County may ban flavored tobacco, including menthol

The prohibition on flavored products, which would include menthol cigarettes, has recently caused controversy to the north where a ballot measure is seeking to repeal similar rules in San Francisco.

Supervisors Carole Groom and David Canepa jointly proposed the San Mateo County ban, which they hope will serve as a model for cities to adopt. If approved, stores would have to clear their shelves of products such as e-cigarette liquids, cigars and chewing tobaccos that are flavored.

“We know the industry has marketed various flavors, whether it’s banana, bubble gum or candy rainbow,” Canepa said. “We know these tobacco products lure children into becoming daily smokers.”

Bolstering the supervisors’ case is a national survey that indicated 81 percent of youth who’ve used tobacco reported flavored products were the first they tried, according to a staff report. The vast majority of tobacco retailers in the county sell flavored products that are used at higher rates by youth and communities of color, according to the report.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration banned flavored cigarettes, but did not further regulate menthol or other flavored tobacco products. Instead, local jurisdictions have suggested prohibitions.

Groom noted the county has been progressive in trying to curb exposure to secondhand smoke, including banning it in multi-family buildings. With flavors like bubble gum on the market, it’s critical the county try to reduce the chances of children becoming addicted to the hazardous products, she said.

“I don’t like to be a nag, but we know that smoking is about the worst thing you can do,” Groom said. “We want this county to be healthy.”

But the impacts to businesses, particularly small mom-and-pop shops that would be left with already paid for products they can’t sell, is causing some consternation. The Arab American Grocers Association has sought to highlight the potential ramifications of banning the sale of menthol cigarettes and flavored tobacco products. Miriam Zouzounis, an association board member whose family owns a corner grocer in San Francisco, suggested local governments should do their due diligence by first studying whether statewide rules are having the intended affect of reducing consumption amongst youth.

New rules include raising the legal smoking age to 21 years old, instituting an additional $2 tax on cigarettes, and regulating e-cigarette liquids, she said. The association has a number of members on the Peninsula who operate corner stores and vape shops that rely on the sale of legal items for which they’ve already paid taxes.

At a minimum, they need time to be able to sell the remainder of these products, Zouzounis said.

“These products can be found online,” Zouzounis said. “They’re basically pushing out the mom-and-pop retailer and pushing it onto the big retailer online without being attentive to that reality.”

For many of these business owners, Zouzounis said they don’t have 401(k)s and their valuable tobacco licenses are being increasingly devalued. She noted tobacco is an anchor product and many regular customers that come to a corner store end up purchasing other items as well. While understanding of the efforts to reduce use amongst youth, Zouzounis noted the ban would have widespread effects to businesses on which people rely.  

“Each one of [those businesses] is supportive of a whole family if not more,” Zouzounis said, noting the efforts in the Bay Area are an example of gentrification. “It’s working-class people being priced out and services that are for working-class people” being targeted.

Efforts to ban flavored tobacco products have also picked up steam in Oakland, San Francisco and Santa Clara County, according to the supervisors’ staff report.

Canepa and Groom said they’re sensitive to the effects on small business owners, but there are other factors that take precedence. Data from the state indicate tobacco use is the number one cause of preventable death and disease in San Mateo County and that, between 2006 and 2010, there were over 47,000 smoking-associated hospitalizations. Treatment costs were more than $566 million, with $20.7 million spent at the San Mateo Medical Center, according to the staff report.

“I’m sympathetic to those business owners, however, we have to look at the overall health impacts. We know smoking has caused a tremendous amount of damage, we know smoking kills, has killed people, we know smoking is the cause of bad health outcomes. And while I understand where the businesses are coming from, I think the greater good in terms of improving health outcomes is more important than someone’s profit line,” Canepa said.

He noted the new rules must include an education component for store owners so they can try to alleviate concerns about unsold products.

The Board of Supervisors is slated to consider the new ordinance Jan. 23. If approved, it requires a second vote at a subsequent meeting before it goes into effect 30 days later. The proposal includes a grace period where enforcement wouldn’t begin until July 1, 2018. The ban also suggests prohibiting pharmacies from selling tobacco, which CVS did on its own a few years ago.

As with other policies, the supervisors noted it could be replicated by the cities that encompass the vast majority of the territory in San Mateo County. Local jurisdictions have moved toward increasingly stringent regulations over smoking in recent years. In many local cities, all tobacco smoke is banned in multi-family housing, places like parks, and within certain distances from entryways to public buildings. 

There are about 34 tobacco retailers in the unincorporated portions of the county, and Groom agreed she hopes cities consider similar prohibitions.

“I have the highest regard for small businesses, they are the lifeblood of the community,” Groom said. “But children’s health is more important.”

Supervisors meet 9 a.m. Tuesday, Feb. 23, at 400 County Center, Redwood City.

samantha@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 106

Twitter: @samantha_weigel