Category: Also in TR

also-in-tr.jpg

  • Cracks in the Barriers

    Cracks in the Barriers

    Photo: Sashkin

    How to communicate tobacco products’ relative risks more effectively

    By Cheryl K. Olson

    As part of its new strategic plan, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Tobacco Products is committing to sharing “timely, clear and accessible” information. This includes communicating with adults who smoke about tobacco product relative risks.

    Last month, I highlighted dangerous tobacco-related misconceptions and groups of people in dire need of accurate relative risk information. Studies suggest we’re moving backward on accurate perceptions of nicotine harm and product relative risks. Why is this so hard to fix? Let’s look at a few examples of things that get in the way of harm reduction communication and how we might start to circumvent those barriers. 

    Knowing Does Not Equal Doing

    Health communication campaigns often measure successes in facts and attitudes. Such as, what percentage of the population of Argentina is aware that smoking causes lung cancer?

    This study, “Beyond Educating the Masses: The Role of Public Health Education in Addressing Socioeconomic[-Based] and Residence-Based Disparities in Tobacco Risk Perception,” is typical. The authors are with the Harvard School of Public Health, where I received my training in health communications. They assessed exposure to anti-smoking messages and risk perceptions of smoking. Some subgroups have lower risk perceptions? Expose them to more facts about the dangers of smoking. It’s assumed that changing risk perceptions will lead to different risk and protective behaviors and thus to improved health.

    When popular theories that underlie these messaging campaigns are rigorously tested—not just in lazy studies that ask samples of university students to report on themselves—they aren’t that great at predicting behavior in the real world. We see this in a new analysis of U.S. National Youth Tobacco Survey findings. The focus was on “How much do you think people harm themselves when they use e-cigarettes?” and e-cigarette addictiveness compared to cigarettes.

    Over six years, harm beliefs shifted in the approved direction. Researchers gave credit to campaigns such as The Real Cost and to (bogus) publicity about vaping-caused lung injury for this increased perception of risk. However, they were puzzled to find that over time, beliefs about harmfulness became less and less useful for predicting teen interest in and use of e-cigarettes.

    Arguments about the accuracy of campaign messages aside … humans don’t always change their behavior in response to facts and beliefs. Sometimes, behaviors change first, and attitudes and beliefs adapt.

    Websites that share stories of people who accidentally switched from smoking to vaping are a great example. Responses like this one upend our expectations of how people change: “I was firmly committed to smoking and didn’t care what anyone had to say about it. I was OK with dual use for convenience and ended up quitting cigs altogether without planning to.” Research studies on “smokers with no plans to quit” bear this out.

    I’m not suggesting we throw out all theory-based behavior change campaigns. But let’s incorporate more real-world experience. Why not study the factors that encourage people to try and switch to alternatives in the real world and test the effects of communications based on their stories?

    Institutional Barriers

    In a wonderful article on lessons from success and failure in risk communication from Swedish government agencies, the most entertaining examples come from campaigns gone wrong. One lesson learned: When multiple agencies communicate about a risk issue, the message must be consistent.

    This may be an impossible ask when it comes to nicotine misinformation and tobacco product relative risks. The current emphasis of government communication and regulation has been on keeping youth away from nicotine. Accumulating data show that vaping is not a gateway to smoking and that youth smoking has reached unprecedented lows. This ought to lead to rearrangement of priorities to focus attention on those at highest risk, such as older people who are longtime smokers. Because, as Kenneth Warner has put it, it is difficult to think, not feel, about tobacco harm reduction, it may be a long time before government entities can reach consensus on the facts.

    It seems possible that agencies could agree on a simple, brief message that nicotine does not cause cancer. However, as the article about Swedish government notes, the goals of a risk communication campaign affect how we measure its success or effectiveness. Do we seek to persuade and manipulate with information or to empower free agents?

    One example is this study on the “Dilemma of Correcting Nicotine Misperceptions.” The title refers to concerns that people who smoke, when informed of the true risks of nicotine, will draw the “wrong” conclusions. Instead of using nicotine-replacement therapies, they might choose to use e-cigarettes! Other well-intended researchers, when testing comparative risk messages, have fretted that such education could deter quitting or increase dual use. These are exactly the kinds of concerns that could bog down a bureaucratic entity and end with inaction. 

    Another difficulty is that issues of tobacco harm reduction don’t lend themselves well to simple slogans. A recent focus group study looked at creating effective messages about switching from cigarettes to e-cigarettes. They found that simple statements often created doubt and mistrust or even spawned new misinformation. Discussion was needed to address underlying issues, such as the health effects of nicotine.

    No agreement on core facts. No simple and clear behavioral goal (in contrast to “don’t smoke”). Traditional health message campaigns may be the wrong tool for the task of relative risk education.

    Person to Person

    A more promising approach may be person-to-person, story-based communication about tobacco harm reduction.

    Jeffrey Smith is a neuroscientist who has moved from academia to industry, and most recently to R Street, a Washington, D.C., think tank. He has learned the hard way that when it comes to nicotine and tobacco, data are almost impossible to separate from context and connotations.  

    “I was always taught, and have taught others, that science isn’t personal. It is just a conversation related to theory, methods, analyses and conclusions,” he says. “I was truly disheartened when I would approach scientists at scientific meetings and was completely ignored and shunned due to my affiliation with industry.”

    “I came into industry believing that my data are what mattered; I learned very quickly that was not the case,” he added.

    That experience shapes his views on how best to move forward with harm reduction education. He doesn’t see industry, or academics, or the national regulatory or health agencies as optimal outreach partners in the current climate. He’s an advocate of working from the grassroots up rather than the top down.

    Smith refers to the concept of “nothing about us without us,” where advocacy comes from those most directly affected by it: “That means people who have improved their health by switching to reduced-risk products, communicating that story to members of the community and with their healthcare providers.”

    “It is much more of an arduous process starting at the national level first,” he concludes. “Things can change, and change quickly, in communities.”

    Bethea (Annie) Kleykamp, a tobacco harm reduction researcher, shared her experience with peer-to-peer education. She recently started a post as assistant professor in psychiatry at the University of Maryland Baltimore School of Medicine. For decades, they have run an addiction treatment clinic focused on reducing harm for people who use opiates.

    Kleykamp found that her new colleagues, focused on overdoses, wound care, HIV and other crises, had simply lacked time for and exposure to tobacco harm reduction concepts. She was able to show how her focus on tobacco was a good fit with their existing values and approach.

    “Just talking to them. Explaining that a little over half of people in addiction treatment will actually die of tobacco-related disease,” she says. “I want the harm reduction thread to extend across all behaviors. And they hear that.”

    She is also respectful of their constraints and competing priorities. As a starting point, she’s working toward a simple change in clinic procedures to wedge in one message. “My goal, that they’re open to, is educating patients briefly about the tobacco harm continuum with a graphic,” says Kleykamp.

    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.
  • A Common Thread

    A Common Thread

    Photo: Celanese

    Filter manufacturers face higher prices and tow shortages, though not everybody has been equally affected.

    By Stefanie Rossel

    Of the roughly 5.2 trillion cigarettes consumed globally each year, 98 percent feature a filter made from cellulose acetate (CA) tow, a thermoplastic cellulose fiber with excellent absorption characteristics manufactured from dissolved wood pulp. Over the past years, suppliers of this base material faced many challenges, among them the continuous decline in global cigarette consumption since 2013, which also meant decreasing demand for tow and cigarette filters.

    Since last year, however, the situation has reversed: The market for acetate tow has tightened. In May 2022, Celanese Corp., one of the world’s leading suppliers of acetate tow products, declared force majeure on western hemisphere acetyl chain and acetate tow products because of unanticipated interruptions in raw material supply in the Texas Gulf Coast. The condition was lifted again in December. Celanese Corp. was unavailable for comment.

    In the meantime, other tow manufacturers announced price hikes. Cerdia, for example, announced a cost surcharge of $0.46 per kilogram on all acetate tow grade shipments as of March 2022.

    Christian Chavassieu

    “Last year, prices for acetate pulp went through the roof because of rising costs for wood, chemicals, labor, energy and shipping,” says Christian Chavassieu, managing partner at CelCo Cellulose Consulting in Geneva. “Manufacturers could either accept the price increase or risk a shortage.” Acetate tow suppliers also suffered from other issues, such as a lack of essential chemicals. Acetate tow is made by dissolving wood pulp in a mixture of acetic anhydride and sulfuric acid. The resulting solution is then extruded through small holes to form thin fibers, which are cut into small lengths after cooling.

