Author: Staff Writer

  • Fewer Young Americans Vaping

    Fewer Young Americans Vaping

    Photo: Aliaksandr Barouski – Dreamstime.com

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have released new data from the 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey (NYTS) showing a decline in youth use of e-cigarettes but an increase in use of disposable products.

    Compared to 2019, the number of youth using e-cigarettes is down 1.8 million. However, the number of youth using disposable e-cigarettes has risen: 26.5 percent of high school users are using disposables, up from 2.4 percent in 2019, and 15.2 percent of middle school users are using disposables, up from 3 percent last year.

    The use of flavored products is also high—more than eight out of 10 surveyed youth reported using flavored products. Fruit, mint, candy and menthol were the most commonly reported.

    This is the first year the NYTS has distinguished between mint and menthol. Previously, products were identified in the survey as “mint/menthol.”

    “After two years of disturbing increases in youth e-cigarette use, we are encouraged by the overall significant decline reported in 2020,” said FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn. “This is good news; however, the FDA remains very concerned about the 3.6 million U.S. youth who currently use e-cigarettes and we acknowledge there is work that still needs to be done to curb youth use”

  • Colin Mendelsohn

    Colin Mendelsohn

    Colin Mendelsohn, board member and founding chairman of the Australian Tobacco Harm Reduction Association, detailed “the very sad state” of vapor regulation in his country. Australia, he said, is the only Western democracy to effectively ban nicotine liquid.

    Australia classifies nicotine as a dangerous poison in the same category as arsenic, and consequently, its sale and use are criminal offenses unless accompanied by a doctor’s prescription. Violators of the nicotine ban face penalties of up to AUD45,000 ($32,230) and up to two years imprisonment, depending on the state. The law makes an exception for nicotine-replacement products and cigarettes, ironically allowing users to consume nicotine by combusting tobacco leaves—the riskiest delivery method—but not by vaporizing e-liquid, which is generally believed to be less harmful to health.

    Vapor products are also subject to the tobacco law and the therapeutic goods law. Among other things, this means vapor companies are not allowed to advertise or display their products, and consumers cannot vape in their personal vehicles when there are children present. The therapeutic goods law allows vapers to import products for personal use with a doctor’s prescription, but this remains very much a theoretical scenario. “People aren’t doing it,” said Mendelsohn.

    The hostile climate to vaping is extracting a serious human cost. Mendelsohn displayed a graph comparing the development of smoking rates in the U.S., the U.K. and Australia. After 2013, when vaping became widespread, the declines accelerated in the U.S. and the U.K. but flatlined in Australia. Whereas the share of smokers decreased by a full percent per year in the U.S. and 0.8 percent per year in the U.K., the annual decline in Australia stagnated at 0.3 percent—one third of the rate in the other countries. In 2019, the smoking rate was 14.7 percent in Australia, 13.9 percent in in England and 13.7 percent in the U.S.

    “We can’t say for sure it’s all due to vaping, but vaping is playing a major role because Australia is doing everything else,” said Mendelsohn, referring to the country’s draconian tobacco control policies. “We have very strict tobacco control laws, the highest cigarette prices in the world, plain packaging—and yet smoking is not changing.”

    Other unintended consequences of the ban include black market sales, the relocation of Australian businesses to New Zealand (from where they sell their products to Australia) and a thriving do-it-yourself business in which vapers import nicotine to create their own e-liquids (and occasionally get poisoned by their concoctions.)

    Despite the unwelcoming environment, Mendelsohn is cautiously optimistic that things may improve for Australian vapers after Health Minister Greg Hunt tried to ram a ban on nicotine imports through Parliament and suffered a major backlash. Opponents “melted the phone lines” to their members of Parliament, according to Mendelsohn. Twenty-eight backbenchers sent a letter to health minister; a petition against the proposed legislation gained 70,000 signatures in three days; and 95 percent of vapers indicated in a survey that the decision would influence their vote.

    In the end, the minister backed down. The plan has been delayed by six months; a streamlined version will be introduced on Jan. 1, 2021. According to Mendelsohn, vaping has become a political decision. “We are not going [to] change the bureaucrats, but the politicians are getting it—and they will decide,” he says. “One consideration that will weigh heavily in their considerations is that vapers vote. We now have a lot of vapers who will vote according to this issue. As we know from the U.S., vaping for many voters is a ‘single issue.’ If you know vaping will save your life, you will pick the party that supports you.”

