While the FDA tobacco regulations banned flavored cigarettes as of Sept. 22, 2009, except those with menthol or tobacco flavors, a bill being considered by the Washington state legislature would prohibit the sale of all other tobacco products with a “distinguishable flavor, taste or aroma” other than a true tobacco flavor and also ban the sale of “capsular smokeless tobacco.”

This ban on flavored tobacco products would include flavored cigars, smokeless tobacco, moist snuff and pipe tobacco. The prohibition on the sale of capsular products would outlaw any product containing tobacco “offered in discrete single dose or single use lozenges, pouches, pills, capsules, or other single use units.” According to a fiscal impact calculation made by the Washington Department of Revenue, and assuming the bill was enacted into law, the state of Washington would lose tens of millions of dollars in tobacco excise tax revenue. This lost tobacco tax revenue is estimated at $21,188,000 in 2012-2013, $25,428,000 in 2014-2015 and another $28,034,000 in 2016-2017.
NATO and its members have been working to oppose this legislation because it would also have a significant financial impact on retailers as a result of lost sales. Besides NATO alerts being sent to association members to contact their Washington state lawmakers, NATO retail member Jeff Toole of Tobacco, Beer and More in Spokane, Wash., traveled to the state capitol in Olympia, Wash., and testified against the legislation. In addition, NATO sent a letter to the members of the Washington Senate Labor and Commerce and Consumer Protection informing them that the legislation may violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, because it prohibits the purchase of legal tobacco products from suppliers located in other states.

While the bill has been heard by both the House Health Care and Wellness Committee and the Senate Committee on Labor and Commerce and Consumer Protection, neither committee voted to take action on the legislation. The bill remains in both committees awaiting further action.

State lawmakers will consider a bill to ban the sale of flavored tobacco products to youth. As KUOW’s Ruby de Luna reports, these are products that don’t look like typical cigarettes and are attractive to young people.
Many of the flavored tobacco products are packaged like gum or candy. They appear in bright colors and come in flavors like peach, strawberry or grape.

They melt in the mouth like candy or breath strips and they do contain tobacco. Public health officials want to make it illegal to sell these products to minors because they make it easy for young people to get hooked on tobacco.

In Washington state, youth smoking has not dropped in recent years. It’s estimated that 45 kids start smoking each day. Federal law bans the sale of flavored cigarettes to minors. But the law doesn’t cover these other types of tobacco products. If approved, Washington would join New York City and Maine to make it illegal to sell flavored tobacco products to youth. The bill will go before the House Health Care and Wellness Committee this afternoon. A similar bill has been introduced in the state Senate.

You wouldn’t think peach-flavored cigarillos would cause such a ruckus. Legislation to ban sales of kid-friendly tobacco products inspired fervent testimony from both supporters and opponents at a recent legislative hearing in Olympia. Public-health officials maintained that the brightly colored, flavored products start teens down a dark road to lifetime nicotine addiction.

But critics countered that banning the popular products would bankrupt some convenience stores, slash state revenue and stifle freedom of choice.

Stephen Martin of Altadis USA, a tobacco manufacturer, accused lawmakers of an “irresponsible effort to promote your own personal crusade against tobacco.” He urged them to focus instead on underage drinking. “I challenge you to please cite one instance where a teenager was directly responsible for killing someone after consuming a flavored cigar or pipe tobacco.”

The bill, subject of testimony before the House Health Care & Wellness committee last week, also would give local jurisdictions more control over tobacco sales. A hearing on a similar Senate bill was set for Monday.

Tobacco “gateway”

Dr. David Fleming, director of Public Health — Seattle & King County, said the products — such as Swisher Sweets cigarillos in peach, white grape and strawberry flavors — are essentially a “gateway to long-term tobacco use.”

They are typically sold in convenience stores and neighborhood markets, sometimes displayed in front of the counter along with candy. Though state law says stores can’t sell tobacco to anyone under 18, health authorities say younger teens often manage to buy the products.

The bill would ban outright the sale or distribution of smokable tobacco products that have a “distinguishable flavor or aroma other than tobacco.” It also would ban tobacco or nicotine products that are composed of smokeless tobacco, such as lozenges, pouches, pills or capsules.

Flexibility urged

Local jurisdictions are now prohibited from imposing regulations on tobacco sales that are more restrictive than the state law, which limits them from regulating tobacco retail outlets near schools or creating signs in stores that target the particular tobacco issue in that community, Fleming said.

The bill, which has bipartisan sponsorship, would give local jurisdictions “the room that we need to be flexible and to be innovative,” he told committee members.

Department of Health Secretary Mary Selecky testified that kids often start their nicotine addiction with flavored products. According to a state survey, teen use is on the upswing.

