HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC WORKSESSION PACKET 04132021If you would like to request special accommodations or alternative formats, please contact the City Clerk at 612-782-3313
or email city@savmn.com. People who are deaf or hard of hearing can contact us by using 711 Relay.
The meeting can be viewed live via cable channel 16 in the North Suburbs or the web broadcast at
https://www.ctvnorthsuburbs.org/live-tv/channel-15. Due to health concerns and limited seating, we
encourage people to view the meeting by using this link: https://www.savmn.com/Calendar.aspx?EID=1257
A dial-in option is available. Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting may do so in person.
Following guidance from state health officials, some City Council Members may choose to participate in
upcoming meetings electronically pursuant to MN Stat. §13D.021.
Work Session Agenda
Tuesday, April 13, 2021
5:30 p.m.
1. Ordinance prohibiting the sale of flavored tobacco. Katie Engman, ANSR presenting
2. Wildlife Management Plan. Charlie Yunker, City Manager presenting
3. Tour of the City. Charlie Yunker, City Manager presenting
4. Coffee with the Council. Charlie Yunker, City Manager presenting
5. Future Work Session Dates, Times & Agenda Items. Charlie Yunker, City Manager presenting
Next Work Session – May 11, 2021 5:30 p.m.?
Topics to discuss and prioritize:
PROPOSED BY STAFF PROPOSED BY COUNCIL
- Communications Plan
- Electronic Packets Module Demonstration
- Community Survey
- Joint meetings with Parks & Planning
- Strategic plan for housing initiatives
- Ordinance to Reduce Gift Card Fraud
6. Adjournment
Minnesota communi�es restric�ng the
sale of flavored tobacco
www.ansrmn.org
Duluth
Updated February 2021
20% of Minnesotans are covered by a flavored
tobacco policy.
Communi�es that restrict sales of fruit-
and candy-flavored tobacco
Communi�es that restrict sales of all
flavored tobacco, including menthol
Communi�es that prohibit sales of all
flavored tobacco, including menthol
Rushford
Saint Paul
Roseville
Shoreview
Minneapolis
St. Louis Park
Robbinsdale
Falcon Heights
MendotaHeights
Arden Hills
New Hope
Golden Valley
LilydaleEdina
Fridley
Lauderdale
TraverseCounty
Brown’s Valley
Wheaton
SWISS CHEESE MODEL OF
COMMERCIAL TOBACCO HARM REDUCTION
Effective commercial tobacco prevention happens when interventions are layered
together to create a healthy tobacco-free community.
Targeted tobacco industry marketing, social media
misinformation, and tobacco lobbyists weakening regulations 2395 University Avenue W, Ste 310, St. Paul, MN 55114
651-646-3005 www.ansrmn.org
(February 2021)Source: Adapted from James T. Reason
Interventions
C a r i n g a n d
t r u s t e d a d u l t s A v a i l a b i l i t y I n c r e a s e a g e t o
p u r c h a s e p r o d u c t sSmoke-f r e e
e n v i r o n m e n t s
N o n -s m o k i n g
f r i e n d s a n d f a m i l y Y o u t h e d u c a t i o n a l p r o g r a m s
a n d t o b a c c o -f r e e c a m p a i g n s
H i g h p r i c e s C o m p l i a n c e c h e c k s
a n d v e n d o r t r a i n i n g E l i m i n a t e f l a v o r s
a n d m e n t h o l
Flavored
Tobacco Products
WHAT TYPES OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS ARE FLAVORED?
Flavored tobacco products include cigarettes, cigars, chewing tobacco,
blunt wraps, electronic cigarettes, and shisha, the tobacco used in hookah.
These products help the tobacco industry get around the FDA’s 2009 ban of
cigarettes with flavors other than menthol.1 Menthol is the only flavor allowed
in cigarettes.
E-cigarettes, also known as vapes, come in a variety of youth-friendly
flavors. JUUL, the most popular e-cigarette on the market, resembles a USB
flash drive. These devices deliver a high dose of nicotine with a modern
design that is easy to conceal.2
WHAT ARE SOME COMMON FLAVORS USED IN TOBACCO
PRODUCTS?
Cigars, chewing tobacco, blunt wraps, vapes and shisha are sold in fruit,
candy, dessert and novelty flavors. Popular flavors include chocolate,
piña colada, apple, grape, berry, cotton candy, bubble gum, mango, mint/
wintergreen and menthol. The same flavorings used in tobacco products are
also used in candy and Kool-Aid drink mixes.3
Menthol flavored tobacco is easier to start and harder to quit.4 Tobacco
companies add menthol to tobacco products to cool the throat and make
them taste better.
WHO USES FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS?
The tobacco industry uses flavored tobacco to attract the next generation
of smokers.5 Young people are much more likely to use flavored tobacco
products than adults.6 In fact, 80 percent of youth who use tobacco use
fruit, candy or menthol flavored tobacco.7 Studies show that young people
perceive flavored tobacco products as tasting better and being safer than
unflavored products, even though they are just as dangerous and addictive.8
Disposable vapes like these were not
regulated by the U.S Government when it
instituted restrictions on flavored vapes in
February 2020.
Cheap cigars come in bright packages and a wide variety of flavors, such as chocolate, grape,
peach, strawberry, blueberry, tropical fusion and pineapple, that appeal to youth.
JUUL is still the top-selling e-cigarette brand
despite the company stopping sales of some
flavored pods, such as cool cucumber and
mango. JUUL and other brands that use
disposable pods are prohibited by the federal
government from selling pods in flavors other
than tobacco, mint and menthol.
Suorin is a popular e-cigarette among youth
because of the many available flavors.These
devices are refillable and are not regulated by
the federal government.
This publication is made possible by funding from the Minnesota Department
of Health’s Tobacco-Free Communities Grant Program.
2395 University Avenue W, Suite 310, St. Paul, MN 55114
651-646-3005 | www.ansrmn.org
HOW DOES THIS IMPACT COMMUNITIES?
As a result of industry targeting, African Americans smoke menthol cigarettes
at higher rates and are more likely to suffer from tobacco related diseases.
In fact, 88 percent of African American adults who smoke use menthol,
compared to 25 percent of adult smokers overall.11 Menthol smoking
significantly reduces quitting success among African American smokers.12
In Minnesota, 34 percent of teen smokers smoke menthol.13 Nationally, 70
percent of LGBTQ youth smokers smoke menthol.14
The Association for Nonsmokers-Minnesota is dedicated
to reducing the human and economic costs of tobacco
use in Minnesota.
(September 2020)
The tobacco industry heavily targets
African Americans with menthol tobacco by
advertising in popular magazines, as well as
supporting music festivals.
The tobacco industry has a long history of targeting the African American
community, women, LGBTQ and youth with menthol tobacco marketing.
Tobacco industry documents show targeted efforts to market menthol
products to African Americans, LGBTQ communities and youth. 9,10 Menthol
makes tobacco easier to start smoking and harder to quit.4
WHAT CAN COMMUNITIES DO ABOUT FLAVORED PRODUCTS?
While the FDA banned flavored cigarettes other than menthol in 2009, the
ban does not affect other tobacco products. Because the FDA ruling does not
prevent local communities from addressing other types of flavored tobacco
products, state and local governments can adopt laws that restrict the sale
of flavored tobacco products within their jurisdiction. Limiting the sale of
products, setting a minimum price or creating a minimum pack size are some
of the ways communities can protect their youth by making flavored tobacco
products less accessible and less appealing.
The FDA issued a ruling in February 2020 that banned flavored, disposable
e-cigarette cartridges like those used by JUUL, except for tobacco and
menthol flavors. This ruling left thousands of appealing flavored products,
such as Puff Bars or refillable systems like Suorin, on the market. The ruling
also allows for the continued sale of tobacco-flavored and menthol-flavored
e-cigarette cartridges. As a result, mint and menthol are popular among youth.
MORE ABOUT MENTHOL FLAVORED TOBACCO
References are available at www.ansrmn.org/flavors
Communities that restrict
sales of fruit- and
candy-flavored tobacco
Communities that restrict
sales of all flavored tobacco,
including menthol
www.BeautifulLieUglyTruth.org
Communities that prohibit
sales of all flavored tobacco,
including menthol
1-12-21
Flavored products mask the
harshness of tobacco, AND
ARE LURING KIDS INTO ADDICTION.
• The tobacco industry deliberately uses flavors to attract
the next generation of smokers.5
• Nicotine is highly addictive, harms the adolescent brain
and primes youth for addiction.6
• Today’s popular e-cigarettes contain high levels of nicotine.7
• Flavorings in e-liquids are harmful when inhaled and can damage
airway and lung tissue.8,9,10,11
Flavored products are a key
reason Minnesota is facing a
youth TOBACCO epidemic.
• FDA’s failure to end all flavored e-cigarette sales has led to dramatic increases among products still available, including a 1000 percent increase in disposable e-cigarette use by high-schoolers.1
• Nearly 3 million students in the U.S. reported using flavored e-cigarettes, including 1.9 million using mint or menthol.1
Weak federal rules allow the tobacco industry to use flavors to attract new TOBACCO users.
• In Minnesota, more than a quarter of 11th-graders
use e-cigarettes, and 8th-grade vaping rates
doubled from 2016 to 2019.2
• Seven in 10 youth say they use e-cigarettes
“because they come in flavors [they] like.”3
• In Minnesota, 67 percent of high-school tobacco
users use flavored products.4
Minnesotans agree: We can do more to prevent kids from becoming addicted. Minnesotans
for a Smoke-Free Generation supports ending the sale of all flavored tobacco products, to create a
healthier future for our kids and address tobacco-related health disparities.
END the sale
of all flavored tobacco products
The tobacco industry targets
Black, LGBTQ and young people
with menthol tobacco.
• Menthol flavoring makes it easier for kids to start
smoking and harder for adults to quit.12
• For decades, tobacco companies have channeled menthol tobacco
products into Black communities, causing death and disease.13,14
• Nationally, 85 percent of Black smokers smoke menthols,
versus 29 percent of white smokers.14
• The tobacco industry uses menthol to target Black Americans,
LGBTQ communities, and youth.13,15
The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrates the need for strong public health policies
to improve lung health and reduce commercial tobacco addiction.
1. Wang TW et al. E-cigarette use among middle- and high-school students - United
States, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020.
