Cheaper tobacco product prices at US Air Force Bases compared with surrounding community areas, 2019

2021 ◽  
pp. tobaccocontrol-2021-056984
Author(s):  
Amanda Y Kong ◽  
Shelley D Golden ◽  
Kurt M Ribisl ◽  
Rebecca A Krukowski ◽  
Sara M Vandegrift ◽  
...  

IntroductionIn March 2017, the US Department of Defense (DoD) implemented a policy requiring all military stores to set tobacco prices equal to ‘prevailing prices’ in the ‘local community’ adjusted for state and local taxes. We compared tobacco product prices in a sample of retailers located on five Air Force Bases (AFBs) in Texas and Mississippi with those sold in nearby off-base stores.MethodsWe constructed a list of on-base and off-base tobacco retailers. Off-base retailers included stores that were located within a 1.5-mile road network service area from main AFB gates. Between July and September 2019, a trained auditor visited 23 on-base and 50 off-base retailers to confirm tobacco product sales, and documented the price of cigarettes and Copenhagen smokeless tobacco. For each area, the median price for each product, as well as the difference in median prices by on-base versus off-base status, was calculated.ResultsThe median price of cigarettes and smokeless products was cheaper at on-base retailers. All products were cheaper at on-base stores in Fort Sam Houston and Lackland AFB. Similarly, all products were cheaper in on-base stores at Keesler AFB, with the exception of Marlboro Red packs ($0.22 more), and at Sheppard AFB with the exception of cheapest cigarette cartons ($6.26 more).ConclusionDespite the implementation of the new DoD policy, tobacco products are cheaper in on-base retailers compared with off-base retailers. Refining of the definitions used and improved compliance with the new DoD policy are needed.

1985 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 447-465
Author(s):  
EDWARD M. GRAMLICH

2021 ◽  
pp. tobaccocontrol-2020-056316
Author(s):  
Lauren Kass Lempert ◽  
Stella Bialous ◽  
Stanton Glantz

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued orders in July 2020 authorising Philip Morris Products S.A. to market its heated tobacco product (HTP) IQOS inside the USA with claims that it reduces exposure to some dangerous substances. FDA’s ‘reduced-exposure’ orders explicitly prohibit the marketing of IQOS with claims that IQOS will reduce harm or the risk of tobacco-related diseases. Under US law, FDA’s IQOS orders are problematic because FDA disregarded valid scientific evidence that IQOS increases exposure to other dangerous toxins and that Philip Morris Products S.A. failed to demonstrate that consumers understand the difference between reduced-exposure and reduced-harm claims. Unfortunately, both ‘reduced-exposure’ and ‘reduced-harm’ are classified as ‘modified risk tobacco products’ under US law. Exploiting this confusion, Philip Morris International used the FDA decision as the basis for marketing and public relations campaigns outside the USA to press governments to reverse policies that ban or regulate the sales and marketing of HTPs, including IQOS. Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control should reject tobacco companies’ unsubstantiated explicit or implied claims of reduced harm associated with HTPs and resist Philip Morris International’s and other companies’ calls to relax HTP regulations based on the FDA’s actions. Instead, parties should adopt policies aligned with the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control when dealing with HTPs and other novel tobacco products.


2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn E. Myhre ◽  
Bryant J. Webber ◽  
Thomas L. Cropper ◽  
Juste N. Tchandja ◽  
Dale M. Ahrendt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (December) ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Melissa Little ◽  
Xin-Qun Wang ◽  
Margaret Fahey ◽  
Kara Wiseman ◽  
Kinsey Pebley ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document