    To create high-purity cellulose pulp as used in acetate tow, 95 percent to 97 percent of the cellulose content has to be extracted. Only a handful of specialized companies are capable of this process. The cellulose “bank” is the world’s biggest source of organic raw material with 700 billion tons, according to CelCo Cellulose Consulting. The overwhelming part of cellulose products manufactured every year is used to manufacture paper, packaging and tissue.

    The specialty cellulose industry, of which acetate tow manufacturers are a part, accounts for only 2.5 percent of the entire processed cellulose spectrum. “Hit with higher pulp prices, suppliers of acetate tow have been forced to pass the increase on to their customers. In its recently published second quarter results, Eastman Chemical said that prices for acetate tow went up 33 percent, leading to 32 percent higher selling prices,” says Chavassieu.

    Higher selling prices were also due to more efficient use of production facilities. “Some players, such as Eastman, have diversified their mills to produce textile fibers to improve their capacity utilization,” explains Chavassieu.

    HTPs Drive Demand

    Hyunyoung Park

    Hyunyoung Park, sales and business development manager at Taeyoung Industry Corp., a South Korea-based supplier of mono, dual and triple filters, says the scarcity of acetate tow occurred in part to an unplanned production stoppage at a leading supplier. “This trend has not ended and will continue until the balance shows stable figures,” he says.

    The increasing popularity of heated-tobacco products (HTPs), too, has contributed to the tight market, according to Robert Pye, CEO of specialty filter manufacturer Filtrona. “We see rapid double-digit growth in HTPs, which basically use different grades of tow but actually increase the amount of tow that is used in comparison with combustible cigarettes because of the filter design. It eats up the decline in demand we have seen from traditional cigarettes.”

    Pye also attributes the current challenges in the acetate tow market to the Covid-19 pandemic, which decoupled supply chains. “Before, we were all in a just-in-time sort of mode, developing strategies for our supply chains,” he says. “This has changed—we have seen people wanting to have more inventory in their supply chain. Basically, manufacturers have reduced the risk of shortage and developed a different way of managing supply chains.”

    The Russia-Ukraine conflict has left its mark too, with some supply from those locations affected. “This has definitely made the supply chain more complex,” says Pye. Like Chavassieu, he expects these developments to continue. “We’re seeing an inflationary market in acetate tow,” Pye says. “Supply is somewhat tight. It won’t continue up, but how much it comes back would be something the market would have to see. I don’t see too much change for next year.”

    Their views are reflected by another major acetate tow manufacturer, Japan-based Daicel, whose management recently forecast that the worldwide demand for cigarettes would gradually start increasing after 2026. Daicel’s management said it anticipated demand for acetate tow to remain stable or increase, driven by the proportion of demand for HTPs, which currently account for 3 percent of the global tobacco market and are expected to increase by 0.5 percent to 1 percent annually in the future.

    An increase in the length of cigarette filters to cater to consumers’ growing health awareness and an increase in filter use in countries such as Indonesia, Bangladesh and India were named as further contributing factors. Daicel expected the recent increases in raw material and fuel prices to level off soon but the demand for acetate tow to consistently exceed supply.

    Sustainable Solutions

    Robert Pye

    As a long-time global player with long-term supplier contracts, Filtrona has been unaffected by the shortages, according to Pye. “The way we had our supply chains organized allowed us to grow in double digits that year. We also supply a sustainable range of products, which helped customers in some markets.”

    Park adds that his company has noticed new requirements for a secure supply chain and sourcing stability. “Customers are benefiting from the stable supply chain network we have built up and continued during the pandemic,” he says.

    Pye notes that the shortage of cellulose acetate has been driving interest in Filtrona’s biodegradable filters, such as the Eco range of products, in more regions, predominantly around western Europe but also elsewhere. “Also, products like BiTech, a mono-segment filter produced in a single pass and offered in various ratios of tow and either paper or other nonwoven materials, thus using less acetate tow than a normal filter, were more sought after,” he says.

    While paper-based solutions have traditionally been more expensive than CA filters, the price gap has narrowed recently. “These days, the cost and capability of the nonwoven products are more interesting,” says Pye. “There are certain characteristics to the product line that make them more interesting to compete with acetate tow.”

    Excluding China, special filters account for 5 percent of the global market. Of these, Filtrona has a market share of nearly 50 percent. The remaining share is divided between smaller local players. “We see the market growing, mainly in areas where tobacco companies may want to differentiate themselves from other brands, for example, when they operate in regions with plain packaging,” says Pye. “Special filters are also becoming increasingly popular with manufacturers with a maturing customer base, i.e., when consumers are moving up from their gross domestic product, more specialty products come into these markets. India is an example of this: A few years ago, the country had very limited flavor-based products. Today, it has lots of flavors, tubes and other complex filters. The market has more specialty filters in the last two years than in the last 10 years combined.”

    Pye thinks this trend will continue. “Filtrona’s task is to bring new filter technologies into these markets,” he says. “That’s why we have a joint venture in China. The Chinese market uses all sorts of slims, such as super slims or demi slims, but not too many combined filters, and previously, there hasn’t been a market for additives either.”

    Despite the challenges, the market is quite dynamic, according to Pye, with different regions having requirements for different filters and specialty filters and even in filter supply. “We see this dynamic playing out not on a daily but on a quite regular basis, with sustainability and HTPs becoming more important,” he says. “The challenges in supply chains haven’t quite left us, so I think it’s an interesting time. As a supplier and committed partner to this industry, we’re making sure that we can help the industry move into more sustainable solutions but also ensure they get the supply because their supply chains are challenged as well.”

    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.
  • Half-Baked

    Half-Baked

    Photo: vchalup

    Germany’s comparatively high smoking rate shows that cessation-only policies are insufficient to end cigarettes.

    By Stefanie Rossel

    Alexander Nussbaum | Photo: PMI

    Germans, it appears from anecdotal experience, are a stubborn species when it comes to smoking cessation. During a recent holiday at the French Riviera, we had a heavily smoking couple from the Lower Rhine as neighbors at our resort. Out of professional interest, I asked them whether they had ever tried to quit. The husband showed me a scary-looking scar on the side of his ribcage and said, yes, he had stopped for two years after his surgery but then relapsed to smoking what looked like at least a pack per day. Quitting again was clearly not on his agenda nor on his wife’s. At the mention of less hazardous alternatives to combustible cigarettes, they gave me a skeptical look.

    That smokers like these are the rule rather than an exception confirms a survey commissioned by Philip Morris Germany (PMG) that looked at the barriers to quitting. Carried out first in 2021 and updated in 2022, the research found that last year, 51.3 percent of the 1,000 participating German adult smokers representing all age groups, genders and federal states did not want to give up smoking—only slightly less than in the first edition of the study (53.5 percent).

    The German Survey on Smoking Behavior (DEBRA), a bi-monthly representative, face-to-face household survey on the use of tobacco and alternative nicotine-delivery systems (ANDS) conducted by Heinrich Heine University Duesseldorf, measured an even lower motivation to quit smoking in Germany, relates Alexander Nussbaum, head of scientific and medical affairs at PMG. “Almost three-quarters of the nearly 19,000 smokers surveyed did not express the intention to quit smoking,” he said. “Our own survey from 2022 confirms what we already measured in 2021: More than half of German smokers do not currently express the intention to quit smoking. Even those who are motivated to quit smoking are rarely specific in their plans: Only 3 percent to 5 percent of them plan to quit in the next month.”

    At 64.4 percent, it’s particularly smokers over 65 years who are uninterested in stopping. In addition, the PMG study found, every third smoker over 50 years of age has never seriously tried to quit. There’s a pronounced correlation between motivation and actual quitting attempts; 76.4 percent of smokers who never tried to stop smoking were also unmotivated to quit.

    Motivation for smoking cessation also varied between socioeconomic groups: 64.5 percent of participants in the lowest income group said they had no intention to quit whereas in the highest income group, the figure was 43 percent. “Even among smokers with the highest educational level in our survey—‘college, university without/with degree’—almost half were not motivated to quit smoking in 2021,” said Nussbaum. “However, this proportion increased to 61 percent for smokers with the lowest educational level—i.e., ‘elementary school with/without completed apprenticeship.’ The motivation to stop smoking is not solely dependent on education. Rather, our results from 2022 show a strong correlation with income.”

