Author: Marissa Dean

Enduring Legacy

Packing and pressing station for tobacco | Photo: Godioli & Bellanti
Celebrating 100 years in business, Godioli & Bellanti attributes its success to offering “quality machines at truly unbeatable prices.”
By George Gay
Lorenzo Curina | Photo: Godioli & Bellanti
After three years of subdued demand for tobacco industry primary processing equipment, interest is picking up, according to Lorenzo Curina, chief executive officer and sales director at the primary machinery designer and manufacturer Godioli & Bellanti.
There was now increasing demand for complete processing lines that were compact and uncomplicated, a demand that was being driven by a growing interest in the production of cut rag, he said in an emailed reply to questions.
At the same time, there was a trend by major cigarette manufacturers to require the relocation and/or the refurbishment of existing equipment, projects for which Godioli & Bellanti, with its 100 years of experience in the business, was well qualified to undertake. The company’s engineering skills and experience enabled it to repair, rebuild, recondition or upgrade all types of primary equipment while its organizational skills and flexibility meant it could navigate the necessary logistics involved.
In fact, an indication of the engineering and logistical skills the company can call on was demonstrated when, in 2018, it shipped and delivered what was believed to have been one of the tobacco industry’s biggest direct conditioning cylinders, which was 14 meters long, 3 meters in diameter and capable of processing flue-cured Virginia tobacco at a rate of 20 tons per hour.
A Pioneer
Godioli & Bellanti was established in 1923 by Gino Godioli and Angelo Bellanti, whose initial focus was on making agricultural implements, especially those aimed at helping the mechanization of tobacco production, since the Umbria region, where they were based, was one of the most important areas in Europe for the cultivation of flue-cured tobacco.
After the passing of the founders, Godioli & Bellanti was, in 1963, turned into a limited company, which was the beginning of a transformation. Under its new designation, Godioli & Bellanti SpA, the company moved into new and challenging areas. It developed new technologies for the tobacco industry, becoming Italy’s first supplier of tobacco machinery to the tobacco manufacturing sector, which later included the multinational companies that established operations in Italy and elsewhere in Europe.
The transformed company specialized in turnkey projects, which meant that it supplied, as well as machinery, services such as heating and lighting systems. And this breadth of operation allowed it to gain considerable expertise in machine and whole-factory design.
Initiatives such as these have been continued and are continuing. Although the company is known for its tobacco industry services, it operates in other industries, most of them natural outcrops. It offers machinery and processing lines for medicinal herbs and other plants, including mechanized equipment for the cultivation of these plants, along with machinery for drying and dehydrating; cutting, threshing and classification; and mixing and blending. It offers, too, continuous drying plants for food products.
Entering New Fields
Processing line for medical herbs | Photo: Godioli & Bellanti
Meanwhile, the company’s experience in the field of herbs was adapted to allow it to enter the field of industrial hemp processing, where its processing lines provide for the separation of the plant’s fiber, hemp, seeds, flowers, leaves and stems. This is an important and growing side of the business because the products that are generated are used in a wide range of industries, including those concerned with pharmaceuticals, textiles, foodstuffs, veterinary products and bio-building. Less well-known, perhaps, is the company’s work with tree seeds. It was the first company to develop a tree seed extraction system, and it now offers complete, custom-designed turnkey plants for the extraction and selection of tree seeds.
Aside from its interests in food and related products, the company offers biomass driers that function with recovered thermal energy, including driers for woodchips and sawdust. And it offers machines and complete processing lines for producing glass-reinforced pipes and sleeves, using continuous filament winding technology.
Custom Offerings
Drying lines for tobacco | Photo: Godioli & Bellanti
But a large part of its business is concerned with tobacco, for which it can supply equipment for auxiliary plants, threshing lines and, of course, primaries. For auxiliary plants, where the leaf tobacco process begins, Godioli & Bellanti is able to offer, among other items, conveyor belts, picking lines, feeding and blending tables, tipper feeders, tipping machines, weighing belts, vibrating conveyors, vibrating sieves, pneumatically operated pad looseners, sand reels, blending silos and ordering cylinders along with test shakers, stem testers, laboratory mills and laboratory cutters.
For many years now, it has been a goal of most leaf processors to implement changes aimed at increasing packed-tobacco quality, costs and yields, and, to this end, Godioli & Bellanti offers custom-designed threshing lines and plants, including, among a host of other equipment, high-efficiency threshers operating over a wide range of speeds and compact classifiers with low energy requirements. It provides, also, compact, high-efficiency re-driers with steam recycling systems that reduce steam consumption. Being custom designed, the re-driers provide for a wide range of adjustments in such areas as, but not limited to, drying temperatures, humidifying steam pressures and apron conveyor speeds. Finally, Godioli & Bellanti offers complete, automatic, programmable leaf tobacco packing lines for cartons, wooden boxes, zipper bags and bales.
Meanwhile, it is probably the case that the company is best known for its primary machinery and plants—particular plants at that. Curina told Tobacco Reporter that companies that contacted Godioli & Bellanti were those who preferred “traditional primary processing—I would say almost artisanal.” Such equipment includes automatic handling systems for cartons and bales, automatic de-cartoners, automatic vertical slicers, pneumatic conveying systems, weighing belts, dosing feeders, tipping feeders, blending and storage silos, toasters, sauce and flavor kitchens, casing and flavoring cylinders, drying cylinders for cut rag, and customized supervision software to render whole lines automatic.
Finally, Curina further defined his company’s approach to business. “We don’t presume to compete with the big primary machinery manufacturers for the very big projects,” he said, “but we modestly offer quality machines at truly unbeatable prices.”
This strategy seems to have paid off, not surprisingly, perhaps, given that the recent past has seen an increasing trend—at least outside China—toward shorter cigarette-manufacturing runs, a trend that has been reflected in primaries as a need to produce smaller batches of cut rag. There has been a rise, too, in the number of small, independent primary operators catering to multiple end users that need to run low-cost, highly flexible operations from small footprints. Certainly, Curina, and his brother Cesare, president of the board and technical director, who have steered the company’s direction in recent years, have made much progress—modestly expressed. A note on the company’s website describes how “Godioli & Bellanti works in several areas of the world,” before going on to list almost 60 countries and every continent.
George Gay is Tobacco Reporter’s European editor, but his territory spans the globe. Based in London, George has covered the tobacco industry since 1982, initially for a U.K.-based publication and since 2004 for Tobacco Reporter. George’s understanding of industry issues, combined with his keen sense of observation and dry wit, have earned him a loyal following among Tobacco Reporter’s readers.

