1Oliveira da Silva AL, Bialous S. Tob Control 2024;0:1–6. doi:10.1136/tc-2024-058622 Global landscape of nicotine and tobacco products additives policies Andre Luiz Oliveira da Silva ‍ ‍ ,1 Stella Bialous ‍ ‍ 2 Original research To cite: Oliveira da Silva AL, Bialous S. Tob Control Epub ahead of print: [please include Day Month Year]. doi:10.1136/tc-2024-058622 ► Additional supplemental material is published online only. To view, please visit the journal online (https://​doi.​org/​ 10.​1136/​tc-​2024-​058622). 1DIRE3/GGTAB/CCTAB, Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (Anvisa), Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil 2School of Nursing and Center for Tobacco Control Research and education, UCSF, San Francisco, California, USA Correspondence to Dr Andre Luiz Oliveira da Silva; ​andre.​sp.​ensp@​gmail.​com Received 26 January 2024 Accepted 13 September 2024 © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. ABSTRACT Introduction  Product design is a key tobacco industry strategy to recruit consumers and hinder cessation. An important technology in tobacco product design is the use of additives including those that create characterising flavours, that is, flavours that are perceived by taste and or smell by the user. To curb youth use, many countries are implementing policies to limit the use of flavours and other additives in tobacco products. This paper reviews the global landscape of tobacco additives policies including those focusing only on flavouring additives, updating a previous review. Methods  We gathered additives policy data from available online sources of tobacco control policies including parties’ reports to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (where WHO refers to World Health Organization), the website Tobacco Control Laws, government websites, searches with the Google search engine and consultations with the WHO to ensure comprehensiveness of the assessment. The policies were classified according to their objective and characteristics: Labelling regulations, sales bans and tobacco product design regulations. We classified and organised the regulations according to their stated intent. Results  We found that 62 countries had tobacco products’ additives-related regulations at the regional, national or subnational levels. Most of these regulations focused on flavouring additives especially bans on the selling, importing and manufacturing tobacco products with characterising flavours. Conclusions  The data demonstrate various global policies addressing additives and/or flavours and a range of definitions of additives and flavours. Establishing common definitions and standards could facilitate cooperation between countries and regions. INTRODUCTION Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death and disease in the world,1 responsible for 8 million deaths every year.2 Efforts to address this global epidemic must include strategies to prevent young people from starting to use tobacco and becoming addicted to nicotine. Estimates indicate that, glob- ally, 82 000 to 99 000 children start smoking ciga- rettes every day.3–7 The tobacco industry denies marketing its product to young people,8 however, the importance of young people as a market for the tobacco industry is well known.9 10 Product design is a key tobacco industry strategy to recruit consumers and hinder cessation. Today’s cigarettes are the result of innumerable technolog- ical developments where all aspects of their compo- sition are engineered to optimise the delivery of nicotine to the user, to facilitate the initiation by new users, to mask secondhand tobacco smoke and to reduce production costs.11–15 In tobacco product design, an important technology is the use of flavourings15–18 including those that create charac- terising flavours, that is, flavours that are perceived by taste and or smell by the user (eg, menthol or fruit-flavoured cigarettes, candy flavoured vapes). Flavourings are defined by Codex Alimentarius as ‘products that are added to food (or tobacco in this case) to impart, modify or enhance the flavour’19 and characterising flavour is a ‘clearly noticeable smell or taste other than one of tobacco’ resulting from a flavouring additive or combination of them.20 Recognising that flavour is a barrier to tobacco control, the parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) recom- mended, in the partial guidelines for implementa- tion of Articles 9 and 10,21 the ban of ingredients used to increase palatability, that have colouring properties, ingredients used to create the impres- sion that products have health benefits and ingredi- ents associated with energy and vitality. Data show that flavoured tobacco products are particularly appealing to youth and lead to experi- mentation and initiation.1 10 22–24 To curb youth use, WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC ⇒ Product design is a key tobacco industry strategy to recruit consumers and hinder cessation. ⇒ Flavoured tobacco products are particularly appealing to youth and lead to experimentation and initiation. ⇒ Emerging data demonstrate that bans or restrictions on flavoured tobacco products including menthol, decrease youth initiation and support cessation. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS ⇒ Updates the global mapping of regulatory policies of additives in nicotine/tobacco products. ⇒ Proposes a structure to classify and organise various policies addressing additives in tobacco products. HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY ⇒ Provides a roadmap to countries interested in regulating additives in tobacco/nicotine products. ⇒ Discuss the challenges to implementing additive regulations in nicotine/tobacco products. on O ctober 22, 2024 by guest. P rotected by copyright. http://tobaccocontrol.bm j.com / T ob C ontrol: first published as 10.1136/tc-2024-058622 on 14 O ctober 2024. D ow nloaded from http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/ http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4768-959X http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6471-5457 https://doi.org/10.1136/tc-2024-058622 https://doi.org/10.1136/tc-2024-058622 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1136/tc-2024-058622&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2024-010-14 http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/ 2 Oliveira da Silva AL, Bialous S. Tob Control 2024;0:1–6. doi:10.1136/tc-2024-058622 Original research countries are implementing policies to limit the use of flavours and other additives in tobacco products. Emerging data demon- strate that bans or restrictions on flavoured tobacco products including menthol, decrease youth initiation and support cessa- tion.25–31 These policies have maximum public health benefits when they are comprehensive, that is, include all tobacco prod- ucts and all flavours.25 28 29 32–38 This paper reviews the landscape of nicotine and tobacco products’ additives policies globally including those that focus only on flavouring additives, updating a previous review.39 Identifying and classifying policies on additives in nicotine and tobacco products is important to provide legal and technical subsidies for countries that want to update or implement these policies. Additionally, knowledge of the global landscape could support the implementation of Articles 9 and 10 of the FCTC and seek standardisation of definitions. METHODS From August 2021 to July 2024, we gathered nicotine and tobacco products additives policy data (whether or not it had entered into force) from available online sources of tobacco control policies including parties’ reports to the FCTC,40 the database Tobacco Control Laws (https://www.tobaccocontrol- laws.org/), government websites, searches with Google search engine and consultations with the WHO and its internal reports to ensure comprehensiveness of the assessment. The searches were carried out using the list of WHO member states (https:// www.who.int/countries). Documents in languages different from English, Spanish and Portuguese were translated using Google translator. Countries with internet restrictions were accessed using a Virtual Private Network (VPN). Each policy related to additives was downloaded and infor- mation was extracted into a spreadsheet. The policies were classified into three categories based on the nature and scope of each policy as well as their stated intent and characteristics: Packaging and labelling regulations, sales bans, tobacco product design regulations. RESULTS We found that 62 countries had nicotine and tobacco product additives-related regulations at the regional, national or subna- tional levels (online supplemental file 1). The majority of these regulations focused on flavouring additives, especially bans on sales, import and manufacture of tobacco products with charac- terising flavours (table 1). Europe was the WHO region with the most countries (n=37/44) regulating additives and/or flavours. This is, at least partly, influenced by the European Union Tobacco Products Directive (2014/40/EU)41 applicable to its 27 member states which prohibits flavoured cigarettes and other flavoured tobacco products including heated tobacco products (table 2). While some policies describe additives that are banned by name as in the case of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, others address these additives broadly, for example, Mauritania and Cape Verde focus on banning additives that improve palatability or taste and additives that change tobacco products’ aroma. Sugar, as an additive, is explicitly banned in four countries (although some allow for replacing sugar lost during the curing process only) and ammonia, as an additive, is banned in five countries. Types of policies We divided the existing regulation into three categories: 1. Packaging and labelling regulations: Prohibit the mention or reference, through text or images, of flavours or foods on packaging without necessarily prohibiting the use of the additive in the nicotine and tobacco product. These policies regulate manufacturers (which need to change packaging) and importers (where there is no manufacturing, to ensure that only compliant products are imported). Kiribati is an example of a country that adopted this type of policy. 2. Sales bans: Prohibit retail outlets from selling products that use additives mostly focused on characterising flavours. This regulation is directed at distributors and points of sale and not manufacturers as it does not ban these additives from being added to nicotine and tobacco products. This type of regulation can be observed, for example, in several cities and two states (Massachusetts and California) in the USA and in the Canadian provinces of Alberta and Nova Scotia. 3. Nicotine and tobacco product design regulations: Restrict or prohibit the addition of certain additives during nicotine or tobacco products’ manufacturing process. These policies are directed at manufacturers to change manufacturing prac- tices and importers (to ensure that only compliant products are imported). Brazil, Canada, the USA and the European Union (EU) are examples of countries/regions using this type of policy. We further organised policies focusing on product design by the key areas of focus or rationale for the policy as stated in its text: Functional, sensorial and health concerns. This division was created to facilitate analysis but in some cases a country’s policy fits more than one category (tables 1 and 2). 1. Function-focused policies address the use of additives based on their function regardless of the quantities used. Examples include Canada and Brazil which prohibit additives classi- fied in the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)/World Health Organization (WHO) Expert Committee on Food Additives and the Flavour and Extract Manufacturers Association42 43 as flavouring regardless of amount levels used, that is, it bans additives in concentration levels that might be below consumers’ perception. 