Leah Meza1, Artur Galimov2, Jimi Huh2, Lourdes Baezconde-Garbanati2, Steve Sussman3. 1. Institute for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Research, Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, USA. Electronic address: leahmedi@usc.edu. 2. Institute for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Research, Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, USA. 3. Institute for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Research, Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, USA; Department of Psychology, University of Southern California, USA; School of Social Work, University of Southern California, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The 2016 FDA's "Deeming Rule" prohibited free samples of vaping products. The purpose of this study was to investigate compliance with or adaptation to this newly established FDA policy. METHODS: Vape shops were recruited in Southern California between November 2017 and December 2018. Data collectors interviewed 121 vape shop employees who responded to questions pertaining to the sampling protocol at their shop. Nicotine levels used for sampling were also assessed for consideration of future policy adoption. RESULTS: Only 7.4% of shops were non-compliant to federal sampling rules. The remaining shops either: 1) charged a fee for samples (58.7%); 2) deducted the fee from the final purchase price (5.8%); or 3) eliminated product sampling (28.1%). Of the shops that charged for sampling (including membership fees), 94.4% initiated a minimal cost protocol (≤$1) for sampling. Half (50.0%) the shops that allowed sampling offered nicotine-containing samples. CONCLUSION: There was high compliance (92.6%) to the change in policy among vape shops. However, minimal modification of sampling protocol was observed due in part to the lack of specificity on parameters of compliance, which lessened the potential impact of the policy. To further protect consumers, policymakers must develop unambiguous and comprehensive policies to achieve intended results and true compliance. At minimum, future tobacco product sampling policies should consider standardized pricing; alternatively, total elimination of tobacco product sampling is suggested.
OBJECTIVE: The 2016 FDA's "Deeming Rule" prohibited free samples of vaping products. The purpose of this study was to investigate compliance with or adaptation to this newly established FDA policy. METHODS: Vape shops were recruited in Southern California between November 2017 and December 2018. Data collectors interviewed 121 vape shop employees who responded to questions pertaining to the sampling protocol at their shop. Nicotine levels used for sampling were also assessed for consideration of future policy adoption. RESULTS: Only 7.4% of shops were non-compliant to federal sampling rules. The remaining shops either: 1) charged a fee for samples (58.7%); 2) deducted the fee from the final purchase price (5.8%); or 3) eliminated product sampling (28.1%). Of the shops that charged for sampling (including membership fees), 94.4% initiated a minimal cost protocol (≤$1) for sampling. Half (50.0%) the shops that allowed sampling offered nicotine-containing samples. CONCLUSION: There was high compliance (92.6%) to the change in policy among vape shops. However, minimal modification of sampling protocol was observed due in part to the lack of specificity on parameters of compliance, which lessened the potential impact of the policy. To further protect consumers, policymakers must develop unambiguous and comprehensive policies to achieve intended results and true compliance. At minimum, future tobacco product sampling policies should consider standardized pricing; alternatively, total elimination of tobacco product sampling is suggested.
Authors: Jimi Huh; Leah R Meza; Ellen Galstyan; Artur Galimov; Jennifer B Unger; Lourdes Baezconde-Garbanati; Steve Sussman Journal: Tob Control Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Artur Galimov; Ellen Galstyan; Sheila Yu; Sabrina L Smiley; Leah Meza; Lourdes Baezconde-Garbanati; Jennifer B Unger; Steve Sussman Journal: Tob Regul Sci Date: 2020-05
Authors: Sheila Yu; Patricia Escobedo; Robert Garcia; Tess Boley Cruz; Jennifer B Unger; Lourdes Baezconde-Garbanati; Leah Meza; Steve Sussman Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-02-11 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Teresa W Wang; Linda J Neff; Eunice Park-Lee; Chunfeng Ren; Karen A Cullen; Brian A King Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2020-09-18 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Steve Sussman; David Levy; Kristen Hassmiller Lich; Crystal W Cené; Mimi M Kim; Louise A Rohrbach; Frank J Chaloupka Journal: Tob Induc Dis Date: 2013-01-22 Impact factor: 2.600