February 1, 2023
Surfing while Juggling

photo: Anna Berdink
Five types of innovation
By Clive Bates
Where does innovation in the tobacco and nicotine field come from? Is it the far-sighted senior executive assessing the needs of the evolving market and committing R&D budgets to realize the corporate vision? Or is it the genius scientists and engineers toiling 24/7 in the labs to invent the wonder product that will become The Next Big Thing?
Both are caricatures, of course, but neither explains how innovation really works.
In his brilliant book, How Innovation Works, author Matt Ridley points out that “Innovation is not an individual phenomenon but a collective, incremental and messy network phenomenon.” For those involved, I would say it is more like surfing while juggling than a straightforward path from idea to implementation. To see why, let’s look at five types of innovation in the tobacco and nicotine market.
First, disruptive innovation. The most prominent recent case of disruptive innovation in the tobacco and nicotine field is the rise of electrical heating as an alternative to tobacco combustion to create an inhalable nicotine-bearing aerosol. Though the Chinese inventor Hon Lik is usually credited with inventing the e-cigarette, the truly disruptive innovation came before and from outside the tobacco and nicotine industry. It is what makes the e-cigarette and modern heated-tobacco products possible. The critical disruptive innovation was the lithium-ion battery. By the 2000s, battery technology had steadily progressed to achieve a sufficiently high power and energy density, allowing rapid heating and an adequately long life between recharges within a compact form factor. Developments in battery technology were driven by the demands of the giant and ultra-competitive markets for mobile devices like smartphones and tablets.
For decades, the intense heat, complex reactions and chemical cocktail generated by the combustion of tobacco leaf at 900 degrees Celsius in the burning coal of a cigarette were unmatched and unmatchable as a means of delivering nicotine to the lungs. The combination of electrically heated coil and e-liquid to generate an aerosol is now competitive. The disruption of the dominance of the cigarette, currently underway and likely to last two decades to three decades, is driven by a fundamental energy transition that degrades the advantage of combustion.
I refer to the second type as system innovation. This is the consequential economic, regulatory and public health reaction to the initial disruption and may involve hundreds of innovative responses. For example, the emergence of e-cigarettes triggered a creative response in the Stop Smoking Service in the city of Leicester, U.K. Under the leadership of its manager, Louise Ross, the service changed its practice to embrace vaping as a low-risk alternative to smoking that could appeal to many smokers who had previously been beyond the service’s reach. Through the power of example, that experience led to further innovation at the National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training and with the government’s support to guidance on e-cigarettes issued by the National Health Service.
But this innovation did not happen linearly, driven only by personal inspiration. It is best seen as “emergent,” arising from a wide range of concurrent changes and influences triggered within the public health ecosystem. The disruptive innovation also led to system innovations in regulation, such as the 2014 European Union Tobacco Products Directive. In 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s deeming rule brought vaping products into the definition of tobacco products and under the jurisdiction of the Tobacco Control Act. The initial disruptive innovation also led to innovation in the business models of tobacco companies, but also in the tactics of their traditional adversaries. Tobacco companies started moving their business toward a future in noncombustible nicotine products, and the anti-tobacco groups shifted their focus from preventing disease to fighting nicotine addiction.
For tobacco and nicotine companies, the disruptive innovation and the system responses it triggers are like a “big wave,” both prized and feared by top surfers. Like a wave, the companies didn’t create it and can’t control it, but their challenge is to catch it, ride it well and not wipe out. The case of Kodak and its destruction under the breaking wave of digital photography is probably the most cited case of an innovation wipeout. But it doesn’t have to be a technology shift. In the 1970s, deregulation in the aviation sector enabled the emergence of the innovative low-cost airline business model. It wasn’t long before major airline incumbents were going under as that big wave gathered pace.
The disruptive and systems innovations generate a changing paradigm: a big wave of opportunity or destruction that businesses must learn to surf. But why does innovation feel like juggling while surfing? The juggling reflects the frenetic activity of keeping a company moving, in financial balance and ahead of its rivals while it navigates a radically changing context. This brings us to three further types of innovation: the innovation occurring within the changing paradigm.
So, the third type of innovation is evolutionary. It resembles the Darwinist process of evolution in nature. Here, the consumer provides what evolutionary biologists call selection pressure, and innovation emerges from incremental improvement through trial and error, mirroring what biologists recognize as mutation and natural selection. It will usually be incremental, but its impact will not always be gradual. Evolutionary innovation can make radical inroads into a market by solving a particular problem or exploiting an opportunity.
A good example is pod-based vaping products using nicotine salts. Salts change how nicotine is absorbed in the airways and allow users to consume smaller volumes of higher strength liquids. The effect of the salts is to allow high-strength nicotine liquids to be used without undue harshness with a smaller battery and tank, enabling a compact and convenient device. This addressed the challenge of providing a convenient and discreet product with effective nicotine delivery. It was wildly successful—at least where regulators allowed it.
I have seen much handwringing about the recent rise of disposable vaping products. But this is another case of evolutionary innovation. The disposables solve the problem of finding a quick and convenient way into vaping for smokers in the early or tentative stages of switching away from smoking. They are simple to use, low cost and convenient. They don’t require an upfront investment in a device, so they lower the cost of consumer trial and experimentation. Like many innovations, these products have downsides, such as the waste generated. But this is manageable and must be set against the potential benefits and in context with other waste material flows.
The fourth type of innovation is adaptive. This is a variation of evolutionary innovation, but it arises in response to regulation. Ultimately, it is driven by meeting consumer preferences, but it is triggered by regulatory interventions that would otherwise compromise the consumer experience—ether by design or as an unintended consequence. One example is the mentholation cards that emerged after the European Union ban on menthol-flavored cigarettes. These are inserted into cigarette packs to infuse nonmenthol cigarettes with menthol flavor. Another case is the “shortfill” e-liquid containers that became popular as a workaround to overcome the European Union ban on e-liquid containers of more than 10 mL volume. Much larger containers of nicotine-free vaping liquid are sold only partially filled, allowing the nicotine to be added later—often from nicotine liquids stronger than permitted in the EU.
As the FDA imposed ever more burdensome regulation on nicotine vapes, small companies introduced synthetic nicotine products because the law confined FDA jurisdiction to nicotine derived from tobacco. This example also illustrates the arms race fought between adaptive innovators and responsive regulators. By March 2022, the FDA had prompted Congress to amend the Tobacco Control Act to apply to nicotine derived from any source, not just tobacco. Adaptive innovations can come with novel risks. For example, regulated bans on flavored e-liquids may lead to consumers adding food or aromatherapy flavoring agents not necessarily intended for vaping.
The fifth type of innovation is user-driven. The early vaping enthusiasts were hybrid producer-consumers, interacting on user forums with a strong problem-solving ethos and a hands-on approach to product design and construction. Users created innovations like “squonkers” or “squonk mods” to facilitate dripping, a niche style of vaping, by incorporating a flexible liquid bottle into the design of the vaping device. But the most impressive innovations from the user side have been social and community in nature. The vaping forums and vape meets created an elaborate technical and moral support infrastructure. This online community blossomed into vape shops as centers of expertise, personalization and encouragement. The vape shops are now de facto cutting-edge stop-smoking services but with a very different offer to the more clinical settings of traditional services. Even the biggest corporate beasts benefit and learn from user innovation. They should take care not to crush it.
Innovation is a fluid and dynamic business phenomenon with many simultaneously moving parts embedded in an unpredictably evolving, threatening or promising context. Surfing while juggling is hard and risky, but it is no longer a choice in the tobacco and nicotine business.
Clive Bates is the director of Counterfactual Consulting and the former director of Action on Smoking and Health (U.K.).

