Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Expanding local sales restrictions on flavoured tobacco products to include menthol: retail sales changes in two Minnesota cities
  1. Lindsay T Olson1,
  2. Doris G Gammon1,
  3. Todd Rogers1,
  4. Elizabeth M Brown1,
  5. James M Nonnemaker1,
  6. James G Spinks1,
  7. Ashley Ross2,
  8. Xin Xu2,
  9. Joanne Moze3,
  10. Christine M Matter3,
  11. Joanne D’Silva4
  1. 1 Center for Health Analytics, Media and Policy, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
  2. 2 Center for Tobacco Products, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
  3. 3 Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA
  4. 4 Clearway Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
  1. Correspondence to Lindsay T Olson, Center for Health Analytics, Media, and Policy, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA; lolson{at}


Background In 2018, Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota, expanded existing local sales restrictions on flavoured (non-menthol/mint/wintergreen) tobacco products (‘flavour policies’) to include menthol/mint/wintergreen-flavoured tobacco products (‘menthol policies’). All policies included exemptions for certain store types.

Methods We obtained weekly retail tobacco product sales for 2015 through 2019 from NielsenIQ for convenience stores and other outlets in the policy jurisdictions and two comparison areas (rest of the state of Minnesota and total USA). We standardised unit sales across product categories and used NielsenIQ-provided descriptors to classify products as menthol (including mint/wintergreen) or flavoured (non-menthol/non-tobacco). Using single group interrupted time series models, we analysed unit sales by product category and by flavour separately for each geography to assess associations between menthol policy implementation and trends in tobacco product unit sales.

Results Following menthol policy implementation, unit sales of menthol cigarettes and menthol smokeless tobacco decreased in both cities, with smaller decreases in comparison areas. Flavoured cigar sales—which decreased following the flavour policies—further decreased after the menthol policies, while sales of menthol electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) increased in both cities and sales of flavoured ENDS increased in St. Paul.

Conclusion Expanding flavour policies to include menthol/mint/wintergreen was associated with significant decreases in unit sales of most menthol products and in total unit sales by tobacco product category. Increases in menthol and flavoured ENDS sales in these cities may be associated with legal sales by exempted retailers and/or illicit sales by non-compliant retailers, highlighting opportunities for retailer education and enforcement.

  • public policy
  • electronic nicotine delivery devices
  • non-cigarette tobacco products

Data availability statement

Data may be obtained from a third party and are not publicly available. Retail scanner data are available from third party vendors and are not publicly available.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

Data may be obtained from a third party and are not publicly available. Retail scanner data are available from third party vendors and are not publicly available.

View Full Text


  • Contributors LTO, DGG and TR conceived of the study. DGG and JGS conducted the analyses and prepared the figures. All authors contributed to the writing and revisions of the article and approved the final version of the article. LTO is the guarantor and responsible for the overall content and finished work.

  • Funding Funding for this study was provided by the Center for Tobacco Products (CTP), US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under contract HHSF22318002 to RTI International.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • 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.