Blog - Tobacco Reporter

Smokers on Miami Beach Could Face Jail

Cigarette smokers in Miami Beach could face up to 60 days in jail if caught repeatedly smoking on the city’s beaches and public parks. The new law went into effect on Jan. 1.

Vaping products, cigars and unfiltered cigarettes are still permitted.

Police officers will be issuing $100 civil fines to first offenders and $200 fines to second offenders within a 12-month period.

Police officers will be able to arrest repeat offenders at their discretion. The maximum punishment is a $500 fine and 60 days in jail, according to Local10News.

Governor Ron DeSantis made the ban possible when he signed a law in June that allowed local officials to regulate cigarette smoking at public beaches and parks.

The only Miami Beach commissioner who voted against the measure was Ricky Arriola, who said it will distract police officers from public safety.

“We shouldn’t be enforcing a law like this,” Arriola said.

January 4, 2023

New Smoking Rules in Portugal

New smoking rules come into effect Jan. 1 in Portugal, dictating that “In catering or drinking establishments, including those with rooms or spaces intended for dancing, places where smoking is allowed in areas intended for customers may be set up, provided that these establishments have an area for customers equal to or greater than 100 square meters and a minimum ceiling height of 3 meters,” reports The Portugal News.

Spaces intended for smokers “can be constituted up to a maximum of 20 percent of the area intended for customers,” according to the law. There must be posted signs relaying maximum capacity for the spaces and “no entry for persons under 18 years of age.”

January 3, 2023

Serbia: Cigarette Prices Increasing

The price of all types of cigarettes in Serbia will increase by RSD10 ($0.09) per pack, effective Jan. 1, according to Serbianmonitor.com.

Cigarette prices have increased twice a year since the excise duty schedule was adopted in 2020. Prices will continue to increase until 2025 with the goal to align Serbia with EU standards.

Excise duty for e-liquid is increasing by RSD1 per milliliter, and the price of nonburning tobacco will also increase.

January 3, 2023

Morocco: Tobacco Tax to Increase

The price of tobacco-based products, including cigarettes, will increase effective January 2023 in Morocco, according to the Administration of Customs and Indirect Taxation, reports Morocco World News.

The increase is part of Morocco’s five-year strategy to decrease smoking rates by raising tariffs. Cigarettes sold in the country will see a MAD1 ($0.09) to MAD2 per pack increase.

Taxes on tobacco-based products will be gradually increased annually for five years under the new strategy.

Shisha and electronic cigarette prices are also set to increase. Now, for every kilo of shisha smoking material, consumers will pay MAD675.

Tax revenues from tobacco products are expected to reach MAD12.5 billion, about a 6 percent increase.

January 3, 2023

Ireland: Tobacco Companies Pay for Cleanup

Effective Jan. 1, tobacco companies will have to pay part of Ireland’s multimillion-euro street cleaning bills under new legislation driven by EU moves to cut plastic waste, reports The Irish Times.

Cigarette butts account for half of all litter and are “the biggest litter scourge,” according to the National Litter Pollution Monitoring System.

Beginning this year, tobacco companies will be liable in arrears for part of the costs. The full liability amount will not be set until data is collected on the contribution of cigarette butts to the 2023 litter toll.

A statutory company overseen by the Department of the Environment will be established to ensure that producers are contributing to the cost or redesigning their products to abide by the Brussels directive.

The legislation will later focus on fishing gear, balloons and wet wipes. The change makes producers responsible for the entire life cycle of products, including end-of-use costs.

“It forces companies to rethink what they’re putting on the market and the costs involved—if they have to pay for litter clean-ups, if they have to pay for recycling,” said Bernie Kiely, a senior environment official in circular economy materials management. “What you are doing is putting that whole-of-life cost back on the producers who put it on the market in the first place.”

January 3, 2023

Cambodia Burns E-Cigarettes

Cambodia’s Consumer Protection and Fraud Repression General Department of Ministry of Commerce, in cooperation with the National Authority for Combating Drugs, burned 288 boxes of UOLO e-cigarettes, equivalent to 7,200 packs, at a landfill in Phnom Penh’s Dangkor district, reports the Khmer Times.

Heng Maly, director of the Consumer Protection and Fraud Repression General Department, said, “The e-cigarettes were confiscated on Nov. 3, 2022, from a warehouse, pursuant to the order to seize and destroy by the prosecutor of the Phnom Penh Municipal Court.”