February 1, 2023
A Good News Story
Photo: Teo
Tobacco harm reduction has made more progress than is often assumed.
By Patrick Basham
The good news about tobacco harm reduction is the bad news is wrong. The tobacco harm reduction experience is actually a positive story.
It is true that the preponderance of influential and well-funded public health institutions and stakeholders are rabidly anti-tobacco harm reduction (THR). The World Health Organization is the most clear-cut example, with billionaire philanthropists funding global campaigns that, in concert with the WHO, incentivize national governments and their public health agencies either to ignore or to disparage THR’s demonstrated ability to improve public health.
It is also true that most politicians who talk about THR-related reduced-risk products (RRPs) are critical of the technology and its marketing and are subsequently prohibitionist with regard to e-cigarettes, heated-tobacco products (HTPs), oral smokeless tobacco, etc. It is also true that the tone and substance of the vast majority of media coverage is highly negative.
Such a choreographed chorus of naysaying has most everyone with even a passing interest in THR assuming that the political, institutional and media criticism is, first, representative of a global consensus among stakeholders that THR is a bad idea and second, that THR policies fail whenever and wherever they are introduced. Consequently, when surveyed, the public is at best ambivalent about RRPs’ comparative benefits vis-a-vis combustible cigarettes.
All of the above may be true, but it is not the entire truth about tobacco harm reduction and reduced-risk products.
The Other Side of the Coin
My recent THR report pushes back against the criticisms—and against the broader skepticism they engender. The report does not attempt to catalogue THR’s critics and their mostly ill-informed critiques. The case against THR is readily available, easily accessible and delivered ad nauseam. Instead, this report seeks only to inform the reader that there is actually another, distinctive and very positive side to the THR coin.
To that end, my report addresses overlooked and underappreciated elements of this policy conundrum. The report discusses the public opinion hurdle that must be surmounted by THR proponents in order for their political representatives to adopt more progressive and enlightened positions on this crucial aspect of public health policymaking. A summary is also provided of RRPs’ successful, yet largely unknown and therefore unappreciated, track records since their adoption in many parts of the world.
There is an accounting of the many pro-THR governments who have adopted sophisticated strategies and policy prescriptions; there is also recognition of influential public health stakeholder endorsements since THR products became a commercial reality more than a decade ago. The report concludes by drawing lessons from the THR story so far, so that open-minded political and regulatory decision-makers may be better guided on their policymaking journey.
Consumers worldwide are, on average, either uninformed or ill-informed about the concept of tobacco harm reduction and the specific reduced-risk products central to its implementation. Such ignorance is understandable as the THR paradigm is a comparatively new concept beyond public health circles and RRPs are innovative new technologies that only recently delivered commercially viable options for consumers.
Such ignorance is nonetheless frustrating because respective prohibitionist politicians, philanthropists, regulators, public health organizations, academics and consumer groups have consciously erected the central barriers to better consumer understanding of, and appreciation for, THR and RRPs.
The aforementioned anti-THR actors are seemingly dedicated to the proposition that tobacco and nicotine products scientifically proven to be less harmful than combustible cigarettes should not be readily available for use either by current smokers seeking less (often far less) toxic sources of tobacco and nicotine or even by smokers seeking to quit smoking altogether.
Layered upon the anti-THR and anti-RRP campaigns are unhidden, viscerally anti-industry agendas that reflexively oppose any innovative technology or business model that may preserve, let alone enhance, the profitability of the tobacco and nicotine industries.
A great many countries, international institutions and public health organizations are employing, and advocating for, THR policies and strategies to reduce cigarette consumption. To date, nearly 70 countries have adopted regulatory frameworks on reduced-risk products.
An enormous number and variety of electronic nicotine-delivery products are in the marketplace, with nearly 16,000 flavors available and global sales rising to $15 billion in 2019. HTPs were also available in over 50 markets worldwide in 2020. Only one Western democracy (Australia) still requires its citizens to acquire a nicotine prescription in order to vape.
Snus can be legally bought in 81 countries. RRPs are already being used by 112 million people worldwide, with approximately 82 million using nicotine vaping devices, 20 million using heated-tobacco products and 10 million using smokeless tobacco.
Contributing to Cessation
The evidence in favor of THR as a complementary intervention to help drive down death and disease from smoking is robust. For example, we now have evidence of the impact vaping has had on smoking. Vaping is today widely considered to be the world’s most effective smoking cessation tool.