    In addition, notes Mendelsohn, lawmakers have become more receptive to the evidence supporting vaping as less risky than smoking. “The decision will be made in Canberra, and we hope the politicians will stand up for this. So far, the evidence is promising.”

     

  • Alex Clark

    Alex Clark

    In the early days of e-cigarettes, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began seizing the next-generation products. In response to the federal action, a group of enthusiasts and dedicated vapers became concerned that consumers would lose access to the potentially lifesaving technology. That led to the creation of the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association (CASAA). Alex Clark, CEO of CASAA, said the organization soon started building an army of consumers dedicated to keeping vapor products on the market.

    “We truly are a grassroots consumer organization,” explains Clark. “We speak from the heart. And it is our needs as consumers, as people who are choosing a better path in the way that we consume nicotine and tobacco products; that’s where we’re speaking from, and that’s what sets our policy agenda.”

    Speaking during the Global Tobacco & Nicotine Forum (GTNF) in late September, Clark disclosed that CASAA does accept donations from a variety of stakeholders, including industry stakeholders, but the organization does not have any policy, legislative messaging or financial agreements with any of its supporters. Clark says that the conversation surrounding vaping is centered in harm reduction and that is the mission of CASAA.

    “Vaping … has become this conversation about tobacco harm reduction, [it] is a consumer-driven movement. I don’t think there’s anything groundbreaking in that statement,” he said. “But I bring it up because I believe—and I think many of us believe—that the industry and policymakers need to be reminded of that—that as people who used to smoke, we have endured years of other people telling our story.”

    CASAA grew as a community organization through its “tight feedback loop” between consumers and independent manufacturers. Clark likened the early days of the not-for-profit organization to the local food movement where “if you wanted to know where your cheeseburger came from, you could drive down the road” and visit the farm.

    “I think we can all come to embrace that spirit and that side of the industry as an asset, not necessarily something that needs to be regulated to within inches of its life,” Clark said. “As consumers, we are very deeply afraid that is what’s going to happen. That as larger firms are able to make it through the [premarket tobacco product application (PMTA)] process, that we [will] lose that very important retail experience to be able to walk into a vapor shop and learn about the products but also discuss the challenges that we’re facing in transitioning away from smoking.”

    Clark says that a major concern for CASAA and its supporters is that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) PMTA process is too expensive and arduous for small business owners. He says the organization worries that if only large tobacco companies can sell vapor products, consumers will lose the ability to have a place to learn and understand the choices available, through different types of products, to help them stop smoking.

    Clark mentioned a study that evaluated the long-term success rates of quitting smoking for people who visited specialty vape shops versus people who bought their products at convenience stores. That study found that consumers that visited vape shops were more successful at stopping smoking. “They were more likely to transition completely, and they were more likely to stick with the products for longer,” said Clark.

    Because of the success vape shops have had at helping people quit smoking, they began to move away from the stigma they carried in local communities early on as being businesses where “potentially unsavory elements go to get their drugs,” according to Clark. He says that, today, vape shops are seen for what they are: a contact point for public health messaging and people who smoke. “People who are looking for a way to move away from combustible tobacco visit vape shops, and it’s a very casual setting,” he says. “It’s a place where people can feel safe and welcome and [are] able to just share our stories with one another. It is very helpful, and it really looks a lot like a community support [group for smokers].”

    Clark said this distinction is important for regulators and anti-vaping groups to understand. Smokers began making the decision to quit using cigarettes by switching to vapor products of their own accord. There was not a government agency telling them that e-cigarettes had the potential to help them quit deadly smoking, and small, family-owned vape shops are where the conversations and mass conversions began.

    “We have made this decision on our own, which is a bit challenging to the dominant narrative painting people who smoke as victims. I, honestly, don’t feel like a victim,” he says. “I started smoking in the mid-’90s. Certainly, I was subject to all kinds of messaging about why I shouldn’t smoke. Not only why it would be negatively affecting my health but [also] why it was essentially a character flaw and I was a bad person.”

    Clark says vape shop owners need to help keep vape shops available to smokers by taking steps to continue to change people’s perceptions of them. Owners need to keep their shops clean and sanitary. Don’t have such a thick cloud of vapor when opening the door that potential customers are driven away. Vape shops should have an open and welcoming environment.

