How Complete Are Tobacco Sales Data? Assessing The Comprehensiveness Of US Tobacco Product Retail Sales Data Through Comparisons To Excise Tax Collections

Abstract

Introduction
Sales data analyses are increasingly used to guide tobacco regulatory science. However, such data do not cover specialist retailers like vape shops or tobacconists. Understanding the extent of the cigarette and electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) markets covered by sales data is critical to establishing such analyses’ generalizability and potential biases.

Methods
Using retail sales data from Information Resources Incorporated (IRI) and Nielsen, we conduct tax gap analyses comparing states’ cigarette and ENDS tax revenue to tax collection estimates based on retail sales data. For the 23 US states in both retail sales datasets, cigarette tax gap analyses were conducted for each year from 2018-2020. Four (Louisiana, North Carolina, Ohio, and Washington) of those 23 states levied per unit ENDS taxes and provided monthly tax revenue data covering January 2018 - October 2021, where we conducted monthly tax gap analyses for both cigarettes and ENDS.

Results
Across states covered by both sales datasets, annual mean cigarette sales in IRI and Nielsen account for 92.3% (95% CI 88.3-96.2%) and 84.0% (95% CI 79.3-88.7%) of state cigarette tax revenue, respectively. Monthly average coverage rates for ENDS sales were lower, ranging from 42.3% to 86.1% for IRI and 43.6% to 88.5% for Nielsen, but remained stable over time.

Conclusions
IRI and Nielsen sales data capture almost the entire US cigarette market and a substantial but lower portion of the US ENDS market. With proper care to address shortcomings, sales data analyses can capture changes in the US market for these tobacco products.

Implications
Policy evaluations and analyses using e-cigarette and cigarette sales data are often criticized because these data do not cover online sales or sales by specialty retailers like tobacconists.
Cigarette sales data consistently cover nearly 90% of taxed sales, while e-cigarette sales data cover around 50% of taxed volumes.
Retail sales data capture nearly all cigarette sales and a substantial portion of ENDS sales with relatively stable rates of coverage over time, supporting their continued use in tobacco surveillance and policy evaluation work.

Full text

Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 2023, XX, 1–5
https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntad138
Advance access publication 3 August 2023
Brief Report
Potential Implications for Tobacco Industry Transformation
of the Acquisition of Swedish Match by Philip Morris
International
David T.Levy, PhD1,, Kenneth E.Warner, PhD2, Alex C.Liber, PhD1,, NargizTravis, MScPH1,
David T.Sweanor, JD3, RafaelMeza, PhD4,, K. MichaelCummings, MPH, PhD5
1Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
2School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
3Centre for Health Law, Policy & Ethics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
4Department of Integrative Oncology, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, Canada
5Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA
Corresponding Author: David T. Levy, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA. Telephone: 301-275-2396; E-mail:
DL777@georgetown.edu
Abstract
Philip Morris International’s recent purchase of Swedish Match may prove to be a vital tobacco industry development. We focus on PMIs poten-
tial progress in moving from primarily selling cigarettes toward primarily selling noncombustible nicotine delivery products (NCNDPs). We also
consider the potential contribution of the acquisition to industry transformation whereby other cigarette firms may potentially move toward pri-
marily selling NCNDPs. We examine the potential impact on noncombustible nicotine delivery product use, including nicotine pouches (a major
Swedish Match product), e-cigarettes, heated tobacco products, and, most importantly, on sales of the industry’s staple, combustible cigarettes.
We focus on the United States as a special case, where PMI is limited from entering the cigarette market.
Implications: Philip Morris International’s purchase of Swedish Match and policies regarding nicotine pouches (NPs) have been overlooked
in the tobacco control literature. The acquisition indicates the importance of the NP market to the largest nonstate-owned tobacco company.
The acquisition has the potential through pricing and marketing tactics to either encourage or discourage the use of NPs, e-cigarettes, heated
tobacco products, and most importantly cigarettes. Due to its inability to sell cigarettes in the United States, PMI will have incentives to use
its alternative nicotine delivery products, including its newly acquired NPs, to reduce the sale of cigarettes by other companies. However, the
potential effects in other countries, where PMI does sell cigarettes, are less clear. Monitoring and analyzing tobacco company acquisitions is
essential to studying future transitions in using different kinds of tobacco products, especially from cigarettes to lower-risk alternative nicotine
delivery products.