Extensive international evidence supports the conclusion that vaping plays a major role in smoking cessation. All of the nearly 70 countries that have adopted regulatory frameworks on safer nicotine products subsequently report a decline, often a dramatic one, in smoking prevalence. Countries that embrace vaping have witnessed a decrease in smoking rates that is twice as fast as the global average.
Snus’ extensive contribution to improvements in Swedish public health is well documented. When Norway allowed snus products to be more widely available, cigarette smoking fell by half in just 10 years.
Japanese tobacco harm reduction is the story of HTP-driven success.
Japan’s policies have led to a remarkable drop in cigarette smoking. In October 2020, in the world’s largest heated-tobacco market, the smoking rate dropped to a record low of 16.7 percent, down 1.1 percent on the previous year. Between 2016 and 2021, domestic combustible cigarette sales declined 43 percent.
This decline is directly attributable to the availability of noncombustible RRPs, mainly HTPs. HTP popularity caused cigarette sales to plummet five times faster than before HTPs were available.
Tobacco harm reduction is a refreshingly good news story, as detailed in the preceding sections. That is the reason governments around the world are increasingly placing THR at the heart of their tobacco control strategies.
Pro-THR policymakers are legalizing RRPs for widespread consumer use as regulators in these countries construct regulatory frameworks that harness the products’ potential to reduce tobacco-related harm while restricting their availability to adult consumers exclusively.
That said, certain governments and regulatory agencies have disproportionate influence on the global stage. The governments of many smaller and medium-sized nations, in particular, look to the likes of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the European Union and the Chinese government for case studies, regulatory models, bureaucratic signals and political cover regarding THR’s innate veracity, as well as the applicability and suitability of specific RRPs to public health in general and the consumer marketplace specifically.
Some of the steps taken by governments and public health bodies with outsized influence have empowered THR while other steps have retarded its progress. My report’s accounting and cataloging of THR successes and adoptions provides these institutional actors, and those influenced by them, with numerous lessons concerning the best way forward should public health be the overriding concern.
Ten policymaking lessons stand out:
Tobacco harm reduction should be the principal driving force behind a nation’s tobacco control strategy.
Legalize the import, export, sale, possession and use of reduced-risk products. These products should be as widely available as tobacco products and available without a prescription.
The debate is not legalization versus prohibition. The latter approach is empirically unsound, unenforceable and counterproductive. Hence, it is crucial that specific regulations and tax policies are THR-friendly, too.
Employ the “weighting principle,” that is, employ concepts such as absolute risk, relative risk, and usage patterns in order to calculate the net public health effect of RRPs, and utilize that data to guide the adopted regulation.
RRPs are most suitably regulated as consumer products rather than as medicines or tobacco products.
Apply the “continuum of risk” approach across tobacco and nicotine products. Regulation should reflect the lower toxicity levels of RRPs and, therefore, regulations and taxes should correspond to the level of harm caused by a given product, hence the need for the differential taxation of RRPs.
Lower rates of taxation for RRPs than for cigarettes help to ensure the affordability of RRPs for low-income consumers, who smoke disproportionately, and incentivize smokers to switch from combustible products.
Smokers have the right to accurate information on RRPs; therefore, governments should underwrite health education messages about the comparative risks of RRPs. A pragmatic regulatory approach furthermore recognizes the utility in fewer restrictions on RRP advertising than on cigarettes, hence reduced-risk claims for RRPs should be permitted in advertising.
Providing a choice of flavors to adult consumers encourages them to switch from combustibles to less harmful products.
Traditional cessation approaches are not the only tools available to help people transition away from smoking cigarettes. Vaping is the world’s most effective smoking cessation tool.
The greater the number of governments that learn and apply these lessons, the greater will be the public health benefit that the world experiences from tobacco harm reduction’s focus upon the reduced-risk potential of innovative tobacco and nicotine products.
Patrick Basham directs the Democracy Institute, a politically independent think tank. Basham was previously a Cato Institute senior fellow and taught tobacco regulation at Johns Hopkins University. Prior to Cato, he led tobacco policy research at Canada’s Fraser Institute. In 2016, he was the only pollster to predict both Brexit and Donald Trump’s Electoral College victory. A prolific author, Bahsam recently published “Covid-19: WHO is to blame?”
February 1, 2023
Lifting the Fog