Megan Sullivan, representing a Thurston County youth anti-violence and substance-abuse agency, told lawmakers some tobacco products, including dissolvable tobacco that looks like mints or gum, can be used by teens without parents or teachers knowing.

“Nicotine is as or more addictive than cocaine or heroin,” Sullivan told lawmakers.

The products, including mint-like Camel Orbs, were test-marketed in Portland and currently aren’t available in this state, said James Apa, spokesman for the Seattle-King County health department.

Owners of convenience stores and smoke shops lined up to oppose the bill, warning of lost revenue for them and the state and store closures and layoffs. Some predicted that customers who can’t buy locally will buy on the black market, at tribal stores, online or in other states.

“This bill would basically bankrupt us,” said Jeff Toole, of Spokane, who owns two retail stores with his wife. Like others, Toole urged lawmakers instead to enforce existing laws against selling to minors, even to raise penalties if necessary.

Jeannie Lee, executive director of the Korean American Grocers’ Association based in Federal Way, representing 980 stores in the state, said many store owners work 14 hours a day and are struggling in this economy.

Lee, in an interview, said about 40 percent of a typical store’s sales volume is from tobacco, with perhaps half of that from flavored products.

“Our stores rely on the profit of selling tobacco products,” Lee told committee members at the hearing. “Our members will be devastated by this bill.”

Lee said the impression she got from other speakers is that convenience stores are selling to 11-year-olds, but “they’re not,” she insisted. Store owners are very mindful of complying with state law, she said.

Kelly Camoza, who has owned a convenience store in Kent for nearly four years, spoke as a representative of 400 members of the Washington Association of Neighborhood Stores. The bill, she said, could cause the state to lose millions of dollars in tax revenues — and still wouldn’t keep the products out of the hands of kids, who have been sneaking smokes since long before the advent of flavored products.

Some committee members weren’t convinced a law is needed. Rep. Barbara Bailey, R-Oak Harbor, worried that the bill would create a patchwork of regulations, with people traveling to different towns to get products. “Kids have automobiles these days,” she said.

Rep. Bill Hinkle, R-Cle Elum, said lawmakers shouldn’t continue proposing bills to restrict tobacco while expecting to pay for health-care programs with tobacco-tax revenue. “At what point do we actually say we have done enough?”

Even if using tobacco is a bad idea, “At some point, we have to say, you know what, you can’t stop people from being stupid or arguably, having some fun once in a while,” Hinkle said.

“At some point, we have to say, this is America, and this is freedom. … When will you guys stop coming here every year?”

“When people don’t use tobacco that kills,” shot back Rep. Eileen Cody, D-Seattle, committee chairwoman and a sponsor of the bill.

The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved an ordinance Tuesday that will restrict tobacco sales in unincorporated areas of the county, but delayed enforcement of a provision of the ordinance. The board voted 5-0 to pass the tobacco retailer permit ordinance, which requires retailers that sell tobacco in unincorporated areas to obtain and maintain an annual permit, limits the number of retail stores near schools, and bans the sale of flavored tobacco products.

The ordinance was passed as part of the county’s efforts to combat youth smoking and protect residents from secondhand smoke exposure in public settings.
The tobacco retailer permit ordinance has been the most controversial of three such ordinances passed by the board.
It requires businesses in unincorporated areas to pay a one-time application fee of $340 and an annual permit fee of $425.
Under the ordinance, new retail outlets will be prohibited from selling tobacco if they operate a pharmacy or are located within 1,000 feet of a school or within 500 feet of another tobacco retailer.
Many opponents of the ordinance say the regulations are punitive and discriminatory toward small businesses.
Beverly Swanson was one of several speakers at Tuesday’s meeting who spoke against the ordinance.
“This smells as though it is a tax, though it is called a fee,” Swanson said. “This is not the time to hit small mom-and-pop businesses with a tax.”
Charles Janigian, president of the California Association of Retail Tobacconists, said the county would be overstepping its authority by placing a ban on flavored tobacco.
“It’s definitely not appropriate to ban something that has been legal for over 100 years,” Janigian said. “The county receives millions of dollars a year in revenues. I urge you to reconsider what you’re doing today for the good of business.”
The ordinance will become effective in 60 days, however, Supervisor Don Gage suggested delaying enforcement of the provision prohibiting the sale of flavored tobacco products for an additional 30 days to look at potential impacts on cigar and pipe tobacco products.
Gage said the extra time could be used to clarify the language in the ordinance in regard to the definition of flavored tobacco.
Earlier this month, the board passed a smoking pollution control ordinance, which bans smoking at the Santa Clara County Fairgrounds, outdoor shopping malls, all county parks, in hotels and motels, at retail stores that exclusively sell tobacco and smoking products, and within 30 feet of any outdoor service area, such as a ticket line.
The board also passed a multi-unit residences ordinance, which bans smoking in duplexes, condo and townhouse complexes, and apartment buildings. The ordinance does permit setting up designated smoking areas at least 30 feet away from doors and windows.
The San Jose City Council was considering a similar retail permit measure.