The e-cigarettes were discovered after an investigation by the General Department of CCF, which confiscated 3,600 packs of UOLO e-cigarettes, 1,800 e-cigarette machines and 1,800 e-cigarette mouthpieces.

January 3, 2023

Pyxus Releases 2022 Sustainability Report

Pyxus International released its Fiscal Year 2022 Sustainability Report. This is Pyxus’ first sustainability report following the release of its environmental, social and governance (ESG) framework in December 2021.

“This report marks a significant milestone in Pyxus’ sustainability journey. It provides stakeholders with a comprehensive understanding of how our ESG framework and business strategy are intertwined and reaffirms our commitment to transparent reporting as we execute against our measurable ESG goals,” said Pyxus President and CEO Pieter Sikkel in a statement. “We are excited to share tangible examples of our progress as we work to transform people’s lives and improve the communities in which we operate.”

“I am proud of the progress made against our global ESG goals, which was achieved in spite of operational hurdles, including two consecutive years of La Nina. This is a prime example as to why we must continue to identify innovative solutions and collaborate with like-minded companies to drive the greatest global impact so that together we can grow a better world,” said Sikkel.

January 3, 2023

U.S. FDA May Publish Draft Guidance for CBD

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is planning to make recommendations on how to regulate the use of the popular cannabis compound cannabidiol (CBD) in food and supplements, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing agency officials.

After weighing the evidence on the compound’s safety, the FDA will decide within months how to regulate legal cannabis and whether that will require new agency rules or new legislation from Congress, according to the report.

In an interview, Janet Woodcock, the FDA’s deputy commissioner and leader of the agency’s cannabis regulation efforts, expressed concern about the safety of CBD and whether current regulatory pathways for food and dietary supplements are suitable for this substance.

However, the agency is interested in determining whether it is safe to consume CBD on a daily basis for extended periods of time or during pregnancy.

Woodcock mentioned concerns about potential effects on fertility in the future, but, at the same time, her comment signaled that the agency is working to establish regulatory frameworks for the legal sale of appropriate cannabis and cannabis-derived products.

CBD is a chemical compound found in cannabis plants. It is one of the main ingredients in cannabis, but unlike THC, it does not cause a high or have psychoactive effects.

The 2018 Farm Bill legalized hemp cultivation in the U.S., which led to significant growth in the market for CBD products. These products, sold as dietary supplements, are believed to have health benefits. As a result, many businesses in the cannabis industry are now selling CBD products across the country.

Over the last few years, the FDA posted several warning letters to companies for illegally selling products containing CBD. The companies are accused of selling products containing CBD that the FDA states some people may confuse for traditional foods or beverages that do not contain CBD or were making medical claims about their CBD products.

In 2021, The FDA told Charlotte’s Web Holdings, one of the world’s largest CBD companies, that its cannabidiol product cannot be sold as a dietary supplement, signaling that CBD reform may have to wait for congressional action.

January 2, 2023

Into Indonesia

Chinese e-cigarette manufacturers are expanding into Indonesia to better serve export markets.

By Yutong Song and Alan Zhao

China’s rules for the vaping industry are stringent. They do, however, allow leniency for most exports. There is one rule, though, that can make shipping product to some countries nearly impossible: China’s regulations state that all products produced for export must comply with the regulations and laws in the destination country, according to 2FIRSTS, a vaping industry vertical media firm. If a country does not regulate e-cigarettes, China’s rules for vaping products would apply to those exports, including bans on flavors and synthetic nicotine.

To better serve countries that have not yet created regulations for electronic nicotine-delivery system products, manufacturers are opening factories outside of China. Many of those companies are moving into Indonesia where there are more than 70 million combustible cigarette smokers. The preference of Chinese manufacturers for Indonesia is also evident from a set of recent news headlines:

“Jinjia Group’s manufacturing base in Indonesia to provide integrated e-cigarette services.”
“Smoore Technology Indonesia (STI), a subsidiary of one of the largest e-cigarette manufacturers, has invested $80 million to establish e-cigarette factories in Indonesia.”
“The Indonesian factory of Zhijing Precision, an e-cigarette assembly supplier, is to be operational by 2022.”