    Beyond Smokers’ Reality of Life

    Depending on the sources, between 23 percent and 34 percent—that is, between 17 million and 18.9 million of the more than 83 million Germans—currently smoke. Smoking prevalence in the country is significantly higher than in other European nations. Germany, which ratified the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) in 2005, has repeatedly been criticized for being too lax in implementing tobacco control measures, most recently by Ruediger Krech, the WHO director for health promotion. On the occasion of the publication of the ninth WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic on July 31, 2023, Krech noted that the country’s ban on indoor smoking was inconsistent, advertisements against the harmful effects of smoking in public spaces were poorly enforced and inflation had little impact on the affordability of tobacco products.

    Whether higher prices or expanded smoking bans would significantly reduce prevalence is questionable when looking at the reasons people named for continuing to smoke, however. According to PMG’s survey, 50.1 percent of participants stated that they enjoy smoking, making this the biggest barrier to smoking cessation. That share was particularly high among older smokers (58 percent) and those with no motivation to quit (62 percent). More than half of the people surveyed had been smoking for more than 20 years, making habits and learned behavior another major barrier to quitting smoking. “Lack of discipline” was quoted as a further hindrance. Only 12 percent named “cost” (of offers or products to support quitting cigarette smoking) as keeping them from stopping smoking.

    It’s not that there weren’t any smoking cessation programs or initiatives available. Since 2014, for example, the S3 guideline, “Smoking and tobacco dependence: screening, diagnosis and treatment,” has provided healthcare professionals with recommendations on how to help smokers quit. S3 means that the guideline has undergone all elements of a systemic development, including decision and outcome analysis and assessment of the clinical relevance of scientific studies. The recommendations of the current S3 guideline include low-threshold tools such as short motivational counseling and envisage nicotine-replacement therapy (NRT) only as a last measure after education and psychotherapeutic support. The guideline advises explicitly against using e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid.

    “A medical smoking cessation guideline is primarily effective among smokers who are already motivated to stop smoking and who seek advice from their family doctor or pharmacist on how they can completely give up tobacco and nicotine, which is always the best option,” says Nussbaum. “However, it is also a fact that the majority of smokers in Germany are currently not motivated to quit smoking, and this is reflected in the stable or even increasing smoking rate. This in turn suggests that the measures taken to date, including the smoking cessation guideline, are missing the needs of the majority of smokers.”

    This is also evident from the fact that e-cigarettes are now used by 10 percent of smokers to wean themselves off of cigarette smoking, according to the DEBRA study. This makes vapor products the most frequently used form of cessation support in Germany, despite the fact that they are not recommended in the guideline and despite the prevailing misperceptions about comparative health risks. According to a survey by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), 63.3 percent of smokers consider e-cigarettes to be at least as risky as combustible cigarettes.

    “The results [of the PMG survey] clearly show that the best measures, such as the gold standard of NRT and behavioral therapy recommended in the medical smoking cessation guideline, are of little use if they do not reach the smokers’ reality of life, for instance, because the motivation to stop smoking is lacking,” says Nussbaum. “That said, alternative nicotine products, such as e-cigarettes, heated-tobacco products or nicotine pouches, are not cessation tools but rather consumer products for adult smokers who for whatever reason are not quitting cigarette smoking.”

    Wanted: Clear Communication

    Nussbaum calls for support of measures that promote complete smoking cessation. “This includes education among medical professionals and their adequate remuneration, e.g., by health insurances, for smoking cessation treatment as well as low-threshold access to therapeutics,” he says.

    For adult smokers who would otherwise continue to smoke, alternative noncombusted nicotine products could better address their barriers and significantly reduce exposure to harmful substances from cigarette smoke as intended by the concept of harm reduction, he adds. The German government, he insists, should invest more in education campaigns to help smokers properly assess the relative risks of cigarettes versus noncombusted alternatives and make better choices than continued smoking if they do not quit nicotine use altogether.

    Nussbaum calls for a clear, unambiguous education. “For example, as in the U.K., simple-worded flyers that say: ‘The harmfulness of cigarette smoking is primarily related to the toxicants from tobacco combustion’ and: ‘Alternative nicotine products such as e-cigarettes, heated-tobacco products, or nicotine pouches are not risk-free and still contain the addictive nicotine, but, for all we know today, have considerably less potential for harm than cigarettes,’” he says.

    The sole focus on the protection of young people is obviously not having the intended effect, notes Nussbaum. On the contrary, according to the DEBRA study, cigarette smoking—by far the most harmful form of nicotine consumption—is currently rising among young people while the smoking rate among adults continues to stagnate.

    “I believe that all stakeholders in the healthcare system who are interested in differentiated risk communication have a responsibility, including the Federal Drug Commissioner and authorities such as the Federal Center for Health Education and the BfR,” he says. “The same applies to medical societies and health insurance companies—many of which, however, have not treated smoking, smoking cessation and the scientific evidence for harm reduction with the necessary focus.”

    For its study update, PMG also surveyed former smokers who had switched to e-cigarettes or tobacco-heating products. Interestingly, they cited similar barriers to quitting smoking in retrospect. “What surprised us: Many aspects, such as ‘enjoy smoking,’ ‘can’t see it through’ or ‘don’t want to cut down,’ were even more pronounced in this sample in retrospect than among current smokers,” said Nussbaum.

    “Nevertheless, they have managed to abandon cigarette smoking. We are currently investigating whether the level of information about alternative nicotine products was decisive for the switch. Overall, this shows us: Alternative nicotine products without tobacco combustion have the potential to open a pathway away from the by far most harmful form of nicotine use, cigarette smoking, for a large group of smokers with no motivation to stop smoking and with barriers such as ‘I enjoy smoking.’” Due to misperception, this potential remains largely unused, according to Nussbaum.

    U.K. Leads the Way

    To reach this base of smokers unwilling to quit, both manufacturers and regulators have a responsibility, stresses Nussbaum. “Alternatives developed by the industry must […] address the needs of the many smokers who are not motivated to quit smoking,” he says. “In addition to the development of alternative products, their regulation in comparison with cigarettes regarding tax/price, communication options, product testing in specialist shops, etc., plays a decisive role in ensuring that they are attractive to adult smokers who would otherwise continue to smoke, without attracting nonsmokers. To achieve the ideal solution of quitting all tobacco and nicotine products, NRTs remain a valid option, especially for motivated smokers willing to use them. NRTs are most effective when used in combination with behavioral therapy or adjunctive support.”

    Nussbaum points to the U.K. as an example for Germany to follow in its efforts to reduce smoking prevalence. “Alternative nicotine products are an important pillar in the strategy to curb cigarette smoking in the U.K., which is part of the FCTC. Remarkably, this is in line with the FCTC, which lists ‘harm reduction’ as one of several pillars of tobacco control,” he says.

    “At the same time, the U.K. applies a very strict regulatory framework around cigarettes. It is precisely this differentiation based on the scientifically supported differences between nicotine products—the ‘risk continuum’—that seems to account for the success of the British approach. The consequence is a very low smoking rate by international standards of just over 10 percent.”

    The U.K.’s success has also been bolstered by differentiated risk communications about alternative nicotine products and cigarettes through easily understandable messages such as “Clearing up some myths around e-cigarettes” by the U.K. Health Security Agency or the recently published fact sheet “Addressing common myths about vaping” by the U.K. public health charity Action on Smoking and Health (ASH).

    “One looks in vain for something like this from German health authorities,” laments Nussbaum.

    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.
  • A Captivating Compound

    A Captivating Compound

    The role of nicotine in tobacco harm reduction

    By Grant Churchill

    As a pharmacologist, I remain perplexed that most people, including scientists and doctors, are under the misconception that the harms of tobacco come from nicotine. Indeed, they believe that tobacco and nicotine are equivalent and that nicotine is carcinogenic. All not true. The thesis of this article is that the vast majority of the known harms of tobacco come from chemicals other than nicotine. Using the best current scientific evidence, I will first outline a few background concepts, including the scientific process, chemical terminology and a central concept of pharmacology. I will then cover the harms from tobacco and the harms from nicotine itself and compare them on a risk-benefit basis. I conclude that, based on the objective risks, nicotine is an excellent option for achieving tobacco harm reduction.

    Another common misconception is that science is a list of facts. Science is a process in which there is never absolute proof but rather a continuum of probabilities of belief. As Benjamin Disraeli said, “When the evidence changes, I change my mind, what do you do?” Therefore, if the scientific evidence changes, the conclusions of this article will also change. The experimental evidence also has degrees of strength and is often debatable and controversial, especially where results from studies using isolated chemicals on cells and animals in the lab are extrapolated to humans.

    In common parlance when we say something contains “chemicals,” it means artificial additives or synthetic compounds and comes with a negative connotation. Moreover, “organic” is taken to mean natural, no additives and “chemical-free,” which is impossible as everything is made up of chemicals, including us humans. Often, “synthetic” is associated with toxic and “natural” with harmless. From a pharmacologist’s point of view, a chemical is never given a binary classification of toxic or nontoxic but has a degree of harm related to the dose, as stated by Paracelsus that “the dose makes the poison,” which forms a central concept in pharmacology. So, stating that nicotine is toxic, in a certain sense, is very true, but so is water, as about 4 liters will kill a person. Conversely, botulinum toxin is both natural and one of the most toxic substances known, yet it is used safely at low doses for removing wrinkles. The proper question is not whether nicotine is toxic but rather: What is the exposure dose relative to the toxic dose?

    With the above as background, I now address the relationship of nicotine to tobacco through the lens of harm reduction. In terms of epidemiological data, smoked tobacco carries extensive harms in terms of cancers, lung disease and lost lives and shortened life expectancy. As a pharmacologist, it is patently obvious that tobacco, especially smoked tobacco, is not nicotine and that nicotine is not tobacco. As professor Michael Russell stated, “People smoke for nicotine, but they die from the tar.” Definitions vary, but tar is particulate matter made up of a very complicated mix of only partially known chemicals. Indeed, tobacco smoke is estimated to contain up to 7,000 chemicals, and around 100 are known toxins and/or carcinogens at exposure levels experienced by smokers.

    Most of the harmful chemicals form when tobacco burns (combustion). During combustion, tobacco provides the fuel in the form of chemicals composed mainly of linked carbon and hydrogen (akin to the chemical cellulose in wood fueling a log fire) that split apart and combine with oxygen to form carbon dioxide and dihydrogen oxide (water!). Total conversion is complete or clean combustion, but tobacco combustion is incomplete and results in carbon monoxide rather than dioxide and soot and tar, which are carbon-based chemicals created by the heat, which facilitates a process whereby the bonds that hold atoms together are rearranged to produce a bewildering complex array of new chemicals.

    One major class of chemicals in tar is polyaromatic hydrocarbons, which are large, flat molecules composed of six-membered rings (chicken wire) that insert between the stacked bases of DNA and cause errors when it replicates. Some chemicals are volatile organic compounds, such as aldehydes (formaldehyde and acetaldehyde), which are highly chemically reactive and modify DNA bases. Changes in DNA bases result in mutations, the genetic equivalent of spelling mistakes, and can cause cancer. Other harmful volatile chemicals have acute effects, such as carbon monoxide, which displaces oxygen from hemoglobin in blood.

    Some of these so-called toxic chemicals in tobacco smoke are natural metabolites produced in our bodies enzymatically, such as carbon monoxide and formaldehyde. All aldehydes are highly reactive and can be harmful, including glucose, but in low amounts, those produced or consumed are detoxified through metabolism. This further illustrates that it is not the chemical or its origin (natural or synthetic) but the dose that makes the poison. From an evolutionary perspective, we evolved consuming many toxic chemicals from our environment and have methods to detoxify and excrete these. Tobacco smoke is exceptionally harmful not due to the presence of a given chemical but crucially the dose to which a smoker is exposed.

    It seems perverse for humans to smoke, that is, to create a large and unknown mixture of chemicals through burning and then inhale them. Yet, humans have inhaled the smoke from plant material for millennia and continue to do so to get a fast rush from psychoactive drugs in them. It is interesting to examine the possible origins of this behavior. It has been suggested that this began with the use of fire to cook our food, which destroys pathogens and toxins, and the use of smoke, which preserves food from microbial spoilage. Evolutionarily, fire and smoke had health benefits over the short term (to enable us to pass on our genes through reproduction), but evolution does not select against long-term harms. We are the products of this evolutionary pressure and have a strong preference for the charred and caramelized flavors and “tobacco” notes in food and drink. Unfortunately, the desirable aromas and flavors are part of a large mixture of chemicals formed upon combustion, so with the antimicrobial chemicals also come, most unfortunately, irritants and carcinogens.

    The discussion above outlines why tobacco, particularly when burned, is harmful, but what about nicotine itself? Theoretically, nicotine could be harmful based on its chemical reactivity as carcinogens such as nitrosamines modify DNA or through pharmacological means with nicotine interacting with its biological target, the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor. Nicotine itself is unreactive, and although metabolic reactions in the body in the liver oxidize it and can make it into reactive metabolites, the dose is very low and not considered meaningful. Nicotine is commonly thought to be a carcinogen, but there is no scientific evidence supporting this. In some literature, the term “cancer promoter” has been conflated with carcinogen. In some studies, with cells in the lab, nicotine has been shown to be a cancer promoter. Promoters are compounds that stimulate cell growth and sensitize cells to chemical carcinogens that damage DNA. Any substance that enhances cell growth can potentially be a cancer promoter, such as glucose or even certain vitamins. So, while technically true in cells in culture, in intact humans, there is no evidence that this is a concern, and nicotine is not considered a carcinogen. These data illustrate a specific challenge in studying the potential effects and harms of nicotine as much of the research into the potential harms of nicotine comes from studies in cells and animals where the doses used are often very high, leading to results that are controversial and difficult to extrapolate to humans.

    Do the pharmacological effects of nicotine on the three subtypes of its receptor result in any toxicity? For acute toxicity, the lethal dose is between 60 mg and 600 mg (30 cigarettes to 300 cigarettes), with toxicity resulting from stimulation of the least sensitive subtype of receptor (neuromuscular) that is present on nerves that stimulate skeletal muscle. The most sensitive subtype are the brain receptors, which elicit the cognitive and mood effects of nicotine and have been suggested to underlie neurological developmental problems, but the data are correlative rather than causal. The third receptor subtype (ganglionic) resides in nerves controlling the “flight or fight” adrenaline response and mediates the most investigated and substantiated potentially harmful effects of nicotine per se and give rise to cardiovascular effects. For example, nicotine has been shown to increase blood pressure, heart rate and cause blood vessels to become atherosclerotic. However, the effects are not large and are currently not considered a concern except possibly for those with cardiovascular disease. Indeed, professor David Nutt has noted that the size of the effect is similar to watching a scary movie.

    The disconnect between the cellular/animal studies and human studies is not unique to nicotine and has been well documented for bacon, coffee and even vegetables. In bacon cured with nitrate salts, cooking results in the formation of nitrosamines, which are highly carcinogenic in rats but not humans because humans metabolize nitrosamines differently than rodents. In humans, there is an epidemiological risk from eating bacon, but it is far less than suggested by the rodent studies. Roasted coffee beans contain 826 volatile chemicals, and of the 21 tested, 16 are rodent carcinogens, but, paradoxically, drinking coffee has health benefits in the human population. Professor Bruce Ames’ work has shown that many chemicals from vegetables test positive in rodent carcinogenicity tests, but consuming vegetables in our diets is protective, illustrating that the results from individual chemicals at high concentrations cannot be reliably extrapolated to their effect on humans. The take-home message from these studies is that human epidemiological data are the ultimate test and trump any lab-based results, be they on DNA, cells or animals. Overall, the well-conducted studies that can separate the effects of nicotine from those of other chemicals, such as in tobacco smoke, have revealed minimal effects and harms from nicotine itself, but this area remains controversial.