Photo: Andrii
An official acknowledgement of nicotine pouches’ comparatively low risk clears the way for appropriate regulation in Germany.
By Stefanie Rossel
The news was a minor sensation given German authorities’ reluctance to acknowledge the reduced harm potential of novel tobacco products. On Oct. 7, 2022, the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), a scientific institution of the German government, published a statement in which it confirmed that tobacco-free nicotine pouches could reduce the health risks compared to smoking.
Jan Muecke | Photo: German Association of the Tobacco Industry and Novel Products
The risk profile of modern oral nicotine products, as they are also called, is comparable to that of medical nicotine-replacement products such as nicotine patches, the institute wrote in its evaluation, which was published in several scientific journals, including Tobacco Control. Carried out by BfR scientists in August 2022, they study showed that aside from nicotine, the pouches contain no substances that present health concerns. In some samples, researchers detected traces of tobacco-specific nitrosamines, which are also found in medical nicotine-replacement products. According to Jan Muecke, chief executive of the German Association of the Tobacco Industry and Novel Products, this problem is solvable, however.
To protect consumers, the BfR recommended regulation of the manufacture, presentation and sale of nicotine pouches. Tobacco harm reduction advocates hope the findings will prompt German authorities to finally regulate modern oral nicotine products as tobacco products.
Nicotine pouches comprise small sachets with a mixture of cellulose fibers, flavorings, water, humidifying and gelling agents along with preservatives and artificial sweeteners. Since their introduction in Germany, they have existed in a regulatory gray area. Because the products contain nicotine, authorities decided that sales require monitoring. However, since the products are tobacco-free, the German tobacco product law does not apply.
Following several assessments and court rulings, German regulators classified modern oral nicotine products as food, making it subject to European food law. However, the European Union prohibits the use of nicotine as a food, food ingredient, food additive or food flavor, which means nicotine pouches classified as food may not be sold in the trade bloc. In March 2021, the administrative court in Hamburg confirmed that the sale of modern oral nicotine products was illegal. Other German courts have followed suit.
According to Muecke, the classification of nicotine pouches as food has been problematic because it misleadingly implies that the products are being eaten. “This is nonsense,” he says. “The products are consumed by putting the pouch between the upper lip and gum and leaving it there while the nicotine and taste is being released. After use, the complete pouch is disposed of. This makes them comparable to toothpaste or floss—no one would think of declaring these products as food.”
Regulation Protects Consumers
By classifying nicotine pouches as food, Germany is an outlier. In the 16 EU member states where modern oral products are available, they are regulated either as tobacco or as a consumer product. Demark and the Czech Republic have even created a new product category for nicotine pouches, defining them as tobacco surrogates and allowing the sale to adults.
Muecke welcomes the opportunity that the BfR assessment offers Germany to change its classification. “The BfR statement contains all data that are required for appropriate regulation of nicotine pouches,” he says. “Scientific studies have confirmed that if nicotine content is limited to a maximum of 20 mg per pouch, nicotine blood levels will not be higher than when smoking a combustible cigarette. We therefore hope that the government will take the request of the consumer protection conference of the federal states seriously who in 2021 had called for regulation of nicotine pouches under tobacco law.
“In the current state of legal uncertainty, modern oral nicotine is nevertheless on the German market—consumers buy their nicotine pouches online from abroad. These products often do not stick to nicotine limits, and child and youth protection cannot be efficiently controlled. Adequate regulation of nicotine pouches as tobacco products would hence protect consumers and youths.”
A chance for a change is already in sight: Under a delegated directive from the European Commission, the German government has until July 2023 to revise the country’s rules for heated-tobacco products (HTPs). “HTPs will be more strictly regulated in Germany in the future,” Muecke explains. “Therefore, it would make sense to find legal regulation for nicotine pouches during the same legislative process, which for HTPs will have to be concluded in the first half of 2023. To wait for a new version of the EU Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) that won’t be translated into national law until 2025 or 2026 would be wrong as unregulated online purchases of modern oral nicotine products with excessive levels of nicotine would continue to endanger consumers.”
The European Commission intends to publish a draft of the revised TPD in 2024. While the wording is still unknown, the public has an opportunity to share its views through a consultation. Muecke encourages all stakeholders to take part, for example through the German-language website dein-ding.de.
While it would technically be possible to regulate nicotine under the revised TPD, this is not Muecke’s preferred solution. “The products are on the market right now and available in 16 EU member states, especially in most of our neighboring countries, hence Germany shouldn’t be an island of prohibition,” he says. Muecke suggests regulators use the TPD’s e-cigarette regulations as guidelines for modern oral nicotine products.
Muecke is confident that appropriate regulation for the novel oral nicotine products will be implemented in Germany. “A ban of nicotine pouches would not be in accordance with the principle of risk minimization,” he says. “The government must create a possibility for consumers to buy such reduced-risk products at retailers—it’s an absolute necessity.”
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.