The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution today urging the Food and Drug Administration to ban menthol in cigarettes and flavoring in other tobacco products. In 2009, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act was signed into law, giving the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco products.

The law made the sale of flavored cigarettes illegal because they were considered starter products that get young people addicted to tobacco. The ban, however, exempted menthol-flavored cigarettes.

The FDA is currently reviewing information about menthol cigarettes and deciding whether to ban them as well.

In their resolution, which will be sent to the FDA, the supervisors stated that, like other flavored tobacco products, menthol cigarettes are indeed more appealing to children and have been shown to be starter products.

The resolution also states that tobacco companies have specifically targeted minority populations in their marketing campaigns for menthol cigarettes.

New laws banning shop tobacco displays in Scotland will increase black market trade, an industry survey has claimed. The Tobacco Retailers Alliance study said 56% of shopkeepers believed the move would increase contraband sales. The study by the alliance, which has 26,000 UK members, came after MSPs passed the law in January.

Ministers said the move would break the link between youth smoking and related long-term problems by making tobacco less attractive.

The measure is part of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services Act, which also bans cigarette vending machines and introduces a registration scheme for retailers.

The survey by the Tobacco Retailers Alliance, which strongly opposed the display ban, also claimed 49% of shopkeepers said they are aware of smuggled tobacco being sold in their area, while 38% knew of smugglers supplying under-age smokers.

Continue reading the main story
Related stories

Review of tobacco bans under way
Tobacco ban laws passed by MSPs
The group’s Scottish spokeswoman, Fiona Barrett, said: “It’s through friends or family that the majority of under-age smokers get their tobacco, so if the government made it a crime for people over 18 to buy tobacco to give to those under 18, while at the same time putting more focus on tackling tobacco smuggling, youth smoking rates would be reduced.”

But Sheila Duffy, of anti-smoking group Ash Scotland, said “The tobacco industry has tried to divert attention away from the important health issues at stake by exaggerating fears based on unfounded claims.

“There is no reason to think that adult smokers who currently buy their product legally from responsible retailers will suddenly switch to illegal sources because the product is no longer on display.”

The display ban comes into force next year for large retailers and in 2013 for small shops.

Specialist tobacconists are exempt from the ban, while displays will be permitted in cash and carry and duty-free stores if they are confined to a secluded area.

MSPs have already banned smoking in public places and raised the age for buying cigarettes to 18.

News from: bbc.co.uk

With their enticing cool and minty flavor, menthol cigarettes have emerged as one of the most controversial products made by the tobacco industry. Kids are particularly drawn to them, with nearly 45 percent of smokers aged 12 to 17 using menthol cigarettes, according to a 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Most black teenaged smokers — and 82.7 percent of black adult smokers — favor menthols, the same survey found.

“The manufacturers would have you believe there is not a scintilla of evidence that menthol is no more dangerous than other cigarettes to the individual smoker, but we do not agree,” said Ellen Vargyas, general counsel for the American Legacy Foundation, a smoking prevention and cessation organization in Washington, D.C., founded with funding from the landmark Master Settlement Agreement between the tobacco industry and state governments. “Over 80 percent of African-American smokers smoke menthol, and African-America smokers have the highest rates of lung cancer. We also know African-Americans with lung cancer are more likely to die from lung cancer.”

In addition, the popularity of menthols among younger, newer smokers suggests that maybe the minty taste does encourage people to start, perhaps by masking the harsh taste of regular cigarettes, she added.

“We know the younger you are and the newer the smoker you are, the more likely you are to smoke menthol,” said Vargyas. “There is a very strong correlation between being a teenaged smoker and menthol cigarettes.”

That’s no coincidence, say smoking opponents: The tobacco industry has long targeted youth and minorities for menthol cigarette marketing, even manipulating menthol content in different brands in an effort to recruit new smokers among youth, according to the National Cancer Institute and the Harvard School of Public Health.

The debate over how menthols should be regulated lit up again last month, during the second round of hearings held by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee.

The advisory committee was established by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, signed into law by President Barack Obama in June 2009. The legislation gave the FDA unprecedented power to restrict the marketing of tobacco products.