    In regard to nicotine, the most informative studies are those done in humans. Somewhat ironically, the best evidence for the effects of nicotine itself come from use of a particular form of tobacco called snus. Snus is used in a packet placed between the gums and lips, and nicotine is absorbed through oral mucosal membranes. Snus is not burned nor does it contain high amounts of nitrosamines, which are carcinogens present in unburned tobacco at amounts dependent on the drying and curing process. If snus use were associated with health harms, it would be impossible to disentangle the chemical cause being nicotine or another chemical. Specifically, prevalence statistics and epidemiological data indicate that the use of snus confers a significant harm reduction benefit, which is reflected in the comparatively low levels of tobacco-related disease in Sweden when compared with the rest of Europe. The available scientific data, including long-term population studies conducted by independent bodies, demonstrates that the health risks associated with snus are considerably lower than those associated with cigarette smoking. By extension, one can infer minimal or no harm with nicotine use. But, as you might have guessed, interpretation of these data is controversial.

    To conclude, in regard to tobacco harm reduction, the question is not whether nicotine has any harm but rather how harmful is nicotine relative to tobacco. Given that tobacco smoke is exceptionally harmful, anything that can reduce smoking will have health benefits to both the individual and society. Nicotine, the chemical itself, is addictive, but from a pharmacological perspective, when used as intended through properly regulated means, the balance of evidence shows that it has minimal harm. Therefore, nicotine is an excellent means for tobacco harm reduction as it can combat smoking, the largest cause of preventable deaths worldwide.

    Grant Churchill is a professor of chemical pharmacology at the University of Oxford.
  • At Your Service

    At Your Service

    Photo: Phil McCarthy

    Tobacco Reporter’s Publisher, Elise Rasmussen, is Installed as Master of the Worshipful Company of Tobacco Pipe Makers & Tobacco Blenders.

    By David Roach

    “The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others.”

    As the industry gathered last month in the grand setting of Vintners’ Hall in the city of London, home to the Worshipful Company of Vintners since the 1440s, I was reminded of this wise maxim from Mahatma Gandhi.

    Elise Rasmussen has built her career in the industry, whether through this publication, Tobacco Reporter, the GTNF or Women in Tobacco. Not only can she boast an impressive CV as a woman who has made it in a man’s world, but over the past 10 years, she has devoted herself to the service of others as well. Through both fellowship and philanthropy, she has played an active part in the Worshipful Company of Tobacco Pipe Makers & Tobacco Blenders, one of London’s renowned Livery Companies. 

    Elise’s installation, as only the second female master in the Livery’s 400-year history, affirmed that devotion when she swore an oath while being gowned at a meeting of the Court, the governing body of the Livery Company. 

    In addition to playing an integral role in the governance of the city of London, the Livery Company supports people in need through its charitable works, a centuries-old tradition of the Livery movement. Its members donate to the company’s Benevolent Fund, which supports a broad range of U.K.-registered charities, with a particular focus on the advancement of education, the arts, culture and heritage, the relief of those who are disadvantaged and His Majesty’s Armed Forces.

    Elise has taken on the awesome responsibility of leading this four-centuries-old institution, and it is to be admired. As Elise, and her predecessor, reminded the 150 Liverymen, Freemen and invited guests during the speeches that followed her installation lunch in the main Livery Hall, the next year will be a real test of stamina. 

    Over 100 engagements await her, promoting the work of the Livery, supporting the two affiliations it has, chairing Court meetings and performing numerous ceremonial duties. 

    Muhammad Ali once said that “service to others is the rent you pay for your room here on earth.” In Elise’s case, she will have earned a very large one by the time she hangs up her chain next June.

     

  • Learning From the Past

    Learning From the Past

    Photo: Lukas

    This year’s GFN looked at past successes and continuing challenges for tobacco harm reduction.

    By Stefanie Rossel

    “Tobacco harm reduction—the next decade” was the theme of this year’s Global Forum on Nicotine (GFN), which took place in Warsaw June 21–24, 2023. For the first time, the presentations stretched over four full days. Some 220 delegates from 40 countries attended the event, which also marked the 10th anniversary of the conference—a good time for a look back not only on the progress of and the opportunities but also on the challenges facing tobacco harm reduction (THR).

    The picture of THR currently is highly fragmented, as became clear during a workshop on global regulation. Regulatory treatment of safer nicotine products varies widely among countries. There’s Australia, where vape products are available on prescription only and just 5 percent of doctors can prescribe nicotine. By contrast, the Philippines, after a 10-year debate, last year introduced a law that treats vapes differently than tobacco products, offering nicotine users easier access to less hazardous products.

    In the European Union, there is a double layer of regulation, which relates to the harmonization of the 27 member states and the national adoption of the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD2). Trends influencing legislation include polarizing views of member states, so countries are advocating for more regulatory freedom within the EU. Mexico has banned the sale and production, but not the use, of reduced-risk products (RRPs). Kenya’s RRP taxes are so high that they constitute a de facto ban.

    For many countries, tobacco control is a relatively low priority, and smokers have been left behind in the discussion.

    GFN participants cited Australia as an example of how not to regulate vaping. Nicotine can be legally bought from pharmacies only with a prescription. This has led to a flourishing unregulated market. Ninety-two percent of Australian vapers source their e-cigarettes from the black market. To curb illicit trade, Australia plans to ban the import of all nonprescription vaping products, including those that don’t contain nicotine. Colors, flavors, volumes and nicotine content of prescription e‑cigarettes will be restricted, and packaging must be pharmaceutical-like.

    Consumers trying to get a prescription in Australia face many barriers, many of which are due to the country’s geography. Doctors have an inadequate understanding of smoking and nicotine addiction, and they must be registered as an authorized nicotine prescriber. Once they have the prescription, consumers must convince a pharmacist, who usually has limited stock, to get nicotine. While several Australian states have legalized possession of drugs, vape products are becoming an illicit product. In a survey, 81 percent of Australian vapers said that they would return to smoking if they had no access to vaping.

    Tobacco Control: A Substitute Religion

    The stigmatization of THR bears a strong resemblance to religion, according to participants in the panel discussion on science, regulation and morality. Bans are about social engineering, and the regulatory wording reveals an ideology of people who want to control others. As an example, panelists cited the imagery used to scare people off vaping (“vaping causes brain worms”).

    There is still a lot of disinformation, misinformation and misleading science, and knowledge of THR in the wider harm reduction community remains limited. And although certain debates, such as the cause of e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury (EVALI), have been settled by science, they remain a topic of discussion, a phenomenon that panelists found very frustrating.

    A panel evaluating the past 10 years of science reminded the audience that first attempts at safer products date back 30 years to 40 years, when the first heated-tobacco products (HTPs), Eclipse and Accord, hit the market. The introduction of modern HTPs in 2014 changed the landscape. Snus in Sweden has an even longer history. If this type of oral nicotine was accepted in the rest of Europe, 3 million smoking-related deaths could be avoided, the panelists pointed out.

    Thanks to advances in technology, the new generation of e-cigarettes provides safer nicotine delivery than its predecessors. As years go by, data on vaping accumulates. Recently, the Oxford Foundation confirmed there was strong evidence that e-cigarettes help people quit.

    Tobacco control advocates apply double standards to nicotine, however: In their minds, the benign nicotine in medical smoking cessation products becomes a lethal, toxic substance as soon as it leaves the pharmacy. This leads to some grotesque situations. In Austria, for example, nicotine-replacement therapies are flavored and can be sold to children from the age of 12.

    While in the 1980s and 1990s, tobacco control was about the “endgame” against cigarettes, the war has now turned against nicotine, according to GFN panelists. Countries such as Finland, for example, discuss nicotine ceilings in nicotine pouches. To convince tobacco control that their science is reliable, panelists agreed that the industry must change its communication strategies and talk about science outside of the usual places. Real-data science, which is already available, will make a big difference in the next decade, one speaker predicted. It could help drive the policy debate and improve the reputation of the tobacco industry. Industry science should be based on geographies and sales of RRPs, according to the speaker.

    Getting the Message Out

    Scientific publishing is important as it creates transparency and builds trust. According to a panel on the politics of such publishing, more than 2 million peer-reviewed articles were published in 2021. Good journals have at least two referee reports; three tend to improve the quality of the article. Rejection rates are high. Most journals have little expertise with the tobacco and nicotine industries. Scientific publishing is a massive, $28 billion-a-year industry built on the backs of volunteers. Despite the barriers to publication, the two largest tobacco companies have published more than 350 manuscripts on RRPs.

    Next to the established publications are open access journals. Their selection criteria are purely financial, as each accepted manuscript attracts a fee. While they are looking to publish as much sound science as possible, the downside is that the hurdle to becoming a publisher has dropped, and industry scientists should beware of untrustworthy, predatory journals.