2. Minnesota Department of Health. 2019 Minnesota Student Survey: E-cigarette and
Cigarette Findings. 2019.
3. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration,
Center for Tobacco Products. Modifications to Compliance Policy for Certain Deemed
Tobacco Products Guidance for Industry DRAFT GUIDANCE. 2019.
4. Minnesota Department of Health. Teens and Tobacco in Minnesota: Highlights from
the 2017 Youth Tobacco Survey. 2018.
5. Ritchy AP (RJR Tobacco). Apple Wine Cigarette Project. 1972. http://legacy.library.
ucsf.edu/tid/buq49d00/pdf.
6. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. E-Cigarette Use Among Youth and
Young Adults: A Report From the Surgeon General. 2016.
7. Jackler RK et al. Nicotine arms race: JUUL and the high-nicotine product market. Tob Control. 2019.
8. Muthumalage T et al. Inflammatory and oxidative responses induced by exposure to
commonly used e-cigarette flavoring chemicals and flavored e-liquids without nicotine.
Front Physiol. 2017.
9. Behar RZ et al. Identification of toxicants in cinnamon-flavored electronic cigarette refill
fluids. Toxicol In Vitro. 2014.
10. Allen JG et al. Flavoring chemicals in e-cigarettes: Diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, and
acetoin in a sample of 51 products, including fruit-, candy-, and cocktail-flavored
e-cigarettes. Environ Health Perspect. 2016.
11. Bitzer ZT et al. Effect of flavoring chemicals on free radical formation in electronic
cigarette aerosols. Free Radic Biol Med. 2018.
12. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Preliminary Scientific Evaluation of the Possible
Public Health Effects of Menthol Versus Nonmenthol Cigarettes. 2013.
13. Gardiner PS. The African Americanization of menthol cigarette use in the United
States. Nicotine Tob Res. 2004.
14. Delnevo CD et al. Banning menthol cigarettes: A social justice issue long overdue.
Nicotine Tob Res. 2020.
15. Stevens P et al. An analysis of tobacco industry marketing to lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgender (LGBT) populations: Strategies for mainstream tobacco control and
prevention. Health Promot Pract. 2004.
16. D’Silva J et al. Quitting and switching: Menthol smokers’ responses to a menthol ban.
Tob Regul Sci. 2015.
17. Brock B et al. A tale of two cities: Exploring the retail impact of flavored tobacco
restrictions in the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul, Minnesota. Tob Control.
2019. Available at https://www.ansrmn.org/issues-resources/flavored-tobacco/.
18. Farley SM, Johns M. New York City flavored tobacco product sales ban evaluation.
Tob Control. 2016.
19. The Morris Leatherman Company: Statewide Issues Survey, January 2020. Tobacco
Issues. 2020.
Restricting sales of
flavored tobacco products
can reduce tobacco use.
• Ending the sale of flavored tobacco products will improve
the health of Black communities and other groups
targeted by Big Tobacco.13,14
• Among Minnesota menthol smokers, half reported
they would quit smoking if menthol cigarettes were
no longer sold.16
• More than a dozen Minnesota communities have restricted
the sale of flavored tobacco products.17
• Studies show that local flavor restrictions reduce the
chance that teens will ever try tobacco products.18
Minnesota is ready to clear the market
of all flavored tobacco products.
A 2020 statewide poll found that 74 percent of Minnesotans support prohibiting the sales of all flavored commercial
tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes. Support for this policy was high across demographics and regions,
including among African Americans (77 percent support) and rural residents (81 percent support).19
Minnesotans for a Smoke-Free Generation is a coalition of more than 60 organizations
that share a common goal of saving Minnesota youth from a lifetime of addiction to
tobacco. The coalition supports policies that reduce youth smoking and nicotine addiction,
including increasing tobacco prices, ending the sale of menthol and all flavored tobacco
products, and funding tobacco prevention and treatment programs.
Find out more at www.smokefreegenmn.org.
4/7/2021 Menthol Cigarettes Kill Many Black People. A Ban May Finally Be Near. - The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/22/health/methol-smoking-ban.html?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=bd8daf2b-5b8f-41c2-9965-e86e972f975f 1/4
Menthol Cigarettes Kill Many Black People. A Ban May Finally Be Near.
Advocates are hoping that President Biden will soon come out in favor of banning mint-flavored cigarettes and other tobacco products.
By Sheila Kaplan
March 22, 2021
The banning of menthol cigarettes, the mint-flavored products that have been aggressively marketed to Black Americans, has long been
an elusive goal for public health regulators.
But Covid-19 and the Black Lives Matter movement have put new pressure on Congress and the White House to reduce racial health
disparities. And there are few starker examples than this: Black smokers smoke less but die of heart attacks, strokes and other causes
linked to tobacco use at higher rates than white smokers do, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And 85 percent
of Black smokers use Newport, Kool and other menthol brands that are easier to become addicted to and harder to quit than plain tobacco,
according to the Food and Drug Administration.
“Covid-19 exposed the discriminatory treatment that Black people have been facing for hundreds of years,” said Dr. Phillip Gardiner, a co-
chairman of the African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council, which has been pushing for menthol bans in communities across
the country. Calling menthol cigarettes and cigarillos “main vectors” of disease and death among Black Americans, he added, “It’s
precisely at this time that we need strong public health measures.”
There is now growing momentum in Congress to enact a ban. In states and municipalities across the country, Black public health activists
have been organizing support and getting new laws passed at the state and local level. Public opposition among white parents to all
flavored e-cigarettes, including menthol, has brought new resources to the issue. And the F.D.A. is under a court order to respond to a
citizens’ petition to ban menthol by April 29.
Advocates are hoping that President Biden, whose campaign had strong support from Black voters and who has put addressing health
inequities front and center among his goals, will soon come out in favor of a ban.
“I have no doubt that it’s time for a ban on menthol,” said Representative Karen Bass, of California, who led the Congressional Black
Caucus during the last Congress. “We should never allow a chemical that is specifically targeted to a population, that increases death, no
matter who it is. In this case, it’s menthol and the Black population. I’m so excited that we have an administration that puts racial equity
and health disparities at top of its agenda.”
Kevin Munoz, a spokesman for the White House, declined to say whether Mr. Biden supported a menthol ban, but he noted the president’s
past support for tobacco control measures.
“We are thinking about all of our options that could help reduce tobacco use and address persistent disparities,” Mr. Munoz said.
Dr. Gardiner and other public health advocates are particularly concerned about the growing popularity of menthol cigars and cigarillos
among Black teenagers. The 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey, conducted by the federal government, found that 6.5 percent of Black
students in high school and middle school, smoked cigars and cigarillos compared with 2.5 percent who smoked traditional cigarettes. The
F.D.A. says that menthol is the preferred flavor for the cigarillos, which are cheap and mass-produced, unlike premium cigars.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/22/health/methol-smoking-ban.html
4/7/2021 Menthol Cigarettes Kill Many Black People. A Ban May Finally Be Near. - The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/22/health/methol-smoking-ban.html?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=bd8daf2b-5b8f-41c2-9965-e86e972f975f 2/4
Menthol is a substance found in mint plants, and it can also be synthesized in a lab. It creates a cooling sensation in tobacco products and
masks the harshness of the smoke, making it more tolerable. Some studies have shown that menthol also acts as a mild anesthetic. Back in
1953, when menthol was not widely used, a Philip Morris Co. survey revealed that 2 percent of white smokers preferred a menthol brand,
while 5 percent of Black smokers did, according to a review of tobacco industry documents by Dr. Gardiner that was published in 2004 by
the medical journal Nicotine & Tobacco Research.
“The industry looked at that and said, ‘We’re missing an opportunity,’ and consciously targeted the African-American community,” said
Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, which has long lobbied for a menthol ban and also helps fund the
African American Tobacco Leadership Council.
What followed has been well-documented in records made public from numerous lawsuits, that tobacco companies have targeted Black
communities with menthol cigarettes for decades. They distributed free samples, offered discounts and sponsored countless concerts and
special events, among them the famous Kool Jazz Festival. Tobacco companies also gained good will by advertising in newspapers and
magazines geared to a Black readership — and by donating money to civil rights organizations.
The companies have also been frequent donors to Black political candidates, and they have been generous supporters of the Congressional
Black Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. Officials with Juul and Altria, which owns Philip Morris and also has a 35
percent stake in Juul, serve on the foundation’s corporate advisory board.
The Biden administration still lacks a permanent F.D.A. commissioner, and Dr. Janet Woodcock, the acting commissioner, has not been
vocal on tobacco issues. But public health advocates were heartened by the confirmation on Thursday of Xavier Becerra, the former
attorney general of California, as the secretary of health and human services. In California, Mr. Becerra took aggressive action against
tobacco and e-cigarette companies. In August, California became the second state — after Massachusetts’ lead — to ban the sale of all
flavored tobacco products. (The law is on hold, pending an industry-sponsored referendum to repeal it, which will be on the ballot in
November 2022.)
The tobacco industry is in a tricky spot. For several years, the largest companies, Altria and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, now owned by British
American Tobacco, have sought to position themselves as transforming their companies into responsible businesses being eager to to
preventing young people from smoking and to developing less harmful products. For critics, the industry’s lobbying to protect its menthol
brands contradicts that assertion.
“It doesn’t seem very transformative if you’ve taken zero steps to address a particular product that has so disproportionately and
detrimentally harmed Black Americans,” said Maura Healey, the attorney general of Massachusetts, which enacted a ban on flavors,
including menthol, in June. “It’s time for the F.D.A. to act on the scientific evidence that is out there.”
Dr. Phillip Gardiner has been pushing for menthol bans in communities across the
country. “It’s precisely at this time that we need strong public health measures,” he
said.Jim Wilson/The New York Times
4/7/2021 Menthol Cigarettes Kill Many Black People. A Ban May Finally Be Near. - The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/22/health/methol-smoking-ban.html?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=bd8daf2b-5b8f-41c2-9965-e86e972f975f 3/4
The number of Americans who smoke cigarettes has declined to 14 percent in 2019 from a peak of 40 percent in the mid-1960s, according to
the F.D.A. That translates to an estimated 34.1 million adult smokers in the United States, nearly 20 million of whom smoke menthol
cigarettes. Roughly 480,000 Americans die each year from tobacco-related illnesses and more than 16 million Americans live with a
smoking-related disease.
