Page Michelle K, Paul Emily E, Leigh Noel J, Meza Leah R, Galimov Artur, Sussman Steve, Leventhal Adam, O'Connor Richard J, Goniewicz Maciej L
Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, USA
Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, USA.
Tob Control. 2025 Apr 1;34(2):254-258. doi: 10.1136/tc-2023-058149.
In December 2022, California (CA) enforced a voter-approved regulation restricting the retail sale of flavoured tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes. Shortly after, new products emerged on the market containing similar blue and green package colours yet with 'non-menthol' descriptors. Using chemical analyses, we measured the content of menthol and 15 other cooling chemicals in Californian cigarettes with 'non-menthol' descriptors and compared concentrations to similar 'menthol'-labelled counterparts available in New York State (NY).
A convenience sample of 10 brands and types of cigarettes in CA were purchased based on package colours suggesting a cooling effect and/or 'non-menthol' descriptors. The exact brand and type of cigarettes (with menthol descriptors) were purchased in NY. Cigarettes from CA were compared with equivalent cigarettes from NY on package design and colours, cigarette physical characteristics and the presence of cooling additives.
Menthol was not detected in any CA cigarette, except for Maverick-green box type, while its presence was confirmed in most NY counterpart products. A synthetic cooling chemical WS-3 was not detected in any NY cigarettes but was detected in four CA brands and types with implied cooling effect, ranging from 1.24±0.04 to 1.97±0.05 mg/cigarette.
While manufacturers have removed menthol descriptors from CA packaging and the menthol ingredient from cigarettes, synthetic cooling chemicals detected in several CA brands suggest that cooling sensory effects may still be sustained. Policymakers must consider both the chemical ingredients themselves and sensory effects in future regulatory approaches.
2022年12月,加利福尼亚州(CA)实施了一项经选民批准的法规,限制包括薄荷醇香烟在内的调味烟草制品的零售。不久之后,市场上出现了新产品,其包装颜色类似蓝色和绿色,但标有“非薄荷醇”字样。通过化学分析,我们测量了标有“非薄荷醇”字样的加利福尼亚香烟中薄荷醇和其他15种清凉化学品的含量,并将浓度与纽约州(NY)销售的类似“薄荷醇”标签的香烟进行了比较。
根据暗示有清凉效果和/或“非薄荷醇”字样的包装颜色,在加利福尼亚州购买了10个品牌和类型的香烟作为便利样本。在纽约购买了确切品牌和类型的(标有薄荷醇字样)香烟。将加利福尼亚州的香烟与纽约的同类香烟在包装设计和颜色、香烟物理特性以及清凉添加剂的存在情况方面进行比较。
除了小牛绿盒型香烟外,在任何加利福尼亚州的香烟中均未检测到薄荷醇,而在大多数纽约同类产品中均确认有薄荷醇存在。一种合成清凉化学品WS - 3在任何纽约香烟中均未检测到,但在四个具有暗示清凉效果的加利福尼亚州品牌和类型的香烟中检测到,含量范围为每支香烟1.24±0.04至1.97±0.05毫克。
虽然制造商已从加利福尼亚州的包装上移除了薄荷醇字样,并从香烟中去除了薄荷醇成分,但在几个加利福尼亚州品牌中检测到的合成清凉化学品表明,清凉感官效果可能仍然存在。政策制定者在未来的监管方法中必须同时考虑化学成分本身和感官效果。