Author: Marissa Dean

  • Hot Commodity

    Hot Commodity

    Photo: Taco Tuinstra

    Leaf tobacco remains in short supply.

    By Stefanie Rossel

    Ivan Genov | Photo: ITGA

    Tobacco remains a scarce commodity. Universal Leaf estimates world leaf production, excluding China, at 4.66 billion green kg in 2023, down from 4.86 billion kg in 2022. This year, the merchant expects global production to rise to 5.2 billion kg, but there are issues that might alter this forecast.

    “The undersupply of leaf tobacco remains the key global trend,” says Ivan Genov, manager of tobacco industry analysis at the International Tobacco Growers’ Association (ITGA). “Leading tobacco purchasing companies continue to report very low levels of uncommitted stock. In general, sales go very fast. In Brazil, the flue-cured Virginia (FCV) crop was almost completely sold by the end of April, which is unusual (see “The Great Scramble,” Tobacco Reporter, May 2024). In Zimbabwe, export figures from early May are up significantly from last year. Burley is also in short supply.

    “The market in Malawi, one of the key countries for the variety, opened on April 15. In the U.S., our members see strong short-term opportunities in burley. They also believe that the supply shortage will recover, but more slowly than in the past, which also means that prices should improve to meet these market shortages.”

    At least the rapid rise in production cost that has been plaguing growers in recent years appears to be leveling off in some origins. While costs remain a concern, Genov has seen positive developments in key markets. “For example, in Brazil, where cost of production for FCV and burley was going upward of 30 percent year-on-year, for the current crop that is nearly fully realized on the market, the increase is limited to single digits,” he observes. “This goes in line with global inflationary and commodity price dynamics, where it seems we are now past the highest points. This being said, the pressure on growers remains. Even though such drastic increases are tamed, the new price levels remain at the higher end.”

    At the same time, tobacco prices in most of the leading markets have gone up in 2023–2024. “Growers are positive about this dynamic, but their margins remain thin,” says Genov. “Additional efforts need to be made to increase these margins. ITGA is currently undertaking a big research effort in collecting information from influential tobacco-growing regions in finding the so-called game changers that could increase farmer productivity and improve the long-term prospects of growers.”

    More than two years into Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, other factors worrying farmers in 2023 have also eased, according to Genov. “In the early stages of the conflict, there was a real uncertainty related to agrifood commodities, especially in Africa,” he says. “The continent has a big exposure to some essential products coming from Russia and Ukraine. However, our associations in Africa have recently reported that fertilizer supply has immensely improved, and pricing has stabilized, with some reduction. Navigating complicated geopolitical pressures in the future will likely keep the situation vulnerable.”

    China Boosts Production

    Chinese tobacco production is believed to be approaching 2 billion kg. | Photo: Jingmei Zhang

    Global FCV production, excluding China, rose to an estimated 1.92 billion kg in 2023, up from 1.64 billion kg in 2022, according to Universal Leaf’s data. For 2024, the company expects a slight drop to an estimated 1.88 billion kg.

    The world’s burley production stood at an estimated 443 million kg in 2023, up from 354 million kg one year previously. Production is anticipated to increase to an estimated 447 million kg in 2024.

    Oriental production declined to 109 million kg in 2023 from 116 million kg in 2022. The volume is expected to decrease even further to 104 million kg this year.

    Dark air-cured production rose from 115 million kg in 2022 to an estimated 119 kg in 2023. However, Universal expects production to fall to 109 million kg in 2024.

    With an FCV production of 1.97 billion kg in 2023, rising to an estimated 1,971 kg in 2024, according to the ITGA, China remains the leading tobacco-cultivating country by far. In addition to its huge FCV production, the country in 2023 grew 9 million kg of burley, anticipated to increase to 10 million tons this year.

    “China is a very restrictive market,” says Genov. “Nevertheless, available data shows that production is growing—approaching 2,000 million kg. In FCV, this represents approximately half of the global market. What is more interesting is that after Covid-19, China is continuously growing tobacco imports. In 2023, the country imported over 180 million kg of tobacco. China also resumed buying U.S. FCV, which has an impact on local growers. Chinese demand is likely to remain strong based on local consumption patterns.”

    The U.S.-China trade war heavily impacted the flue-cured tobacco leaf trade. In 2019 and 2020, China imported 100,000 kg and 0 kg of FCV, respectively, from the U.S., according to TMA’s Tobacco Trade Barometer. From 2021, imports began to rise back to pre-trade war levels. By 2023, Chinese FCV imports from the U.S. reached almost 25 million kg.

    Adverse Weather

    In the most recent season, key leaf-growing markets fared very differently in terms of leaf volume, quality and prices. Brazil’s 2023–2024 crop will be at least 14 percent smaller than the country’s previous harvest, Genov points out. “The initial estimate of Afubra, the Brazilian tobacco growers’ association, was for approximately 522 million kg—475 million kg of FCV and 39 million kg of burley,” he says. “All tobacco-growing areas in South Brazil were severely affected by adverse weather conditions. So, the final quantities produced are likely to be even lower—around 460 [million kg] to 470 million kg of FCV and 35 million kg of burley.”

    Brazil’s reduced volumes were a result of excessive rains, induced by the El Nino weather phenomenon, during the growing season. Adverse climate conditions are likely to impact next year’s harvest as well. In late April and early May, Brazil’s principal tobacco-growing state, Rio Grande do Sul, suffered its worst flooding in 80 years, temporarily bringing tobacco operations to a halt and causing some farmers to lose seedlings.

    Zimbabwe, by contrast, suffered from El Nino-induced drought. “As a result, a state of disaster was declared in early April,” says Genov. “Last year’s record FCV production volume of 297 million kg is unlikely to be matched, with a level of around 250 million kg much more likely. Last year’s record crop was also marked by a reduction in the average price for tobacco, particularly bad news for small-scale growers that are faced with issues, including a high level of indebtedness. This year, pricing is better—showing a double-digit increase compared to last year.”