The cost factors, such as land and labor, make Indonesia the first choice for e-cigarette companies setting up abroad, but the country has more to offer. Garindra Kartasasmita, secretary general of the Indonesian Vapor Entrepreneurs Association, mentioned in his keynote speech at the IECIE Vape Show that the Indonesian vaping market has been growing since 2013, with an annual rate of 50 percent except for the year 2021, when it shrank by 7 percent due to the Covid-19 pandemic. It is expected to rebound to 50 percent growth in 2022.

Integration of Production and Sales

Indonesia is ripe for helping to grow vaping businesses and boost the harm reduction potential of vaping products. One major advantage of moving e-cigarette production into Indonesia is the ease of integration and sales offered by the country’s large population. With 280 million people, Indonesia is the world’s fourth most populous country, accounting for 40 percent of all people in Southeast Asia. Moreover, Indonesia has 70.2 million smokers, which translates into a smoking rate of 34 percent.

The presence of so many nicotine consumers means e-cigarettes produced in Indonesia could also be sold domestically. Indonesia’s regulatory environment is conducive to the marketing of nicotine products that present lower risks than combustible cigarettes. Indonesia is the only country in Southeast Asia that allows tobacco advertising on television and in the media. It also has a place for e-cigarette bloggers and cross-category blogging, such as beauty and skin care. Indonesia has the second-highest number of posts on Instagram sharing vaping and related devices among all countries.

E-cigarette brands can be imported and sold in Indonesia only if they are recommended by the country’s National Agency of Drug and Food Control (part of the Ministry of Health) and the Ministry of Industry. Additionally, the products must be certified by the Indonesian National Standard. The policies are a positive for Chinese e-cigarette manufacturers.

Commenting on Smoore’s plant in Indonesia, Bahlil Lahadalia, Indonesia’s investment minister and director of the Investment Coordinating Board, publicly stated, “We need cooperation, we need jobs, we need opportunities that will make our brothers owners of our country.” And Clayton Shen, president of Smoore Indonesia, expressed his gratitude for the support of the Indonesian government, including the tariff-free incentives granted by the Ministry of Investment for the company’s much-needed machinery that needed to be imported.

Challenges Ahead

There are some challenges in the Indonesian market, however. Although the Indonesian market represents a large pie for Chinese manufacturers, it is not easy to navigate the market. A well-known Chinese e-cigarette manufacturer intending to build a factory in Indonesia revealed to 2FIRSTS that logistics is a problem for manufacturers, and currently no good solution is available.

For example, if the end products are filled and assembled in China and then sent to Indonesia, the amount of time the products could be held at customs is unpredictable. “I had a batch of goods that arrived at customs the end of last month, but they are still in customs as of the 20th of this month,” the manufacturer said. “If it was assembled in Indonesia and sent from the Indonesian factory, the time difference in delivery is not much different from if it were delivered from China.”

There is also a lack of e-cigarette machinery. Another vaping product manufacturer told 2FIRSTS that “there’s a critical lack of tools and machinery to keep pace with the production lines. Should factories be built here, machinery must be transported from China, which is a critical problem to tackle. It’s a misconception that the only shortage we would face is raw materials.”

There is also a “workers’ gap” that can often create staff training and production concerns. In addition to overcoming cultural and geographical challenges when training local workers, it’s difficult to have the workers adapt to the Chinese style of work, which is very dedicated and focused on teamwork. An insider told 2FIRSTS that some workers have a “casual attitude to being late.” He said that he had to create numerous incentives to discourage employees from being late for work and/or going home early. “This is very different from the Chinese work habits,” he said.

Migration or Spillover

Shenzhen is considered the vaping capital of the world. Located just north of Hong Kong, the city designs and manufactures an estimated 90 percent of the world’s vaping and e-cigarette devices. There are more than 1,000 factories and thousands of support companies that form the supply chain throughout Guangdong Province and the rest of China.

A joint report from the E-Cigarette Professional Committee of the China Electronics Chamber of Commerce and 2FIRSTS anticipates the global e-cigarette market to grow by 35 percent in 2022. The total market is expected to exceed $108 billion. In 2021, China’s total e-cigarette exports were $19.8 billion and were expected to reach $26.7 billion in 2022. The expansion of China’s e-cigarette industry from Shenzhen to Indonesia can more accurately be described as “spillover” rather than “migration.”

