This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
BACKGROUND: The 2020 European Union (EU) menthol cigarette ban increased quitting among pre-ban menthol smokers in the Netherlands, but some reported continuing to smoke menthol cigarettes. This study examined three possible explanations for post-ban menthol use-(i) illicit purchasing, (ii) use of flavour accessories and (iii) use of non-menthol replacement brands marketed for menthol smokers. METHODS: Data were from the ITC Netherlands Cohort Surveys among adult smokers before the menthol ban (Wave 1: February-March 2020, N = 2067) and after the ban (Wave 2: September-November 2020, N = 1752; Wave 3: June-July 2021, N = 1721). Bivariate, logistic regression and generalized estimating equation model analyses were conducted on weighted data. RESULTS: Illicit purchasing remained low from pre-ban (2.4%, 95% CI: 1.8-3.2, Wave 1) to post-ban (1.7%, 1.2-2.5%, Wave 3), with no difference between menthol and non-menthol smokers from Wave 1 to Wave 3. About 4.4% of post-ban menthol smokers last purchased their usual brand outside of the EU and 3.6% from the internet; 42.5% of post-ban menthol smokers and 4.4% of smokers overall reported using flavour accessories, with greater odds among those aged 25-39 years vs. 55+ (aOR = 3.16, P = 0.002). Approximately 70% of post-ban smokers who reported using a menthol brand were actually using a non-menthol replacement brand. CONCLUSIONS: There was no increase in illicit purchasing or of smuggling outside the EU among menthol and non-menthol smokers in the Netherlands 1 year after the EU menthol cigarette ban. Use of flavour accessories and non-menthol replacement brands best explain post-ban menthol use, suggesting the need to ban accessories and ensure industry compliance.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kyriakos et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: