A Comparison of the Advertising and Accessibility of Cigars, Cigarettes, Chewing Tobacco, and Loose Tobacco

Background. Tobacco products were compared in regard to their price, point-of-purchase advertising, accessibility to shoplifters, and rate of sale to minors. Methods. An experimental design compared the rates of illegal sales to minors of cigarettes, chewing tobacco, and cigars. Observational survey...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Preventive medicine 1999-11, Vol.29 (5), p.321-326
Hauptverfasser: DiFranza, Joseph R., Coleman, Mardia, St. Cyr, Dorothy
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 326
container_issue 5
container_start_page 321
container_title Preventive medicine
container_volume 29
creator DiFranza, Joseph R.
Coleman, Mardia
St. Cyr, Dorothy
description Background. Tobacco products were compared in regard to their price, point-of-purchase advertising, accessibility to shoplifters, and rate of sale to minors. Methods. An experimental design compared the rates of illegal sales to minors of cigarettes, chewing tobacco, and cigars. Observational surveys of 102 stores measured the number of advertisements for four tobacco products, the manner in which products were displayed, and their accessibility to shoplifters. Results. Illegal sales rates were similar for cigarettes, chewing tobacco, and cigars. Cigars were the least expensive. Cigarettes were the most heavily advertised product, followed by chewing tobacco, cigars, and loose tobacco. Cigarettes were the most accessible to shoplifters. All types of tobacco products were displayed to permit the package to serve as advertising. Conclusions. Point-of-purchase advertising for cigars may be increasing, and their lower price makes them more affordable to youths. Food and Drug Administration regulations that limit point-of-purchase advertising for tobacco products should be expanded to include cigars. Manufacturers pay retailers for the placement of product displays that allow the package to be used as an advertisement without the appearance of the Surgeon General's warning. Generic packaging may be necessary to protect children from point-of-purchase advertising.
doi_str_mv 10.1006/pmed.1999.0553
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>pubmed_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1006_pmed_1999_0553</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0091743599905534</els_id><sourcerecordid>10564622</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-9e638d995f595c40a13f122837ab6289cc66e1cb2e7f8ae861a19511373b6a1d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kM1OwzAQhC0EoqVw5YjyAE3wxokTH6OIP6kSl3K2HGfTGto4skMRb09NQJw4zWp3ZrT6CLkGmgCl_HbYY5uAECKhec5OyByo4DFNOT0lc0oFxEXG8hm58P6VUgBOs3MyA5rzjKfpnLxVUW33g3LG2z6yXTRuMaraA7rReNNvItW3UaU1em8aszPjZzDVZqOcX06K44hh3uJHCKxto7S2y-_kylqPv6tLctapncerH12Ql_u7df0Yr54fnupqFWuW0TEWyFnZCpF3uch1RhWwDtK0ZIVqeFoKrTlH0E2KRVcqLDkoEDkAK1jDFbRsQZKpVzvrvcNODs7slfuUQGWgJgM1GajJQO0YuJkCw3sTLn_2CdPRUE4GPL59MOik1wZ7ja1xqEfZWvNf9xd65ntE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Comparison of the Advertising and Accessibility of Cigars, Cigarettes, Chewing Tobacco, and Loose Tobacco</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>DiFranza, Joseph R. ; Coleman, Mardia ; St. Cyr, Dorothy</creator><creatorcontrib>DiFranza, Joseph R. ; Coleman, Mardia ; St. Cyr, Dorothy</creatorcontrib><description>Background. Tobacco products were compared in regard to their price, point-of-purchase advertising, accessibility to shoplifters, and rate of sale to minors. Methods. An experimental design compared the rates of illegal sales to minors of cigarettes, chewing tobacco, and cigars. Observational surveys of 102 stores measured the number of advertisements for four tobacco products, the manner in which products were displayed, and their accessibility to shoplifters. Results. Illegal sales rates were similar for cigarettes, chewing tobacco, and cigars. Cigars were the least expensive. Cigarettes were the most heavily advertised product, followed by chewing tobacco, cigars, and loose tobacco. Cigarettes were the most accessible to shoplifters. All types of tobacco products were displayed to permit the package to serve as advertising. Conclusions. Point-of-purchase advertising for cigars may be increasing, and their lower price makes them more affordable to youths. Food and Drug Administration regulations that limit point-of-purchase advertising for tobacco products should be expanded to include cigars. Manufacturers pay retailers for the placement of product displays that allow the package to be used as an advertisement without the appearance of the Surgeon General's warning. Generic packaging may be necessary to protect children from point-of-purchase advertising.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0091-7435</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1096-0260</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1006/pmed.1999.0553</identifier><identifier>PMID: 10564622</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Advertising - legislation &amp; jurisprudence ; Humans ; Massachusetts ; Nicotiana ; Plants, Toxic ; Private Sector - legislation &amp; jurisprudence ; Public Policy ; Tobacco Use Disorder - prevention &amp; control ; tobacco, youth, advertising</subject><ispartof>Preventive medicine, 1999-11, Vol.29 (5), p.321-326</ispartof><rights>1999 American Health Foundation and Academic Press</rights><rights>Copyright 1999 American Health Foundation and Academic Press.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-9e638d995f595c40a13f122837ab6289cc66e1cb2e7f8ae861a19511373b6a1d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-9e638d995f595c40a13f122837ab6289cc66e1cb2e7f8ae861a19511373b6a1d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1006/pmed.1999.0553$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3541,27915,27916,45986</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10564622$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>DiFranza, Joseph R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Coleman, Mardia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>St. Cyr, Dorothy</creatorcontrib><title>A Comparison of the Advertising and Accessibility of Cigars, Cigarettes, Chewing Tobacco, and Loose Tobacco</title><title>Preventive medicine</title><addtitle>Prev Med</addtitle><description>Background. Tobacco products were compared in regard to their price, point-of-purchase advertising, accessibility to shoplifters, and rate of sale to minors. Methods. An experimental design compared the rates of illegal sales to minors of cigarettes, chewing tobacco, and cigars. Observational surveys of 102 stores measured the number of advertisements for four tobacco products, the manner in which products were displayed, and their accessibility to shoplifters. Results. Illegal sales rates were similar for cigarettes, chewing tobacco, and cigars. Cigars were the least expensive. Cigarettes were the most heavily advertised product, followed by chewing tobacco, cigars, and loose tobacco. Cigarettes were the most accessible to shoplifters. All types of tobacco products were displayed to permit the package to serve as advertising. Conclusions. Point-of-purchase advertising for cigars may be increasing, and their lower price makes them more affordable to youths. Food and Drug Administration regulations that limit point-of-purchase advertising for tobacco products should be expanded to include cigars. Manufacturers pay retailers for the placement of product displays that allow the package to be used as an advertisement without the appearance of the Surgeon General's warning. Generic packaging may be necessary to protect children from point-of-purchase advertising.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Advertising - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Massachusetts</subject><subject>Nicotiana</subject><subject>Plants, Toxic</subject><subject>Private Sector - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><subject>Public Policy</subject><subject>Tobacco Use Disorder - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>tobacco, youth, advertising</subject><issn>0091-7435</issn><issn>1096-0260</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1999</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kM1OwzAQhC0EoqVw5YjyAE3wxokTH6OIP6kSl3K2HGfTGto4skMRb09NQJw4zWp3ZrT6CLkGmgCl_HbYY5uAECKhec5OyByo4DFNOT0lc0oFxEXG8hm58P6VUgBOs3MyA5rzjKfpnLxVUW33g3LG2z6yXTRuMaraA7rReNNvItW3UaU1em8aszPjZzDVZqOcX06K44hh3uJHCKxto7S2y-_kylqPv6tLctapncerH12Ql_u7df0Yr54fnupqFWuW0TEWyFnZCpF3uch1RhWwDtK0ZIVqeFoKrTlH0E2KRVcqLDkoEDkAK1jDFbRsQZKpVzvrvcNODs7slfuUQGWgJgM1GajJQO0YuJkCw3sTLn_2CdPRUE4GPL59MOik1wZ7ja1xqEfZWvNf9xd65ntE</recordid><startdate>19991101</startdate><enddate>19991101</enddate><creator>DiFranza, Joseph R.</creator><creator>Coleman, Mardia</creator><creator>St. Cyr, Dorothy</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19991101</creationdate><title>A Comparison of the Advertising and Accessibility of Cigars, Cigarettes, Chewing Tobacco, and Loose Tobacco</title><author>DiFranza, Joseph R. ; Coleman, Mardia ; St. Cyr, Dorothy</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-9e638d995f595c40a13f122837ab6289cc66e1cb2e7f8ae861a19511373b6a1d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1999</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Advertising - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Massachusetts</topic><topic>Nicotiana</topic><topic>Plants, Toxic</topic><topic>Private Sector - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</topic><topic>Public Policy</topic><topic>Tobacco Use Disorder - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>tobacco, youth, advertising</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>DiFranza, Joseph R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Coleman, Mardia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>St. Cyr, Dorothy</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Preventive medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>DiFranza, Joseph R.</au><au>Coleman, Mardia</au><au>St. Cyr, Dorothy</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A Comparison of the Advertising and Accessibility of Cigars, Cigarettes, Chewing Tobacco, and Loose Tobacco</atitle><jtitle>Preventive medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Prev Med</addtitle><date>1999-11-01</date><risdate>1999</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>321</spage><epage>326</epage><pages>321-326</pages><issn>0091-7435</issn><eissn>1096-0260</eissn><abstract>Background. Tobacco products were compared in regard to their price, point-of-purchase advertising, accessibility to shoplifters, and rate of sale to minors. Methods. An experimental design compared the rates of illegal sales to minors of cigarettes, chewing tobacco, and cigars. Observational surveys of 102 stores measured the number of advertisements for four tobacco products, the manner in which products were displayed, and their accessibility to shoplifters. Results. Illegal sales rates were similar for cigarettes, chewing tobacco, and cigars. Cigars were the least expensive. Cigarettes were the most heavily advertised product, followed by chewing tobacco, cigars, and loose tobacco. Cigarettes were the most accessible to shoplifters. All types of tobacco products were displayed to permit the package to serve as advertising. Conclusions. Point-of-purchase advertising for cigars may be increasing, and their lower price makes them more affordable to youths. Food and Drug Administration regulations that limit point-of-purchase advertising for tobacco products should be expanded to include cigars. Manufacturers pay retailers for the placement of product displays that allow the package to be used as an advertisement without the appearance of the Surgeon General's warning. Generic packaging may be necessary to protect children from point-of-purchase advertising.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>10564622</pmid><doi>10.1006/pmed.1999.0553</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0091-7435
ispartof Preventive medicine, 1999-11, Vol.29 (5), p.321-326
issn 0091-7435
1096-0260
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1006_pmed_1999_0553
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete
subjects Adolescent
Advertising - legislation & jurisprudence
Humans
Massachusetts
Nicotiana
Plants, Toxic
Private Sector - legislation & jurisprudence
Public Policy
Tobacco Use Disorder - prevention & control
tobacco, youth, advertising
title A Comparison of the Advertising and Accessibility of Cigars, Cigarettes, Chewing Tobacco, and Loose Tobacco
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-14T18%3A26%3A56IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-pubmed_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Comparison%20of%20the%20Advertising%20and%20Accessibility%20of%20Cigars,%20Cigarettes,%20Chewing%20Tobacco,%20and%20Loose%20Tobacco&rft.jtitle=Preventive%20medicine&rft.au=DiFranza,%20Joseph%20R.&rft.date=1999-11-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=321&rft.epage=326&rft.pages=321-326&rft.issn=0091-7435&rft.eissn=1096-0260&rft_id=info:doi/10.1006/pmed.1999.0553&rft_dat=%3Cpubmed_cross%3E10564622%3C/pubmed_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/10564622&rft_els_id=S0091743599905534&rfr_iscdi=true