Introduction
Much of the recent tobacco harm reduction literature has fo-
cused on e-cigarette1–3 and heated tobacco product (HTP)3–5
use. However, nicotine pouches (NPs), aka modern oral nico-
tine pouches, comprising such prominent brands as ZYN and
ON!, have recently been marketed as a cleaner form of nico-
tine delivery.3,6 While NPs do not contain tobacco leaves, they
contain nicotine derived from tobacco or pharmaceutical-
grade synthetic nicotine, and are touted as “tobacco-free.”7–11
Sales have rapidly increased in the United States12 and other
countries.3,13 Preliminary studies nd that NPs contain fewer
toxicants and at lower levels than cigarettes14 and snus,15,16
a reduced-risk smokeless tobacco popular in Nordic coun-
tries.17
On November 8, 2022, Philip Morris International
(PMI) acquired Swedish Match (SM) after securing 83%
share commitments from SM stockholders.18 Specializing
in smokeless tobacco products (SLTs), SM had the largest
US NP market share (64.5%).19 Using Euromonitor data,20
SMs worldwide 2021 NP share has been estimated at 58.5%,
followed by British American Tobacco (BAT) at 22.2%.
According to the 2022 Investor Report (Supplementary ma-
terial, 21), PMI sold 645 billion cigarettes and 91 billion
heated tobacco product (HTP) sticks worldwide, but mini-
mal SLT sales before the acquisition. PMIs worldwide cig-
arette market share is 12.6%, excluding the United States,
and 23.4% excluding China.20 PMI sells tobacco products in
over 180 countries, including many low- and middle-income
countries.
The acquisition combines the largest nonstate-owned to-
bacco company, PMI, with the largest NP company, SM. PMI
has stated its “ambition for smoke-free products to account
for more than 50 percent of its total net revenues by 2025.”
(Supplementary material, 22). Analysis of PMI’s acquisition
of SM provides an opportunity to evaluate a key route for in-
dustry transformation by a major rm. Industry transforma-
tion is likely to result from the transformation of individual
companies. PMI, as the largest nonstate-owned tobacco com-
pany, can lead the way. That transformation, in turn, could
© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For
permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Received: November 22, 2022. Revised: June 25, 2023. Accepted: August 2 2023.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ntr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ntr/ntad138/7236583 by Georgetown University Law Center E.B. Williams Library user on 06 October 2023

2Levy et al.
have market inuences that ultimately contribute to industry
transformation.
We focus on PMI as a transforming company by consid-
ering its potential progress in moving from primarily selling
cigarettes towards selling primarily noncombustible nicotine
delivery products (NCNDPs) (Supplementary material, 23).
We also consider the potential contribution of the acquisition
in terms of overall industry transformation, whereby other
cigarette rms in the market may subsequently move towards
primarily selling NCNDPs (Supplementary material, 24,25).
We rst consider direct and indirect implications of the acqui-
sition with relevance to potential transformation within PMI.
We distinguish potential differences in high-income countries
(HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We
then separately consider the United States with its unique
policy landscape, which limits the company from entering
the cigarette market and thus provides distinctly different
incentives from those pertaining to other markets. Our anal-
ysis is based on company statements, news articles, market
commentaries, and scholarly literature on industry transfor-
mation and transitions between NPs and other nicotine deliv-
ery products.
Potential Implications of the SM Acquisition
for PMIs Transformation
From the perspective of a prot-maximizing rm, we consider
three potential implications of the acquisition with relevance
to PMI’s potential to transform from a provider of primarily
cigarettes into a provider of primarily NCNDPs: 1) the direct
(immediate) impact of the acquisition in terms of the propor-
tion of PMIs overall sales comprising NCNDPs; 2) the future
(indirect) impact of the acquisition on NCNDP sales as a re-
sult of PMIs efforts to expand the NP market; and 3) the (in-
direct) impact on cigarette sales via increased NCNDP sales.