    In the U.S., the season was stable, observes Genov. According to the ITGA, the country produced 142.9 million kg of FCV, 29.3 million kg of burley, 16.1 million kg of fire-cured and 5.5 million kg of dark air-cured tobacco as well as 2.3 million kg of cigar filler in 2023. “Market conditions will continue to weaken for dark-fired tobacco due to the growing pouch market,” predicts Genov. “Stronger short-term opportunities exist for burley. Separately, U.S. growers expect to be positioned well to benefit from company ESG activities as their tobacco is regarded as very high quality and does not suffer from sustainability-related issues present in other markets. However, alternative crops are offering greater opportunities for growers, and the continuation of tobacco farming is a real issue.”

    African Upswing

    Malawi, the world’s leading producer of burley, sold 120.5 million kg of leaf tobacco in 2023 against 85 million in the previous year. | Photo: Taco Tuinstra

    Malawi, the world’s leading producer of burley, sold 120.5 million kg of leaf tobacco in 2023 against 85 million in the previous year. Burley accounted for 103 million kg of this figure. “Average pricing was up to $2.35 per kilogram compared to $2.14 per kilogram in the year before,” says Genov. “Big global demand for burley against a short supply in recent years pushed up demand and therefore competition on the market. Entry of two more buying companies further increased the competition. The recently started 2024 season so far offers better prices to growers. Ten days after the start of sales, average burley prices exceed $2.60 per kilogram.”

    A remarkable jump in leaf production took place in Tanzania, where yield was increased from around 60 million kg in 2022 to 122 million kg in 2023. As of December 2022, Tanzania had earned $316 million from tobacco exports. According to local press reports, the country aims to sell $400 million this season. Tanzania’s recent production figures make it Africa’s second-largest producer after Zimbabwe and ahead of Malawi, Mozambique (65.8 million kg), Zambia (44 million kg; also see “Brand Zambia,” page 30) and Uganda (13 million kg).

    “The importance of Tanzania in the global leaf market is growing significantly,” Genov explains. “The country’s minister of agriculture, Husein Bashe, recently noted that for the 2024–2025 season, they are optimistic to reach 200 million kg against the target of 300 million kg by 2025–2026. He targets the No. 1 producer place in Africa, so Tanzania’s ambitions are now well known.”

    And it’s not just leaf traders who are keeping an eye on Tanzania. In February 2024, Philip Morris International announced that it would build a cigarette factory in Morogoro and buy at least 12 million kg of Tanzanian tobacco annually over the next five years. The company has not purchased leaf from Tanzania since 2017. Operations are expected to commence toward the end of this year.

    Genov emphasizes significance of growers to the supply chain and industry. “Often neglected, their role remains absolutely pivotal,” he says. “ITGA is working hard to defend the legitimate interests of tobacco growers, and we are actively supporting them to ensure the long-term survival of rural communities around the world.”

    One example of ITGA’s efforts was to prepare its members for the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (see “Diluted Diligence,” Tobacco Reporter, June 2024), which was adopted by the European Parliament on April 24. “The directive will require the whole tobacco supply chain to address human rights and environmental concerns,” says Genov. “We conducted a survey among participants in our last year’s annual meeting focusing on the directive. A lot of them were worried about the necessary transformation that would lead to more pressure on them. Nevertheless, half of the participants have already taken proactive measures in preparation for it while only a quarter have not, showing that more adjustments will have to be made. Undoubtedly, making the entire process more transparent will have positive effects.”

    Stefanie Rossel is Tobacco Reporter’s editorial contributor. An experienced trade journalist, she combines sharp reporting skills with in-depth knowledge of the tobacco and vapor industries. Prior to joining Tobacco Reporter, Stefanie was editor-in-chief at Tobacco Journal International, where she worked for a decade. Fluent in English, German and French, Stefanie covers tobacco news around the world. She is based in Germany.
  • Nicotine 2040

    Nicotine 2040

    Photo: Artinun

    The market for tobacco and nicotine is transforming—how could it look by 2040?

    By Clive Bates

    “Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future,” said the great Danish physicist Niels Bohr. The future is a burial ground for expert reputations, but that should never be a reason to shy away from predictions. Much of what we do today will shape the world in 2040, and our view of how the world should be in 2040 should shape what we do today. So let us consider the evolution of the market for tobacco and nicotine products out to 2040. There’s a lot to think about, so buckle up!

    First, three epochs. I see the evolution of the tobacco and nicotine policy as three overlapping epochs covering 1960 to 2040.

    (1) The tobacco control epoch stretched from 1960 to 2010. It was triggered by reports from the U.K. Royal College of Physicians and U.S. Surgeon General. It involved an all-out struggle between public health and the tobacco industry over the multiple harms of cigarette smoking, culminating in the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, agreed in 2003.  

    (2) The tobacco harm reduction (THR) epoch started around 2000 with the increasing recognition that smokeless tobacco, especially Swedish snus, was much safer than cigarettes and could displace smoking. That epoch took hold in 2010 with the rise of vaping, then heated tobacco, and now nicotine pouches. The THR controversy is focused on reducing the harms associated with smoking and exploiting (or resisting) a massive public health opportunity (or risk). However, this is an interim phase.

    (3) The rethinking nicotine epoch is already underway and beginning to shape thinking about the future. We will need to confront the fundamental question: What is the place of nicotine in society? What does nicotine use mean if few people are smoking and there is not that much harm to reduce? This is already a live question; around half of American vapers aged 18–24 have not previously smoked, though some might have smoked had there been no vapes. We will undo the deep conflation between the relatively benign stimulant nicotine and the harms of smoke inhalation and place it alongside caffeine, alcohol and, increasingly, cannabinoids as legal recreational substances.

    Second, the persistence of the demand for nicotine. Many tobacco control activists have hoped that the relative decline in cigarette smoking would also eventually lead to a nicotine-free society. However, they misjudged the underlying behavioral drivers. The decline in smoking was driven by the harm to health and welfare, reinforced by policy-induced pain, such as taxes, smoking restrictions or “denormalization” designed to create a deterrent to uptake and motivation to quit. However, without the underlying harms, the deterrents are greatly weakened, and there is no justification for a punitive, coercive and stigmatizing policy. We are left to answer the question: Why is there a demand for nicotine? The demand derives from a simple proposition: For some people, nicotine use makes them feel or function better. Looking out to 2040, we should see the demand for nicotine as robust and resilient. The demand for any particular way of taking it is much more fluid or, as economists say, “elastic.” In fact, without the harms of smoking and related deterrents, demand might increase. That may seem unnerving, but should we care if the harms are low or negligible? As a 1991 Lancet editorial put it: “There is no compelling objection to the recreational and even addictive use of nicotine provided it is not shown to be physically, psychologically or socially harmful to the user or to others.”