In 2009, Congress gave the F.D.A. the authority to regulate the tobacco industry. That year, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco
Control Act banned all intentionally flavored cigarettes except menthol, which it referred to the F.D.A. for further study. The F.D.A. came
close to a ban under the Obama administration but did not have sufficient White House support.
In 2018, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, the first F.D.A. commissioner of the Trump administration, announced the agency would ban menthol cigarettes.
He was immediately opposed by Senator Richard Burr, Republican of North Carolina, one of the few unapologetically pro-tobacco
lawmakers left in Congress.
Mr. Burr often promotes the jobs that the industry provides in his home state. His sons have two of those jobs: Tyler Burr works in state
governmental affairs at R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., and William Burr works in regulatory affairs at Altria, which owns Philip Morris.
After the announcement, Mr. Burr started dispatching oversight letters to the F.D.A. every Friday from mid-November 2018 through early
January 2019, with the exception of the week of Thanksgiving. Emails obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show the hundreds
of minute questions from Mr. Burr that tied up staff for weeks. He also demanded personal travel records for the agency’s seven center
directors and accused the F.D.A. of leaks.
The F.D.A. did not back down, but Mr. Burr helped to persuade the Trump administration to kill the plan in early 2019, according to former
White House officials. Mr. Burr’s office declined to comment. David Sutton, a spokesman for Altria, which makes Marlboro and other
brands that come in menthol, defended keeping menthol cigarettes on the market.
“Prohibition and criminalization of adult behavior does not work for products intended for adults 21-plus,” Mr. Sutton said.
Kaelan Hollon, a spokeswoman for R.J. Reynolds, whose Newport brand is the biggest menthol seller in the United States, said a menthol
ban would infringe on the rights of adults who preferred it to plain tobacco.
But such arguments ignore the fact that most smokers start the habit and become addicted to nicotine when they are young, and are most
likely to seek flavored products, according to the F.D.A.
At this point, the F.D.A. could again propose a federal ban, which would then have to be approved by the White House. Alternatively,
Congress could adopt legislation expanding the current restrictions on sales of flavored cigarettes to include menthol — effectively
undoing the current exemption.
More than 120 localities have already enacted bans of flavored tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes, according to the Campaign
for Tobacco-Free Kids. The African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council is running an anti-menthol campaign with Delta Sigma
Theta, a historically Black sorority, and others. The council is also a plaintiff, along with the Action on Smoking and Health, in the citizens’
petition that forced the April 29 deadline for the F.D.A. to say whether or not it will ban menthol.
A 2008 issue of Essence magazine. Tobacco companies gained good will by advertising in
newspapers and magazines geared to a Black readership — and by donating money to
civil rights organizations.Tony Cenicola/The New York Times
4/7/2021 Menthol Cigarettes Kill Many Black People. A Ban May Finally Be Near. - The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/22/health/methol-smoking-ban.html?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=bd8daf2b-5b8f-41c2-9965-e86e972f975f 4/4
The Center for Black Health and Equity, a nonprofit organization in North Carolina, has also pushed hard on the issue, enlisting churches
to sponsor “No Menthol Sundays.”
In recent years, the tobacco industry has joined forces with certain civil rights activists, among them the Rev. Al Sharpton, who according
to the California Department of Public Health, visited Black communities in the state, raising fear that a menthol ban would give the police
an excuse to stop and frisk more Black individuals. Mr. Sharpton also helped to defeat a ban in New York.
Ms. Bass has lost patience with that argument, saying a ban would prohibit selling menthol cigarettes, not possessing them.
Ms. Bass said that a majority of lawmakers, including those in the Congressional Black Caucus, favor banning all tobacco flavors,
including menthol. Eighty percent of the Congressional Black Caucus members voted last year for legislation that would have banned
menthol cigarettes.
Marc Scheineson, a lawyer with Alston and Bird, who represents small tobacco companies, believes that Representative James Clyburn,
Democrat of South Carolina, may be the decisive vote. Mr. Clyburn was instrumental in developing support for Mr. Biden among Black
Americans during his presidential campaign.
“He can get whatever he wants,” Mr. Scheineson said. “I’m sure he’s got a wish list, but I’m sure all the African-American groups are
coming to him and he’s got to prioritize.”
Last year, Mr. Clyburn was absent for the House vote on legislation that would have banned menthol cigarettes. He has kept a low profile
on the issue, not lobbying for tobacco companies but not standing in the way, either. Mr. Clyburn did not return requests seeking comment.
Dr. Gottlieb believes the Biden administration will finally ban menthol cigarettes.
“We opened the door on this in a Republican administration,” he said. “You don’t think a Democratic administration will finish the
business? Of course they will.”
Advocates hope President Biden, whose campaign had strong support from Black voters
and who has put addressing health inequities front and center, will come out in favor of a
ban.Bryan Thomas for The New York Times
1
2
Suggested Citation:
Institute for Global Tobacco Control. State of the Evidence: Flavored Tobacco Product Bans or
Restrictions. January 2020. Available at:
https://www.globaltobaccocontrol.org/resources/flavorreportsummary.
Contributorship Statement:
Jeffrey J. Hardesty was the lead author of the report. Ayodeji J. Awopegba, Jennifer L. Brown, Graziele
Grilo, Michael Iacobelli, Naseeb Kibria, and Sejal Saraf contributed significantly to the initial draft of the
report. The section on business and labor market impact was developed in consultation with Rajeev
Cherukupalli. Joanna Cohen and Elizabeth Crespi also contributed to the writing of the report.
Inquiries:
For inquiries, email jhardesty@jhu.edu or igtc@jhu.edu.
3
Table of Contents
BACKGROUND ________________________________________________________________ 4
PUBLIC SUPPORT ______________________________________________________________ 5
PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACT ________________________________________________________ 6
Comprehensive Flavored Tobacco Product Ban or Restriction _______________________________ 6
E-cigarette Flavor Ban or Restriction ___________________________________________________ 7
Menthol Cigarette Ban or Restriction ___________________________________________________ 7
Cigar Flavor Ban or Restriction ________________________________________________________ 8
BUSINESS AND LABOR MARKET IMPACT ___________________________________________ 9
COMPLIANCE ________________________________________________________________ 10
SUMMARY AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS _____________________________________ 12
REFERENCES _________________________________________________________________ 13
4
In recent years, the evidence around flavored
tobacco product bans and restrictions has grown
in terms of public support, public health and
financial impact, and compliance. The purpose
of this report is to provide an overview of the
projected impacts of a policy that bans or
restricts the use of flavors in tobacco products
and to provide evidence-based policy
recommendations for maximizing public health
benefits and minimizing unintended
consequences.
BACKGROUND
In 2009 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) banned flavored cigarettes with an
exemption for menthol additives. As intended,
cigarette use among youth declined in the years
following the ban; however, unintended
consequences have emerged, with youth
increasing their use of other products known for
their flavors, such as menthol cigarettes, cigars,
and pipes.1
In this historical context, pod-based electronic
cigarettes (e-cigarettes),* such as JUUL, have
emerged as the tobacco product of choice
among youth due to kid-appealing flavors (e.g.,
mango and mint), discreet design (i.e., flash
drive-like appearance), savvy social media
marketing (e.g., social media influencers and
celebrity endorsements), and extremely high
nicotine levels with chemicals added to ensure
the nicotine is less harsh to users. The totality of
these factors has resulted in what many public
health advocates have labeled an epidemic.
* Claims that e-cigarettes are “95% less harmful” are from a 2014 academic paper endorsed and publicized by Public Health
England and the Royal College of Physicians. By the authors own admission, “A limitation of this study is the lack of hard
evidence for the harms of most products on most of the criteria.”2 Since this study was published, evidence has emerged
suggesting e-cigarettes are not safe, particularly for nicotine naïve users. E-cigarettes harm cells, users, and increase the risk of
smoking. The long-term health effects of vaping are not yet known though. The “95% safer” estimate is unreliable information
repeated so often that it has been accepted as fact.3 Notably, one of the study funders, Lega Italiana Anti Fumo (LIAF), has
previously worked with Philip Morris USA, and the Chief Scientific Advisor of LIAF was an author. They also previously
consulted for Arbi Group Srl., an e-cigarette distributor.4
† One well executed study suggests e-cigarettes in combination with cognitive behavioral therapy can help smokers quit.6
However, there is no high-quality clinical trial evidence to support the idea that e-cigarettes can help smokers quit without
these added professional health care services.
Nationally, 3.6 million middle and high school
students are reported to be current e-cigarette
users (any use in past 30 days), with e-cigarette
use among high-school students more than
doubling from 2017 to 2019, increasing from
12% to 28%.5 In Maryland, use in high schools
has increased from 13% in 2016-17 to 23% in
2018-19, representing an increase of 73%. For
comparison, use among adults in Maryland
increased from 3% in 2016 to 4% in 2018,†
representing an increase of 34%.7
To help combat this public health issue, in 2019
the Maryland General Assembly passed HB1169,
an evidenced-based bill that raised the minimum
age of tobacco sale from 18 to 21 years old, with
an exemption for 18-20 year old adults with a
military identification. The strength of this bill
will be aided with the recent signing of a 2020
Federal appropriations bill that raises the federal
minimum age to 21 and does not include an
exemption for military service members. While
these are positive steps, there are many ways in
which youth can acquire tobacco products and
the evidence available suggests compliance is
highly unlikely to be 100%, with tobacco and
vape specialty shops being the most likely to
violate the law.8 These data suggest additional
policy interventions, such as flavor bans or
restrictions, may be necessary to prevent youth
from using tobacco products.
Broadly speaking, flavors are added to tobacco
products to increase palatability and decrease
harshness, which makes these products more
appealing to youth and young adults.9 Flavors
can be classified as 1) characterizing, such as
mint/menthol, strawberry, chocolate, coffee,
5
etc.; and, 2) concept, such as “Jazz”, “Golden”,
“Snap”, etc.