Direct Impact on PMIs Transformation
By adding noncombustible NP sales, the acquisition of SM
moves PMI closer to its stated smoke-free goal simply by
increasing the smoke-free percentage of its total sales. With
SM’s reputation for introducing harm-reducing products,
the deal also bolsters PMIs image as moving towards harm
reduction(Supplementary material, 26). Thus, the acquisi-
tion is consistent with PMI seeking “portfolio diversica-
tion…, providing the potential to develop robust scientic
and regulatory positions and hope of retrieving corporate
reputations(Supplementary material, 27).” PMI has also re-
cently acquired pharmaceutical companies, including Fertin,
OtiTopic and Vectura(Supplementary material, 28), that pro-
duce inhalation and oral delivery products for medicinal
purposes. While not containing nicotine, these products sup-
port PMI’s “beyond nicotine” (Supplementary material, 29)
vision, but might be later developed to also deliver nicotine.
It is important to emphasize that the pharmaceutical and SM
acquisitions increase the volume of PMIs noncombustible
product sales without directly reducing cigarette sales.
Indirect Implications of the Acquisition on PMI’s
Transformation through Further Expansion of NP
Sales
While the acquisition itself led to an immediate increase in
PMI’s share of NCNDPs, PMI could further expand that
share by increasing future NP sales. With its experience in
marketing, nancing capabilities, and previous relationships
with retailers and wholesalers in a broad range of coun-
tries, PMI is well-positioned to aggressively market its
new NP product ZYN in HICs and LMICs if they choose
(Supplementary material, 30).
PMI could also bring its regulatory experience to bear in
lobbying for limiting restrictions on NPs. NPs are not legally
available for sale in Canada (Supplementary material, 31),
Australia, and Germany,3 but fall outside the EU ban on snus
sales in some countries,3 and, being “tobacco-free,” are cur-
rently outside the purview of UK regulations (Supplementary
material, 32). In LMICs, PMI is in an especially strong pos-
ition to promote ZYN sales due to its well-established ciga-
rette marketing infrastructure in these countries, especially in
markets with restricted e-cigarette sales (Supplementary ma-
terial, 33). Utilizing its regulatory experience, PMI is better
positioned than SM to lobby governments to allow NPs as a
potentially lower-risk alternative to current and potential SLT
consumers (Supplementary material, 34).
Studies (Supplementary material, 35,36) indicate that, a-
mong adults, NPs are primarily used by current and former
SLT users. PMI could market NPs as a substitute for more
harmful forms of SLTs, such as some forms of chew products
(Supplementary material, 37). In particular, NPs are almost
certainly less harmful6,15,16 than many high-toxicant SLT
forms widely used in some LMICs (eg, Pakistan and India)
(Supplementary material, 37).3 However, PMI could also
market NPs to those SLT users who may have otherwise quit
SLT use.
In both HICs and LMICs, PMI could expand the nicotine-
using population by introducing NPs to new customers, such
as young adults. Adults ages 18–44 who smoked or had ever
used SLTs were found more likely to be aware of nicotine
pouches.7 Promotions that NPs are “tobacco-free”7–9 and are
available in avors (Supplementary material, 38) may be a
potential draw to younger users, especially in markets where
other avored nicotine products are banned from sale. With
its unmatched market coverage and marketing experience,
PMI likely possesses a greater ability than SM to encourage
new users. While they cannot market directly to youth, legal
marketing to young adults might also increase youth interest
in NPs.
While PMI may be in a better position than SM to pro-
mote NPs in other countries in which ZYN does not have
a foothold, PMIs promotion of ZYN might cannibalize the
company’s pre-established cigarette and HTP sales, which
could deter more aggressive marketing of ZYN.
Indirect Implications of the Acquisition on PMI
and Industry Transformation through its Impact on
Cigarette Sales
The acquisition of a major NP producer—a potential com-
petitor for other nicotine product sales—gives PMI greater
control over a potential external threat to its cigarette sales
worldwide, thus potentially slowing the trend away from
cigarette use (Supplementary material, 39). Consistent with
Mathers et al. (Supplementary material, 25), the acquisition
of SM, like Altria’s purchase of Juul (Supplementary material,
40–42), removes a competitor, thereby limiting competition
to its cigarette as well as NCNDP sales. Protecting cigarette
sales may be especially important in LMICs, where countries
are often in the earlier stages of the tobacco epidemic with
expanding cigarette sales (Supplementary material, 43). For
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ntr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ntr/ntad138/7236583 by Georgetown University Law Center E.B. Williams Library user on 06 October 2023

3Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 2023, Vol. XX, No. XX
example, PMI had acquired Sampoerna, the largest tobacco
company in Indonesia, to gain the dominant cigarette mar-
ket share in that country (Supplementary material, 44), and,
while they have announced its intention to introduce HTPs
(Supplementary material, 45), its progress towards that aim
is unclear.