    Third, technology and innovation. Can smoke-free nicotine products entirely replace smoking to meet all nicotine demand? Many smokers have tried the alternatives and chosen not to switch. There is more to smoking than nicotine self-administration, including the speed and peak of nicotine delivery, other psychoactive agents, sensory experiences such as “throat hit,” flavors and aromas, behavioral and ritual aspects, and perhaps deep brand loyalties that reach right into the individual’s identity. However, the pace of change in alternative technologies has been extremely rapid since the emergence of cigalike vapes at a noticeable scale about 15 years ago. Imagine the product landscape 15 years from now. That will include better versions of the product categories we have today: vapes, oral nicotine, heated tobacco and smokeless tobacco, but perhaps also sprays, inhalers and nasal products. Who knows? Competitive innovation meets consumer demand in novel and sometimes surprising ways. Many public health commentators, and perhaps tobacco industry die-hards, believe that these products will remain a niche alternative for only some smokers. Don’t count on it. Over time, that niche will expand through innovation until it dominates the market. That trend is inevitable and unstoppable.

    Fourth, regulation and markets. The twin forces of consumer demand and innovation will squeeze the cigarette market into contraction and lower profitability. The greatest danger is that the rise of smoke-free alternatives will be treated as a threat, not an opportunity, and be met with prohibitions or excessive regulation and taxation. Although such regulation will aim to reduce nicotine use by constraining supply, its effect will be to switch from lawful commercial supply to illicit, criminal and informal supply. This effect is already visible in supposedly strong regulatory jurisdictions like Australia and the United States, where authorized products from approved suppliers meet less than 10 percent of the vape market. Jurisdictions such as Brazil and India have imposed prohibitions, but all that means is that the regulator is missing in action along with any consumer protection. Prohibitions trigger the nasty triad of more smoking, more illicit vapes and more risky workarounds. Whatever the regulation, there will be supply. Banned products do not simply disappear. Whether the supply is lawful or illegal will become the nicotine and tobacco policy conflict of the coming decade. The market will remain lawful if (and only if) the policies adopted for smoke-free alternatives are risk-proportionate, focus on consumer protection and meet the adult demand for low-risk nicotine.

    “If you had a product that addicted 45 million people and killed none of them, I would take that deal. Then you’d have coffee!”

    Fifth, young people and nicotine. By 2040, a more sophisticated discussion of youth nicotine use will emerge. If we accept that adult use of nicotine will persist indefinitely, then we should expect some young people to try it, and for some, it will make them feel or function better. To the extent that youth vaping displaces smoking, it provides net benefits to public health. No reasonable person, including me, wants young people to smoke, vape or use nicotine in any form. However, it is one thing to express an opinion on what is best for young people, but it is quite another to believe this can or should be achieved by various forms of prohibition imposed on adults. Four strategies will emerge to provide reasonable protections to young people. The first will be an imperative to keep the adult nicotine market lawfully supplied and thus inhibit the formation of large criminal supply networks that will also supply youth. The second will be age-secure retailing, drawing on technology and licensing. The third will be controls on marketing, including branding, packaging imagery and flavor descriptors. Finally, we need to be candid and not hysterical in communicating the risks of nicotine use. The global public health problem is not youth vaping but the millions of existing adults who have already been smoking for a decade or more.  

    Sixth, the tobacco control complex. The abstinence-only tobacco control field will face a bruising contest with reality. As the wide range of negative consequences of prohibitions are increasingly visible and articulated scientifically, major funders will become wary and back away. The research funding agencies will become more skeptical. The “realists” will grow in stature and begin to prevail over the “idealists” (see “Realists and Idealists,” Tobacco Reporter, June 2024). Pragmatism will drive out hubris, and grand regulatory schemes will fall into disrepute. The original goal of tobacco control has been to address the range of serious diseases and other harms caused by smoking. But that game is up. In comments to the New York Times almost 20 years ago, the then president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Matthew L. Myers, endorsed a world of nicotine use without significant harm: “The challenge to me is not to eliminate smoking but the death and disease from smoking,” Myers said. “That should be the end goal. If you had a product that addicted 45 million people and killed none of them, I would take that deal. Then you’d have coffee! I have to believe that if the marketplace incentives were such that over time, someone could devise a product that would give the same satisfaction as tobacco but didn’t kill them, people would flock to it.”

    Then you’d have coffee! Yes, precisely. But there is no gigantic “coffee control” movement. There is no multimillion-dollar Campaign for Caffeine-Free Kids. As Myers’ statement unintentionally suggests, the tobacco control movement is profoundly threatened by nicotine use without significant harm. Without harm, it has no purpose.

    Clive Bates is the director of Counterfactual Consulting and the former director of Action on Smoking and Health (U.K.).
  • Playing with Numbers

    Playing with Numbers

    Photo: Hafiez Razali

    How research methods distort nicotine effects and risks

    By Cheryl K. Olson

    “The paper seems like a joke.” That’s what Harvard researcher Miguel Hernan said recently to the journal Science about a report linking e-cigarettes and strokes.

    The article was concocted by a dubious research group, founded to help young international medical school graduates get coveted authorship credits. Its analysis of U.S. government survey data claimed that respondents who vaped had a higher risk of stroke, at younger ages, than those who smoked. Its glaring flaws included inflating the number of survey takers by tens of thousands and failing to correct for the relative youth of vapers.

    Despite this, the 2022 paper’s findings found their way into media headlines and anti-vaping advertising. The Science article credits Gal Cohen and Floe Foxon with sounding the alarm on this appalling study.

    Subtler issues that affect research quality, and how research is perceived by the public, are harder to spot. Research methods may seem a dull or arcane topic. But a peek at how the research sausage is made reveals some simple yet surprising ways that the process can go wrong.