The Surgeon General Report on e-cigarettes
previously concluded that flavors are among the
most commonly cited reasons for using e-
cigarettes among youth and young adults.10
With over 7700 flavors and 460 brands being
available on the e-cigarette market alone, flavors
play a significant role in making these products
appealing to youth, especially first-time users.11
In fact, a systematic review of the literature
found flavored e-cigarettes increase willingness
to try and initiation of e-cigarette use,12 and a
2016-17 study found that 96% of youth who had
initiated e-cigarette use started with a flavored
product.13 For adult users of e-cigarettes,
flavored e-cigarettes are also a primary reason
for use; however, the role of flavors in helping
smokers quit cigarettes remains uncertain.12
The FDA’s latest move to stop the sale of
flavored pods and cartridges is unlikely to be
sufficient in preventing youth use. The move
applies to a limited number of manufacturers
and may not prevent companies, like JUUL, from
manufacturing refillable pods with the flavored
e-liquids sold separately. Moreover, refillable
pods for JUUL are already available through
other manufacturers.
The FDA’s plan also allows menthol flavored
pods to remain on the market and does not
address menthol-flavored combustible
cigarettes. Menthol flavoring, in particular,
masks the harshness of smoking14 and is
associated with increased smoking initiation,15
and higher likelihood of addiction.16 The tobacco
industry has targeted youth and minority
populations with menthol cigarette advertising,
and menthol cigarettes are disproportionately
smoked by vulnerable populations such as
African Americans, who have the highest rates of
‡ Comprehensive flavor bans and restrictions are defined in this report as policies that ban or restrict the use of flavors for
multiple tobacco products. For example, a policy that bans all flavors and exempts menthol is still considered comprehensive
assuming it applies to multiple products.
§ Michigan, Montana, New York, Oregon, and Utah are attempting to implement similar policies, pending legal challenges.
use compared to other racial and ethnic
groups.17
Comprehensive flavor bans and restrictions‡ are
an increasingly popular means of combating
youth vaping. Massachusetts became the first
state to pass a bill restricting use of flavors in
November 2019. Other jurisdictions, including
San Francisco, Minneapolis/St. Paul, and Boston
have previously passed such policies. Less
comprehensive flavor bans and restrictions have
been implemented in Rhode Island and
Washington,§ which have temporarily banned
the sale of flavored e-cigarettes, and in Maine,
which banned the sale of flavored non-premium
cigars. Local restrictions have been approved in
over 250 localities.18
PUBLIC SUPPORT
Comprehensive flavored tobacco product bans
or restrictions are a relatively new phenomenon
thereby limiting the available public support
data on flavor bans or restrictions to specific
tobacco products.
For e-cigarettes, the latest data indicate the
majority of U.S. adults support a flavor ban. A
USA Today/Ipsos survey conducted September
25-26th, 2019 indicated 52% of U.S. adults are in
favor of a ban, with 72% of those over age 55 and
one in five current e-cigarette users supporting
the move.19 During 2018, a separate survey
found public support for an e-cigarette flavor
ban among parents of middle- and high school
students was 75%.20
Recent data on support for a menthol cigarette
ban or restriction is limited. Data that exist are
mixed and vary by smoking status, race/ethnicity,
education, gender, and age.21,22 In 2009, a public
opinion survey of U.S. adults indicated 56%
6
supported a menthol cigarette ban,23 with a
2012 survey in two metropolitan areas indicating
similar support (60%).24 More recently, a 2014-
15 survey found that 33% of U.S. adults support
a menthol ban, whereas 62% did not support one.
One possible explanation for this divergence is
that the latter survey did not remind participants
about the 2009 flavored cigarette ban or indicate
that a scientific panel told the FDA that removing
menthol cigarettes would reduce the number of
people who start smoking.22 Support for a
menthol cigarette ban also appears to be higher
among never and former smokers, non-whites
(including African Americans), the less educated,
females, and older adults.22-25
Public support data on little cigars and cigarillos
are limited to a single study from 2014-15, which
found 56% of U.S. adults supported banning
candy and fruit flavors. Nearly 40% did not
support this policy, with 4% indicating they did
not know.22 Data regarding flavor bans or
restrictions of other tobacco products were not
identified as part of our literature search.
PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACT
A comprehensive flavor ban or restriction may
impact two key groups: 1) youth and young
adults and 2) adults who smoke and vape. For
youth and young adults, it has been argued that
these policies will reduce smoking and vaping via
reduced attractiveness and less palatable
products. Others have stated that these policies
or particular provisions may encourage adults
who vape to switch to cigarettes, which would
be an unintended consequence to the extent
one can argue e-cigarettes may be less harmful
than cigarettes. Policies that include exemptions
to particular flavors, such as menthol/mint, or to
particular products, such as cigars, risk losing
their effectiveness (e.g., youth e-cigarette users
may switch to menthol flavor only) or risk
funneling current users to exempted products
(e.g., adult e-cigarette users may switch to
cigars). The literature modeling or evaluating
comprehensive flavor bans or restrictions is
limited; however, there are additional modeling
studies suggestive of what might occur for
product-specific bans or restrictions on e-
cigarettes, menthol cigarettes, and cigars.
Comprehensive Flavored Tobacco
Product Ban or Restriction
In 2010, New York City restricted sales of
flavored cigars, cigarillos, little cigars, chew,
snuff, snus, tobacco, pipe tobacco, roll-your-own
tobacco, and dissolvables, excluding menthol.
Evaluation data suggest sales of all flavored
tobacco products declined by 87%, with sales of
flavored cigars decreasing by 86% and flavored
pipe and roll-your-own cigarettes decreasing by
91%. As compared to 2010, teens in New York
City during 2013 had 37% lower odds of ever
trying flavored tobacco products and 28% lower
odds of using any type of tobacco product. Sales
of non-flavored tobacco products did not
significantly increase, but product-specific sales
of non-flavored cigars and pipe and roll-your-
own increased by 5% and 4%, respectively.
These increases in non-flavored product-specific
sales may have been due to the restriction;
however, they also came during a period of
increasing national cigar sales. It should be
noted that the New York City restriction did not
cover e-cigarettes and therefore they were not
included as part of the study’s results.26 Another
study of discarded cigar packages in New York
City following the comprehensive restriction,
found 19% of the discarded packages were
products with characterizing flavors and 9%
were products with concept flavors. Concept
flavoring in cigars along with the availability of
flavored products from neighboring jurisdictions
remain a challenge for New York City.27
In 2013, Providence, Rhode Island restricted the
sale of all non-cigarette tobacco products with
characterizing flavors and included an
exemption for menthol. An assessment of the
impact of the policy found a 51% decrease in
flavored cigar sales after policy implementation
compared to a 10% sales increase in other areas
within the state that had no such policy.
7
However, 93% of the sales reduction in
Providence was due to a decrease in sales of
cigars with characterizing flavors; sales of
concept flavored cigars actually increased by
74%.28
A separate discrete choice study presented adult
smokers and recent quitters with a number of
products and asked which product they would
choose. By restricting certain product choices,
these data were then modeled to examine the
potential impact of a comprehensive flavor ban.
They found a comprehensive flavor ban might
reduce ‘choice’ of any tobacco product by 5%
while simultaneously decreasing e-cigarette
‘choice’ by 8% and increasing cigarette ‘choice’
by 3%.29 This particular study did not model how
such a policy would impact youth and young
adults.
E-cigarette Flavor Ban or Restriction
A study predicting the impact of an e-cigarette
flavor restriction suggests a product-specific
restriction may reduce selection of e-cigarettes
by 20% among younger adult smokers and have
no functional impact on older adult smokers.
Irrespective of interest in quitting cigarettes,
decreasing flavor availability might decrease
choice of e-cigarettes.30 Another study from
2015 asked youth and young adults from Texas
who use flavored e-cigarettes if they would
continue using their product of choice if it were
not flavored. With the caveat that these data
predate JUUL and other pod-based e-cigarettes,
they found 66% of those 25-29 years of age, 74%
of those 18-24 years of age, 74% of those in high
school, and 93% of those in middle school would
not use their e-cigarette anymore.31 In addition,
researchers found that a policy that prohibits
flavors in e-cigarettes and permits menthol
cigarettes may drive adult smokers and former
smokers to products known to cause significant
long-term harm. In fact, such a policy may
** No data on youth were found as part of our literature search.
decrease selection of e-cigarettes by 11% and
increase selection of cigarettes by 8.3%.29
These data suggest an e-cigarette flavor ban or
restriction may reduce e-cigarette use among
adults and youth, with larger reductions for
younger users. One possible unintended
consequence is an uptick in cigarette use among
adults,** but a comprehensive flavor ban may
prevent or mitigate such a consequence.
Menthol Cigarette Ban or Restriction
In 2017, the province of Ontario, Canada
implemented a menthol ban on all tobacco
products, including cigarettes. Evaluation data
of the Ontario policy is the best evidence to-date
regarding the potential impact of a menthol
cigarette ban in the U.S. Given policies
restricting the sale of menthol cigarettes have
only recently begun being implemented in the
U.S., there is limited research on their
observable public health impact. However,
researchers have used modeling and surveys to
project their impact.
To evaluate the policy in Ontario, researchers
compared menthol smokers planned behavior
before the ban to their actual behavior one
month following the ban. Before the ban, 15%
said they would quit, 60% of smokers said they
would switch to nonmenthol cigarettes, and 6%
said they would use other flavored tobacco or e-
cigarette products. One month following the
ban, 29% had attempted to quit smoking, only
28% of respondents had switched to smoking
nonmenthol cigarettes, and 29% reported using
other flavored tobacco or e-cigarette products.32
One year following the ban, 63% of daily and 62%
of occasional menthol smokers reported having
made a quit attempt versus 43% of non-menthol
smokers who were not directly impacted by the
policy. Furthermore, 24% of daily and 20% of
occasional menthol smokers quit smoking versus
14% of non-menthol smokers.33 These data are
reinforced by another study that found the ban
8
in Ontario was also associated with a significant
reduction in menthol cigarette sales and total
cigarette sales.34
In the U.S., several surveys have asked menthol
smokers about their planned behavior should a
hypothetical menthol cigarette ban be
implemented, and they have consistently found
even more encouraging pre-implementation
results as compared to findings from Ontario. In
one longitudinal study using data from 2011 –
2016, 24% of young adult smokers said they
would quit menthol cigarettes. This response
did not vary greatly across time and African
Americans, females, and those with less than a
high school education were more likely to report
the intention to quit smoking. However, there
was a significant increase in respondents who
said they would switch to another tobacco
product if menthol cigarettes were no longer
available, from 7% in 2011 to 13% in 2016.35 Of
the cross-sectional surveys predicting the impact
of a menthol cigarette ban, a 2010 study with
adolescent and adult smokers found that 35% of
menthol smokers reported that they would quit
smoking and 25% reported that they “would find
a way to buy a menthol brand”.36 In a 2011 study
of young adults, ages 18 – 34, 66% of menthol
cigarette smokers reported the intention to quit
smoking, 18% of respondents reported that they
would switch to non-menthol cigarettes, and
16%said they would switch to some other
tobacco product. Intention to quit was most
prevalent among African American menthol
smokers (79%) and intention to switch to some
other tobacco product was more prevalent
among menthol smokers who also reported
currently using another tobacco product (35%).37
To examine the impact a menthol cigarette ban
may have on future smoking prevalence and
tobacco caused deaths in the U.S, another study
used simulation modeling. Under different
scenarios assuming that 10%, 20%, or 30% of
smokers would quit in the event of a menthol
cigarette ban, researchers found that overall
smoking prevalence would decrease by 4 – 10%
(9% – 25% among African Americans) and
between 323,000 and 633,000 deaths would be
avoided in the United States over a 40 year
period (2011 – 2050), with almost one third of
lives saved being African American.38
Finally, some research has examined the effect
of other tobacco control policies on menthol
cigarette use. One study using Nielsen
Homescan Data, a dataset where a national
panel of households scan their cigarette
purchases, explored the impact of taxes and
public smoking restrictions on menthol cigarette
smoking and found that neither higher prices nor
public smoking restrictions increase the
likelihood of quitting among menthol smokers.39
Notably, much of the menthol cigarette policy
research found in our literature search was
conducted prior to the rise of e-cigarettes in the
United States and before JUUL went to market.
