4.5 Article

Flavor Capsule Variants' Performance in a Dark Market: Implications for Standardized Packaging

Journal

NICOTINE & TOBACCO RESEARCH
Volume 22, Issue 5, Pages 853-856

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ntr/nty158

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: By increasing excise taxes, eliminating tobacco marketing, and requiring standardized (plain) packaging of tobacco products, governments internationally have reduced smoking's allure. Yet product innovations, such as flavor capsule variants (FCVs), remain unregulated and may appeal to non-smokers. We examined the growth of FCVs in a country with a progressive policy environment. Methods: Each year, New Zealand tobacco companies must provide details of the number of cigarette sticks released for each brand and variant to the Ministry of Health. We used this information to analyze FCVs' performance for British American Tobacco (BAT) and Philip Morris International (PMI), which account for a large proportion of New Zealand tobacco sales. We report the quantity released of each variant and share of parent brand portfolio, and examine growth patterns within the premium, everyday, and value market subsections. Results: BAT introduced FCVs in 2012 and by 2014 offered FCVs in all market subsections; PMI introduced a Marlboro FCV in 2014. FCVs grew rapidly relative to unflavored variants and, by 2017, represented nearly 10% of BAT's product portfolio and more than 3% of PMI's product portfolio. By 2017, FCVs accounted for more than a third of the Dunhill sticks released, 14% of Holiday, and 17% of Pall Mall. Conclusions: FCVs' rapid growth may have reduced declines in the numbers of sticks released. Policy makers should disallow FCV innovations, which offer no health benefits to smokers and may instead attract non-smokers to smoking. Where timely, these regulations could be incorporated into standardized packaging policies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available