    Sometimes old habits or unquestioned assumptions are to blame. Just as typewriters affect how we text on our mobiles, legacy cigarette research methods and mindsets influence how we study noncombustible nicotine products.

    Hours of Vaping?

    Everyone understands cigarettes. When it comes to totting up use, cigarettes are easy. They come in standard units. You light, puff and extinguish. Not so for products such as vapes. How, then, do researchers compare smoking with these new nicotine-delivery systems?

    “There’s a lot of research showing that people who use e-cigarettes graze throughout the day,” says Arielle Selya, who conducts nicotine product research at Pinney Associates. “Unlike cigarettes, there’s no defined stopping and starting. They don’t have to finish a discrete unit; they just puff on and off.” Measuring this kind of variable, intermittent activity is a challenge.

    This problem is not unique to vaping. Studying nicotine pouch use, I found unexpectedly wide variations in what people did and what they thought was normal. Some tossed a pouch in the trash after 10 minutes or 15 minutes. Others kept one in their mouth for a couple of hours. A few sometimes reused a pouch they’d started earlier or cheeked pouches of two different flavors at once.

    As an example of what can go wrong, Selya pointed to a recent study of vaping and respiratory symptoms. To the authors’ credit, they tried to measure heaviness of e-cigarette use. The problem was the poor fit between their question and the behavior. They asked, “How many hours did you use electronic cigarettes per day?”

    “I’m not a vaper, but that seems like such a strange question,” says Selya. “Like asking how many hours do you spend drinking water?”

    Better approaches to measuring nicotine product use include writing down what you’re doing whenever a device pings you (ecological momentary assessment) or in a daily diary.

    Twisted Terminology

    Another holdover from cigarettes is the way tobacco is seen as the default flavor for all nicotine-containing products. “With e-cigarettes, you have to add a tobacco flavor,” notes Selya. “But researchers often say ‘flavored’ when they mean ‘non-tobacco flavored’–in some communications even the NYTS team does this–but tobacco itself is a flavor! This generates misunderstandings.”

    Nicotine research terminology can defy common sense. Consider the concept of “abuse liability.” In everyday English, abuse implies harm. When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration assesses new drugs, stricter regulation may be required if there’s abuse potential, defined as “intentional, nontherapeutic use” to “achieve a desired psychological or physical effect.” An effect like euphoria, hallucinations or distorted thoughts or perceptions. 

    When it comes to reduced-harm nicotine products, abuse potential becomes, weirdly, a plus. A backhanded compliment. If you want to attract someone away from cigarettes, features like rapid nicotine absorption, relaxation and relief of withdrawal encourage that transition.

    Abuse liability also illustrates another nicotine methodology vexation: there is no agreed-on way to measure it. One article looked at comments made by the FDA on manufacturers’ submissions for multiple types of nicotine products. Regulators considered a whole range of measures related to abuse liability, from product chemistry and pharmacokinetics to subjective factors. Of the latter, “liking” the product turned out to be the most reliable and sensitive abuse liability measure!

    Misleading Measures

    Again, cigarettes are simple and familiar. Novel nicotine products, by contrast, come in ever-evolving variations. U.S. government surveys, such as the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) and National Youth Tobacco Survey (NYTS), measure trends in who is using what products. The results are widely used and reported. However, for survey results to make sense, people must understand the questions.

    Discrepancies in results suggest that research participants often misunderstand nicotine products and/or the terms being used to describe them. For example, answers about vaping brands and device types often don’t match. In the NYTS, just two-thirds of teens who said they “usually” used a pod/cartridge brand of e-cigarette (such as Juul, Logic or Vuse) also said they “most often” used a pod/cartridge device. Almost one in five adults in the PATH study had these kinds of mismatched answers about their vaping behavior. 

    Some questions have even larger errors. “The NYTS asks whether your e-cigarette product contains nicotine salts,” says Selya. “And overall, about 50 percent said they don’t know.”

    This is also true for so-called “concept” flavors, she notes. “Not strawberry-banana, but something like cosmic fusion. When youth are asked about concept or ice flavors, they don’t know the characteristics of their product, or maybe don’t understand those words.”

    NYTS first asked youth about tobacco-free nicotine pouches in 2021. That year, just 1.9 percent of teens reported ever using one. Checking the details, I found a flaw: The questionnaire defined nicotine pouches as “flavored.” However, over a third of teen ever-users said the pouch product they used was unflavored. (Perhaps they confused pouches and snus?) 

    A further example: the 2023 NYTS found that 1 percent of youth—an estimated 370,000—had ever used a heated-tobacco product. At the time, that product category was not sold in the United States.

    As Ray Niaura of New York University told me, “That can’t be right. Literally, it’s impossible. So that means it’s measurement error.”

    This suggests young survey takers were befuddled. “Kids aren’t going to know,” says Niaura. “‘Heated tobacco: Yeah. I smoked a cigarette. It’s heated. I light it on fire.’”

    Yet the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported the result without comment or explanation.

    If a product is only used by a small percentage of people, these sorts of errors could create unreal changes in year-to-year trends. The reporting of those potentially misleading trends affect the perceptions of academics, regulators and the public. “With that amount of uncertainty and some of the low numbers, it’s hard to figure out what’s the signal versus the noise,” notes Selya.

    Questionable Choices

    Another seemingly simple but complicated issue: Who counts as a current product user? Youth surveys typically ask “have you used e-cigarettes at all, even a puff, in the last 30 days?” Surveys aimed at adults commonly ask, “Do you currently use e-cigarettes some days, every day or not at all?”

    If you assume capturing any youth e-cigarette use is important, then “even a puff” makes sense. But it also makes it difficult to separate teens who are briefly experimenting from teens at risk for problematic ongoing use.

    In studies that look at how using nicotine products affect some aspect of health, researchers choose what outcomes to measure. Their choices can suggest biases or suspicious holes in what’s reported.

    A recent study using PATH data tried to compare e-cigarette use and the age at which people developed asthma. “Why age of asthma onset rather than whether they developed asthma at all?” says Selya. “Often, I read a study and think, did you look at these other related outcomes? If so, why weren’t they published?” This issue of results that may exist but aren’t reported are known as the “file drawer problem.” Preregistering study plans would avoid this issue.