February 1, 2023
Losing the Plot

Image: Adobe Stock
When it comes to tobacco, the European Commission should abandon its overly complex ideas and embrace some fresh thinking.
By George Gay
The people of England and Wales were advised by health chiefs not to get drunk on Dec. 21—and I think it is worth pausing for a moment to take in the enormity of the implications of that advice …
But, moving on, the reason for the advice’s having been given specifically for Dec. 21 was that ambulance drivers were due to go out on strike that day, which meant it was going to be more challenging than usual to deliver to hospitals those people, drunks and their victims, injured by drunken behavior.
No such advice had to be given in respect of the consumption of tobacco. Those seeking enjoyment through the consumption of nicotine rather than alcohol do not over-consume, and, importantly, do not, as a result of their smoking, lose their faculties for thinking clearly and, like drinkers, start acting in silly, violent and otherwise bizarre ways.
Given this, I feel moved to ask, not for the first time, why it is that, in most parts of the world, and certainly in Europe, about which this story is concerned, tobacco and tobacco consumers are regarded as society’s pariahs while alcohol and alcohol consumers are regarded as being part of the normal social milieu—hail fellow, well met! Why is it that we take seriously people who, while drinking alcohol and becoming increasingly muddled in their thinking, pontificate on, among other things, the evils of tobacco and smoking?
It seems totally illogical, but one answer, I guess, could be that so many people drink alcohol that, collectively, we have passed the tipping point of population-level befuddledness and, consequently, are no longer able to summon the level of critical faculties necessary to see through the inconsistencies and hypocrisies that drive our lives. On the whole, unlikely.
Nevertheless, something weird is going on that defies logical analysis. While the world at large has long been at war with tobacco consumption, the original, often well-meaning objectives seem to have been pushed to one side. The purported reason behind the tobacco conflict, as I understood it, was to reduce the death and disease caused by smoking, but the focus seems to have shifted elsewhere, in part to the defiance of the various methods being used in the conflict, and to a whole string of largely peripheral activities. We are told that there are 1 billion smokers worldwide, but there must now be another billion who owe their livings or part of their livings to anti-smoker activities and/or to devising ways of defending the wasteful expenditure of conflict funds.
A Curious Leaflet
In June last year, the European Commission issued a curious leaflet that included a table illustrating what, at first glance, seemed to be the overall level, EU-wide, of the implementation of a European Council recommendation on the enforcement of smoke-free and vapor-free environments. In fact, some of the smoking restrictions, including those to do with outdoor areas and private places, and the vapor restrictions, apparently fall outside the remit of the recommendation but presumably within rules in force within some EU states. The left column of the table listed 20 places where, technically, a person could smoke or vape, but, according to the rules, may or may not be allowed to do so. The table had three right-hand columns, one headed “Traditional products for smoking,” the second headed “E-cigarettes” and the third headed “Heated-tobacco products.” Against each of the 20 places, three colored circles appeared, one in each of the right-hand columns indicating whether enforcement was “very good” (dark green), “good” (light green), “moderate” (yellow), “low” (orange) or “very low” (red). So, for instance, enforcement in indoor workplaces, the first of the rows, was indicated to be very good (dark green) in the case of traditional smoking products but only moderate (yellow) in respect of e-cigarettes and heated-tobacco products.
What struck me about the right-hand columns of the table, which, in total, included 60 colored circles, was that it looked like something designed by a child, whiling away a wet Sunday afternoon, innocently unaware that some people have difficulty distinguishing such colors. But, of course, this was something that had been produced by adults paid to do so. It had been funded presumably by the anti-tobacco, anti-smoker money tree, which spares no effort, no expense on even the most peripheral of exercises.
The table seemed so far removed from the coalface of tobacco harm reduction (THR) that I couldn’t understand what purpose it served, but I felt certain that the money it cost could have been better spent. The needle of THR would have been shifted more if the funds needed to produce the table had instead been used to buy 100 or so e-cigarettes or packs of snus that were subsequently handed out to impoverished smokers.
And there was a sinister side to the table. One of the places listed in the left-hand column was designated “private homes,” where enforcement was described as very low (red) in respect of all three products. This raises a worrying question. Does the commission believe that, at some stage in the future, it would be very good if the lights changed to green along this row, indicating that people were being monitored in their homes to determine whether they were smoking or vaping? This is not idle speculation. The commission says in the leaflet that “There is a gap in the legislation of exposure to smoking in multi-unit housing” while acknowledging that “Smoke-free measures are difficult to monitor in private places (for example, homes and cars).”
Of course, the amount of money wasted on the leaflet is probably small, but I suspect there is an awful lot of such ephemera wafting through the halls of the commission, and a lot of small amounts of money can add up to … well, a lot of money. And more is planned, even in these straitened times. The commission says that the 2009 recommendation is limited and that, in part, “There is a need to increase financial and human resources available for monitoring and enforcing rules on smoke-free environments.”