Marketed as a “product that could be used anywhere,”9
NPs may be used where indoor cigarette and e-cigarette/
HTP use are restricted (Supplementary material, 38,46).6 This
type of promotion could help to retain PMI’s highly prota-
ble cigarette customers, some of whom might otherwise quit.
However, NP use may also reduce the number of cigarettes
individuals smoke or increase the likelihood of their quitting
smoking.
Business analysts note that the deal provides PMI with “a
more complete suite of [NCNDP] products(Supplementary
material, 30,48).” With a broader product portfolio, the
SM acquisition may better enable PMI to inuence the sale
of cigarettes and NCNDPs via pricing and other marketing
strategies over a wider range of products (Supplementary
material, 40–42).4 While maintaining cigarette customers
through dual cigarette/NP use may be a preferred option
from the company’s nancial perspective (Supplementary
material, 41),4,41 PMI faces the continued threat of los-
ing cigarette customers to alternatives, such as e-cigarettes.
Indeed, cigarette companies faced large declines in its stock
prices with the growth in independent e-cigarette companies
(Supplementary material, 24). The SM acquisition provides
PMI an alternative low-risk product to offer those cigarette
smokers who are likely to switch to e-cigarettes. However,
with proprietary technology and a higher prot margin than
e-cigarettes (Supplementary material, 40,41),4 PMI may pre-
fer to promote IQOS, the company’s heated tobacco prod-
uct (HTP), rather than NPs for business reasons alone. At
the same time, PMI can adjust relative product pricing and
targeted promotions to encourage some smokers less inclined
to using lower-risk NPs to switch to HTPs, which may lead to
more regular use.4–6
The impact of PMI’s SM acquisition on industry trans-
formation will also depend on how other rms react
to PMI’s business behavior. As the largest rm in many
HICs and LMICs, PMI may act as a leader to other rms
(Supplementary material, 40–42), particularly in protecting
cigarette sales. However, to the extent that PMI lures cig-
arette customers from other rms, these rms may pro-
mote NCNDPs instead of protecting cigarette sales. Unlike
e-cigarettes, which are sold almost exclusively by inde-
pendent rms (Supplementary material, 24,29,31,32), NPs
are sold almost exclusively (Supplementary material, 47)
and HTPs are sold exclusively (Supplementary material,
40,41)4 by cigarette companies. With high market concen-
tration, each of these products is likely to be protable
(Supplementary material, 40–42).
The United States as a Special Case
In 2008, PMI split from Philip Morris USA, the division
now owned by Altria, and gave up rights to sell cigarettes
in the United States (Supplementary material, 49). Therefore,
the United States provides PMI the opportunity to increase
NCNDP sales without cannibalizing its own cigarette sales
(Supplementary material, 39). Since ZYN, a relatively new a-
vored oral nicotine product developed by Swedish Match, has
had a dominant share of the NP market in the United States
(Supplementary material, 47), the acquisition of SM provides
PMI a “distribution platform, which it could leverage to...
enter the market with its other [NCNDP] products,” taking
advantage of SM’s US sales infrastructure (Supplementary
material, 50).
The acquisition of SM may most directly impact the
US SLT market. With Altria and BAT (then RJ Reynolds)
having acquired major SLT companies between 2002 and
2009, the US SLT market became highly concentrated and
profitable (Supplementary material, 51). Thus, given past
success19 and potential growth in the overall US SLT mar-
ket (Supplementary material, 30,52), PMI has incentives
to market to SLT customers of Altria and BAT the SLT
products that the company acquired from SM, including
snus (Supplementary material, 47) and ZYN. Although re-
quired to obtain approval from the US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) to continue marketing its NP
products, both PMI (seller of ZYN) and Altria (seller of
ON!), given its financial resources, should be able to se-
cure marketing approval from the FDA. In addition, the
recent extension of the agency’s ability to regulate syn-
thetic nicotine (Supplementary material, 53,54), along
with the costly nature of obtaining FDA marketing ap-
proval, creates substantial regulatory hurdles to the en-
try of smaller firms desiring to market new products.