    Researchers, Meet Users

    Before I dove deeply into tobacco harm reduction, my research focused on the effects of violent video games on youth. Finding discrepancies between research reports and what teens told me, I realized that many of the field’s most-cited “experts” had never actually played or even observed the games they studied.

    Similarly, many nicotine researchers seem to have never held or used the noncombusted products they study. This leads to findings that don’t reflect real-world situations. One example is an article by Sebastien Soulet and Roberto Sussman on metal contents of e-cigarette aerosols. They found that researchers were overheating tank vaping devices, generating aerosols that would be “likely repellent to human users.”

    “I think there’s a big disconnect and abysmally low involvement of actual consumers, the people affected by policies,” says Selya. Partnering with people who actually know and use novel nicotine products would be a giant step toward improved research quality.  

    References

    Foxon F. (2023). Discordant device/brand reporting among adolescents who used e-cigarettes in the National Youth Tobacco Survey. Nicotine and Tobacco Research. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntad228

    Joelving F. (2024). Prescription for controversy. Science. https://www.science.org/content/article/questionable-firms-tempt-young-doctors-with-easy-publications

    Selya A, Ruggieri M, Polosa R. (2024). Measures of youth e-cigarette use: strengths, weaknesses and recommendations. Frontiers in Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1412406

    Soulet S, Sussman RA. (2022). A critical review of recent literature on metal contents in e-cigarette aerosol. Toxics. https://www.mdpi.com/2305-6304/10/9/510

    Vansickel A et al. (2022). Human abuse liability assessment of tobacco and nicotine products: approaches for meeting current regulatory recommendations. Nicotine and Tobacco Research. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntab183

    Cheryl K. Olson is a California-based public health researcher who specializes in behavioral health issues and consults on tobacco product behaviors via McKinney Regulatory Science Advisors. She spent 15 years on the faculty of Harvard Medical School.
  • Shock Absorber

    Shock Absorber

    Photo: Alessandro De Leo | Dreamstime

    With an appropriate tax regime, fine-cut tobacco can provide a useful buffer between high-priced cigarettes and illicit products.

    By Stefanie Rossel

    Across Europe, three countries offer showcase examples of unintended consequences created by ill-designed tax policies. The fiscal frameworks in France, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands prevent fine-cut tobacco (FCT) from fulfilling its buffer function in the nicotine ecosystem, leading to high levels of illicit trade. When taxed at comparatively low rates, FCT products can serve as a “shock absorber” between higher taxed factory-made cigarettes and illicit smokes. If the tax rates and retail prices of combustible cigarettes and FCT become too similar, fine roll-your-own (RYO) and make-your-own (MYO) products may lose their appeal to smokers with lower disposable incomes.

    In the European Union, home to some of the world’s leading RYO and MYO markets, France presents a prime example. “The market is riddled with illicit trade, as the taxation levels prevent FCT to fulfill its buffer function,” says Peter van der Mark, secretary general of the European Smoking Tobacco Association (ESTA). “Since 2020, volumes of FCT have consistently declined, by 8 percent in 2021, 13.7 percent in 2022 and 10.2 percent in 2023.” This decline is slightly more pronounced than that in other tobacco segments.

    On the bright side, according to van der Mark, French authorities appear to have belatedly recognized the negative impacts of their policies. Last month, the responsible minister acknowledged that beyond a certain point, raising taxes becomes counterproductive and boosts contraband, which benefits neither public health nor public finances. “We can only regret that it took one-third of the market to be illegal to come to that conclusion,” laments van der Mark.

    The U.K. faces a similar situation. According to van der Mark, that country’s government has nearly aligned the tax rates on FCT with those on cigarettes—and without consulting the industry. As a result, legal volumes have been declining substantially, benefiting smugglers and illicit traders. According to van der Mark, this is not only impacting manufacturers, distributors and retailers but also the finance ministry (and therefore U.K. citizens), which last year saw its tobacco tax receipts drop by nearly 15 percent compared to 2022—a loss of approximately £1.5 billion ($1.91 billion).

    Germany, the largest EU market for hand-rolling products, also hiked FCT taxes but managed to avoid the negative effects experienced by Britain and France, thanks to its incremental approach. “The ad valorem component on FCT increased progressively and moderately whilst step increases of the specific or minimum were always kept below 10 percent,” explains van der Mark.

    “In general, we consider the German tax model to be well crafted as it allows for predictability and ensures the market functions smoothly whilst allowing the government to pursue its treasury and health objectives,” says van der Mark.

    “Volume-wise, of course we note a decline in comparison with 2020 [consumption], which was exceptionally high due to the Covid-19 outbreak. In 2023, volume declined by 5 percent compared to 2022, confirming a declining trend in general.”

    This year, however, Germany’s market has benefitted from rising FCT taxes in the Netherlands. According to van der Mark, a 50 gram pouch now costs approximately €25 ($27.02) there, encouraging Dutch smokers to source their tobacco elsewhere, including in neighboring Germany.

    Across Europe, the general trend is toward less tobacco consumption, and FCT is no exception. “Inflation had a massive impact on consumer ability to buy tobacco products in 2022–2023,” says van der Mark. “Consumers down-traded or moved to FCT or illicit cigarettes. Although inflation has decreased, it remains very unequal from one country to another. Where inflation remains high, we expect sales of FCT to slightly increase, demonstrating once again the buffer function this product category can fulfill, provided it is taxed approximately.”

    “We consider the German tax model to be well crafted as it allows for predictability whilst allowing the government to pursue its treasury and health objectives.”

    STG Buys Mac Baren

    As the market contracts, the fine-cut industry has been consolidating. In June, Scandinavian Tobacco Group acquired family-owned Mac Baren Tobacco from Halberg for DKK535 million ($76.87 million). Founded in 1826, Mac Baren’s portfolio includes pipe tobacco brands such as Mac Baren, Amphora and Holger Danske as well as fine-cut tobacco brands such as Amsterdamer, Choice and Opal. The company also produces and sells nicotine pouches with the brands Ace and Gritt.