    One of the critical issues regarding tobacco industry transformation is the question of whether it is reaching low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), where around 80 percent of smokers live. Currently, RRPs barely feature in the 137 LMICs, partly due to regulatory restrictions. Twenty-six LMICs, including major markets such as Brazil, India and Argentina, ban RRPs. Many consumers are unaware of reduced-risk options, with some even believing they are more harmful than smoking. If available, RRPs are expensive and difficult to access in LMICs.

    While lumped together into a single category, LMICs in fact comprise a collection of very different countries with greatly varying consumer preferences. The World Health Organization, a declared opponent of THR, tends to enjoy considerable credibility in these regions. Other hurdles to RRPs in LMICs include the tendency of regulators to view the terms “tobacco” and “nicotine” as interchangeable and the low awareness in the medical community about the role of nicotine.  

    BAT’s introduction of modern oral nicotine in Kenya and Pakistan is an example of a promising first step and shows that products need to be designed from the point of view of the consumer.

    The Pros of Nicotine

    Tobacco control has turned its war on cigarettes into a war on nicotine, but the supposedly evil substance has a vast pharmacological potential, according to one presenter. The positive effect of nicotine in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease or schizophrenia is already known. A more recent studies revealed nicotine to be an efficient therapy for mild cognitive impairment as well.

    Other conditions, such as late life depression, also benefit from nicotine stimulation. Nicotine can help modulate aggressive behavior in autistic patients, and scientists are currently examining its efficiency in combating the loss of hearing. In the next six months, researchers will also start investigating whether nicotine could help treat the cognitive syndrome (“brain fog”) that sometimes accompanies Long Covid.

    Unfortunately, the progress of THR over the past decade, with more than 100 million people using RRPs today, has also had a less welcome effect in the form of electronic waste. The growing popularity of disposable vapes in particular has led to an increasing number of batteries and other components ending up in landfills and causing fires.

    To solve the problem, manufacturers should consider standardizing the materials in their products, looking at biodegradable components for tanks and making the batteries removable, according to GFN panelists. Retailers should offer to take back used products for recycling, and consumers, too, must take their responsibility. One panelist said he wanted to set up a study to find out what motivates people to bring back their devices and to what extent such behavior could be spurred by financial incentives.

    Stigmatize, Exclude, Silence

    So who has a stake in the THR game? Certainly, the industry should have one, one panelist argued, as it has the will and the money, which unlocks science in toxicology, behavioral research or postmarket surveillance surveys. The industry also knows how to make consumers switch quickly, and it has the scale of manufacturing and distribution to deliver these products to the biggest possible audience in a short time.

    Vulnerable communities, which represent a large percentage of smokers, appear to have no such stake, however—an equity issue that needs to be addressed. While article 5.3 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which aims to protect tobacco control policies against tobacco industry influence—does target smokers, this group remains conspicuously absent from discussions about the tobacco control process.

    Medicinal licensing of vape products was not considered a solution by panelists since many smokers don’t view their habit as a medical problem. Besides, such an approach stifles innovation, as the authorization of medicinal products takes a long time, and the resulting products are not necessarily the ones consumers want.

    Children, too, should be seen as stakeholders in the debate, according to one panelist. If they lose their parents to smoking-related death, they are traumatized, and this will influence their later relationships. That means THR is a child welfare issue, the speaker claimed, quoting a 2013 study that found that if all tobacco control policies were implemented, there would still be 523 million smokers in the world.

    A plenary discussion focused on “the tobacco control playbook” revealed the methods that tobacco control activists have been using since RRP started gaining traction years ago. Measures include attempts to delegitimize, stigmatize, silence and exclude THR proponents and people with ties to the tobacco industry, however tenuous, from smoking cessation conferences.

    Academic journals have silenced authors with research funding, however indirect, from tobacco companies. The University of Bath, which on its TobaccoTactics website keeps a running tab of people linked to the industry, has planted stories with journalists, including those it funded.

    There have been attempts at making journal editors reject papers published by grantees of the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW), which receives funding from Philip Morris International. While in many areas of health, governments consult with consumer groups, vapers are viewed with suspicion and suspected of being on Big Tobacco’s payroll. Academics have suggested links between vapers and tobacco companies where there aren’t any.

    Those in tobacco control who think differently but don’t speak up against these methods become accomplices, according to one panelist. Tobacco control, he observed, needs people to blame. In the future, every opportunity should be taken to raise objections—for instance, to university ethics committees who fail to protect people, to journal editors and editorial boards that publish inaccurate articles and to academic institutions that receive funding for activist tobacco control work. Finding enemies is now so embedded in the tobacco control psyche that these activists have no interest in finding common ground. Nevertheless, optimism prevailed in the panel. The question, they argued, is not if but when THR will succeed.

    Achievements and Obstacles

    For THR to make progress in the future, a look at the past may be useful. In 2012, massive protest by vapers helped avert a ban on vaping in the EU. In 2014–2015, Public Health England acknowledged the relative safety of e-cigarettes, opening many eyes to the promise of vaping as a smoking cessation tool. One year later, Kenya became the first country to regulate vape products. Around this time, the split between pro-vaping and anti-vaping advocates occurred.

    In 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration started regulating all nicotine products as tobacco products. This had a domino effect around the world.

    Founded in 2017, the FSFW faced strong opposition. In 2018, consumers joined a legal challenge to the EU snus ban. One year later, the Indian government banned vaping while in the U.S., misinformation about EVALI created a panic.

    New Zealand embraced vaping in 2021, and in 2022, the EU endorsed vapes as part of its Beating Cancer Plan. Around the same time, the Philippines introduced reasonable vaping regulations. In all three cases, consumer advocates played a vital role.

    This year, Quebec introduced a vape flavor ban, Australia announced a crackdown on vaping, and the U.K. launched its “swap to stop” scheme to encourage smokers to switch to e-cigarettes.

    The developments in the past decade, panelists concluded, were driven by instinct and moral concern on the policy side, which leads to prohibition. Indifference to different products is a risk. Youth use is heavily emphasized by health activists, and silence has become subordinate to the political agenda. Consumer advocacy, however, has been working in favor of THR. On a global scale, vaping is rising.

    GFN 2023 closed with an outlook on THR in the next decade. Participants in the final plenary discussion were confident that THR will happen one day—simply because things always change, RRPs are there, and there’s no going back. Education of the general public is vital to drive the debate. Children’s uptake needs to be solved, and THR proponents should remember that the debate is about more than vaping.

    More attention must be paid to THR in LMICs, particularly those that have dictatorships in which criticism means rebellion and informing consumers is impossible.

    To free themselves from their guilt from the past and be taken seriously in their claim to create a smoke-free world, tobacco companies should eventually divest their cigarette units.

    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.
  • A Growing Household

    A Growing Household

    Photos: Annick Vernimmen

    The Vandermarliere Family of Cigars is expanding.

    By Stefanie Rossel

    Cigars are a “gourmet” niche within the tobacco industry, but in the mass market cigar segment, sales keep growing. According to Statista, the global cigar revenues segment will amount to $22.43 billion this year, and the market is expected to increase at a compound annual growth rate of 4.28 percent between 2023 and 2027.

    With a revenue of $12.7 billion in 2023, the U.S. is the world’s largest market for cigars, followed by the U.K., China, Germany and Italy. One reason for the recent growth, Statista analysts say, is the fact that cigars have started gaining popularity among younger adult consumers in many countries, reversing a decades-long downward trend.

    One cigar company that has been growing in line with global market development is VCF of Zwevegem, Belgium. Founded in 1926, the family-owned business has a long tradition as a manufacturer of high-quality cigars and cigarillos. In the 1970s, VCF’s predecessor became the owner of the J. Cortes brand through the acquisition of the Belgian cigar manufacturers Neos Cigar. Chairman Guido Vandermarliere reinvented the brand, with a characteristic deep-blue packaging and select tobacco varieties.

    For many years, the company traded under the name J. Cortes, which turned the firm into a global player in the 1980s. In 2016, it took over U.S.-based Oliva Cigar Co., a family-run manufacturer of hand-rolled cigars with whom the Vandermarliere family had long-standing ties. It then brought J. Cortes and Oliva Cigars together under the umbrella of VCF—the Vandermarliere Family of Cigars.