These barriers should limit market competition from new
companies.
With direct competition between PMI’s ZYN and Altria’s
ON!, the stage is set for competition for other NCNDPs.
While HTP sales have been suspended in the US for the time
being (Supplementary material, 55), the acquisition appears
to have already had a major impact on the US HTP market.
As noted above, HTPs have relatively high prot-margins
(Supplementary material, 40,41)4 and the United States
provides PMI a platform for increasing IQOS sales. Until
recently, PMI had an agreement whereby Altria would mar-
ket PMI’s IQOS HTP brand in the United States. However,
since the SM acquisition, PMI obtained exclusive US com-
mercialization rights to IQOS beginning in April 2024
(Supplementary material, 56.57). PMI has also received
FDA authorization to market IQOS 3.0 (Supplementary
material, 58) and Marlboro HeatSticks (Supplementary
material, 59). In support, PMI has opened an ofce and
announced plans to build a factory in the United States. In
reaction, Altria announced a joint venture for the US com-
mercialization of HTPs with Japan Tobacco and has de-
veloped its own HTP (Supplementary material, 60). Thus,
while the SM acquisition may have facilitated PMIs entry
into the United States to promote its higher prot margin
product HTPs, they now confront direct competition from
its former partner, Altria.
Thus, PMI may aggressively market NPs, especially to cur-
rent Altria and BAT SLT customers, while promoting the
highly protable HTPs to cigarette smokers (Supplementary
material, 39). The acquisition provides PMI a platform to en-
ter the US with a broader array of harm-reduction products
without the concern of cannibalizing its own cigarette sales,
thereby meeting its “smoke-free” goals without losing ciga-
rette customers. In addition, the SM acquisition gives PMI a
share of the US cigar market, given SMs presence in that mar-
ket (Supplementary material, 49), which they may expand or
partially switch to HTPs.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ntr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ntr/ntad138/7236583 by Georgetown University Law Center E.B. Williams Library user on 06 October 2023

4Levy et al.
Conclusions
PMI’s acquisition of SM may help the company move towards
its stated goal of selling “50% smoke-free products by 2025.”
However, this acquisition does not necessarily reduce its
sales of cigarettes, potentially making the NCNDP share of
its total sales a pyrrhic victory from the perspective of true
harm reduction. Furthermore, the acquisition’s impact on the
company’s sales of cigarettes and NCNDPs is unclear, which
is likely to have further ramications for other cigarette rms
in terms of its marketing of cigarettes and NCNDPs.
The acquisition has no impact on PMI’s US cigarette
sales, since PMI does not sell cigarettes in the United States.
However, the SM acquisition may reduce overall US cigarette
sales, since PMI is incentivized to replace other companies’
cigarette sales with its own NP and HTP sales. Unlike pre-
vious US industry transformation toward NCNDPs which
has been largely spurred by the entry of independent rms
(Supplementary material, 24), the acquisition appears to have
catalyzed competition between PMI and the dominant US
cigarette company, Altria (Supplementary material, 41,42).
Thus, the acquisition may encourage industry transforma-
tion in terms of other major US rms marketing NCNDPs.
Nevertheless, PMI is expected to promote the use of the
higher health risk4 HTPs over e-cigarettes, thereby reducing
the scale of public health gains from NCDCP use.4
Regarding impacts on cigarette sales outside of the US (the
third mechanism for potential industry transformation), the
acquisition may increase or reduce PMI’s transformation.
While the acquisition increases PMI’s incentive to market
NPs, PMI has less incentive than SM had to promote NPs
due to the risk of replacing more protable cigarette and
HTP sales. With its marketing experience, PMI may encour-
age dual use of NPs with cigarettes in countries with strong
smoke-free air laws or target NP use by those who may have
otherwise replaced cigarette with e-cigarette use or by young
people who may not have otherwise used tobacco. However,
the impact of the acquisition on overall industry transforma-
tion will also depend on how PMI’s behavior impacts other
cigarette companies, that is, whether the other companies fol-
low similar or counteracting strategies.