While there is still a gap in the literature with
regard to the number of US consumers who
might switch to menthol e-cigarettes in light of a
ban on combustible menthol cigarettes and with
regard to the consumer response to a ban on all
menthol tobacco products, it is clear that bans
on menthol cigarettes would result in higher
rates of quitting among smokers, particularly
African American smokers in the United States
who are disproportionately affected by menthol
cigarettes. Furthermore, the evidence shows
that existing tobacco control policies, such as
increased tobacco taxes and public smoking
restrictions, are not sufficient in reducing
menthol cigarette use.
Cigar Flavor Ban or Restriction
The Population Assessment of Tobacco and
Health Study, a national longitudinal study of
tobacco use, was used to model the potential
public health benefits of a hypothetical national
ban of flavored cigars by extending the known
benefits of local and state policies to the nation.
The authors indicate a national law equaling the
net effectiveness of the local and state policies
would prevent 15% of premature deaths from
exclusive and regular cigar smoking and reduce
9
the number of current cigar smokers within each
cohort of 18 year old adults by approximately
112,000.40 Their model did not take into account
mortality rates among dual users suggesting the
benefits might be underreported.
BUSINESS AND LABOR MARKET
IMPACT
Policymakers have an interest in understanding
the fiscal and labor market impacts of
regulations on flavored tobacco products. Here
we provide economic arguments examining the
extent to which banning or restricting tobacco
flavors may impact tobacco retailer sales and
downstream effects on businesses and
employment.
When compliance is high, a comprehensive
flavor ban or restriction without exemptions is
likely to significantly affect sales of flavored
tobacco products. As previously mentioned, in
New York City after a flavor restriction was
implemented,†† sales on all flavored tobacco
products declined by 87%.26 A concern for
policymakers is whether a decline of such a
magnitude would affect businesses and the labor
market in a significant way. Economic research
indicates that the impact of a ban on flavored
tobacco products would be relatively narrow, for
three reasons: 1. Most retailers selling flavored
tobacco products do not rely on these products
as their only or primary source of their revenue,
2. Consumers are likely to spend money
originally intended for a banned tobacco product
on other purchases, including tobacco products
and other goods and services, and 3. Labor and
other resources not used in the supply and sale
of a banned product tend to be redirected to
other uses.41
An enduring feature of the tobacco retailer
environment is that the majority of tobacco
sellers do not specialize in the sale of tobacco
†† Again, e-cigarettes were not included in New York City’s flavor restriction and therefore not included in the data.
products. In 2012, convenience stores (including
those linked to gas stations), supermarkets and
pharmacies accounted for 80% of locations
where tobacco is sold.42 At the retailer level,
regulations that affect particular classes of
products result in changes in the composition of
what is sold. For example, when retailers in
Boston, MA were asked what was done with
shelf-space after their policy was implemented,
over 70% indicated they replaced the flavored
products with non-flavored tobacco products,
13% with non-tobacco products, 7% with no
additional products, and the remaining retailers
cited something else or that they did not know.43
These data suggest the vast majority of tobacco
retailers can adapt and thereby significantly
mitigate risk of business closures and reduced
employment.
The e-cigarette retail sector is relatively new,
with low barriers to entry – by some estimates,
setting up a vape shop can involve an investment
of as little as $25,000.44 Business expansion and
closure are also common phenomena in the
retail sector. In Maryland, for example, of the
117 businesses with the word “vape” in their
business name in January 2020, 58 were active,
while the rest were not. In fact, the inactive
businesses were typically forfeited (43 of 117
businesses) or dissolved, suggesting that vape
shops close or consolidate as a matter of
course.45
It is plausible that adult-only vape shops will be
significantly more impacted by a flavor ban or
restriction given the breadth of flavored e-liquids
each sells and the amount of shelf-space that will
need to be replaced. With the data currently
available, it is challenging to predict the exact
impact a ban or restriction may have on vape
shop closures and employment. Nevertheless,
we modeled varying degrees of impact such a
policy may have on vape shop closures and
employment in Maryland. As of January 2020,
there were 124 verified and 284 unverified e-
cigarette retailers in the state, and 90 percent of
10
those employed fewer than 5 employees.46
Based on these data, the average number of
employees ‡‡ in verified e-cigarette retailer
stores was 378 and in unverified e-cigarette
retailer stores was 715. Under scenarios in
which 100%, 50%, and 25% of these businesses
close due to a ban or restriction, approximately
1,093, 547, and 274 employees would face the
prospect of job separation, respectively. By way
of comparison, Maryland’s employment in the
retail sector was approximately 270,000 workers
in 2018.47
An important consideration is that a ban or
restriction on flavored tobacco products is not a
ban on all electronic cigarettes. Assuming
existing specialized retailers modify their
product offerings to drop flavored products and
add other products, there may be little to no
impact on the number of these businesses and
the people they employ. A related concern in
the event of job separation in any specialized
sub-industry is the ease with which workers are
absorbed into other jobs. Labor economists rely
on 1) an understanding of job requirements and
2) the availability of similar jobs to understand
the ease with which one group of workers might
find alternative livelihood opportunities in the
event of an industry-specific change. With
respect to job requirements, frontline retail jobs
tend to be relatively low in the intensity of
human capital requirements for training and
retraining—by some estimates 72% of frontline
retail workers receive less than 20 hours of
training.48 Employment in most categories of
retail jobs in the state of Maryland are predicted
to grow at over 1.5% between 2018 and 2020.49
Within the context of continued declines in
overall unemployment in the state, these point
to both the availability of comparable jobs and
relative ease with which the small group of
potentially displaced retail workers might be
‡‡ ReferenceUSA data categorizes establishments by employee size. The mid-points of these categories (1-4, 5-9 and 10-19)
were used to estimate the average number of employees. Upper bounds for the number of employees in verified and
unverified stores is 576, and 1141 respectively.46
absorbed in those comparable jobs and
sectors.50,51
COMPLIANCE
Compliance studies from several of the early
adopters can serve as an early barometer for a
policy’s ability to succeed. Here we explore
findings and lessons learned from Boston,
Massachusetts, other Massachusetts
communities, St. Paul/Minneapolis, Minnesota,
and Chicago, Illinois.
In 2016, the city of Boston, Massachusetts
implemented a policy restricting the sale of
flavored tobacco products, including cigars,
smokeless tobacco, and e-cigarettes, to adult-
only retailers. A Guidance List was provided to
retailers in order to better delineate what is a
flavored versus non-flavored product, and the
list is periodically updated to reflect additional
products, with adequate time given to retailers
to comply with the updates to the list. A pre-
/post- study design was used to evaluate retailer
compliance with this law. Baseline data
collected prior to implementation of the policy
indicate 89% of the retailers surveyed were
selling flavored products (average of 19.5 unique
flavored tobacco products were available for
sale). At the follow-up stage, 8-months after the
policy went into effect, 14% of the retailers were
selling flavored tobacco products (average of 0.4
unique flavored tobacco products were available
for sale). Approximately 86% and 62% of
retailers reported that educational visits and the
Guidance List were the most helpful in achieving
compliance, respectively. In total, the
researchers found that 51 retailers were not
compliant after the policy effective date; 73% of
these did not know a product was in violation of
the policy. When the non-compliant retailers
were asked about the challenges, 36% indicated
11
that distributors would not take back the
flavored product supply, 34% did not know
which products they were allowed to sell, and
30% reported not having enough time to sell
down their supply.43
Between 2015 and 2017, several other
Massachusetts communities implemented
flavored tobacco product restrictions allowing
researchers to evaluate additional jurisdictions.
The researchers found 6 months to 1 year post-
implementation that 21 of the 38 communities
with a restriction achieved 100% compliance.
While 11 of the communities had non-compliant
retailers,§§ only 12% of retailers in those
communities were not in compliance. Among
those not in compliance, retailers cited
uncertainty as to whether particular products,
particularly concept flavors, were on the
Guidance List.52
In order to reduce youth access to flavored
tobacco products, Minneapolis and St. Paul,
Minnesota restricted the sale of flavored
tobacco to adult-only tobacco product shops in
2016. Their policies applied to all tobacco
products, including e-cigarettes, and exempted
menthol. An observational study was conducted
pre- and post- policy implementation at retail
stores. In both cities, significantly fewer stores
sold flavored tobacco after the policy went into
effect; in Minneapolis the number of stores
selling flavored tobacco dropped from 85% to
39% and in St. Paul from 97% to 8%.53 While the
sample sizes were small, these data were similar
to those found in Boston and other
Massachusetts communities.
In 2017, Minneapolis City Council closed their
menthol flavored tobacco product exemption
but allowed the products to be sold in adult-only
tobacco product shops and liquor stores. At the
time the ordinance was passed, there were 342
§§ The remaining 6 communities did not have data collected.