2. Sensory-focused policies address additives used to produce clearly noticeable (before or during consumption) smell or taste different from tobacco, for example, fruit, menthol or vanilla flavour. For example, the European Union Tobacco Products Directive41 prohibits the use of menthol in amounts that make the product menthol-flavoured. However, use of menthol in concentrations below perceptible levels (ie, not sold as a ‘menthol product’) is authorised. 3. Health concerns-focused policies include restrictions on the use of additives that are known to be harmful to health with- out combustion especially those with carcinogenic, mutagen- ic and reprotoxic properties. Policies concerning additives that increase nicotine uptake are included in this group. For example, EU member states, member states of the GCC and Uruguay adopted this type of regulation. Types of product included in the policy There was variation in the types of nicotine and tobacco prod- ucts included in the additive-related policies depending on each country’s definition of tobacco product. Electronic nicotine and non-nicotine delivery devices are included in some but not all policies and sometimes they are explicitly exempted. Simi- larly, exclusions or explicit inclusions are seen for cigars, ciga- rillos, loose tobacco for roll-your-own cigarettes and smokeless on O ctober 22, 2024 by guest. P rotected by copyright. http://tobaccocontrol.bm j.com / T ob C ontrol: first published as 10.1136/tc-2024-058622 on 14 O ctober 2024. D ow nloaded from https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/ https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/ https://www.who.int/countries https://www.who.int/countries https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tc-2024-058622 http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/ 3Oliveira da Silva AL, Bialous S. Tob Control 2024;0:1–6. doi:10.1136/tc-2024-058622 Original research tobacco products. Some policies include waterpipe tobacco, others exclude these products (online supplemental file 1). Menthol, one of the most commonly used tobacco product additive,44 was not always included in policies and in some cases is explicitly excluded (table  1). More than one country that initially exempted menthol later passed a policy to ban its use, often recognising that a menthol exemption limited the public health benefits of the policy.32 45 Flavouring capsules that are inserted in the cigarette filters are sometimes, but not always, included in these policies as are the other flavour-related accessories. DISCUSSION There is limited but growing evidence that additives-related poli- cies, mostly focused on characterising flavour bans, are effective in preventing youth uptake and supporting cessation,28 29 38 46–50 although there is a paucity of research evaluating the impact of these policies in low-income and middle-income countries. Anal- ysis of these policies and the potential challenges with enforcement they pose indicate that a comprehensive ban of all flavouring and other additives in any concentration covering all nicotine and tobacco products would produce better public health outcomes as the use of these additives even in non-perceptible concentrations Table 1  Summary of additive regulation by type of policy and country and inclusion of exclusion of menthol, 1 July 2024 Type of regulation Country Packaging and labelling Sales ban Product design Health concerns Exempt menthol Sensorial Functional Albania – – X – – Antigua and Barbuda – – – X – – Australia – X X – – – Bermuda – – X – – X Brazil – – – X – – Cape Verde – – – X – – Canada – X – X – – China – – X – – X Congo – – X – – – Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC)—six countries – – X (Saudi Arabia) – X (CMR) X Ethiopia – – X – – – European Union (EU)—27 countries – – X X (Netherlands and Belgium) X (CMR/nicotine uptake) – Iran – – X (no longer in force) – – X Kiribati X – – – – X Mauritania – – – X – Mauritius – – X – – – Moldova – – X – X (CMR/nicotine uptake) – Montenegro – – X – X (CMR/nicotine uptake) – Niger – – X – – X Nigeria – – X – – – Norway – – X (not in force) – – X Philippines X – X – – X Senegal – – X – – – Sierra Leone – – X – X (nicotine uptake) – Sri Lanka – – X – – – Turkey – – X – X (CMR/nicotine uptake) – Ukraine – – X – X (CMR/nicotine uptake) – Uganda – – X – – – UK – – X – X (CMR/nicotine uptake) – USA – X X – – X (only in certain jurisdictions) Uruguay – – – X (only ammonia is banned) X (nicotine uptake) – CMR—carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic properties. on O ctober 22, 2024 by guest. P rotected by copyright. http://tobaccocontrol.bm j.com / T ob C ontrol: first published as 10.1136/tc-2024-058622 on 14 O ctober 2024. D ow nloaded from https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tc-2024-058622 http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/ 4 Oliveira da Silva AL, Bialous S. Tob Control 2024;0:1–6. doi:10.1136/tc-2024-058622 Original research can increase product’s attractiveness.51 Considering the different political realities, the tobacco industry’s opposition to these poli- cies, countries’ technical-scientific capacity and legal frameworks, a comprehensive ban focusing on product design might facil- itate reducing the attractiveness of these products thus reducing initiation and nicotine dependence. We propose that each policy approach has advantages and disadvantages (table 3). For example, while a ban on characterising flavours appears to be a predominant choice, its disadvantage is the difficulty in defining characterising flavours such as what concentration of menthol is necessary to consider a cigarette a menthol cigarette? The perception of flavours varies between individuals and populations thus a tobacco product with a characterising flavour in one region could be considered non-flavoured in another. Further, this approach often excludes the use of additives at levels below consumers’ percep- tion. For example, low levels of menthol reduce irritation and alter the taste of tobacco51 but may not be described as a characterising flavour. Therefore, policies that focus on characterising