The ultimate impact on PMIs cigarette sales is difcult to
predict. However, PMIs sales gures from before the acquisi-
tion do not indicate the company’s transformation in terms
of rapid decline in its global smoked tobacco product sales
(Supplementary material, 23). According to PMIs perfor-
mance metrics (Supplementary material, 61), combustible
product shipments fell minimally from 650 billion units in
2020 to 645 billion in 2021 and to 641 billion in 2022. If the
SM acquisition is to result in moving PMI towards signicant
transformation, then those gures will need to show a much
more rapid decline.
The public health impact of the SM acquisition will largely
depend on whether and by how much PMI replaces cigarette
sales with NCNDPs and how those changes impact other
cigarette and independent rms. While we have cited studies
examining NP use, information on actual transitions to and
from the use of NCNDPs, especially NPs, is still at an early
stage. It will be important to monitor the uptake of NCNDPs
by youth and young adults and whether uptake relates to
later transitions to cigarette use. The relationship of adult use
of NCNDPs to cigarette smoking cessation is also critical in
evaluating public health impacts of the acquisition, since the
health risks of NCNDPs are substantially lower than those of
cigarettes. In gauging PMIs impact, it will be necessary to also
consider how these transitions are affected by the marketing
of NCNDPs by other rms and by regulatory policies relevant
to such products.
Our analysis suggests that PMI may realize benets by vir-
tue of having a broader array of harm-reduction products
to promote its “smoke-free” goals, while limiting short-run
losses from reduced cigarette sales. Given the limited informa-
tion on how the acquisition will ultimately impact transitions
to and from HTPs and NPs, it is premature to conjecture a-
bout the ultimate effect of the acquisition on the transforma-
tion of either PMI or the industry and on the implications
for public health. The importance of the acquisition lies in
recognizing that the world’s largest nonstate-owned to-
bacco company decided to acquire SM to maximize prots,
signifying its condence that NPs will be a factor in future
nicotine-delivery product use.
Supplementary Material
A Contributorship Form detailing each author’s specic in-
volvement with this content, as well as any supplementary
data, are available online at https://academic.oup.com/ntr.
Acknowledgments
We thank Richard O’Connor and Andy Hyland for their
helpful comments on previous drafts.
Funding
Research reported in this publication was primarily supported
by the National Cancer Institute of the US National Institutes
of Health under award number P01CA200512. The re-
search was also supported by the National Cancer Institute
of the US National Institutes of Health and the Center for
Tobacco Products of the US Food and Drug Administration
under Award Number U54CA229974. The content is solely
the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily rep-
resent the ofcial views of the NIH or the Food and Drug
Administration.
Competing interests
KMC has received payment as an expert witness in litigation
against cigarette manufacturers. There are no other potential
conicts of interest.
Data Availability
All data used in this article will be made available to readers
by request.
Author Contributions
David Levy (Conceptualization [Equal], Formal analy-
sis [Equal], Investigation [Equal], Writing – original draft
[Lead], Writing – review & editing [Lead]), Kenneth Warner
(Conceptualization [Equal], Formal analysis [Equal], Writing
– original draft [Equal], Writing – review & editing [Equal]),
Alex Liber (Conceptualization [Equal], Writing – original
draft [Equal], Writing – review & editing [Equal]), Nargiz
Travis (Funding acquisition [Equal], Investigation [Equal],
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ntr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ntr/ntad138/7236583 by Georgetown University Law Center E.B. Williams Library user on 06 October 2023

5Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 2023, Vol. XX, No. XX
Writing – review & editing [Equal]), Rafael Meza (Writing – o-
riginal draft [Equal], Writing – review & editing [Equal]),and
K. Michael Cummings (Conceptualization [Equal], Funding
acquisition [Equal], Writing – original draft [Equal], Writing
– review & editing [Equal])
References
1. Levy DT, Sánchez-Romero LM, Travis N, et al. US nicotine vaping
product SimSmoke Simulation Model: the effect of vaping and
tobacco control policies on smoking prevalence and smoking-
attributable deaths. Int J Environ Res Pub Health. 2021;18(9):4876.