*** Existing shops with licenses to sell exclusively tobacco products were grandfathered in.
††† It may also increase the direct cost (i.e., purchase price of cigarettes) and indirect cost (i.e., travel costs and opportunity cost
of time not doing other things) by 10% for menthol smokers and 9% for African American menthol smokers thereby reducing
access to menthol tobacco products.56
outlets selling menthol tobacco (317
convenience stores, gas stations, and liquor
stores and 25 tobacco product shops) and the
shops were given a year before the policy was
implemented. In anticipation of fewer sales or
because of them, 24 convenience store owners
applied for licenses to establish new adult-only
tobacco product shops. Some store owners split
their existing stores into two stores: an adult-
only tobacco product shop and a convenience
store. Other owners simply converted their
store into adult-only tobacco product shops.
Many additional owners had inquired about
applying for these licenses before the city passed
a moratorium on the establishment of new
tobacco product shops in August 2018 in order
to study the issue.54,55 In July 2019, to combat
the licensure loophole, the city passed a
requirement that there must be 2000 feet
between any two adult-only tobacco product
shops.*** The requirement is theorized to work,
in part, by minimizing the number of new and
existing retailers who can apply for licenses.†††
As of August 2019, there were 52 exclusive
tobacco product shops in Minneapolis, up from
25 shops in 2017 (108% increase). Assuming the
buffer zone provision is effective, this trend
should slow or reverse with time. Beyond these
24 convenience store owners, the policy has
been relatively effective at reducing the total
number of retailers authorized to sell menthol
flavored tobacco products, with the number
decreasing by 76% since 2017.54
Finally, a research team examined compliance
with a menthol cigarette restriction in Chicago,
Illinois, which banned menthol cigarette sales
within 500 feet of schools starting in 2016.
Compliance of relevant retailers was 57%, with
gas stations complying less with the ban as
compared to larger/chain stores. The authors
concluded that a partial menthol ban (i.e. near
schools) results in poor compliance.20
12
Compliance data from Boston,
St.Paul/Minneapolis, and other Massachusetts
communities suggest that high compliance can
be achieved. However, the challenges in
Minneapolis demonstrate that adult-only store
exemptions can threaten the public health
benefits of such a policy and should be avoided.
If such a provision is unavoidable, including a
sizeable buffer zone between retailers and/or a
cap on the total number of retailers‡‡‡ may, in
theory, mitigate unintended consequences. In
addition, concept flavors represent a unique
challenge to retailer compliance, but this can be
mitigated by issuing a Guidance List and
implementing a robust education program. Data
from Chicago forewarn that partial bans may be
difficult to implement and therefore unlikely to
be successful.
SUMMARY AND POLICY
RECOMMENDATIONS
Flavored tobacco bans or restrictions are a
relatively new phenomenon. Even so, the latest
public opinion polls indicate the majority of
Americans support these policies, and both
predictive and evaluation studies, including
compliance studies, suggest that under the right
conditions comprehensive flavor bans or
restrictions have the ability to reduce tobacco
use and save lives. Furthermore, a
comprehensive ban or restriction is unlikely to
adversely impact the retail economy in Maryland.
Relative to other retailers, it is plausible that
vape shops that do not diversify product
offerings may be more negatively affected by the
policy; however, there are not enough publicly
available data to accurately predict the
magnitude of the impact on their businesses and
labor market.
Policymakers should consider lessons learned
from previous flavor ban or restriction attempts.
Based on the available evidence we make the
following recommendations:
1. The FDA’s flavored cigarette ban had the
unintended consequence of pushing users to
other flavored products. Minneapolis’
restriction had an adult-only store
exemption that threatened to undermine
the intended public health benefits.
Chicago’s partial menthol ban was too
difficult to implement and enforce. In
Massachusetts communities, retailers were
selling concept flavored tobacco products.
These four examples suggest limited product
and flavor bans, partial bans, and adult-only
retailer restrictions have negative public
health consequences and create loopholes
that are likely to be exploited by industry. A
comprehensive flavor ban without product,
flavor, and retailer exemptions may
maximize public health benefits and
minimize the opportunity for unintended
consequences.
2. To ensure maximal benefit now and in the
future, policymakers should consider
providing the Maryland Department of
Health with the resources needed for a
robust retailer education campaign and
provide the Department of Health with the
flexibility to include all characterizing and
concept flavored tobacco products on a
Guidance List that can be periodically
updated.
‡‡‡ St. Paul, MN has a cap on the number of adult-only tobacco product shops allowed.
13
REFERENCES
1. Courtemanche CJ, Palmer MK, Pesko MF. Influence of the flavored cigarette ban on adolescent
tobacco use. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2017;52(5):e139-e146. doi:
10.1016/j.amepre.2016.11.019.
2. Nutt DJ, Phillips LD, Balfour D, et al. Estimating the harms of nicotine-containing products using the
MCDA approach. European Addiction Research. 2014;20(5):218-225. doi: 10.1159/000360220.
3. Eissenberg T, Bhatnager A, Chapman S, Sven-Eric J, Shihadeh A, Soule EK. Invalidity of an oft-cited
estimate of the relative harms of electronic cigarettes. American Journal of Public Health.
2020;110(2):161-162. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2019.305424.
4. Tobacco Tactics. Riccardo Polosa. Available at:
https://www.tobaccotactics.org/index.php?title=Riccardo_Polosa. Updated 2019. Accessed Jan 10,
2020.
5. National Youth Tobacco Survey. Updated 2018. Available at:
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/surveys/nyts/index.htm. Accessed January 21, 2020.
6. Hajek P, Phillips-Waller A, Przulj D, et al. A randomized trial of e-cigarettes versus nicotine-
replacement therapy. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2019;380(7):629-637. doi:
10.1056/NEJMoa1808779.
7. Berkowitz D. 26th Annual Maryland State Cancer Control Conference: Maryland tobacco prevention
and control updates. Annapolis, MD. November 14, 2019. Available at:
https://ia601401.us.archive.org/26/items/mdcancercouncilconferenceberkowitz11.14.19/Cancer%20Co
uncil%20Conference%20FINAL%20DSB%2011.14.19.pdf. Accessed Jan 22, 2020.
8. Roeseler A, Vuong TD, Henriksen L, Zhang X. Assessment of underage sales violations in tobacco
stores and vape shops. The Journal of the American Medical Association Pediatrics. 2019;173(8):795-
797. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.1571.
9. World Health Organization. Fact sheet on ingredients in tobacco products. 2015. Available at:
http://www.who.int/iris/handle/10665/152661. Accessed Jan 21, 2020.
10. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. E-Cigarette Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A
Report of the Surgeon General—Executive Summary. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease
Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2016. Available at: https://e-
cigarettes.surgeongeneral.gov/documents/2016_SGR_Fact_Sheet_508.pdf. Accessed Jan 21, 2020.
11. Zhu S, Sun JY, Cummins SE, Gamst A, Yin L, Lee M. Four hundred and sixty brands of e-cigarettes and
counting: Implications for product regulation. Tobacco Control. 2014;23(3):iii3-iii9. doi:
10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051670.
14
12. Meernik C, Baker HM, Kowitt SD, Ranney LM, Goldstein AO. Impact of non-menthol flavours in e-
cigarettes on perceptions and use: An updated systematic review. BMJ Open. 2019;9(10):e031598. doi:
10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031598.
13. Center for Tobacco Products. Modifications to compliance policy for certain deemed tobacco
products. 2019:1-20. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/media/121384/download. Accessed Jan 21,
2020.
14. Ahijevych K, Garrett BE. Menthol pharmacology and its potential impact on cigarette smoking
behavior. Nicotine & Tobacco Research. 2004;6(Suppl_1):S17-S28. doi:
10.1080/14622200310001649469.
15. Corey CG, Ambrose BK, Apelberg BJ, King BA. Flavored tobacco product use among middle and high
school students - United States, 2014. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2015;64(38):1066-1070.
Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6438a2.htm#Tab. Accessed Jan 21,
2020.
16. Hersey JC, Nonnemaker JM, Homsi G. Menthol cigarettes contribute to the appeal and addiction
potential of smoking for youth. Nicotine & Tobacco Research. 2010;12(Suppl 2):S136-S146. doi:
10.1093/ntr/ntq173.
17. Giovino GA, Villanti AC, Mowery PD, et al. Differential trends in cigarette smoking in the USA: Is
menthol slowing progress? Tobacco Control. 2015;24(1):28-37. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-
051159.
18. Bach L. States and localities that have restricted the sale of flavored tobacco products. Campaign for
Tobacco-Free Kids. 2020. Available at: https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/assets/factsheets/0398.pdf.
Accessed Jan 21, 2020.
19. Alltucker K. Americans overwhelmingly support regulations to make vaping safer, USA TODAY poll
finds. Updated 2019. Available at:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2019/10/02/americans-strongly-support-teen-vaping-
ban-poll-says/3826575002/. Accessed Jan 6, 2020.
20. Czaplicki L, Cohen JE, Jones MR, Clegg Smith K, Rutkow L, Owczarzak J. Compliance with the city of
Chicago's partial ban on menthol cigarette sales. Tobacco Control. 2019;28(2):161-167. doi:
10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054319.
21. Pearson JL, Abrams DB, Niaura RS, Richardson A, Vallone DM. A ban on menthol cigarettes: Impact
on public opinion and smokers' intention to quit. American Journal of Public Health. 2012;102(11):e107-
e114. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.300804.
22. Schmidt AM, Kowitt SD, Myers AE, Goldstein AO. Attitudes towards potential new tobacco control
regulations among U.S. adults. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.
2018;15(1):72. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15010072.
15
23. Winickoff JP, McMillen RC, Vallone DM, et al. US attitudes about banning menthol in cigarettes:
Results from a nationally representative survey. American Journal of Public Health. 2011;101(7):1234-
1236. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300146.
24. Bolcic-Jankovic D, Biener L. Public opinion about FDA regulation of menthol and nicotine. Tobacco
Control. 2015;24(e4):e241-e245. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051392.
25. Rath JM, Greenberg M, Pitzer L, et al. The association between menthol perceptions and support for
a policy ban among US smokers. Ethnicity & Disease. 2018;28(3):177-186. doi: 10.18865/ed.28.3.177.
26. Farley SM, Johns M. New York City flavoured tobacco product sales ban evaluation. Tobacco Control.
2017;26(1):78-84. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015-052418.