Collective Consumer Intelligence
Nothing could be further from the truth. The commission should pause for thought. When e-cigarettes first became available, they quickly became popular through a system of what I would call collective consumer intelligence, a human version of swarm intelligence in which insects such as bees and ants work together to form efficient societies without the need for management. Early adopters of e-cigarettes went on to the internet and performed waggle dances to indicate where the best e-cigarettes were to be found, and things started to work well. It was only with the intervention of countless managers, including those at the commission, that THR started to slow down.
In fact, one of the proofs of this argument lies with snus rather e-cigarettes. The EU must have spent millions of euros purportedly on trying to get smokers to quit, but it banned snus, except in Sweden. Banning snus has got to rate as one of dumbest policies ever devised, anywhere in the world, in respect of anything. It requires apparently sentient people ignoring the evidence staring them in the face—ignoring the fact that the proportion of smokers in Sweden, which is heading down toward 5 percent, is lower than in any other EU country.
But perhaps it is me who is being dumb in believing that the EU wants to reduce the level of tobacco smoking within its territory. After all, this premise is based on self-reporting. If it is wrong that this is the aim, then its actions become perfectly logical.
Chasing its Tail
The idea that the commission and the EU have lost the plot is supported by the effort they have put, and are putting, into the establishment and operation of a traceability system for tobacco products. Although this effort is aligned with the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products, which came into force in 2018 under the aegis of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, it is not a health initiative. It has nothing to do with seriously trying to stop people smoking but is aimed at providing, in the commission’s words, “member states and the commission with an effective tool that enables the tracking and tracing of tobacco products throughout the union and the identification of fraudulent activities that result in illicit products being available to consumers.” In other words, the huge effort that is being expended to put the system in place is aimed at increasing the sales of licit tobacco by reducing those of illicit tobacco. But you have to ask whether this is a proper use of the commission’s energies, especially in the straitened times we are suffering.
It could be argued, of course, that it is in society’s interest to stop illegal trading no matter what products are involved, but I would counter that, in the case of cigarettes, such efforts merely show the commission to be chasing its own tail. The illegal trade in cigarettes in the EU is fueled by unfair levels of taxation applied to tobacco products by countries, in part at the behest of the commission, so the simple answer is to reduce taxes and do away with the need for a complex traceability system.
And it is complex, as anybody will realize if they read through the commission’s Nov. 3 draft of recommended amendments to the 2018 traceability system Implementing Regulations, which weighs in at 17 pages with 23 pages of appendices. “The traceability system established in accordance with Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/574 started collecting data on tobacco products’ movements and transactional data on 20 May 2019,” the draft says. “Experience in its implementation has further demonstrated the importance of high quality, accuracy, completeness and comparability of the data that need to be recorded and transmitted to the system in a timely manner.
“In its report on the application of Directive 2014/40/EU of 20 May 2021, the commission stressed that the member states and the commission had considerable problems with the quality of traceability data …”
You can imagine where this goes—into a haze of legalese covering the minutiae of tobacco product logistics. None of this helps smokers, but it helps to provide jobs for those in the burgeoning and lucrative trade of making miserable the lives of smokers.
Who pays for this traceability rigmarole, you might ask. Well, according to the commission, it’s very simple. The costs of operating and maintaining the system, and of storing the data, is borne largely by tobacco manufacturers and importers. But you would have to be terribly naive to accept that at face value. The costs purportedly borne by manufacturers and importers will be passed onto smokers, which will increase the financial burden on them and make it more likely that they will turn to illicit products. The system, incomprehensibly, is designed to punish those who buy licit products for the sins of those who buy illicit products. Again, the commission is chasing its tail.
What the commission needs right now is a good dose of simplicity. It should throw out the complexities of traceability, unban snus, stop agitating for a ban on nicotine pouches, stop interfering in the development of the sorts of e-cigarettes and heated-tobacco products capable of persuading smokers to quit their habit, and stop worrying about novel products that might or might not come along.
The collective intelligence of smokers, aligned with the best interests of tobacco product and nicotine product manufacturers, clearly intent on converting the market, will do the heavy lifting. It is time to sweep away the musty, overly complex ideas of the past and let in some light and new thinking.
Yeah, like that’s going to happen in the run-up to the EU’s Tobacco Products Directive III, with the huge number of anti-smoker jobs on the line.
George Gay is Tobacco Reporter’s European editor, but his territory spans the globe. Based in London, George has covered the tobacco industry since 1982, initially for a U.K.-based publication and since 2004 for Tobacco Reporter. George’s understanding of industry issues, combined with his keen sense of observation and dry wit, have earned him a loyal following among Tobacco Reporter’s readers.