    Mac Baren sells its products in 74 countries and generates most of its net sales in the U.S., Denmark and Germany. Other key markets include the U.K., France, Spain and Italy. Headquartered in Svendborg, Denmark, the company has production facilities in Denmark and the United States (in Richmond, Virginia), and employs approximately 200 people full time.

    Both Mac Baren and STG are members of ESTA. “The reduction of family-owned companies in our sector is always regrettable, but at the same time, we are pleased to see that its traditional know-how will remain in the very capable hands of STG, a company that is committed to high-quality traditional smoking tobaccos,” says van der Mark.

    The FCT sector has consolidated at regular intervals, with the last wave being triggered by the EU Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) in 2014. At this time, van der Mark sees no indications of a new consolidation wave, however.

    New Regulations on the Horizon

    Whether the pending TPD revision will change that situation is up for discussion. The European Commission’s evaluation report, expected toward the end of 2024, should provide some insights into the future regulatory environment. According to van der Mark, a 2021 report on the TPD application identified topics likely to be discussed further in the future.

    “This includes the field of ingredient regulation, where we have seen several member states taking cavalier initiatives and establishing outright bans of certain ingredients,” he says. “In general, we fear that the notion of ‘flavors’ has been largely misunderstood and will be subject to debates that will most likely be based on assumptions more than on actual scientific underpinning. Labeling and packaging, where the commission is no longer hiding its preference for plain packaging, will also be an issue, and, of course, the regulation of novel tobacco products.”

    With a new commission poised to take office in November, van der Mark expects more emphasis on novel nicotine products and less impact on the FCT segment. “For fine-cut tobacco, the whole legislation has already been there since TPD2,” he says.

    “We are more concerned about the ingredients regulation. We believe that the ingredients which are in tobacco products, representing between 1 percent and 3 percent of the total weight, are nonconsequential, but the commission is continuously looking at the ingredients as if they would make the product even more problematic from a health perspective. We think that the commission simply has the wrong end of the stick.”

    Whether the EU’s approach toward tobacco products will change with the new crop of lawmakers remains to be seen. “At this stage, it is not sure whether the ‘shift to the right’ will affect the functioning of the EU Parliament and its ‘great coalition’ made of the Socialists and Democrats, Renew and center-right European People’s Party groups,” says van der Mark.

    “An interesting statistic, however, is that about 60 percent of the elected members of the European Parliament are coming from parties that are not governing in their national jurisdictions. This means that we could see a European Parliament ‘free’ from the guidance of the national government, at least to a certain extent.”

    Stefanie Rossel is Tobacco Reporter’s editorial contributor. An experienced trade journalist, she combines sharp reporting skills with in-depth knowledge of the tobacco and vapor industries. Prior to joining Tobacco Reporter, Stefanie was editor-in-chief at Tobacco Journal International, where she worked for a decade. Fluent in English, German and French, Stefanie covers tobacco news around the world. She is based in Germany.
  • The Case for Nicotine

    The Case for Nicotine

    Image: Maridav

    Many policymakers see nicotine as part of the problem; THR proponents see it as part of the solution. Understanding why such deeply opposing views are held also provides a view of the way ahead.

    By Barnaby Page

    Advocates of tobacco harm reduction (THR) and the industry making THR products are accustomed to fighting battles on multiple fronts—simultaneously contending with the threat of flavor bans, new taxes and misrepresentations of science, for example. But perhaps the most essential battle of all is the one against the demonization of nicotine; it’s possible to imagine vaping continuing to exist without nontobacco flavors, for example (even if it might be a less appealing kind of vaping), and it’s possible to imagine consumers continuing to buy THR products even if taxes hike their price, but it’s not really possible to imagine THR without nicotine.

    This means that, while its opponents are not wrong to say that that nicotine is to an extent an initiator and certainly a perpetuator of smoking, it’s also a “friend” as much as an “enemy” in the quest to reduce smoking rates and smoking-related harm. Persuading others, including lawmakers, the medical profession and the public health establishment, to see it this way is a key and decidedly nontrivial task for the THR movement, one that could have profound effects on future policy and regulation concerning THR products and therefore their uptake.

    Smoking and Addiction

    Opposition to nicotine probably derives, at heart, from two somewhat different but related factors: cigarettes and addiction. First, it’s easy to forget—but essential to remember—that until around a decade ago, nicotine effectively meant cigarettes for most people in most countries. Sure, there were other delivery mechanisms (e-cigarettes were already starting to make their presence known; oral products of different kinds had traction in some places; a few people even smoked cigars or pipes), but the cigarette was dominant … and so for the average person, who in a specialist field like this also includes the average policymaker, nicotine was inextricably tied to smoking, which in turn was inextricably tied to combustible cigarettes.

    As a result, it’s not surprising that many people find it difficult to separate the effects of nicotine from the effects of cigarette smoking in their head. (Even some people who ought to know better seem to find it tough.) Meanwhile, public health messaging had for decades reinforced the same point—Superman’s foe, the evil Nick O’Teen, is a classic example.

    Plus, and this brings us to the second point, nicotine was not only that generally sinister thing, a “chemical,” but it was one you could become addicted to. Again, it’s understandable that people who weren’t specialists in addiction science wouldn’t realize that the concept itself was a much-debated thing, and people who had grown up in a War on Drugs era when “drug addicts” were seen as an undifferentiated group of miserable, ruined junkies naturally saw addiction itself—regardless of the addictive substance concerned—as a terrible condition.

    Again, of course, there are those who ought to know better who use the concept to spread distrust; it amused me a few years ago when the then U.S. surgeon general, Jerome Adams, said that nicotine was “as addictive as heroin.” Leaving aside the whole issue of how you assess comparative addictiveness, the logical corollary here was that heroin is no more addictive than nicotine, but I doubt he would have wanted to spread that as a public health message.

    THR advocates need to recognize that the perception is just as potent as the reality.

    The Power of Perception

    In any case, some definitions of addiction or dependency now stipulate that it must be harmful, and it’s highly questionable whether nicotine—once separated from cigarette smoking—falls into that category. So there’s even a case to be made that nicotine addiction doesn’t exist as a problem in the first place. But the bottom line is that it is widely perceived to be harmful and addictive.