2. Levy DT, Cummings KM, Villanti AC, et al. A framework for
evaluating the public health impact of e-cigarettes and other
vaporized nicotine products. Addiction. 2017;112(1):8–17.
3. O’Connor R, Schneller LM, Felicione NJ, et al. Evolution of to-
bacco products: recent history and future directions. Tob Control.
2022;31(2):175–182.
4. Levy DT, Cadham CJ, Li Y, et al. A decision-theoretic public health
framework for heated tobacco and nicotine vaping products. Int J
Environ Res Pub Health. 2022;19(20):13431–13447.
5. Mallock N, Pieper E, Hutzler C, Henkler-Stephani F, Luch A.
Heated tobacco products: a review of current knowledge and ini-
tial assessments. Front Public Health. 2019;7:287.
6. Patwardhan S, Fagerstrom K. The new nicotine pouch category: a
tobacco harm reduction tool? Nicotine Tob Res. 2022;24(4):623–
625.
7. Hrywna M, Gonsalves NJ, Delnevo CD, Wackowski OA. Nicotine
pouch product awareness, interest and ever use among US adults
who smoke, 2021. Tob Control. 2022:1–4. Online ahead of print.
doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-057156.
8. Robichaud MO, Seidenberg AB, Byron MJ. Tobacco companies
introduce “tobacco-free” nicotine pouches. Tob Control.
2020;29(e1):e145–e146.
9. Czaplicki L, Patel M, Rahman B, et al. Oral nicotine marketing
claims in direct-mail advertising. Tob Control. 2022;31(5):663–
666.
10. Camenga DR, Krishnan-Sarin S, Davis DR, et al. Curiosity, use,
and perceptions of “tobacco-free nicotine” E-cigarettes among U.S.
young adults. Prev Med. 2022;164:107296.
11. Morean ME, Bold KW, Davis DR, et al. Does it come from to-
bacco? Young adults’ interpretations of the term “tobacco-free
nicotine” in a cross-sectional national survey sample. PLoS One.
2022;17(5):e0268464.
12. Marynak KL, Wang X, Borowiecki M, et al. Nicotine Pouch Unit
Sales in the US, 2016-2020. JAMA. 2021;326(6):566–568.
13. Research and Markets. Tobacco Free Nicotine Pouches. Snus):
Complete European Market Analysis Report. Ireland 2020.
14. Azzopardi D, Haswell LE, Frosina J, et al. Assessment of biomarkers
of exposure and potential harm, and physiological and subjective
health measures in exclusive users of nicotine pouches and current,
former and never smokers. Biomarkers. 2023 Feb;28(1):118–129.
15. Azzopardi D, Liu C, Murphy J. Chemical characterization of
tobacco-free “modern” oral nicotine pouches and their pos-
ition on the toxicant and risk continuums. Drug Chem Toxicol.
2022;45(5):2246–2254.
16. Jablonski JJ, Cheetham AG, Martin AM. Market survey of modern
oral nicotine products: determination of select HPHCs and com-
parison to traditional smokeless tobacco products. Separations.
2022;9(3):65–79.
17. Clarke E, Thompson K, Weaver S, Thompson J, O'Connell G.
Snus: a compelling harm reduction alternative to cigarettes. Harm
Reduct J 2019;16(62):1–17.
18. Mannes M. Philip Morris clinches Swedish Match after smoking
out opposition. https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/philip-
morris-wins-83-stake-swedish-match-goes-ahead-with-16-bln-
takeover-2022-11-07/. Published 2022. Accessed November 14,
2022.
19. Swedish Match. Swedish Match Annual Report 2021. https://www.
swedishmatch.com/globalassets/reports/annual-reports/2021_
swedishmatchannualreport_interactive_en.pdf#page=18.
Published 2022. Accessed June 28, 2022.
20. Euromonitor International. Passport: Global Market Information
Database [Internet]. euromonitor.com/tobacco. Published 2022.
Accessed August10, 2023.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ntr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ntr/ntad138/7236583 by Georgetown University Law Center E.B. Williams Library user on 06 October 2023