February 1, 2023
UKVIA Publishes Annual Report

Image: Tobacco Reporter archive
The U.K. Vaping Industry Association (UKVIA) has published its 2022 annual report.
Among the highlights of 2022 was the launch of the UKVIA-commissioned Economic Impact Report from the Centre for Economics and Business Research, which—for the first time—detailed the national and regional contribution that the U.K. vape industry made to the economy, according to the UKVIA.
“Our industry is under scrutiny like never before, and we must tackle the big issues, such as underage vaping, the environmental impact of disposable devices and the massive influx of fake and illegal imports,” said John Dunne, director general of the UKVIA. “Any one of these issues has the potential to see regulators clamp down hard on vaping, and the fact that they are all happening at once demonstrates that it is crucial that we get our house in order without delay.”
January 26, 2023
CAPHRA Comments on Proposal to Tighten Vaping Restrictions

Image: Tobacco Reporter archive
The Coalition of Asia Pacific Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates (CAPHRA) has submitted comments on New Zealand’s Proposals for the Smoked Tobacco Regulatory Regime. The proposals include tightening current restrictions on vaping product safety requirements and packaging and reducing nicotine levels in disposable vapes as well as restricting the location of specialist vape retailers.
“Whilst we have absolutely no issues with restrictions around primary and secondary schools and Kura, we do have issue with adult community locations, such as universities, and other tertiary facilities,” said Nancy Loucas, executive coordinator of the CAPHRA.
“Specialist vape retailers provide a service that is not available in general retailers. It is a disservice to adults who smoke in Aotearoa, New Zealand, to restrict their access to specialist shops and guidance.”
“The main issue, however, is that the regulations, as they are, work perfectly well,” said the CAPHRA in reference to the other proposed restrictions. “The issues are public education and enforcement. The regulations, as they are written, are working at getting citizens to make the switch from combustible tobacco to less harmful vaping.”
The comment period closes on March 15.
January 26, 2023
Taiwan Set to Ban Nicotine Vapes

Image: Tobacco Reporter archive
Taiwan is set to become the next Asian country to ban nicotine vaping products, reports Filter.
The Tobacco Hazards Prevention Act cleared the legislative floor earlier this month and now awaits presidential approval, which is expected because President Tsai Ing-wen is a member of the party that proposed the act.
Taiwan seems to be following behind Japan, which banned nicotine vapes but allows heated-tobacco products. India and Thailand have also banned vapes.
Taiwan’s ban will include use of e-cigarettes, and violators will face penalties of up to $330.
“The issue did not have enough public discussion, and the approach to harm reduction should be more thoroughly debated,” said Simon Lee, the Taiwan policy fellow at the Consumer Choice Center, a global consumer advocacy group in Washington. “For instance, we have seen misinformation, especially with regard to nicotine, circulating among anti-tobacco activists. It is beyond reasonable doubt that Taiwan’s consumers deserve a much better outcome.”
January 25, 2023
22nd Century Acquires RX Pharmatech

Image: mikefoto58 | Adobe Stock
22nd Century Group acquired privately held RX Pharmatech (RXP), a leading United Kingdom distributor of cannabinoids with 1,276 novel food applications with the U.K. Food Standards Agency (FSA), according to a company press release. Terms of the agreement include an up-front payment of $650,000 in cash and stock and a three-year equity earn-out based on revenue milestones.
“The acquisition of RXP establishes GVB as the leader in the U.K. Consumer Products isolate market, which is expected to reach an estimated $1.26 billion by 2025 and secures direct access to key European markets for CBD products,” stated James A. Mish, CEO of 22nd Century Group. “RXP has exclusively utilized GVB’s technical data and worked closely with the FSA on developing their highly effective application and compliance programs that secured 1,276 novel food applications, the second most CBD products to pass through the first round of approval. We look forward to leveraging their leadership team’s vast cannabis industry experience and strong relationships with U.K. and EU regulatory agencies as we move forward.”
Mish continued, “We expect the addition of RXP will be immediately accretive to the company and facilitate significant operating efficiencies leading to additional revenue and gross margin improvement. In particular, the addition of RXP with our recently opened distribution facility in the Netherlands will allow us to scale our operations and capture more market share in the growing European Consumer Products market.”
RXP’s products include CBD isolate and numerous variations of finished products like gummies, oils, drops, candies, tinctures, sprays, capsules and others.
January 24, 2023
Pyxus Makes Board Changes

Image: Tobacco Reporter archive
Pyxus International announced the resignation of Patrick B. Fallon, managing principal of Monarch Alternative Capital, from its board of directors and the appointment of two new members of the board, John S. Alphin and Patrick J. Bartels Jr., effective Jan. 18, 2023, according to a press release. The changes to the board result in an increase in the total number of directors from six to seven individuals.
“On behalf of the company’s board of directors, I thank Mr. Fallon for his guidance in redefining the company’s strategy, helping position the business for growth and long-term success,” said Pyxus President and CEO Pieter Sikkel. “I am pleased to welcome Mr. Alphin and Mr. Bartels to Pyxus’ board of directors and look forward to their strategic direction as we work to accelerate business growth, increase stakeholder value and together grow a better world.”
Alphin has 24 years of tobacco industry experience, including serving as a corporate director and head of global leaf sourcing for BAT. His areas of expertise include strategy and business development, generation of sales and operational efficiencies, navigation of complex, global supply chains and implementation of robust sustainability and corporate governance programs. Alphin will serve as a member of the Environmental, Social, Governance and Nominating Committee of Pyxus’ board of directors.
Bartels brings more than 20 years of experience in the financial sector and currently serves as a managing member of Redan Advisors. He previously held positions with Monarch Alternative Capital, Invesco and PricewaterhouseCoopers. Additionally, Bartels has served as a director on numerous public and private boards and has experience in corporate governance, finance, capital markets and mergers and acquisitions. Bartels will serve as a member of the Audit Committee and chair of the Compensation Committee of the company’s board of directors.
January 24, 2023