Energy Marketers of America (EMA) has spoken out against the proposed menthol ban in a recent statement that brought together 47 state and regional energy marketing trade associations representing tens of thousands of small businesses.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is currently concluding a federal rulemaking process to ban menthol as a characterizing flavor in cigarettes and has submitted its rule to the Office of Management and Budget.

The EMA statement noted that the FDA is “already failing to enforce the tobacco market in the U.S. as illicit tobacco trafficking continues to fuel a multibillion-dollar criminal enterprise.”

EMA believes that a menthol prohibition will drive legitimate transactions out of stores and into the illicit market, which would hurt small businesses and lead to more crime.

“The criminal sale of tobacco has been proven to fund violent gangs, organized crime, Mexican drug cartels and international terrorism,” the statement read.

It also stated that there is no scientific evidence to support a nationwide public health policy that would treat menthol cigarettes differently than other cigarettes.

“Nonetheless, the controversial policy proposal, advanced by special interest groups that have threatened the federal government with litigation, will create the largest prohibition of a legal adult product in modern history,” the statement continued. “As menthol cigarettes are the product of choice for smokers in communities of color, the policy will disproportionately impact those communities.”

CStore Decisions caught up with representatives of the EMA statement, who shared their thoughts about the issue.

• “If the federal government decides to ban a product that millions of Americans currently enjoy using, demand for that product is not simply going to go away. The federal government will be creating a black market where it doesn’t currently exist (except for Massachusetts and California), and smugglers and producers of unregulated menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars will have this new illicit market flooded with supplies as soon as the prohibition takes effect. The best way to move these products would be through the Mexican and Canadian borders,” said Peter Brennan, executive director of the New England Convenience Store & Energy Marketers Association.
• “The impact of a menthol flavor ban on small businesses can be quite substantial. Many small retailers rely on the sales of menthol products as a significant portion of their revenue. A ban will push these products to the black market and my members will see a decline in sales, potentially leading to financial difficulties, job loss and even business closures,” said Traci Nelson, president of the West Virginia Oil Marketers & Grocers Association (OMEGA).
• “EMA represents thousands of wholesale distributors of gasoline and diesel fuel who in turn supply fuel to thousands of gas station owners. The proposed menthol ban could impact c-store owners’ ability to pay for their next load of fuel or make investments in their businesses, including EV charging, because tobacco products make up a significant portion of their sales to the public,” said Rob Underwood, EMA president.
• “With products that have an established user base, a ban will push current users to illicit sources for their preferred products. Given that retailers sold over $23 billion in menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars last year and that Arizona is the sixth worst state for cigarette smuggling in the nation, a ban is going to benefit illicit sellers like cartels,” said Amanda Gray, executive director of the Arizona Petroleum Marketers Association.

The EMA statement concluded by alleging that tobacco bans and taxes simply do not work, and that enlightened public health policy supports harm reduction as a strategy. Many countries have embraced less harmful alternatives to smoking instead of resorting to total prohibition.

A potential federal menthol ban has implications that reach far beyond policy. EMA believes that prohibition of menthol cigarettes will negatively impact the economy, public health and small businesses. The trade associations urge that the White House consider the broader consequences before enacting the ban.