    “You need to have a place for your customers to talk with one another. People behind the counter need to be very knowledgeable about the products that they are selling. Regulations [need to allow] people [to] have candid conversations about these products. As it stands now, I think even sharing your personal story about making the switch while standing behind the cash register could get people into a lot of trouble,” he says emphatically. “There’s a lot of room for regulations to improve in terms of allowing people to receive important information and also the education that needs to happen among people working in vape shops.”

    People often internalize messages that are intended to encourage them to change their lives for the better, according to Clark. He says people also internalize messages about being deficient. Some of the rhetoric surrounding vaping and the misinformation about its harms is detrimental to public health. Vape shops create an environment where people feel comfortable discussing their goal of quitting cigarettes. Anti-vape groups, however, are putting these “safe zones” for smokers in jeopardy.

    “We have already seen the legislative agenda of the anti-vaping, anti-nicotine campaigns, which is to go after flavors, which very obviously shuts down vape shops and takes away that very important element of providing a space for people to come together and support one another,” Clark told attendees. “We must be prepared to take on these fights at the local and state level.”

    Fighting the types of legislative challenges that the vapor industry is facing is complicated. Clark says that when attempting to tackle many legislative issues in the United States, it is like dealing with 50 different countries. “Certainly, you can see this in our patchwork of responses to the [Covid-19 pandemic],” he says. “Within those 50 countries, we have 39,000 local governments and all of these are potential pressure points where anti-nicotine activists will promote anti-harm reduction policies. If we don’t stand up for ourselves, we can’t rely on other people to do it for us, and we cannot surrender our voice to either anti-tobacco activists or the tobacco and nicotine industry.”

  • Japan Council Sets 2021 Leaf Prices and Cultivation Area

    Japan Council Sets 2021 Leaf Prices and Cultivation Area

    Photo: Kanenori

    Japan’s Leaf Tobacco Deliberative Council has set the domestic tobacco cultivation area at 5,970 hectares for 2021, a decrease of 5.7 percent compared to the 2020 cultivation area.

    The leaf tobacco purchase price will increase by 0.62 percent from last year to an average of ¥1,924.15 ($18.32) per kilogram for all leaf types.

    The Leaf Tobacco Deliberative Council confers on matters concerning the cultivation and purchase of domestically grown leaf tobacco in response to inquiries by Japan Tobacco (JT).

    Currently chaired by Yoshitsugu Minagawa, the council consists a maximum of 11 members, appointed by JT and approved by Minister of Finance from among representatives of domestic leaf tobacco growers and academic scholars.

  • Companies Challenge Flavor Ban

    Companies Challenge Flavor Ban

    Photo: Michal Kalasek | Dreamstime.com

    R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., American Snuff Co., R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Philip Morris USA, John Middleton Co., U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Co., Helix Innovations, Neighborhood Market Association. and Morija filed a lawsuit seeking to repeal the California flavor ban law on Oct. 9.

    The California law bans the sale of menthol cigarettes as well as all other flavored tobacco and vapor products except premium cigars, shisha and loose-leaf tobacco beginning Jan. 1, 2021.

    The lawsuit seeks a ruling that “declare[s] that the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act pre-empts the California ban on the sale of all flavored tobacco products, making the law invalid and unenforceable; declare[s] that the law is invalid and unenforceable under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution; [and] issue[s] preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing the enforcement and implementation of the California ban on the sale of all flavored tobacco products,” according to CSP.

    California Governor Gavin Newsom signed the ban Aug. 28. Opponents filed a petition to put the question to voters in a referendum to overturn it shortly after its passage. 

  • Tobacco Growers Convene Online

    Tobacco Growers Convene Online

    The International Tobacco Growers Association (ITGA) will hold an online meeting, due to Covid-19, with its community of growers on Oct. 28, 2020 at 1 p.m. Western European Time in Portugal to celebrate World Tobacco Growers’ Day.

    “This meeting aims to celebrate and thank the importance of the role of tobacco growers in the economies and social and rural environments of their regions and in these times of pandemic particularly, continuing with the activities inherent to the sector to ensure the proper functioning of value chains,” the organization wrote in a statement.

    The session will be composed of the technical staff of the ITGA, growers’ associations from around the world and invitees.