flavours should be carefully monitored as manufacturers use a range of additives which can change products’ palatability and acceptability, impacting the public health results from these policies. Exemptions on the types of products covered under these poli- cies pose another challenge particularly for young people attracted to flavoured tobacco products who might initiate consumption through one of the flavoured products exempted from the policy. Countries’ experiences show menthol exemptions or the exclusion of non-cigarette products, for example, may limit the full public health potential in terms of initiation and cessation with some flavoured tobacco users migrating to menthol and some youth migrating to non-cigarette flavoured products.10 44 48 50 52 53 There is a growing and largely unregulated market that provides alternative means of delivering flavours to the tobacco product for use by consumers. These include flavour capsules, beads, flavoured tips, flavoured sprays, flavoured paper and other products, collec- tively known as additives or flavour accessories. Accessories, often not included in flavour-related policies, could create additional challenges and potential loopholes in implementation and enforce- ment and negatively impact public health outcomes.54 55 Nicotine and tobacco products’ additive policies can be chal- lenging to implement. These difficulties are exacerbated in Table 2  Number of countries with policies regulating additives and/ or flavours by WHO region as of 1 July 2024 WHO region Number of countries with regulations Total countries in region (% with policy) African region (AFR) 10 47 (21.3) Eastern Mediterranean region (EMR) 6 21 (28.6) European region (EUR) 34 53 (64.6) Region of the Americas (AMR) 6 35 (17.1) South-East Asia region (SEAR) 1 11 (9.1) Western Pacific region (WPR) 4 27 (14.8) Countries with regulation at any level (national, subnational or local) are included. AFR—Cape Verde, Congo, Ethiopia, Mauritania, Mauritius, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Uganda. EMR—members of the GCC. EUR—members of the EU (27), plus Albania, Moldova, Montenegro, Norway, Turkey, Ukraine, UK. AMR—Antigua and Barbuda, Bermuda, Brazil, Canada, USA, Uruguay. SEAR—Sri Lanka. WPR—Australia, China, Philippines, Kiribati. Table 3  Advantages and disadvantages of different tobacco products additive policies regarding the attractiveness Policy type* Pros Cons Comments Sales ban ► Adaptable for local circumstances. ► Easily understood by the public. ► Easy to implement. ► Low implementation cost. ► Limited scope because usually applied to products with characterising flavours and explicit flavour mention in the product. ► Exceptions (products and additives) create loopholes where flavoured products remain available. ► Evidence of effectiveness at local level.29 Labelling ► Easy to implement. ► Low implementation cost. ► Does not interfere with product flavour. ► Allows additive/flavour use. ► Can strengthen other regulatory additive/ flavour policies (if combined). ► No evidence of effectiveness available. Tobacco product design Functional ► Comprehensive scope if all products are included. ► Prevents use of additives that make tobacco products more palatable or acceptable regardless of the perception by user. ► Demands highly qualified human resources for enforcement. ► Time before implementation might be longer. ► Additives that change flavour can be described as having a different function to avoid compliance. ► Can be applied to prevent use of additives that make tobacco products more palatable and flavoured products. ► Enforcement might be facilitated if policy is inclusive of all additives and all products. ► Evidence of effectiveness (Canada).28 38 48 Sensorial ► Easy to implement if evidence of characterising flavour is readily available. ► Low implementation cost. ► Easily understandable to the population. ► Allows the use of additives at levels that are not perceived by the consumer or branding. ► Enforcement requires highly qualified workforce and laboratory facilities. ► The most common regulatory approach. ► Enforcement needs might be facilitated by the establishment of an independent advisory panel to inform on the presence of characterising flavours. ► Evidence of effectiveness (EU and USA).36 48–50 * Health concerns focused regulations are not included in this table. EU, European Union. on O ctober 22, 2024 by guest. P rotected by copyright. http://tobaccocontrol.bm j.com / T ob C ontrol: first published as 10.1136/tc-2024-058622 on 14 O ctober 2024. D ow nloaded from http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/ 5Oliveira da Silva AL, Bialous S. Tob Control 2024;0:1–6. doi:10.1136/tc-2024-058622 Original research low-income and middle-income countries. The tobacco industry is known to oppose these additive policies35 56–62 including the threat of litigation.56 In some cases, these policies may be reversed by government decision. For example, the Islamic Republic of Iran reversed a policy pertaining to additives in nicotine and tobacco products.63 Therefore, countries considering these policies should be informed by experience from countries that have adopted such restrictions. Partnerships with civil society56 64 could support coun- tries’ in defending their additives-related policies. Countries have a range of resources to support the formulation, implementation, enforcement and defence of additives-related policies including those provided by the WHO and the Conference of the Parties to the FCTC especially the partial guidelines for implementation of Articles 9 and 10 of the WHO FCTC: Regulation of the contents of tobacco products and regulation of tobacco product disclosures.21 Limitations Despite best efforts, it is possible that some countries’ policies were missed or misinterpreted due to our inability to conduct searches in several languages. Additionally, this is a rapidly changing policy environment and policies that have been approved after July 2024 are not included. There is a range of definitions of additives and