While the law bans cigarette makers from adding candy or fruit-like flavors such as clove, cinnamon, vanilla, cocoa or strawberry to cigarettes, legislators hedged when it came to menthols, the most popular flavoring by far.

Although menthol was not banned from cigarettes, the law stressed that nothing prevented it from regulating menthol as well. In fact, the act required the FDA advisory committee to consider menthol cigarettes impact on public health — including its use among children and minorities– as its first order of business.

During the first round of hearings in March, the advisory committee sought answers about the addictiveness of menthol cigarettes, whether they are more harmful than regular cigarettes and whether the flavor encourages kids in particular to take up smoking.

Anti-smoking advocates say there is no evidence that menthols — which account for an estimated 33.9 percent of the U.S. cigarette market — are less deadly than any other cigarette. Research from the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, in fact, suggests that they are more addictive, making it harder for smokers to quit, particularly blacks and Latinos.

During the hearings, tobacco industry representatives defended their products, saying menthols are no more harmful than other cigarettes and should not be singled out for a ban.

“We don’t think there is any evidence or even any suggestion that youth would choose not to smoke if menthol products weren’t available,” said Bill True, senior vice president of research and development for Lorillard Tobacco Co., the makers of Newport’s. “Kids don’t smoke because there are menthol cigarettes. Kids smoke for a variety of reasons which are probably quite complex.”

“Cigarettes do pose significant dangers to an individual’s health,” True added. “In dealing with regulating the product, we believe the FDA should be looking at those things that are the most significant.”

On that point, anti-smoking advocates agree. Cigarettes are by their very nature a deadly product, and legislation to sharply regulate their manufacture, sale and marketing can’t come a moment too soon, said Vargyas.

Mitch Zeller, vice president for policy and strategic communications at Pinney Associates in Washington, D.C. and the director of the FDA’s Office of Tobacco Programs during the Clinton Administration, noted that there were some limitations to the family smoking prevention laws reach. While the FDA has far more power over the industry than before, it cannot ban all cigarettes outright, nor can it force cigarette companies to reduce nicotine levels to zero, he said.

However, he said, the legislation requires tobacco companies to disclose comprehensive information about the contents and manufacturing process for tobacco products. The tobacco companies, he added, have been less than forthcoming with their data about the marketing and manufacture of menthols.

“The industry presentation on the issues that matter the most — those related to marketing that influences kids and any issue related to the initiation of smoking — was non-responsive,” Zeller said. “The advisory committee is in need of more information to do its job.”

The FDA advisory committee has nine members and includes physicians, scientists and public health experts; the tobacco industry is represented by three non-voting members. The committee has until March 2011 to report its menthol findings to the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services.

GENEVA, SWITZERLAND – The World Trade Organization (WTO) will issue a ruling on a dispute between Indonesia and the United States over a U.S. ban on clove-flavored cigarettes, Reuters reports. Indonesia alleges the U.S. is abusing health regulations as it bans clove cigarettes while allowing U.S. tobacco manufacturers to continue marketing menthol cigarettes.

In response, the U.S. maintains flavored tobacco attracts young people to smoking, and that the ban applies uniformly to clove cigarettes from all countries.

The WTO’s dispute settlement body agreed to establish a panel to rule on the dispute.

Indonesia said its clove cigarettes have been shut out of the U.S. since September 2009, and that it had been trying to resolve the issue. It said it could not wait for the U.S. to complete its review of menthol cigarettes, which is not expected until March 2011.

The U.S. imported $15.2 million of clove cigarettes, nearly all from Indonesia, in 2008, accounting for less than 0.1 percent of cigarette consumption at the time. Indonesia claims that menthol cigarettes now make up 28 percent of U.S. cigarette consumption.

Source: www.nacsonline.com.

The Tobacco act had forced the stores in Nanaimo to take the small flavored cigars and cigarettes off their display cases. Some retailers put the large flavored cigars in their place, as the law does not cover them. Terry McNabb, owner of the Subway Convenience Store on Departure Bay Road, revealed that it is a misuse of time and money. He revealed that the producers have put in more tobacco in cigars, in order to make them bigger. Also, they removed the filters and put flavors like grape and cherry in them.

McNabb revealed that he was aware that a ban is going to be imposed and, therefore, he had chucked out the stock a month ago.

Employee of Occidental Liquor Store on Selby Street, Jeannie McCormick, said that the flavored cigarillos are being sent back to the Companies and flavored cigars are taking their place.

She said that they were asked to get rid of the cigars with filters.

Gary Holub, a Spokesman with Health Canada disclosed that the law applies to small flavored cigars, flavored blunts and cigarettes. She stated that the law has ordered the store owners to keep this product out of the shelf because they were attracting the youth.

topnews.ae