    Today, Oliva Cigars is the parent company for all of VCF’s handmade cigars whereas J. Cortes is the overarching brand for all of the company’s machine-made products. The takeover of Oliva Cigars turned the United States into VCF’s most important market overnight. VCF now caters to more than 85 markets with both handmade and factory-made cigars.

    “Historically, France has been very important for our family, and the U.S. for the Oliva family,” says VCF CEO Fred Vandermarliere, who leads the company in the third generation. “When looking to Europe, we are strong where we have our own sales teams. This is the case in the Benelux, France, Spain, Germany and Italy.”

    Growing the Business

    VCF grows its own tobaccos to help guarantee a consistent flavor and quality.

    VCF has been expanding its sales and distribution networks in the latter two countries.

    In July 2022, VCF acquired two German cigar companies, Woermann Cigars and Wolfertz—transactions that set the stage for VCF to become one of the leading premium cigar distributors in Germany, which is one of the largest markets for non-Cuban cigars outside the U.S. In addition to selling its own brands, Woermann is also a distributor. Wolfertz, too, is a leading cigar distributor in Germany; the company has been distributing Oliva Cigars since 2010. VCF’s German cigar business, which was operated by four different German distributors before, was transferred to the new organization in January 2023.

    In June 2023, VCF announced a partnership with Cuban American cigar manufacturer EPC, under which VCF will start distributing EPC cigars in Italy.

    “In Italy, we only cover the sales part,” explains Vandermarliere. “Since the early 2000s, we have been investing in a local sales team. Germany is a different story. It’s a big cigar country, and there is no real central distribution. Entering the market there was always rather difficult, so we never really put much effort into it. That changed since Oliva and Olifant joined the family. Suddenly, we had a stronger portfolio and more leverage. It opened our mind to think about alternative solutions. We talked to all our partners, and finally Woermann and Wolfertz decided to join our family, making us stronger to survive the heavy legislation that was coming to us. Concerning sales, we are strongly convinced that keeping focus is important for the company and the sales team. Consistently hitting the same nail over and over again is in my opinion the real key to success, even though it’s not always fun.”

    New Processing Centers

    The takeover of Oliva Cigars turned the United States into VCF’s most important market overnight.

    Regarding its production facilities, VCF hasn’t been idle either. The company, which sources its tobaccos from all over the world, works in three locations: In Sri Lanka, it runs a tobacco processing factory, to which it sends all leaf tobaccos. Once processed, the leaves are sent back to Europe and made into cigars at VCF’s Belgian manufacturing plant in Handzame. Zwevegem is the company’s logistics center, where most of its cigars are packed, stamped for tax purposes and eventually distributed all over the globe.

    In the past two years, VCF’s manufacturing focus has been on hand-rolled cigars. The company invested millions of U.S. dollars in two state-of-the-art processing centers in Nicaragua for its Oliva Cigars division. Las Llantas in Condega and Las Mesitas in Esteli, situated about 40 km apart in the northwest of the central American country, became operational in December 2021 and 2022, respectively.

    The idea behind the ventures was to be able to closely monitor every step of the production so that soil, tobacco and handling reinforce each other to create a first-class product for cigar aficionados. For the same reason, VCF has also purchased farms in Nicaragua and is now growing its own tobaccos.

    “We are strong believers that’s it’s essential,” says Vandermarliere. “If you want to produce a premium cigar, it is necessary to control every part of the process. Having your own fields and growing your own tobaccos are a few of the steps that guarantee a consistent flavor and quality for now and for the future. The fields also provide a certainty of supply and have an ecological benefit. It enables you to test new seeds, new variations, working with less pesticides and water, etc. But this doesn’t exclude the collaboration with local farmers; it enforces it. We start to gain knowledge in our own fields and are then helping the independent farmers as much as possible to follow our tests when they are successful.”

    The new facilities have jointly created jobs for 1,400 local workers. The project has also boosted the local community, an important consideration in the company’s philosophy. In addition to creating the best possible working conditions for its employees, VCF has started a number of initiatives in Nicaragua, such as setting up a preschool with the Oliva Helping Hands Foundation. “Besides that, we have been doing charity for many years and all over the planet, with a focus on youth and the next generation,” says Vandermarliere. “We want people to have a chance at a better life, and it all starts with education. We have supported mobile schools in Sri Lanka and Nicaragua. There’s also the Procigar Initiative, which provides better housing for the local communities that we support every year.”

    Smaller Carbon Footprint

    On the other side of the Atlantic, VCF has reintroduced tobacco farming in Flanders, the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium. It’s another move to support the community; with its initiative, VCF hopes to revive knowledge about tobacco cultivation and the seed species that promote biodiversity in the region. But it also contributes to more sustainable production, says Vandermarliere. The main reason, he says, is to shorten the supply chain. “It is true that the crops are quite small and the Belgian soil does not grow every kind of tobacco,” says Vandermarliere. “The leaves have a specific flavor, but blended with other tobacco, you can definitely use them. Moreover, it helps us to secure our stock.” 

    Sustainability plays an essential role in the company’s strategy. In 2022, VCF received its first annual certificate from Voka, Flanders’ chamber of commerce and industry, for having eliminated 100 tons of plastic and 600,000 cardboard outer packagings from its production chain. The company also analyzed its mobility and has started switching to hybrid and electric cars. The measures were only the first in a series; in 2021, VCF signed a sustainability charter and, in consultation with Voka, set itself 20 sustainable action targets linked to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals—all of which it achieved.

    “Sustainability has always been very important to us, even long before it became a marketing asset,” says Vandermarliere. “Everything we do, we do for the next generation(s), so there is no other way than the sustainable way. Our further plan is to make every layer of the business sustainable. It is on top of our agenda because we want people to enjoy our cigars 100 years from now. Sustainability is not only about land but also about people and the market.”

    The new plant in Nicaragua, according to Vandermarliere, is a great example of the company’s vision on sustainability: “First of all, it has a small ecological footprint. Secondly, the working conditions for our people are great. And finally, it’s such a beautiful building, which hopefully helps to ensure the lifespan of the building.”

    With more than 7,500 employees worldwide, VCF manufactures more than 450 million cigars annually. Vandermaliere says he is not expecting radical growth of the cigar market, as the premium cigar market has always been stable. His company, he adds, is a family that sells relaxation. Fittingly, Vandermarliere is similarly relaxed about the future: “In all our history, we never planned any of the great milestones. Things happen as they do, and things seem to cross our path very naturally. This is part of our long-term vision to survive. If we find families with a similar philosophy and values to whom we can bring added value and vice versa, we will consider collaborating. Indeed, a lot happened in the last five years, but it is equally possible that nothing will change in the next five years.”

    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 Promise of Synthetic Nicotine

    The Promise of Synthetic Nicotine

    Photo: Oksana Fedorchuk

    As consumer demand for healthier and more environmentally friendly alternatives to combustible cigarettes increases, we should expect greater focus on the benefits of this man-made alternative.

    By Derek Yach

    Tobacco-derived nicotine has been the sole source of nicotine used by pharmaceutical and tobacco companies until recently. The naming of the sector (tobacco sector), the naming of companies (British American Tobacco for example) and the framing of public health policies as tobacco control all show how pervasive and deeply embedded the word tobacco has become despite its scientific name being Nicotiana.

    The dominance of tobacco plants started to wane when pharmaceutical companies developed nicotine-replacement therapies (NRTs) as cessation products. That highlighted the fact that while nicotine is addictive, it is not the source of death and disease caused by the products of combustion. The advent of a wide range of consumer-facing products that also use nicotine (especially e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches) to help smokers switch and/or quit has further increased the focus on nicotine.

    Initially, there was no debate about the source of nicotine since it was assumed to come from the plant. In recent years, several companies have started using patented laboratory processes to develop nicotine from scratch. Many, like Zanoprima, use green chemistry to convert plant-based molecules into synthetic nicotine. Other companies, such as Contraf-Nicotex-Tobacco (CNT), begin with plant-based molecules used in cosmetics and derived from vitamin B.

