Carla J Berg1, Dianne C Barker2, Christina Meyers3, Amber Weber3, Amy J Park3, Akilah Patterson3, Sarah Dorvil3, Robert T Fairman4, Jidong Huang4, Steve Sussman5, Melvin D Livingston1, Theodore L Wagener6, Rashelle B Hayes7, Kim Pulvers8, Betelihem Getachew3, Nina Schleicher9, Lisa Henriksen9. 1. Department of Prevention and Community Health, Milken Institute School of Public Health; George Washington Cancer Center, George Washington University, Washington, DC. 2. Barker Bi-Coastal Health Consultants, Inc., Newport, RI. 3. Department of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. 4. Department of Health Policy and Behavioral Sciences, School of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA. 5. Departments of Preventive Medicine and Psychology, and School of Social Work, University of Southern California, Alhambra, CA. 6. Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center and Division of Medical Oncology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. 7. Department of Psychiatry, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA. 8. Department of Psychology, California State University San Marcos, San Marcos, CA. 9. Stanford Prevention Research Center, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Vape shops represent prominent, unique retailers, subject to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation in the United States. AIMS AND METHODS: This study assessed compliance of US vape shop retail marketing strategies with new regulations (eg, required age verification, prohibited free samples) and pre-implementation conditions for other regulations (eg, health warning labels on all nicotine products, required disclosures of e-liquid contents). RESULTS: 95.0% of shops displayed minimum-age signage; however, mystery shoppers were asked for age verification at 35.6% upon entry and at 23.4% upon purchase. Although 85.5% of shops had some evidence of implementing FDA health warnings, 29.1% had signage indicating prohibited health claims, 16.3% offered free e-liquid samples, 27.4% had signage with cartoon imagery, and 33.3% were within two blocks of schools. All shops sold open-system devices, 64.8% sold closed-system devices, 68.2% sold their own brand of e-liquids, 42.5% sold e-liquids containing cannabidiol, 83.2% offered price promotions of some kind, and 89.9% had signage for product and price promotions. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicated that most shops complied with some implementation of FDA health warnings and with free sampling bans and minimum-age signage. Other findings indicated concerns related to underage access, health claims, promotional strategies, and cannabidiol product offerings, which call for further FDA and state regulatory/enforcement efforts.
INTRODUCTION: Vape shops represent prominent, unique retailers, subject to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation in the United States. AIMS AND METHODS: This study assessed compliance of US vape shop retail marketing strategies with new regulations (eg, required age verification, prohibited free samples) and pre-implementation conditions for other regulations (eg, health warning labels on all nicotine products, required disclosures of e-liquid contents). RESULTS: 95.0% of shops displayed minimum-age signage; however, mystery shoppers were asked for age verification at 35.6% upon entry and at 23.4% upon purchase. Although 85.5% of shops had some evidence of implementing FDA health warnings, 29.1% had signage indicating prohibited health claims, 16.3% offered free e-liquid samples, 27.4% had signage with cartoon imagery, and 33.3% were within two blocks of schools. All shops sold open-system devices, 64.8% sold closed-system devices, 68.2% sold their own brand of e-liquids, 42.5% sold e-liquids containing cannabidiol, 83.2% offered price promotions of some kind, and 89.9% had signage for product and price promotions. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicated that most shops complied with some implementation of FDA health warnings and with free sampling bans and minimum-age signage. Other findings indicated concerns related to underage access, health claims, promotional strategies, and cannabidiol product offerings, which call for further FDA and state regulatory/enforcement efforts.
Authors: Muhannad Malas; Jan van der Tempel; Robert Schwartz; Alexa Minichiello; Clayton Lightfoot; Aliya Noormohamed; Jaklyn Andrews; Laurie Zawertailo; Roberta Ferrence Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2016-04-25 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Steve Sussman; Lourdes Baezconde-Garbanati; Robert Garcia; Dianne C Barker; Jonathan M Samet; Adam Leventhal; Jennifer B Unger Journal: Eval Health Prof Date: 2015-05-11 Impact factor: 2.651
Authors: Lisa Henriksen; Kurt M Ribisl; Todd Rogers; Sarah Moreland-Russell; Dianne M Barker; Nikie Sarris Esquivel; Brett Loomis; Erin Crew; Todd Combs Journal: Tob Control Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Carla J Berg; Dianne C Barker; Steve Sussman; Betelihem Getachew; Kim Pulvers; Theodore L Wagener; Rashelle B Hayes; Lisa Henriksen Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2021-02-16 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Yael Bar-Zeev; Carla J Berg; Amal Khayat; Katelyn F Romm; Chritina N Wysota; Lorien C Abroms; Daniel Elbaz; Hagai Levine Journal: Tob Control Date: 2022-02-09 Impact factor: 6.953
Authors: Zongshuan Duan; Katelyn F Romm; Lisa Henriksen; Nina C Schleicher; Trent O Johnson; Theodore L Wagener; Steven Y Sussman; Barbara A Schillo; Jidong Huang; Carla J Berg Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-24 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Carla J Berg; Albert Melena; Friedner D Wittman; Tomas Robles; Lisa Henriksen Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-12 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Eric C Leas; Natalie Moy; Sara B McMenamin; Yuyan Shi; Tarik Benmarhnia; Matthew D Stone; Dennis R Trinidad; Martha White Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-22 Impact factor: 3.390