27. Kurti MK, Schroth KRJ, Delnevo C. A discarded cigar package survey in New York City: Indicators of
non-compliance with local flavoured tobacco restrictions. Tobacco Control. 2019:[Epub ahead of print].
doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2019-055035.
28. Rogers T, Feld A, Gammon DG, et al. Changes in cigar sales following implementation of a local policy
restricting sales of flavoured non-cigarette tobacco products. Tobacco Control. 2019:[Epub ahead of
print]. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2019-055004.
29. Buckell J, Marti J, Sindelar JL. Should flavours be banned in cigarettes and e-cigarettes? Evidence on
adult smokers and recent quitters from a discrete choice experiment. Tobacco Control. 2019;28(2):168-
175. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-054165.
30. Pesko MF, Kenkel DS, Wang H, Hughes JM. The effect of potential electronic nicotine delivery system
regulations on nicotine product selection. Addiction. 2016;111(4):734-744. doi: 10.1111/add.13257.
31. Harrell MB, Loukas A, Jackson CD, Marti CN, Perry CL. Flavored tobacco product use among youth
and young adults: What if flavors didn’t exist? Tobacco Regulatory Science. 2017;3(2):168-173. doi:
10.18001/TRS.3.2.4.
32. Chaiton M, Schwartz R, Cohen JE, Soule E, Eissenberg T. Association of Ontario’s ban on menthol
cigarettes with smoking behavior 1 month after implementation. The Journal of the American Medical
Association Internal Medicine. 2018;178(5):710-711. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.8650.
33. Chaiton MO, Nicolau I, Schwartz R, et al. Ban on menthol-flavoured tobacco products predicts
cigarette cessation at 1 year: A population cohort study. Tobacco Control. 2019:[Epub ahead of print].
doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054841.
34. Chaiton M, Schwartz R, Shuldiner J, Tremblay G, Nugent R. Evaluating a real world ban on menthol
cigarettes: An interrupted time-series analysis of sales. Nicotine & Tobacco Research. 2019:[Epub ahead
of print]. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntz041.
35. Rose SW, Ganz O, Zhou Y, et al. Longitudinal response to restrictions on menthol cigarettes among
young adult US menthol smokers, 2011–2016. American Journal of Public Health. 2019;109(10):1400-
1403. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2019.305207.
16
36. O'Connor RJ, Bansal-Travers M, Carter LP, Cummings KM. What would menthol smokers do if
menthol in cigarettes were banned? Behavioral intentions and simulated demand. Addiction.
2012;107(7):1330-1338. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03822.x.
37. Wackowski OA, Manderski MTB, Delnevo CD. Young adults’ behavioral intentions surrounding a
potential menthol cigarette ban. Nicotine & Tobacco Research. 2014;16(6):876-880. doi:
10.1093/ntr/ntu003.
38. Levy DT, Pearson JL, Villanti AC, et al. Modeling the future effects of a menthol ban on smoking
prevalence and smoking-attributable deaths in the United States. American Journal of Public Health.
2011;101(7):1236-1240. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300179.
39. Petruzzello E. Measuring the effect of policy on the demand for menthol cigarettes: Evidence from
household-level purchase data. Eastern Economic Journal. 2019;45(3):422-445. doi: 10.1057/s41302-
019-00139-2.
40. Rostron BL, Corey CG, Holder-Hayes E, Ambrose BK. Estimating the potential public health impact of
prohibiting characterizing flavors in cigars throughout the US. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health. 2019;16(3234). doi: 10.3390/ijerph16183234.
41. National Cancer Institute. The economics of tobacco and tobacco control. Tobacco Control
Monograph 21. 2016. Available at:
https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/tcrb/monographs/21/monograph21.html. Accessed Jan 21, 2020.
42. Center for Public Health Systems Science at the Brown School at Washington University in St. Louis
and the National Cancer Institute, State and Community Tobacco Control Research Initiative. Point-of-
sale report to the nation: The tobacco retail and policy landscape. 2014. Available at:
https://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/WaU-guide-POS-policy-report-
2015.pdf. Accessed Jan 21, 2020.
43. Kephart L, Setodji C, Pane J, et al. Evaluating tobacco retailer experience and compliance with a
flavoured tobacco product restriction in Boston, Massachusetts: Impact on product availability,
advertisement and consumer demand. Tobacco Control. 2019:[Epub ahead of print]. doi:
10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2019-055124.
44. The Startup Magazine. Vaping: The startup business in 2018. 2018. Available at:
http://thestartupmag.com/vaping-startup-business-2018/. Accessed Jan 21, 2020.
45. Cherukupalli R. Estimating employment in e-cigarette retailers in the United States. 2019. Available
at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WK9GdFroDa3887UiuJWdTjSRQ56JUowb/view. Accessed Jan 21,
2020.
46. ReferenceUSA. U.S. businesses database. Updated 2019. Available at:
http://www.referenceusa.com/UsBusiness/Search/Quick/8b506169f95f4bdc806f05a2f0a74a3e.
Accessed December 7, 2019.
47. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment by major industry sector. Updated 2019. Available at:
17
https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/employment-by-major-industry-sector.htm. Accessed Jan 10, 2020.
48. The Center for Popular Democracy. National survey of retail workers: Key insights for workforce
development. Fair Workweek Initiative. 2018. Available at:
https://populardemocracy.org/sites/default/files/Fair%20Workweek%20Key%20Insights%20for%20Wor
kforce%20Development%20Brief%203-1-18%20FINAL.pdf. Accessed Jan 21, 2020.
49. Office of Workforce Information and Performance. Maryland short term occupational projections.
Updated 2020. Available at: https://www.dllr.state.md.us/lmi/iandoprojshort/. Accessed Jan 14, 2020.
50. Maryland Department of Labor. Maryland adds 9,800 jobs, unemployment rate remains at 3.6%.
Updated 2019. Available at: https://www.dllr.state.md.us/whatsnews/mlr.shtml. Accessed Jan 14, 2020.
51. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Local area unemployment statistics. Available at:
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LASST240000000000003?amp%253bdata_tool=XGtable&output_view=
data&include_graphs=true. Accessed Jan 14, 2020.
52. Kingsley M, Song G, Robertson J, Henley P, Ursprung WWS. Impact of flavoured tobacco restriction
policies on flavoured product availability in Massachusetts. Tobacco Control. 2019:[Epub ahead of print].
doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054703.
53. Brock B, Carlson SC, Leizinger A, D'Silva J, Matter CM, Schillo BA. A tale of two cities: Exploring the
retail impact of flavoured tobacco restrictions in the twin cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul,
Minnesota. Tobacco Control. 2019;28(2):176-180. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-054154.
54. City of Minneapolis: Community Planning and Economic Development. Tobacco density study. 2019.
Available at:
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/Download/File/2550/Tobacco%20Density%20Study%20updated.pdf.
Accessed Jan 21, 2020.
55. City Council of the City of Minneapolis. Amending title 21 of the Minneapolis code of ordinances by
adding a new chapter 595 to interim ordinances: Providing for a moratorium on the creation of new
tobacco products shops and the issuance of new tobacco licenses. Available at:
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/Download/File/1483/Moratorium%20Tobacco%20Products%20Shops.p
df. Accessed Jan 21, 2020.
56. Combs TB, McKay VR, Ornstein J, et al. Modelling the impact of menthol sales restrictions and
retailer density reduction policies: Insights from tobacco town Minnesota. Tobacco Control. 2019:[Epub
ahead of print]. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2019-054986.
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
MEMORANDUM
To: St. Anthony Village City Council
From: Charlie Yunker, City Manager
Date: April 13, 2021 City Council Work Session
Request: Proposal to Adopt Wild Turkey Management Plan
BACKGROUND
In the fall of 2020 staff was contacted by residents that were encountering difficulties in managing wild turkeys
on and near their property. The turkeys were causing a nuisance to the residents and the neighborhood, and
deterrence techniques were not effective in relocating the flock.
Staff took some time to research options for removal of the turkeys and found that residents do not have
options for professional removal services for turkeys. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is currently the
only organization able to perform removals, and they will only do so if a city has a formal management plan in
place. This plan allows for a city to request a removal permit for public property, or on behalf of a
resident/business owner of private property, to have the USDA perform removal if determined to be necessary.
To date, wild turkeys have not presented a significant problem on any city-owned property.
Staff received guidance from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources on implementing a Wild Turkey
Management Plan, and was provided with a template plan and a workflow document that detailed the steps
needed for adoption of a plan. A draft plan for the City and the workflow document are attached.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending the adoption of a Wild Turkey Management Plan in order to give private property owners
an option for wild turkey removal when all other avenues for deterrence have been exhausted. There is a cost
associated with removal, and staff is recommending that cost be the responsibility of the property owner. Staff
recommends not implementing a fee for the City permit, as the staff time to process is anticipated to be
minimal. The permit fee and removal cost can be re-evaluated at any time.
This also gives the City an option for removal should wild turkeys present an issue on publicly-owned property in
the future.
DISCUSSION ITEMS FOR COUNCIL FEEDBACK
Below are the specific items for discussion and feedback for the City Council:
• Does the Council support the adoption of a Wild Turkey Management Plan?
• Does the Council support no fee for the permit and property owners being responsible for removal cost?
• Any other considerations for Staff?
NEXT STEPS
1. If supported by the Council, staff will present the draft plan to the Parks & Environmental Commission
for feedback and public comment.
2. Staff will bring the final draft to a future City Council meeting for consideration to adopt and
implementation.
3. If adopted, information on wild turkey management will be added to the City website and included in an
edition of the City newsletter
ATTACHMENTS:
• Draft Wild Turkey Management Plan
• Turkey Management Plan Workflow
A WILD TURKEY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
City of Saint Anthony Wild Turkey Management Concerns
1.1 Wild Turkey Habitat Use and Population Estimate
1.2 Visitation and Recreation Areas
1.3 Concentrated Habitat Use and Human Safety Issues
1.3.1 Proximity Sensitive Areas
Wild Turkey Management Recommendations
2.1 Goals and Measures
2.2 Geographic Scope
2.3 Management Techniques
2.3.1 Population Reduction
2.3.2 Tracking Management Activities for Future Adjustments
2.3.3 Habitat Modification
2.3.4 Temporary Physical Barriers
2.3.5 Permanent Physical Barriers
2.3.6 Redistribution Techniques
2.3.7 Excrement Removal in Roost Areas
2.4 Public Information
2.5 Partner Relationships and Permit Requirements
Appendices:
Appendix A: City of Saint Anthony Context and Land Cover Map
Appendix B: Management Activity Tracking Form
1. City of Saint Anthony Wild Turkey Management Concerns
1.1 Wild Turkey Habitat Use and Population Estimate
The City is fully developed with areas of public recreation and pockets of open space that are conducive
to turkey populations, so wild turkeys are found in areas of the city. Nesting occurs in a variety of
habitats including wooded and marsh areas and thick shrubbery public and private property. Newly
hatched broods tend to feed within the city boundary areas and in communities that border Saint
Anthony. After their flightless period of a few days, wild turkeys are more mobile and frequently use
private and public property for dusting, roosting and feeding.