    The session is free to attend.

     

  • Medicago to Supply Covid-19 Vaccine

    Medicago to Supply Covid-19 Vaccine

    Photo: Arek Socha from Pixabay

    Medicago, a biopharmaceutical company headquartered in Quebec City, Canada, has reached an agreement with Public Services and Procurement Canada to supply up to 76 million doses of its vaccine candidate for Covid-19, subject to Health Canada approval.

    Innovation, Science & Economic Development, another department of the Canadian federal government, will contribute CAD173 million ($131 million) to Medicago to support its ongoing vaccine development and clinical trials, and for the construction of its Quebec City manufacturing facility.

    Since 2008, Philip Morris Investments B.V. (PMIBV), a subsidiary of Philip Morris International (PMI), has been a shareholder of Medicago (in which it currently holds an approximately one-third equity stake) and has supported Medicago’s innovative plant-derived research and development focused on vaccines.

    The investment is consistent with PMI’s own efforts to leverage science and innovation. Japan-based Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation (MTPC) is the majority shareholder and PMIBV’s partner in Medicago. Among other things, PMIBV and MTPC will contribute additional funding to support Medicago’s efforts to develop a Covid-19 vaccine candidate.

    “We welcome the collaboration announced between two departments of the Canadian government and Medicago to accelerate its efforts against Covid-19,” said PMI CEO André Calantzopoulos in a statement.

    “Better outcomes can be achieved when governments and companies join efforts to promote shared objectives for the greater good. We are pleased to be able to support Medicago’s work to develop, substantiate, manufacture, and make available a Covid-19 vaccine candidate. We all hope they will be successful.”

    Medicago began Phase 1 testing on volunteers on July 14 and is anticipating that Phase 2 trials will begin in early November 2020. If Phase 2 trials are successful, Phase 3 trials are expected to begin in December 2020.

  • Hiroya Kumamaru

    Hiroya Kumamaru

    The Japanese experience

    During the recent GTNF, Hiroya Kumamaru, a cardiovascular surgeon and vice director of AOI International Hospital in Kawasaki, Japan, discussed the remarkable decline of smoking in Japan following the introduction of heated-tobacco products (HTPs) in 2014.

    Smoking is the biggest cause of disease and premature death in Japan, ahead of other prominent causes such as hypertension and diabetes. In 2010, 157,000 people in Japan died from smoking-related diseases, including malignancies and respiratory afflictions.

    The economic damage is substantial too. The Japan Health Economics Research Group estimates the annual loss due to smoking at ¥4.3 trillion ($40.81 billion), mainly in the form of lost working hours, cleaning cost, fire safety expense and medical expenditures. This figure far outweighs the positive impact on Japan’s economy of smoking, which the research group puts at ¥2.8 trillion (primarily tax income) per year.

    Japan has long struggled with stubbornly high smoking rates. In 1989, more than 50 percent of men and about 10 percent of women smoked, according to the National Health and Nutrition Survey. In recent years, however, the figure has started to come down dramatically. Between 2015 and 2019, domestic cigarette sales decreased from 180 billion sticks to 120 billion sticks—a drop of more than 30 percent. The share of smokers over the age of 20 is now below 18 percent in Japan.

    Experts attribute the decline to the introduction of HTPs, which satisfy smokers’ cravings but likely present a lower risk to their health. Kumamaru cited research by Bekki et al. of Philip Morris International’s (PMI) IQOS HTP, which showed that the nicotine concentration in the smoke—the part that provides the satisfaction—was almost the same as that of conventional cigarettes while the concentration of tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) and carbon monoxide—components associated with illness—were one-fifth and one-hundredth of those in conventional cigarettes, respectively.

    Since their debut in 2014, HTPs have captured 24.3 percent of all tobacco sales in Japan. More than a quarter of Japanese smokers have embraced HTPs, with at least 70 percent using these products exclusively. Among men in their twenties and thirties, more than 50 percent have abandoned cigarettes in favor of HTPs, according to the Japan National Health and Nutrition Survey (2018), which was published in January 2020.

    Meanwhile, Japan’s overall smoking rate continues to decline, which suggests the new products are enticing smokers to switch rather than recruiting new users. PMI data show that fewer than 0.1 percent of new smokers started because of its HTP product, IQOS, in 2017. According to Kumamaru, this shows there is no “gateway” effect from having HTPs on the market.

