representative sample of 1074 adults was conducted in two major metropolitan areas to determine the level of support for immediate, gradual or no reduction of menthol and nicotine in cigarettes. RESULTS: There was more support for reducing nicotine (79%) than for reducing or removing menthol (59.5%). Most smokers (59.2%; 95% CI 50.7 to 67.2) and 36% of non-smokers (95% CI 31.7 to 40.8) opposed eliminating menthol, but few smokers (23.8%) or non-smokers (20.3%) were opposed to reducing nicotine. Logistic regression showed no significant effect of smoking status on support for reductions in nicotine, but that smokers were significantly less supportive than non-smokers of FDA action on menthol (OR=0.32, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.49). A significant race by smoking status interaction showed that African-American smokers were more supportive of removing menthol than non-African-American smokers. CONCLUSIONS: The greater smoker support for reductions in nicotine than menthol could be due to inaccurate beliefs about the disease risk associated with the two substances (ie, a belief that nicotine is more harmful than menthol), or to greater awareness of the sensory role that menthol plays in smokers' satisfaction. In any case, if FDA goes ahead with regulations to remove menthol, it will be important to develop strategies to reduce smoker resistance. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
OBJECTIVE: Regulations that reduce nicotine and eliminate menthol in cigarettes have been proposed to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as product alterations that could reduce smoking prevalence in the USA. This study sought to assess the public response to either action. METHODS: A mail survey of a representative sample of 1074 adults was conducted in two major metropolitan areas to determine the level of support for immediate, gradual or no reduction of menthol and nicotine in cigarettes. RESULTS: There was more support for reducing nicotine (79%) than for reducing or removing menthol (59.5%). Most smokers (59.2%; 95% CI 50.7 to 67.2) and 36% of non-smokers (95% CI 31.7 to 40.8) opposed eliminating menthol, but few smokers (23.8%) or non-smokers (20.3%) were opposed to reducing nicotine. Logistic regression showed no significant effect of smoking status on support for reductions in nicotine, but that smokers were significantly less supportive than non-smokers of FDA action on menthol (OR=0.32, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.49). A significant race by smoking status interaction showed that African-American smokers were more supportive of removing menthol than non-African-American smokers. CONCLUSIONS: The greater smoker support for reductions in nicotine than menthol could be due to inaccurate beliefs about the disease risk associated with the two substances (ie, a belief that nicotine is more harmful than menthol), or to greater awareness of the sensory role that menthol plays in smokers' satisfaction. In any case, if FDA goes ahead with regulations to remove menthol, it will be important to develop strategies to reduce smoker resistance. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
Entities:
Keywords:
Addiction; Nicotine; Prevention; Public Opinion; Public Policy
Authors: Jonathan P Winickoff; Robert C McMillen; Donna M Vallone; Jennifer L Pearson; Susanne E Tanski; Janelle H Dempsey; Jonathan D Klein Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2011-05-12 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Neal L Benowitz; Katherine M Dains; Sharon M Hall; Susan Stewart; Margaret Wilson; Delia Dempsey; Peyton Jacob Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-02-21 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Brian V Fix; Richard J O'Connor; Geoffrey T Fong; Ron Borland; K M Cummings; Andrew Hyland Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2011-12-16 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Andrea C Johnson; Melissa Mercincavage; Valentina Souprountchouk; Sasha Rogelberg; Anupreet K Sidhu; Cristine D Delnevo; Andrew A Strasser Journal: Tob Control Date: 2021-10-07 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Katherine C Henderson; Emily E Loud; Hue Trong Duong; Reed M Reynolds; Bo Yang; Charity A Ntansah; David L Ashley; James F Thrasher; Lucy Popova Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2022-08-06 Impact factor: 5.825
Authors: Michael Kotlyar; Ryan Shanley; Sheena R Dufresne; Gretchen A Corcoran; Dorothy K Hatsukami Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2022-08-06 Impact factor: 5.825
Authors: Rachel L Denlinger-Apte; Jennifer W Tidey; Joseph S Koopmeiners; Dorothy K Hatsukami; Tracy T Smith; Lauren R Pacek; F Joseph McClernon; Eric C Donny Journal: Tob Control Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Michael Kotlyar; Ryan Shanley; Sheena R Dufresne; Gretchen A Corcoran; Kolawole S Okuyemi; Anne M Mills; Dorothy K Hatsukami Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2021-10-07 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Tracy T Smith; Georges J Nahhas; Ron Borland; Yoo Jin Cho; Janet Chung-Hall; Robert T Fairman; Geoffrey T Fong; Ann McNeill; Lucy Popova; James F Thrasher; K Michael Cummings Journal: Prev Med Date: 2021-05-03 Impact factor: 4.637