flavours within and between regions creating difficulties for cross-country and cross-regional evaluation and comparisons especially when evalu- ating the impact of these policies. In addition, policies may differ by policy type (ie, sales restrictions vs bans); product categories (ie, cigarettes only vs all tobacco products), flavours (ie, menthol only vs flavours excluding menthol vs flavours including menthol) and point of purchase (eg, sales to minors only vs all age groups, online vs in person) as well as by level of compliance and enforcement adding challenges for comparing policies. We did not assess imple- mentation, enforcement and compliance with existing policies and lack or weak enforcement could undermine the expected positive public health impact of these policies. CONCLUSIONS The data demonstrate that there is a wide range of nicotine and tobacco policies addressing additives and/or flavours globally. There are discrepancies in the rate at which these policies are being evaluated with low-income and middle-income countries in need of additional support to assess policy impact post-adoption. As countries consider these policies, they may also need legal support to defend against tobacco and related industry-initiated litigation. Emerging research mostly from the EU and high-income coun- tries, however, demonstrates that comprehensive bans which include all types of nicotine and tobacco products and a wider range of additives, specifically flavours, lead to a decrease in consumption through lower youth initiation and quitting among existing tobacco users. Thus, efforts should be made to close regu- latory gaps and support a full ban on flavours and/or additives in nicotine and tobacco products. The establishment of common defi- nitions and standards could facilitate cooperation between coun- tries and regions. Acknowledgements  Division/Health Promotion Department of the WHO; the team from the Office of Tobacco Control of the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (ANVISA), Brazil; and the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California, San Francisco, USA, and Seyed Mehrdad Mohammadi, MD, MPH, MA, for the insights about additive regulation in Middle Eastern Region. The statements and opinions expressed in the article are those of the author and are based on current scientific evidence and do not represent any institutional guidance and/or opinion of UCSF, Anvisa, the Brazilian Ministry of Health, and/or the Brazilian Government. Contributors  Concept and design: ALOdS. Acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data: ALOdS/SB. Drafting of the manuscript: ALOdS. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: ALOdS/SB. Obtained funding: N/A. Administrative, technical or material support: SB. Supervision: SB. Guarantor: ALOdS. Funding  This work was partly supported by WHO/Healthier Populations Division/ Health Promotion Department/No Tobacco Unit. ALOdS was supported by the Briger Family International Postdoctoral Fellowship at the UCSF Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education. SB was partially supported by National Institutes of Health R01CA268491. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funding agencies. Competing interests  No, there are no competing interests. Patient consent for publication  Not applicable. Ethics approval  Not applicable. Provenance and peer review  Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed. Data availability statement  Data sharing not applicable as no data sets generated and/or analysed for this study. Supplemental material  This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise. Open access  This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. ORCID iDs Andre Luiz Oliveira da Silva http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4768-959X Stella Bialous http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6471-5457 REFERENCES 1 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The health consequences of smoking: 50 years of progress. a report of the surgeon general. atlanta (ga): u.s. department of health and human services, centers for disease control and prevention, national center for chronic disease prevention and health promotion. 2014. Available: https://www.​ ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK179276/ 2 World Health Organization. Tobacco. 2023. Available: https://www.who.int/news-​ room/fact-sheets/detail/tobacco 3 Tanski SE, Prokhorov AV, Klein JD. Youth and tobacco. Minerva Pediatr 2004;56:553–65. 4 Prokhorov AV, Winickoff JP, Ahluwalia JS, et al. Youth tobacco use: a global perspective for child health care clinicians. Pediatrics 2006;118:e890–903. 5 Lando HA, Hipple BJ, Muramoto M, et al. Tobacco is a global paediatric concern. Bull World Health Organ 2010;88:2. 6 Chen J, Millar WJ. Age of smoking initiation: implications for quitting. H Rep 1998;9:39–46. 7 Khuder SA, Dayal HH, Mutgi AB. Age at smoking onset and its effect on smoking cessation. Addict Behav 1999;24:673–7. 8 National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (US) Office on Smoking and Health. The tobacco industry’s influences on the use of tobacco among youth. In: Preventing tobacco use among youth and young adults: a report of the surgeon general. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US), 2012. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK99238/ 9 National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (US) Office on Smoking and Health. The health consequences of tobacco use among young people. In: Preventing tobacco use among youth and young adults: a report of the surgeon general. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US): Atlanta, GA, 2012. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK99242/ 10 Center for Tobacco Products. Menthol and other flavors in tobacco products. FDA; 2022. Available: https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/products-ingredients-​ components/menthol-and-other-flavors-tobacco-products 11 Hoffmann D, Hoffmann I. The changing cigarette, 1950-1995. J Toxicol Environ Health 1997;50:307–64. 