    While impressed by the impact of HTPs on smoking rates, Kumamaru said he had even greater expectations of the tobacco harm reduction potential of vapor products. Manufacturers have hesitated to launch e-cigarettes in Japan in part because of regulatory issues, but he nonetheless expected launches in the vapor segment soon.

  • One Billion Voices

    One Billion Voices

    The panel discussion “One billion voices” debated the difference consumer advocates can make in promoting harm reduction and risk-proportionate regulatory frameworks. Clarisse Yvette Virgino, member of the Coalition of Asia Pacific Harm Reduction Advocates, provided a powerful example of consumer advocacy in action. The Philippines had originally intended to ban electronic nicotine-delivery systems (ENDS). Through active discussions with lawmakers, consumer groups and their allies managed to avert prohibition.

    Plenty of challenges remain, however. Philippine law classifies e-cigarettes and tobacco-heating devices as tobacco products, which means they are subject to similarly strict restrictions. What’s more, damaging misperceptions persist, with many inaccurately viewing ENDS as equally or more harmful than cigarettes. The government closely toes the anti-harm reduction line set out by the WHO, and President Rodrigo Duterte has repeatedly made negative comments about vaping. 

    The situation is worse in India where the government last year banned e-cigarettesand tobacco-heating products, denying the country’s 110 million smokers access to less harmful alternatives. Samrat Chowdhery, president of the International Network of Nicotine Consumer Organizations, bemoaned the exclusion of nicotine consumers from the debate. “Once somebody starts using a tobacco product, their experiences and opinions no longer matter,” he lamented. The ban has spawned a thriving black market—but without the quality controls that were in place previously, according to Chowdhery. It has also driven many vapers back to smoking.

    India’s hostility to harm reduction extends to oral products. The country boasts a huge smokeless market with offerings such as gutka and pan masala. As Chowdhery points out, however, not all smokeless tobacco products are created equal; the segment has its own risk continuum, with snus and modern oral products at the low end of the scale and Indian smokeless near the top. “Indian smokeless is extremely deadly,” he says. “It is linked to about 350,000 premature deaths annually.”

    The availability of less unhealthy smokeless alternatives should make India ripe for substitution. “Unfortunately, Indian tobacco control is trying to conflate risk, using the example of Indian smokeless to claim that all smokeless tobacco products are bad,” said Chowdhery. The other obstacle is price: Indian smokeless is extremely cheap—cheaper even than bidis, the most used form of smoked tobacco in India. “So if you look at converting gutka and pan masala users, then the price point has to be where consumers can afford it,” he said.

    The panel debated the challenge of communicating the benefits of cigarette alternatives. Heneage Mitchell, director of Factasia, said his organization was constantly struggling to counter misinformation. Erroneous headlines depicting vaping and smoking as equally harmful have a huge impact, he said, but it is difficult to get publishers to retract their stories. And unlike their adversaries, vapor advocates have limited resources. “They have billions; we have pennies,” said Mitchell, comparing his finances with those of the WHO and Bloomberg Philanthropies. Lacking budgets, consumer advocates are relying on social media to make their voices heard—but the way those platforms are designed means that activists are often finding themselves in echo chambers, preaching to the choir. “There is no magic bullet,” Mitchell said.

    Making matters worse, some 50 percent of the world’s tobacco production is controlled, through whole or partial stakes in tobacco companies, by governments that have signed the treaty. “That makes the FCTC an institutional tobacco trader lobby,” said Chowdhery. Tellingly, when Canada and the EU in 2018 supported making the FCTC proceedings transparent, they were countered by countries such as Thailand and India, which have substantial interests in their tobacco industries.

    Despite the formidable obstacles to harm reduction, the panelists took heart from the fact that consumers are becoming more vocal. The personal experience with lifesaving devices has made many eager to speak up. Chowdhery said he was encouraged to see how many so-called experts are now facing pushback from consumers who are “calling bullshit.”

    Panel moderator Alex Clark, CEO of the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association in the United States, noted that consumers in democracies around the world should compensate for their lack of financial firepower by turning up at elections. “No matter where you are, vote,” he said. 

  • Scientists Talk

    Scientists Talk

    The second panel discussion during the 2020 GTNF in the Asia time zone featured top scientists from the leading tobacco companies discussing the role of science in the tobacco and nicotine business.