Just because Shenzhen’s e-cigarette manufacturing hub status is unshakable in the short term does not mean that the global manufacturing layout is cast in stone. In fact, over the past five years, the country’s e-cigarette industry has spilled from the city into China’s Greater Bay Area. We have seen spillover from Shajing of the Bao’an District of Shenzhen to the Dongguan area and in between.

This spillover has not affected the development of China’s electronic cigarette industry, however. During the same time, there was also a period of rapid industrial growth and improvements on the supply chain side of the industry.

In a recent interview, 2FIRSTS co-founder and Chief Operating Officer Echo Guo said that years of development not only granted the Bao’an District of Shenzhen a number of e-cigarette enterprises but also brought together supporting supply chains, including industrial design, molds, batteries and other essential needs for manufacturing vaping products. “Here to there is a ‘two-hour traffic circle’ within the whole e-cigarette industry, with all of its subbranches cooperating closely,” said Guo. “Even when the manufacturers and customers exchange new ideas, it would take less than two hours to get a prototype ready.”

The spillover of China’s e-cigarette industry to Indonesia can also be seen as the absorption and utilization of manufacturing resources by China’s e-cigarette industry, which has broken the boundary of China’s Greater Bay Area and extended to a broader region of the Asia-Pacific. The entire region will now have the opportunity to create greater economic success through the growth of the e-cigarette and vaping industry.

January 2, 2023

Bad Science

What is bad science, and why is there so much of it?

By Clive Bates

Every Friday afternoon, I receive the worst email of the week. It is an automated search on the PubMed database, an index of the biomedical literature covering over 30 million published papers. The search tries to pick up new studies relevant to tobacco harm reduction and typically finds 30–70 new papers each week. Once the email comes in, I look through the abstracts and write down hot takes on the ones that seem relevant to policy or practice. Then I share with public health and consumer advocates. To be honest, it is often a dispiriting experience. Despite the scattering of excellent “must-read” papers, many are truly awful. I have been doing this since 2016, and the volume of papers has roughly doubled.

So, what have I learned by going through this painful weekly ritual? There are distinct patterns repeated in the literature, including poor methodology, poor interpretation of results and, almost always, poor extrapolation from findings to policy. There are obvious biases and sometimes near-comical desperation to find fault in reduced-risk products. Let me provide a list of some of the most common flaws.