The City of Saint Anthony does not monitor wild turkey populations annually. City protocol is to respond
and assist residents when an issue arises due to a large flock of wild turkeys or unique situations that
create a public safety and/or public health issue.
1.2 Visitation and Recreation Areas
Flocks of wild turkeys can be found in our parks, playgrounds, roads, parking lots, wooded areas, and
other public and private property.
1.3 Concentrated Habitat Use and Human Safety Issues
Areas in which wild turkeys can cause damage or health and human safety issues include public
property, private residential property and business property throughout the city. Turkeys can be difficult
to deter and can become aggressive with people.
1.3.1 Proximity Sensitive areas
Because our wild turkey removal plan is based on managing specific problem areas only and not an
annual removal program, all property at any potential location will have sensitivity issues. Therefore,
staff will not support the use of firearms for the removal of problem turkeys unless directed by Public
Safety staff in very specific situations that have no other options. Generally a drop net process or baited
traps will be utilized. Depending on the types of baited traps used, this process may attract non-target
wildlife and domestic pets. Contracted services for wild turkey removal will employ strategies and
systems that minimize the impact to all other domestic and wild animals.
2. Wild Turkey Management Recommendations
2.1 Goals and Measures
The City of Saint Anthony’s Wil Turkey Management Plan is designed for problem area response due to
wild turkey issues when identified by residents and city staff. This is not a citywide annual removal
process plan. The two primary areas of concern are public safety and property damage.
Staff has identified two goals for implementing a Wild Turkey Management Plan:
1. Develop and implement a communication process that informs both residential and business
property owners about strategies to deter feeding and loafing wild turkeys. Information will
include insight regarding the issues of feeding wildlife and options to make property areas
unattractive for turkeys by developing natural barriers that deter turkeys from loafing on and
around property.
2. Support other community public and private property owners, if requested, to develop plans to
implement processes to reduce/remove wild turkeys on property not owned by the City of Saint
Anthony. This could also extend to removal when ongoing public safety and damage is
identified.
2.2 Geographic Scope
The removal goals are focused on an as needed basis throughout the City of Saint Anthony. Wild turkey
management techniques are not planned for any specific locations at this time or as a scheduled annual
removal process. If in the future the wild turkey populations grow to a point a planned and scheduled
annual removal program is required, staff will work with the City Council and the Minnesota Department
of Natural resources to develop and implement a process for the City of Saint Anthony.
2.3 Management Techniques
The management techniques for wild turkey management for the City of Saint Anthony will be varied in
type and geographic area. Meeting the goals as outlined may require the implementation of a broad set
of options. Any one management technique used alone will likely be ineffective for any significant length
of time, since tolerance and habituation will likely occur. As a result, we propose the use of an
integrated management approach, where a number of techniques, applied in varying ways, times and
locations will provide the best outcomes.
2.3.1 Population Reduction
Animal Management
The plan recommended is not an annual population reduction management process. When a problem
area is identified and action required, staff will request a Removal Permit from the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources for the wild turkeys. Permit request will outline all issues, location(s)
and conditions that will be followed as well as the reporting of any removal(s).
Trapping and Removal (Winter Period)
Capture and removal of, mixed age groups during the winter period is an effective way to reduce the
localized population of wild turkeys. The use of contractors to capture, remove and disposition of wild
turkeys from City of Saint Anthony is a management option. Such removal would need to be detailed as
part of a removal permit application through the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and wild
turkey removal and disposition would need to be conducted according to the permit conditions.
Lethal Wild Turkey removal
The City of Saint Anthony does not plan to use on-site lethal removal of wild turkeys unless a specific
removal need is dictated by the Public Safety Personnel and no other non-lethal options are reasonable
based on the situation. Selective and occasional lethal removal of individual or small groups of wild
turkey may be needed if other redistribution or hazing methods do not work. Lethal removal of wild
turkeys by means of shooting wild turkeys on an occasional basis is a management option. Such removal
would need to be dictated by the City of Saint Anthony Police Department. This type of removal would
be included as part of a removal permit application through the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, and wild turkey removal and disposition would need to be conducted according to the
specific permit conditions. Such conditions would include the number of individual wild turkeys and the
specific information about the methods to be used for the removal and disposition.
2.3.2 Tracking Management Activities for Future Adjustments
All management activities will be documented on the Management Activity Tracking Form in Appendix B
and keep a copy of this on file to help facilitate future management activities that might need
adjustments or improvements.
2.3.3 Habitat Modification
There are some direct habitat modifications that may be beneficial long term for wild turkeys. Covering
dusting sites with rock may deter them and encourage them to move to another area that has less
public use. In some cases pruning of certain branches on roost trees may prove beneficial. However,
being able to halt access, remove food sources, or altering other attractants will be beneficial.
2.3.4 Temporary Physical Barriers
The use of temporary fencing, rocks and other natural barriers (botanical gardens - pollinator gardens)
that limits wild turkey access to the high use pedestrian traffic areas during the various Minnesota
seasons will be considered. Any fencing that may be installed would be established in a manner or
distance that prevents wild turkeys from entering the fenced off area from the adjacent roost areas.
2.3.5 Permanent Physical Barriers
Completely excluding wild turkeys from a specific area is difficult based on their ability to fly. The use of
permanent woven wire fencing or more residential aesthetically pleasing fence such as composite, wood
or privacy lattice, or other options may be considered if it limits wild turkey access to high pedestrian
traffic use areas. Staff understands this may help to deter but not completely prevent access. These
fences can be blended into the area with tall flowering forbs, grasses or shrubs. Any fencing that is
installed would need to be approved by the Area Wildlife Manager and will be established in a manner
that prevents wild turkeys from entering the fenced off area from adjoining areas. Routine inspection of
the fence will be done by city staff when installed on publically owned property.
2.3.6 Redistribution Techniques
Preventing large flocks of wild turkeys from roosting, feeding or dusting throughout Saint Anthony and
adjacent areas will be an ongoing process. We anticipate using a number of techniques, when needed,
through independent contractors to remove wild turkeys creating public safety issues and property
damage. On City owned property, multiple techniques will be utilized at varied times and with subtle
shifts in methods so that the wild turkeys do not become habituated to any one technique or become
accustomed to a particular schedule of activity.
Following is a list, though not necessarily exhaustive, of redistribution techniques recommended by
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources the City will follow on publicly owned property and
resident and business owners will be advised to follow before requesting a removal permit:
Human and mechanical disruption options that may be considered;
• Disturbing roosting and feeding wild turkeys by individuals on foot so they can be moved
out of the area to a location that is more supportive of wild turkey habitat
• Sprinklers or water devices
• Remote control cars/trucks
Dogs or other trained animals
• Specially trained dogs that are capable of providing non-lethal hazing.
• Use of trained dogs and handlers to move turkeys away from high used public areas.
• Resident pets will not be allowed for this purpose.
Pyrotechnic Options
• Limited use of pyrotechnic options such as flares, bangers, crackers, popper shells, etc. can
be temporarily effective in moving wild turkeys and dissuading them from returning to a
given area. Special training, handling and storage considerations would need to be
considered. Use restrictions and notification requirements would be required prior to the use
of pyrotechnics. Safety will always be the number one priority when considering pyrotechnics
for the relocation of wild turkeys.
Options for Repellants for roosting
• Bird spikes in common roost areas
• Spray on products that create unwelcome residues have been successful to slow down
roosting. An example is Bird-X “4 The Birds Repellant” – product leaves a sticky residue on
surfaces including tree branches, rooftops, asphalt, etc.
• Remote and automated lighting systems.
Predator decoys
• The use of 2D or 3D coyote/dog decoys sometimes discourages area use by wild turkeys.
The periodic use of decoys continues to be a management option. Decoys that are placed
intermittently and exhibit periodic motion due to wind gusts can be effective at deterring
geese however must be moved on a very regular schedule to be affective.
Feeding ban or future feeding ban on wild turkeys
• No feeding wild turkeys within city limits
• No feeding of wild turkeys on city property
2.3.7 Deterrents in Roost Areas and Excrement Removal
At this point in time, the City of Saint Anthony does not remove wild turkey excrement on private
property. The primary goal is to effectively redistribute wild turkeys away from these areas, with the
goal being a reduction of feces in these areas. Staff would only remove wild turkey excrement from
public owned property if the problem is extensive and persistent.
2.4 Public Information
Informing the public about wild turkey management activities is an integral part of a successful wild
turkey management plan. Information and signage detailing some of the methods being used will be
developed to provide background information for residents. Signage or posted notices may be
developed for certain activities. Additionally, city staff and all contractors performing removal services
will provide a copy of the removal permit to all residents and patrons upon request. All persons
performing management activities should provide users with accurate and thorough information about
wild turkey management objective, and inform users how the particular management activity being
conducted fits into the larger wild turkey management plan.
The City of Saint Anthony will promote resident reporting options of turkey complaints/safety concerns
to appropriate staff via e-mail or phone. The City will also provide information on residential turkey
management techniques in both the city newsletter and website.
2.5 Partner Relationships and Permit Requirements
Coordination of all wildlife management activities will be communicated with the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, Parks & Recreation Department, Public Safety Department and City
Administration. Permitting and all contracted removal activities, dates/conditions for removals, permit
possession while conducting activities, notification and involvement of Conservation Officers, Area
Wildlife Managers, etc. will be the responsibility of City staff and all contractors employed to implement
wildlife management services.
APPENDIX A: City of Saint Anthony Context and Land Cover Map
APPENDIX B: Management Activity Tracking Form
DATE Name Activity/Method Location Notes