    And that is a huge obstacle for THR to overcome. Nicotine is absolutely central to the THR proposition. Indeed, it is founded on the distinction between nicotine and smoking, as famously expressed by Michael Russell when he observed that people smoke for the nicotine but die from the byproducts of smoking. It is the ability to make this distinction that leads to the concept of the continuum of risk—the idea that though different product categories (cigarettes, oral, vapor, heated tobacco, nicotine-replacement therapy [NRT] and so on) may all deliver nicotine, they do so with different risks, with some categories (for example, NRT, pouch and vape) at the bottom of the range while others (all of them involving combustion) are at the maximum.

    This concept is hardly news to anyone involved in THR or indeed anyone in the tobacco industry. But it’s worth repeating that it may not only be an unfamiliar idea but an apparently contradictory one to people outside those worlds if they believe that risk is inherent to nicotine use. Before any progress can be made on improving policy and regulation, this is a misconception that needs to be corrected, and for the reasons that I’ve discussed, it can be quite a deep-seated one. Of course it’s illogical—it’s like concluding that because it is very dangerous to drive on icy roads at high speed, it must be equally dangerous to drive on any road at any speed—but being illogical doesn’t mean it’s not thoroughly believed in by many people.

    The continuum of risk also means that where public health is concerned, logical regulation would focus on the delivery mechanisms (the icy road and the 90 mph) rather than the nicotine (the existence of cars). Except insofar as it may encourage use of more-risky delivery mechanisms, it doesn’t make sense for nicotine itself to be a prime concern. The on-off debate about very low-nicotine cigarettes (VLNCs) is a vivid illustration of this; there are surely questions to be asked about a policy that retains the dangerous thing (combustion) and concentrates on eliminating the far less dangerous thing (nicotine). To be fair, the research on how consumers might use VLNCs in real life is not yet conclusive, and it is possible they would have a deterrent effect beneficial to public health. But it’s difficult to escape the impression that the image of the evil Nick O’Teen is lurking in the background here as well.

    A survey on U.S. vape stores published in 2023 by ECigIntelligence, one of a regular series, found that misconceptions about vaping—which often means misconceptions about nicotine—are a persistent problem.

    What Regulation Might Look Like

    Of course, we can’t realistically expect that lawmakers are going to leave nicotine entirely alone. So if we were going to regulate nicotine the substance—as opposed to characteristics of the delivery mechanisms, and nonproduct issues such as minimum purchase age, advertising and public usage—what areas could be looked at?

    We could regulate nicotine content, which we could measure in two ways: either absolutely—the total amount in a cigarette stick or a vape pod, for example—or comparatively, by measuring concentration. The latter makes more sense for product categories where there is notable variation in product size (for example, e-liquid bottles).

    We could also look at regulating the nicotine yield, which is the amount of nicotine actually emitted from the product and thus available for consumption by the user; although clearly dependent on the nicotine content level to some extent, this is a more meaningful number in terms of effects. (A hypothetical product with very high content yet very low yield would contain an awful lot of nicotine that might just as well not have existed—it would be irrelevant in any calculation of risk or health impact.)

    We could also look at nicotine flux, the rate of nicotine emission—a crucial difference between combustible cigarettes and vapes, for example, and one that strongly affects the actual experience of use. And finally, just to be complete, of course we would want to regulate safety where nicotine is sold in very high concentrations such that accidental consumption of a relatively small amount could have seriously deleterious effects. The perception of risk here is, again, quite possibly exaggerated, but measures like childproofing do nothing to undermine the value of THR, they may prevent some accidents, and many countries have implemented them. This aspect, at least, is a no-brainer ….

    But (apart from the childproof caps) does regulating nicotine itself actually solve any problems that aren’t addressed by, for instance, regulating underage purchase—especially if we don’t consider dependency in itself, among adults, to be a problem?

    The THR movement will have to work relentlessly to keep the focus on risk profiles of delivery mechanisms, not on nicotine.

    The Gateway Effect

    The biggest contender for “problem to be solved” could, of course, be the so-called “gateway effect”—the idea that even when less risky forms of nicotine consumption are available, enjoyment of and/or dependency on them (take your pick) could lead the user toward more-risky forms.

    A logical riposte would be that though doubtless there are individual cases of such a gateway being passed through (as there are individual cases of almost anything you care to imagine), there is no convincing evidence of it happening on a large scale—and in any case, other measures could deter it. If we want to prevent people progressing from vapes to combustibles, the THR argument would go, surely it’s sensible to make vapes more attractive and combustibles less (whether that’s through differential taxation, marketing restrictions, flavor restrictions or other measures). Going in the other direction—for example, reducing nicotine levels in THR products (which are often less effective than combustibles at delivering nicotine to the body anyway)—would likely just have the effect of making THR less attractive to existing smokers and discourage them from switching.

    Nevertheless, the gateway effect is a widespread concern that ties in at an emotional level with the idea of nicotine as an irresistibly addictive substance leading users further and further into its grip. And once again, THR advocates need to recognize that, as is so often in this field, the perception is just as potent as the reality—often more so. Addressing that will be a long and tough task, but the agenda for THR should be clear.

    The THR movement will have to work relentlessly to keep the focus on risk profiles of delivery mechanisms, not on nicotine itself. It will have to encourage policy based on proven risk, not on nicotine-specific characteristics such as concentration that in themselves don’t obviously connect to risk. It will have to put forward convincingly the idea that THR products need to be at least as attractive to the consumer as combustible products if their public health potential is to be realized—this means, in effect, undertaking the very difficult task of persuading policymakers that we should encourage nicotine consumption via THR.

    And, to achieve all this, it will have to educate not just policymakers but also health professionals, the media and the public. This includes actively countering misinformation, but simply saying people are wrong is clearly not going to be persuasive in itself, and it’s those THR advocates who engage directly and deeply with the “nicotine skeptics” who will end up making the biggest difference.

    For not only can nicotine be part of the solution rather than part of the problem, ignoring this is also a risk in itself. We shouldn’t lose the focus on reducing smoking by becoming distracted into reducing nicotine consumption.