12 Connolly GN, Wayne GD, Lymperis D, et al. How cigarette additives are used to mask environmental tobacco smoke. Tob Control 2000;9:283–91. 13 Anderson SJ. Menthol cigarettes and smoking cessation behaviour: a review of tobacco industry documents. Tob Control 2011;20 Suppl 2:ii49–56. on O ctober 22, 2024 by guest. P rotected by copyright. http://tobaccocontrol.bm j.com / T ob C ontrol: first published as 10.1136/tc-2024-058622 on 14 O ctober 2024. D ow nloaded from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4768-959X http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6471-5457 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK179276/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK179276/ https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tobacco https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tobacco https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15765019 http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2005-0810 http://dx.doi.org/10.2471/BLT.09.069583 http://dx.doi.org/10.2471/BLT.09.069583 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9836879 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0306-4603(98)00113-0 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK99238/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK99242/ https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/products-ingredients-components/menthol-and-other-flavors-tobacco-products https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/products-ingredients-components/menthol-and-other-flavors-tobacco-products http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/009841097160393 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tc.9.3.283 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tc.2010.041947 http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/ 6 Oliveira da Silva AL, Bialous S. Tob Control 2024;0:1–6. doi:10.1136/tc-2024-058622 Original research 14 Ling PM, Glantz SA. Tobacco industry research on smoking cessation. Recapturing young adults and other recent quitters. J Gen Intern Med 2004;19:419–26. 15 Wayne GF, Connolly GN. How cigarette design can affect youth initiation into smoking: Camel cigarettes 1983-93. Tob Control 2002;11 Suppl 1:I32–9. 16 Bates C, Connolly GN, Jarvis M. Tobacco additives: cigarette engineering and nicotine addiction. London, 1999. Available: https://ash.org.uk/resources/view/tobacco-​ additives-cigarette-engineering-and-nicotine-addiction 17 Keithly L, Ferris Wayne G, Cullen D, et al. Industry research on the use and effects of levulinic acid: A case study in cigarette additives. Nicotine Tob Res 2005;7:761–71. 18 German Cancer Research Center. Additives in tobacco products contribution of carob bean extract, cellulose fibre, guar gum, liquorice, menthol, prune juice concentrate and vanillin to attractiveness, addictiveness and toxicity of tobacco smoking. Heidelberg: German Cancer Research Center, 2012. Available: http://www.dkfz.de/de/​ tabakkontrolle/download/PITOC/PITOC_Additives_in_Tobacco_Products_Report.pdf 19 Codex Alimentarius. Guidelines for the use of flavourings - CAC/GL 66-2008. 2008. Available: https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=​ 1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%​ 252FStandards%252FCXG%2B66-2008%252Fcxg_066e.pdf 20 SCENIHR (Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks). Addictiveness and attractiveness of tobacco additives. Brussels: European Commission DG Health & Consumers, 2010. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_​ committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_031.pdf 21 Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). Partial guidelines for implementation of articles 9 and 10 of the who framework convention on tobacco control: regulation of the contents of tobacco products and regulation of tobacco product disclosures. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO FCTC, 2017. Available: https://fctc.​ who.int/publications/m/item/regulation-of-the-contents-of-tobacco-products-and-​ regulation-of-tobacco-product-disclosures 22 Pepper JK, Ribisl KM, Brewer NT. Adolescents’ interest in trying flavoured e-cigarettes. Tob Control 2016;25:ii62–6. 23 Carpenter CM, Wayne GF, Pauly JL, et al. New Cigarette Brands With Flavors That Appeal To Youth: Tobacco Marketing Strategies. Health Aff (Millwood) 2005;24:1601–10. 24 King BA, Tynan MA, Dube SR, et al. Flavored-Little-Cigar and Flavored-Cigarette Use Among U.S. Middle and High School Students. J Adolesc Health 2014;54:40–6. 25 Courtemanche CJ, Palmer MK, Pesko MF. Influence of the Flavored Cigarette Ban on Adolescent Tobacco Use. Am J Prev Med 2017;52:e139–46. 26 Levy DT, Pearson JL, Villanti AC, et al. Modeling the future effects of a menthol ban on smoking prevalence and smoking-attributable deaths in the United States. Am J Public Health 2011;101:1236–40. 27 Moodie C, Thrasher JF, Barnoya J, et al. Tobacco Industry Claims About Transformation are Inconsistent With Combustible Cigarette Innovations: The Case of Flavor Capsule Cigarettes. Nicotine Tob Res 2023;25:1891–5. 28 Chaiton MO, Nicolau I, Schwartz R, et al. Ban on menthol-flavoured tobacco products predicts cigarette cessation at 1 year: a population cohort study. Tob Control 2020;29:341–7. 29 Farley SM, Johns M. New York City flavoured tobacco product sales ban evaluation. Tob Control 2017;26:78–84. 30 Liber AC, Stoklosa M, Levy DT, et al. An analysis of cigarette sales during Poland’s menthol cigarette sales ban: small effects with large policy implications. Eur J Public Health 2022;32:735–40. 31 Cadham CJ, Sanchez-Romero LM, Fleischer NL, et al. The actual and anticipated effects of a menthol cigarette ban: a scoping review. BMC Public Health 2020;20:1055. 32 Chaiton MO, Cunningham R, Hagen L, et al. Taking global leadership in banning menthol and other flavours in tobacco: Canada’s experience. Tob Control 2022;31:202–11. 33 Zeng Z, Cook AR, Chen JI-P, et al. Evaluating the public health impact of partial and full tobacco flavour bans: A simulation study. Lancet Reg Health West Pac 2022;21:100414. 