    Moderated by Teo Forcht-Dagi, honorary professor at Queens University, the panel included Maria Gogova, vice president of regulatory sciences and regulatory affairs at Altria Client Services; Ian Jones, R&D principal scientist at Japan Tobacco International; David O’Reilly, director of scientific research for British American Tobacco; and Joe Thompson, chief scientific officer at Imperial Brands. 

    Asked to identify the most salient scientific issues facing the tobacco and nicotine industries, the panelists named the communication of science and data gaps, among other topics.

    Today’s alternatives to combustible products represent an unprecedented opportunity to reduce the risks of smoking, but without consumer trust in the product, the opportunity will not live up to its potential.

    Jones summarized the challenge by quoting Anne Roe. “Nothing in science has any value to society if it is not communicated,” the American psychologist reportedly said. “It helps if it’s understandable too,” Jones added, quoting a coworker this time.

    Despite the substantial and growing body of evidence that vaping is less harmful than smoking, an increasing number of consumers believes the opposite. Between 2014 and 2016, the share of U.S. adult smokers who perceived vaping as being equally or more harmful than smoking increased from 44 percent to 68.4 percent, according to the PATH study.

    Such misconceptions are fueled by flawed studies and sloppy media coverage, according to Thompson. For example, a 2019 research paper erroneously linked e-cigarette usage among adults to heart attacks, generating sensationalist headlines. Its authors were later forced to retract the study, but by that time, the damage in terms of public perception had been done.

    O’Reilly noted that most people’s understanding of tobacco and disease is about 30 years out of date, causing them to confuse nicotine with products of combustion. He said it was depressing to see how even many medical and scientific professionals misunderstand the issues, mistakenly attributing cancer and respiratory diseases to nicotine, for example. “It is one thing for the public to struggle with nuances of nicotine toxicology, but the misperceptions of our colleagues in [the] scientific and medical world must be addressed,” he said.

    The panelists agreed the industry should step up its science communications and use all available channels (while noting that some channels are off-limits) to get its message across. Jones called on the industry’s communicators to be open, transparent and take the time to understand their audience. “Don’t sit on your pedestal and try to bedazzle everybody,” he said. O’Reilly said the automotive industry provided a good analogy to describe the tobacco industry’s transformation to the public. “Moving away from combustion will benefit public health,” he said.

    The panel then turned its attention to data gaps—what we don’t know. A recent review by the Committee on Toxicology that advises the U.K. Department of Health was broadly supportive of vaping but also pointed to the lack of information on the performance of cigarette alternatives over time. This presents a challenge not only because of the sector’s age—many products simply haven’t been around for long enough to conduct epidemiological studies—but also because it is hard to follow people over time. Contrary to the traditional cigarette business where smokers typically stay with the same product and brand for the duration of their smoking “career,” vapers change products frequently, either due to evolving technology or changing preferences. So tracking them is difficult.

    While acknowledging the data gap, Gogova said the absence of epidemiology should not be used as an excuse to foreclose tobacco harm reduction opportunity and/or the authorization of modified-risk claims, as doing so would leave the field to combustible cigarettes—the riskiest option.

    Despite the relative youthfulness of the vapor sector, O’Reilly said it was time to start considering population-based studies. “We are in a different space today then at the start of the GFNF in terms of science. In a number of countries, the uptake of alternative products has been going on for some time now.”

    The panel also pondered the question of how to recruit scientists. Fortunately, the industry’s transformation has made that task easier in recent years. Many scientists are attracted by the opportunity to help reduce the harm caused by smoking. According to O’Reilly, scientists could arguably do more to avoid a billion premature deaths by joining the tobacco industry than by signing up for academia or other sectors. As Jones explained,” science is about curiosity, about wanting to learn more, ask questions and pull things to pieces to see how they work.” Unlike the situation 20 to 30 years ago when tobacco science had stagnated, the transformation that the industry is undergoing provides all of that.

    Encouragingly, all panelists reported that scientists today have a big seat at the table inside tobacco companies’ board rooms. Science is viewed as fundamental, they said. It makes sense: One of the greatest challenges to sustainability for the industry is achieving tobacco harm reduction that is based in sound science. Without science, the industry has no foundation to transform itself and continue its operations.