RESEARCH PAPER
Tobacco regulatory compliance with STAKE Act age-ofsale signage among licensed tobacco retailers across diverse neighborhoods in Southern California
 
More details
Hide details
1
USC Tobacco Center for Regulatory Sciences in Vulnerable Populations, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, United States
2
Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado, Aurora, United States
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Steve Sussman   

USC Tobacco Center for Regulatory Sciences in Vulnerable Populations, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 2001 N. Soto Street, 3rd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90032, United States
Publish date: 2018-06-14
 
Tob. Induc. Dis. 2018;16(June):30
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
The California Stop Tobacco Access to Kids Enforcement (STAKE) Act requires licensed tobacco retailers to post minimum age-of-sale signage at the point of sale. This study investigated STAKE Act compliance in licensed tobacco retailers across four racial/ethnic communities in Southern California.

Methods:
The sample consisted of 675 licensed tobacco retailers (excluding chain store supermarkets and pharmacies) randomly selected based on zip codes from predominantly non-Hispanic White (n=196), African American (n=193), Hispanic/Latino (n=186), and Korean American (n=100) communities. A protocol for assessing signage was completed at each store by community health workers (promotoras de salud). The law changed from a minimum age of 18 to 21 years (Tobacco 21) during data collection, as of 9 June 2016. Differences in signage compliance were evaluated before and after changes in the State law.

Results:
Overall, 45% of the stores were compliant with posting the required age-of-sale signage (which varied in minimum age by date of collection); 14% of stores did not have any store interior age-of-sale signs, and 41% of stores had some type of age-of-sale sign but were not compliant with the STAKE Act (e.g. 29.5% of the stores had non-compliant tobacco industry We Card signs but not STAKE Act signs). Stores observed after the 2016 implementation of Tobacco 21 had significantly lower STAKE Act signage compliance rates (38.6%) compared to stores observed before the change in the State law (70.9%) (z=6.8623, p<0.001). The difference in STAKE Act sign compliance between stores located in AA communities (16.9%) and stores located in NHW communities (41.5%) observed within the first three months after the change in law was statistically significant (χ2(1)=20.098, p<0.001).

Conclusions:
Findings suggest the need for prompt, educational outreach to licensed tobacco retailers on age-of-sale signage changes, multiple compliance checks, and enforcement.

 
REFERENCES (25)
1. Forster JL, Wolfson M. Youth access to tobacco: Policies and politics. Annual Review of Public Health. 1998;19:203-235. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.19.1.203
2. Arday DR, Klevens RM, Nelson DE, Huang P, Giovino GA, Mowery P. Predictors of tobacco sales to minors. Preventive Medicine. 1997;26(1):8-13. doi:10.1006/pmed.1996.9984
3. O’Grady B, Asbridge M, Abernathy T. Analysis of factors related to illegal tobacco sales to young people in Ontario. Tobacco Control. 1999;8:301-305. doi:10.1136/tc.8.3.301
4. Lipperman-Kreda S, Grube JW, Friend KB. Contextual and community factors associated with youth access to cigarettes through commercial sources. Tobacco Control. 2014;23:39-44.
5. Sussman S, Levy D, Lich KH, et al. Comparing effects of tobacco use prevention modalities: need for complex system models. Tobacco Induced Diseases. 2013;11(2):2. doi:10.1186/1617-9625-11-2
6. Kong AY, Eaddy JL, Morrison SL, Asbury D, Lindell KM, Ribisl KM. Using the vape shop standardized tobacco assessment for retail settings (V-STARS) to assess product availability, price promotions, and messaging in New Hampshire vape shop retailers. Tobacco Regulatory Science. 2017;3(2):174-182. doi:10.18001/trs.3.2.5
7. Silver D, Macinko J, Giorgio M, Bae JY, Jimenez G. Retailer compliance with tobacco control laws in New York City before and after raising the minimum legal purchase age to 21. Tobacco Control. 2016;25(6):624-627. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015-052547
8. Apollonio DE, Malone RE. The “We Card” Program: Tobacco industry “youth smoking prevention” as industry self-preservation. American Journal of Public Health. 2010;100(7):1188-1201. doi:10.2105/ajph.2009.169573
9. California Tobacco 21 Law. California Department of Public Health website. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Progra.... Updated February 21, 2018. Accessed February 23, 2018.
10. Sussman S. Tobacco industry youth tobacco prevention programming: A review. Prevention Science. 2002;3(1):57-67. doi:10.1023/a:1014623426877
11. Supporting Members. We Card Web Center website. http://www.wecard.org/supporti.... Accessed May 11, 2017.
12. Roeseler A, Feighery EC, Cruz TB. Tobacco marketing in California and implications for the future. Tobacco Control. 2010;19:i21-i29. doi:10.1136/tc.2009.031963
13. John R, Cheney MK, Azad MR. Point-of-sale marketing of tobacco products: Taking advantage of the socially disadvantaged? Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved. 2009;20(2):489-506. doi:10.1353/hpu.0.0147
14. Lee JGL, Henricksen L, Rose SW, Moreland-Russell S, Ribisl KM. A systematic review of neighborhood disparities in point-of-sale tobacco marketing. American Journal of Public Health. 2015;105:e8-e18. doi:10.2105/ajph.2015.302777
15. Lee JGL, Landrine H, Torres E, Gregory KR. Inequities in tobacco retailer sales to minors by neighbourhood racial/ethnic composition, poverty and segregation, USA, 2015. Tobacco Control. 2016;25:e142-e145. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053188
16. Institute of Medicine. Public health implications of raising the minimum age of legal access to tobacco products. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2015.
17. Silver D, Bae JY, Jimenez G, Macinko J. Compliance with minimum price and legal age for cigarette purchase laws: evidence from NYC in advance of raising purchase age to 21. Tobacco Control. 2015;25(3). doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051860
18. Feighery EC, Ribisl KM, Schleicher N, Lee RE, Halvorson S. Cigarette advertising and promotional strategies in retail outlets: results of a statewide survey in California. Tobacco Control. 2001;10(2):184-188. doi:10.1136/tc.10.2.184
19. Baezconde-Garbanati L, Cruz TB, Sussman S, Unger JB, Pentz MA, Samet JM. Maximizing Compliance with Tobacco Policy in Vulnerable Community Retail Environments: A Multicultural Case Study in Community-Based Participatory Research. SAGE Research Methods Cases; 2017.
20. California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/. Accessed June 2, 2018.
21. Henriksen L, Ribisl KM, Rogers T, et al. Standardized Tobacco Assessment for Retail Settings (STARS): Dissemination and implementation research. Tobacco Control. 2016;25:i67-i74. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053076
22. McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica. 2012;22(3):276-282. doi:10.11613/bm.2012.031
23. SAS. Version 9.4 of the SAS System for Windows. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc; 2013.
24. California Department of Public Health, California Tobacco Control Program. California Tobacco Facts and Figures 2016. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Public Health; 2016.
25. Schneider SK, Buka SL, Dash K, Winickoff JP, O’Donnell L. Community reductions in youth smoking after raising the mínimum sales to age 21. Tobacco Control. 2016;25:355-359. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-052207
eISSN:1617-9625