Poor toxicology. The 16th century Swiss physician Paracelsus coined a maxim now expressed as “the dose makes the poison.” The detectable presence of a hazardous chemical does not mean it is toxic. There must be sufficient exposure to the human body to cause harm. As an example, many studies find metal residues in vape liquids and aerosols, but usually at levels that create no basis for concern.
Lack of meaningful comparisons. Many studies will present data on the effects of smoke-free products without context, such as a comparison with cigarette smoke, or some objective risk benchmark, such as the standards used for occupational health exposures. Without such context, it is impossible to assess whether the findings are a basis for concern or for reassurance. So, the question is always, “how much exposure, and is that a little or a lot?”
Observations versus risks. Nicotine is a stimulant and has many effects on the body, but epidemiological studies do not generally show nicotine exposure to be harmful to health. For example, there are regular headlines reporting that nicotine can cause an acute stiffening of the aorta, the largest artery in the body. But is that bad news? It seems less disturbing when we find that coffee, exercise or even exposure to music can have the same effects.
Unrealistic operating conditions. A range of studies makes machine measurements of emissions from heated aerosol products in unrealistic conditions that no human user could tolerate because of the terrible taste. Using this unrealistic method, researchers often find high levels of toxic chemicals. But this is about as sophisticated as testing the residues from the surface of burnt and blackened toast—and concluding that eating toast for breakfast increases cancer risk.
Over-interpreting animal and cell studies. There are many studies of human cells tested in Petri dishes (“in vitro”), but these are tests on cells without all the defenses and regenerative capacity they have in the body. Test on animals (“in vivo”) must recognize that animals have very different physiology to humans and are sometimes bred to have vulnerabilities. In both cases, creating a realistic equivalent to the exposures a human would experience can be challenging. These studies can’t tell us much conclusively about human risk. At best, they can provide valuable clues. At worst, they can mislead.
The wrong counterfactual. Many studies beg the question, “what would have happened if vaping did not exist?”—without that, it is hard to determine what effect vaping is having. For example, if there were no vape option, would pregnant women who currently vape be abstinent, or would they smoke? That should affect the advice of health professionals. Many are concerned about youth vaping, but for the youth who would otherwise be smoking, maybe vaping provides a significant benefit. That should affect the approach of policymakers and regulators. These assumptions are known as “counterfactuals,” and they are hidden and hard to determine, which makes them open to bias.
Correlation ≠ causation. Many studies find a correlation (usually referred to as an association) between vaping and some harmful effect. But too many studies suggest that vaping causes the harmful effect. Take, for example, vaping and Covid-19. A 2020 study suggested Covid was abnormally high in young vapers, concluding that vaping is a “significant underlying risk factor” for coronavirus disease. But critics pointed out that people who vape may be more likely to work in occupations where they are more easily exposed. Are vapers the type of people who are more likely to ignore masking guidelines and stay-at-home mandates? These other risk factors that may be more common in vapers are known as “confounders” and are a pervasive challenge in nicotine and tobacco science.
Reverse causation. Some studies find that vaping is associated with, say, respiratory illness. But what if some people who smoke switch to vaping precisely because their respiratory health is deteriorating? There would be an observable association, but the respiratory illness would be causing the vaping, not the other way around.
Confounding by smoking history. There has been a recent spate of studies claiming that vaping causes heart disease or respiratory conditions like chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Almost everyone old enough to both vape and to experience these conditions has a smoking history, usually decades long, contributing to the disease. In such studies, it is impossible to isolate the effect of vaping from smoking. In some cases, the vaping has even commenced after the event or diagnosis.
Misunderstanding gateway effects. Does vaping lead to smoking? If that were the case for significant numbers, vaping could be almost as harmful as smoking. There are studies that show that young people who vape are also more likely to smoke. But that does not mean the vaping causes the smoking. More likely, the characteristics of the individual (e.g., rebelliousness) or their circumstances (e.g., parents, peer group) incline them to both smoking and vaping. This is a rival explanation to the gateway effect and is sometimes known as the “common liability” theory.
Selection effects. Some studies will focus on people who are unusually dependent on nicotine and therefore find it harder to quit. For example, in some cases, it is more likely that vaping will be tried by people who have not succeeded with any other method. This doesn’t mean vaping is less effective, just that the people using the products find quitting harder. This is a common error in studies of concurrent vaping and smoking, often known as “dual use.” The dual users are more dependent and tend to be more intense smokers with higher toxic exposures.
Weird study populations. Not all studies conducted on social media are useless, but most are. The people discussing vaping or smoking on Twitter or Facebook are not representative of the vaping and smoking populations. Their views are not gathered systematically in the way surveys work. Trends over time might be helpful, but most snapshots tell us little.
Baseless policy conclusions. Policy conclusions like “ban e-cigarette flavors to protect kids” are disappointingly common in the literature. To justify a policy requires numerous considerations that will go beyond the findings of any single data paper and stretch into economics and ethical considerations. Such considerations would include, for example, the assessment of unintended consequences (will kids smoke instead?) and trade-offs (between the interests of teenagers and adults).

Such a list does not explain why there is so much bad science, given these errors are simple to understand and mostly avoidable. I believe the answer lies in the incentives of those doing the science. Major U.S. federal research funders are aiming for a “world free of tobacco use,” which also means free of nicotine use. Tobacco regulatory science funded by regulators will be inclined to find justifications for regulation and intervention, not liberalization. There could also be deeper drivers: without the significant harms of smoking, there isn’t much justification for the whole field of tobacco control. Perhaps the emergence of much safer smoke-free nicotine products threatens livelihoods, careers and entire university departments, and bad science is the reaction. Maybe researchers gain prestige from alarming media coverage. These are all subtle conflicts of interest that are never acknowledged or recognized, yet they are pervasive drivers of bias.

It will surprise some, but I have noticed that science from the tobacco industry rarely crosses these lines. That is also down to incentives. The tobacco and nicotine industry must satisfy skeptical regulators about the safety and effectiveness of its next-generation reduced-risk products. It conducts research for product stewardship reasons and, in part, to take precautions against product liability litigation. The industry is incentivized to do good science.

It is time to address these problems by establishing a more constructively challenging environment for tobacco and nicotine science. This is not just an abstract academic curiosity. Public health credibility and the lives of millions are at stake.

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

January 2, 2023