    Barnaby Page is the editorial director of Tamarind Intelligence, the publisher of ECigIntelligence, TobaccoIntelligence and CannIntelligence. As a journalist, he has been covering the worldwide reduced-risk nicotine sector since 2014, with a particular focus on public health and regulatory issues.In his current role, he manages Tamarind’s editorial and reporting teams, producing a wide range of nicotine-related content. He previously spent 30 years as a reporter and editor for newspapers, magazines and online services, specializing in technology and business. He is based near London, England.
  • UKVIA Applies for Approved Code Scheme

    UKVIA Applies for Approved Code Scheme

    Image: Chinnapong

    The U.K. Vaping Industry Association (UKVIA) has initiated the application process to become part of the CTSI Approved Code Scheme (ACS).

    The ACS was created to give greater peace of mind and protection to consumers, and members of the scheme are recognized as trustworthy, reputable and having a proven commitment to “honest business” and “higher standards,” according to the UKVIA. Representatives of the UKVIA have already met with officials from the Chartered Trading Standards Institute to discuss the significance of this accreditation and the path ahead.

    John Dunne, director general of the UKVIA, said: “As the most influential association in the sector, we have and continue to expect the highest levels of responsibility from our members and regularly lead on initiatives to drive accountability across the industry—including publishing guidelines around marketing and sustainability, the rolling out of our Be Vape Vigilant campaign and, most recently, the development of a retail and distributor licensing framework.

    “The vape sector is facing intense scrutiny, and the legitimate industry must show it is committed to only the highest standards. The ACS fits with this goal.”

  • VLN Relaunch in Korea

    VLN Relaunch in Korea

    Image: Tobacco Reporter archive

    22nd Century Group announced a new agreement for full-scale commercial rollout of its VLN reduced-nicotine content cigarettes in South Korea. The new agreement with 22nd Century’s local partner, Nico-Tech Korea Inc., follows an initial test launch conducted in 2022 that identified product updates needed to align with local South Korean cigarette characteristics and appeal to the specific preferences of adult smokers in Korea.

    “South Korea is a unique market characterized by high smoking rates and a corresponding high commitment from its government to reduce the harms of smoking,” said Larry Firestone, chairman and CEO, in a statement. “Based on the pilot launch in 2022, we made key product modifications to better align with specific characteristics of combusted cigarettes preferred by South Korea’s adult smokers. We have made those changes and are now ready to fully enter the market with VLN export shipments to South Korea anticipated to begin later this year.

    “This relaunch with our original partner, Nico-Tech, demonstrates their commitment to smoking harm reduction and making VLN products a key part of the South Korean market through the diverse array of local retail channels they serve. We are working with Nico-Tech to plan a full launch event for the fall of 2024, including on-site support.”

    South Korea represents an estimated $1.6 billion tobacco market and was the first international market to commence sales of VLN reduced-nicotine content cigarettes. While tobacco product use has declined since signing into law the 1995 National Health Promotion Act and subsequent government actions, the prevalence of smoking remains high in certain segments of the South Korean population. It is estimated that one in three adult men in South Korea are smokers, and an estimated 6 percent of adult women smoke.

    Nico-Tech will be responsible for all local marketing activities to generate consumer demand and awareness in South Korea. The new agreement includes minimum order quantities to support the initial stocking and restocking needs of the planned South Korean distribution.

  • CTP Updates Compliance Website

    CTP Updates Compliance Website

    Credit: Postmodern Studio

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) has announced an enhancement to its website, which will more easily present information about tobacco compliance check outcomes.

    The agency noted in a statement that the database is designed to be a resource for various audiences, including the general public, public health groups and the tobacco industry.

    The new database offers the ability to search for various compliance and enforcement outcomes among brick-and-mortar and online retailers, including warning letters, civil money penalties and no-tobacco-sale orders.

    Previously, this information lived in various locations across the FDA website, so the enhancement will allow site visitors to more easily find outcomes from the FDA’s compliance and enforcement efforts of retailers in one centralized location, according to reports.

    This centralized database will be updated monthly with the latest compliance check outcomes. “The enhancements to this database reflect CTP’s continued efforts to optimize transparency and communication with stakeholders,” the statement continued.

  • Imperial Certified as Great Workplace

    Imperial Certified as Great Workplace

    Image: Ricochet64

    Imperial Tobacco Canada has been certified as a Great Place to Work.

    “We are immensely proud of this recognition, especially that it comes directly from feedback received by our employees. We put enormous efforts into creating an environment where we can all shine and achieve our full potential,” said Frank Silva, president of Imperial Tobacco Canada. “We face many challenges in our business, but we do so together, and our people know that we will always do the right thing.”

    To achieve this certification, Great Place to Work surveyed all 500 employees of Imperial Tobacco Canada. This employee-led certification is based on employees’ direct feedback as part of an extensive and anonymous survey about their workplace experience, which measures the level of trust that employees experience in their leaders, the level of pride they have in their jobs and the extent to which they enjoy their colleagues.

    “This certification reflects our ongoing efforts to prioritize employee satisfaction, well-being and professional development. We remain committed to fostering an inclusive environment where every team member feels valued and empowered to contribute their best work. This achievement inspires us to continue our journey toward excellence in workplace culture, ensuring that we remain a preferred employer of choice in our industry,” said Lito Charet, vice president of human resources and inclusion.

  • NYC Wants Wholesalers to End Vape Sales

    NYC Wants Wholesalers to End Vape Sales

    Image: f11photo

    The mayor of New York City has requested a Manhattan judge to intervene immediately and halt the sale of illegal flavored vapes by 11 wholesalers in New York.

    The city filed suit against the wholesalers in April, citing data that kids and teens are getting hooked on flavored e-cigarettes at alarming rates.

    Now, the city’s lawyers say they need a preliminary injunction to force the illegal flavored vape peddlers to quit their noxious practices immediately, according to the New York Post.

    “While we have already filed a lawsuit to hold these distributors accountable for their actions, the motion we have filed will help us ensure that they can no longer peddle this poison to our children while this case is being litigated,” Adams said in a statement after the request for an injunction was filed Monday.

    Court records show that city investigators were able to directly place orders from the wholesalers.

    The probers also were able to uncover sales invoices from vape distributors in the city, the documents show.