34 Bold KW, Jatlow P, Fucito LM, et al. Evaluating the effect of switching to non-menthol cigarettes among current menthol smokers: an empirical study of a potential ban of characterising menthol flavour in cigarettes. Tob Control 2020;29:624–30. 35 Brown J, DeAtley T, Welding K, et al. Tobacco industry response to menthol cigarette bans in Alberta and Nova Scotia, Canada. Tob Control 2017;26:e71–4. 36 Chaiton M, Papadhima I, Schwartz R, et al. Product Substitution After A Real-World Menthol Ban: A Cohort Study. Tob Regul Sci 2020;6:205–12. 37 Chaiton M, Schwartz R, Cohen JE, et al. Prior Daily Menthol Smokers More Likely to Quit 2 Years After a Menthol Ban Than Non-menthol Smokers: A Population Cohort Study. Nicotine Tob Res 2021;23:1584–9. 38 Fong GT, Chung-Hall J, Meng G, et al. Impact of Canada’s menthol cigarette ban on quitting among menthol smokers: pooled analysis of pre–post evaluation from the ITC Project and the Ontario Menthol Ban Study and projections of impact in the USA. Tob Control 2022. Available: https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2022/04/27/​ tobaccocontrol-2021-057227 39 Erinoso O, Clegg Smith K, Iacobelli M, et al. Global review of tobacco product flavour policies. Tob Control 2021;30:373–9. 40 Secretariat of the WHO FCTC. Global progress reports. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. 2023 Available: https://fctc.who.int/who-fctc/reporting/global-​ progress-reports 41 European Parliament. Directive 2014/40/eu of the european parliament and of the council of 3 april 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member states concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing directive 2001/37/ec. In: Official Journal of the European Union. 2014. Available: https://eur-​ lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014L0040 42 BRASIL, Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. Resolução de diretoria colegiada - rdc no 14 de 15 março de 2012. dispõe sobre os limites máximos de alcatrão, nicotina e monóxido de carbono nos cigarros e a restrição do uso de aditivos nos produtos fumígenos derivados do tabaco, e dá outras providências. RDC. 2012 Available: http://portal.anvisa.gov.br/documents/10181/2978962/RDC_14_2012_.​ pdf/baeb28a7-90fc-49f3-9bf8-761de80af0b7 43 Tobacco and vaping products act (s.c. 1997, c. 13). 1997 Available: https://laws-lois.​ justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/T-11.5/ 44 Tobacco Tactics. Flavoured and menthol tobacco. TobaccoTactics; 2022. Available: https://www.tobaccotactics.org/article/flavoured-and-menthol-tobacco/ 45 Jackler RK, Ramamurthi D, Willett J, et al. Advertising created & continues to drive the menthol tobacco market: Methods Used by The Industry to Target Youth, Women, and Black Americans. Stanford: Stanford University, 2022. Available: https://​ tobacco-img.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/03112705/SRITA-AHA-​ MentholAdvertising_executivesummary.pdf 46 Moodie C, Page N, Moore G. Prevalence of Menthol and Menthol Capsule Cigarette Use Among 11–16 Year Olds in Wales Prior to a Ban on Characterizing Flavors in Cigarettes: Findings From the 2019 Student Health and Wellbeing Survey. Nicotine Tob Res 2022;24:1257–63. 47 Rossheim ME, Livingston MD, Krall JR, et al. Cigarette Use Before and After the 2009 Flavored Cigarette Ban. J Adolesc Health 2020;67:432–7. 48 Chaiton M, Schwartz R, Shuldiner J, et al. Evaluating a Real World Ban on Menthol Cigarettes: An Interrupted Time-Series Analysis of Sales. Nicotine Tob Res 2020;22:576–9. 49 Kyriakos CN, Driezen P, Fong G, et al. Impact of the European Union’s menthol cigarette ban on smoking cessation outcomes: longitudinal findings from the 2020–2021 ITC Netherlands Surveys. Tob Control 2024;33:302–9. 50 East KA, Reid JL, Burkhalter R, et al. Evaluating the Outcomes of the Menthol Cigarette Ban in England by Comparing Menthol Cigarette Smoking Among Youth in England, Canada, and the US, 2018-2020. JAMA Netw Open 2022;5:e2210029. 51 Lempert L, Glantz SA. More than a “characterizing flavor”: Menthol at subliminal levels in tobacco products. Drug Alcohol Depend 2024;261:111346. 52 Ahijevych K, Garrett BE. The Role of Menthol in Cigarettes as a Reinforcer of Smoking Behavior. Nicotine Tob Res 2010;12:S110–6. 53 Leas EC, Benmarhnia T, Strong DR, et al. Use of Menthol Cigarettes, Smoking Frequency, and Nicotine Dependence Among US Youth. JAMA Netw Open 2022;5:e2217144. 54 Havermans A, Pauwels C, Klerx W, et al. Flavor accessories: Increasing tobacco products’ attractiveness drop-by-drop. Tob Prev Cessation 2022;8. 55 Havermans A, Pauwels C, Hellmich I, et al. Inventory of worldwide availability of flavour accessories: do-it-yourself flavour addition to increase tobacco products’ attractiveness. Tob Prev Cessation 2023;9. 56 Oliveira da Silva AL, Bialous SA, Albertassi PGD, et al. The taste of smoke: tobacco industry strategies to prevent the prohibition of additives in tobacco products in Brazil. Tob Control 2019;28:e92–101. 57 Lencucha R, Ruckert A, Labonte R, et al. Opening windows and closing gaps: a case analysis of Canada’s 2009 tobacco additives ban and its policy lessons. BMC Public Health 2018;18:1321. 58 Sircar NR, Glantz SA. Defeating JUUL’s Effort to Rewrite San Francisco’s E-Cigarette Regulations. Am J Public Health 2021;111:457–64. 59 Borland T, D’Souza SA, O’Connor S, et al. Is blue the new green? Repackaging menthol cigarettes in response to a flavour ban in Ontario, Canada. Tob Control 2019;28:e7–12. 60 Brink AL, Glahn AS, Kjaer NT. Tobacco companies’ exploitation of loopholes in the EU ban on menthol cigarettes: a case study from Denmark. Tob Prev Cessat 2022. Available: https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2022/03/20/tobaccocontrol-​ 2021-057213 61 Havermans A, Mallock N, Zervas E, et al. Review of industry reports on EU priority tobacco additives part A: Main outcomes and conclusions. Tob Prev Cessation 2022;8:1–18. 62 Bolling AK, Mallock N, Zervas E, et al. Review of industry reports on EU priority tobacco additives part B: Methodological limitations. Tob Prev Cessat 2022;8:28. 63 Iranian Students’ News Agency. Iran: paradise of tobacco industries/ cancellation of the ban on the production of aromatic tobacco -وغل / یناخد عیانص تشهب ؛ناریا ​/ISNA; 2022. Available: bit.ly .(article in farsi) رطعم یوکابنت دیلوت تیعونمم 4dGMlXw 64 Ulucanlar S, Fooks GJ, Gilmore AB. The Policy Dystopia Model: An Interpretive Analysis of Tobacco Industry Political Activity. PLoS Med 2016;13:e1002125. on O ctober 22, 2024 by guest. P rotected by copyright. http://tobaccocontrol.bm j.com / T ob C ontrol: first published as 10.1136/tc-2024-058622 on 14 O ctober 2024. D ow nloaded from http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.30358.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tc.11.suppl_1.i32 https://ash.org.uk/resources/view/tobacco-additives-cigarette-engineering-and-nicotine-addiction https://ash.org.uk/resources/view/tobacco-additives-cigarette-engineering-and-nicotine-addiction http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14622200500259820 http://www.dkfz.de/de/tabakkontrolle/download/PITOC/PITOC_Additives_in_Tobacco_Products_Report.pdf http://www.dkfz.de/de/tabakkontrolle/download/PITOC/PITOC_Additives_in_Tobacco_Products_Report.pdf https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FStandards%252FCXG%2B66-2008%252Fcxg_066e.pdf https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FStandards%252FCXG%2B66-2008%252Fcxg_066e.pdf https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FStandards%252FCXG%2B66-2008%252Fcxg_066e.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_031.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_031.pdf https://fctc.who.int/publications/m/item/regulation-of-the-contents-of-tobacco-products-and-regulation-of-tobacco-product-disclosures https://fctc.who.int/publications/m/item/regulation-of-the-contents-of-tobacco-products-and-regulation-of-tobacco-product-disclosures https://fctc.who.int/publications/m/item/regulation-of-the-contents-of-tobacco-products-and-regulation-of-tobacco-product-disclosures http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053174 http://dx.doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.24.6.1601 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.07.033 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.11.019 http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300179 http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300179 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntac224 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054841 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015-052418 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckac063 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckac063 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09055-z http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056549 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lanwpc.2022.100414 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2019-055154 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053099 http://dx.doi.org/10.18001/trs.6.3.5 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntab042 https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2022/04/27/tobaccocontrol-2021-057227 https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2022/04/27/tobaccocontrol-2021-057227 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2019-055454 https://fctc.who.int/who-fctc/reporting/global-progress-reports https://fctc.who.int/who-fctc/reporting/global-progress-reports https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014L0040 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014L0040 http://portal.anvisa.gov.br/documents/10181/2978962/RDC_14_2012_.pdf/baeb28a7-90fc-49f3-9bf8-761de80af0b7 http://portal.anvisa.gov.br/documents/10181/2978962/RDC_14_2012_.pdf/baeb28a7-90fc-49f3-9bf8-761de80af0b7 https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/T-11.5/ https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/T-11.5/ https://www.tobaccotactics.org/article/flavoured-and-menthol-tobacco/ https://tobacco-img.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/03112705/SRITA-AHA-MentholAdvertising_executivesummary.pdf https://tobacco-img.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/03112705/SRITA-AHA-MentholAdvertising_executivesummary.pdf https://tobacco-img.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/03112705/SRITA-AHA-MentholAdvertising_executivesummary.pdf http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntac040 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntac040 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.06.022 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntz041 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tc-2022-057428 http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.10029 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntq203 http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.17144 http://dx.doi.org/10.18332/tpc/150933 http://dx.doi.org/10.18332/tpc/162491 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054892 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6157-3 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6157-3 http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.305993 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054454 https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2022/03/20/tobaccocontrol-2021-057213 https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2022/03/20/tobaccocontrol-2021-057213 http://dx.doi.org/10.18332/tpc/151529 http://dx.doi.org/10.18332/tpc/150361 bit.ly/4dGMlXw bit.ly/4dGMlXw http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002125 http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/ Global landscape of nicotine and tobacco products additives policies Abstract Introduction Methods Results Types of policies Types of product included in the policy Discussion Limitations Conclusions References