    Nicotine, like many molecules, exists in two orientations: S-nicotine and R-nicotine; however, nicotine that occurs naturally in the tobacco plant is entirely S-nicotine. Prior to the popularization of synthetic nicotine, this distinction had not been of great practical importance due to its naturally occurring form. Pharmaceutical-grade synthetic nicotine manufacturers such as CNT and Njoy therefore treat R-nicotine as a byproduct of the S-nicotine manufacturing process while Zanoprima’s patented process does not produce R-nicotine at all. Other manufacturers may use methods that may well not meet the high-quality standards of the pharmaceutical industry.

    What Benefits Does It Bring to Consumers and the Environment?

    Consumers increasingly demand information about the supply chain of end products. Leading food companies have led in being transparent about the source of all ingredients in their products with a shift toward those where labor conditions on the farm are known, addition of chemicals are reported, water and greenhouse gas use associated with products are made public and the traceability of food product ingredients is independently audited. Investors are more likely to invest in companies with sound records on these issues.

    So it will be for all future nicotine products.

    For many combustible users, the incentive to switch to a reduced-risk product usually starts with a desire to lower health risks. But for a considerable number, environmental issues are fast becoming reasons to switch, often independent of their health concerns. Again, this has its analogy in the food sector, where companies like Whole Foods have built their main value proposition on an environmental benefit, with health credentials being dubious.

    The tobacco industry emits 84 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) a year, which is equivalent to 0.2 percent of global CO2 emissions, according to researchers at Imperial College London. Of the total, 20.87 million tons of CO2 come from cultivation, and 44.65 million tons of CO2 come from curing, together amounting to 78 percent of all tobacco industry emissions. Synthetic nicotine has the potential to virtually eliminate these.

    Synthetic nicotine brings tangible benefits to consumers: A better sensorial experience, assurances about the absence of contaminants and a stamp of quality good enough for pharmaceutical companies, to name a few.

    The recent World Health Organization report Tobacco: Poisoning Our Planet paints a vivid picture of the harms of tobacco farming, curing and processing for the environment. More recently, the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World provided a qualitative summary of the potential sources of environmental harm associated with reduced-risk products. Both the WHO and the foundation advocate for the reduction in global tobacco farming, outlining the harms caused by tobacco growth and cultivation on arable land, workers’ rights and malnutrition. It is likely that products created with synthetic nicotine can mitigate many concerns in the product lifecycle. And as companies selling clean nicotine push harder to ensure their products are recyclable and/or reusable, the overall negative environmental footprint will decline further.

    Where Is It Likely to Grow Fastest?

    Today, synthetic nicotine is used in next-generation nicotine products by emerging nicotine pouch companies like NIIN and by mainstream vape companies like Njoy. This trend is set to continue and will gain traction as e-cigarettes and nicotine pouch companies seek medical licensing using synthetic nicotine.

    One example is SMOOD, an up-and-coming next-generation e-cigarette and NRT company based in New York City. SMOOD creates its products as a comprehensive approach to address both health and environmental issues simultaneously. Synthetic nicotine, recyclable hardware and design features to support smokers to quit may well be a signal of what is to come. “We always used nontobacco nicotine due to the absence of minor tobacco alkaloids and metals, both of which are inherent in agricultural production,” says Martin Steinbauer, chief engineer of SMOOD. “Together with repeatable pharmaceutical production processes, nontobacco nicotine improves the toxicological safety of our devices and eliminates carbon emissions, water use and deforestation from tobacco growing. Most importantly, it offers a clean break of nicotine from tobacco finally.”

    Snus and heated-tobacco products are unlikely to shift away from tobacco in the medium term but are lowering the health risks of the tobacco they use through processing changes in the case of snus and by eliminating combustion in the case of heated-tobacco products. For decades to come, tobacco plants will be used in these products as well as in combustibles like cigarettes and cigars where a significant demand from consumers is likely to remain even as overall demand declines.

    Most major tobacco companies already support farmers to diversify. It will be interesting to watch the dynamic within companies with large and growing reduced-risk portfolios who will continue to sell combustibles even as they shift to reduced-risk products to a greater extent in later numbers for several decades. Altria’s purchase of Njoy, Philip Morris International’s acquisition of Swedish Match and BAT’s dominance in the U.S. vape space all signal that these companies will take a twin track approach to nicotine sourcing.

    Who Makes It and How Do They See the Future?

    CNT has stated that synthetic nicotine is currently a niche product with enormous potential. “We see enormous demand there and the capacity for the synthesis of chemical is unlimited.”

    Zanoprima, the only company to use myosmine as the starting material believe that in time synthetic nicotine will become the main source of nicotine in pharmaceutical products as well as in products likely to be sold as both medically approved cessation products, and as recreational products for ex-smokers to use.

    Isn’t It Expensive To Use?

    No—prices have been dropping recently and will continue to do so as demand increases.

    Conclusion

    Health and environmental consumer demand combined with benefits in terms of quality and safety, suggest that synthetic nicotine is set to meet its potential in the coming years.

    A global health expert and anti-smoking advocate for more than 30 years, Derek Yach is the owner of Global Health Strategies. Previously, Yach was the director of the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World and a World Health Organization cabinet director and executive director for noncommunicable diseases and mental health. He was deeply involved with the development of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.
  • The Breakdown

    The Breakdown

    Photo: ANDS

    The vaping industry is making progress in reducing the environmental impact of single-use e-cigarettes.

    By George Gay

    The U.K. vaping industry is under notice in respect of single-use vapes. It has, according to one politician with considerable knowledge of the industry, a “window of opportunity” to defend itself against those demanding a ban on these products—a window that could slam shut at any moment.

    Pressure is building for a ban mainly on grounds of the negative environmental impact of single-use vapes, an issue that cannot be brushed aside. But, as always, those opposed to these products, and vapes in general, are muddying the waters with issues to do with illicit products, underage use and consumer safety: important issues but ones that should be dealt with separately. 

    But the good news is that disposing of used single-use vapes is possible in a reasonably environmentally friendly manner. On July 17, Waste Experts launched a report, The Challenges of Recycling Single-Use Vapes, in which it said, in part, that two products it tested, a widely available plastic and aluminium vape and a new cardboard-based entry, both demonstrated high levels of recyclability. The company, which has been operating in the environmental services sector for more than 22 years, also said that, when collected and sent to an Approved Authorized Treatment Facility, both products were able to meet the U.K. Recycling and Recovery Targets under Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) regulations.

    The Waste Experts report was commissioned by ANDS, which is a leading brand owner and supplier of alternative nicotine-delivery products in the Middle East and which, as ANDS Globe U.K., is currently entering the U.K. market for single-use vapes with SLIX, a product whose outer casing of high-grade card screams recyclable.

    Indeed, in a press note introducing SLIX, which was one of the brands tested by Waste Experts, ANDS said this product was 99 percent recyclable and recoverable and that the company was on course to increase this level of recyclability and recoverability by the end of this year. As I understand it, the technology underpinning such products is advancing at speed with the elimination of wires and, importantly, with battery design improvements.

    Other brand owners also have been focusing on the environmental credentials of their products and even on the way in which used products are collected for recycling. At the same time, waste treatment companies are innovating the methods they employ in handling products, including single-use vapes, and are providing recyclability feedback loops to assist vape manufacturers and brand owners in the choice of materials and product designs that better meet their environmental aspirations.

    A Ways to Go

    Nevertheless, it would be wrong to give the impression that the vape industry has cracked the environment issue, especially in respect of single-use products. This is the final sentence of the Executive Summary of the Waste Experts report: “So whilst single-use vapes have a short lifespan and are not environmentally the best option, when collected and treated through authorized routes, the materials can be recycled and recovered correctly.”

    With some justification, those calling for a ban on single-use vapes would no doubt see this sentence as admitting that the collection and processing of used products is simply a way of treating the symptoms of the problem. I assume they would also argue that the sentence suggests that only a ban could treat the cause of the problem.

    Those promoting a ban might also look askance at the environmental claims in respect of processing used single-use vapes. The recycling and recovery categories talked about largely in respect of such products are only in third and fourth place on the five-place waste hierarchy described in the Waste Experts report: prevention (using less material and making the product last longer), reuse (reusing products with minor refurbishments or repairs), recycling (converting waste materials into new products), recovery (recovering energy through incineration, gasification or anaerobic digestion) and disposal (landfill and incineration without recovery).

    The other point that those calling for a ban are bound to pick up on is the “when collected” qualification in the Waste Energy executive summary. As I understand it, only a tiny percentage of single-use vapes are disposed of properly, with most going to landfill. This should come as no surprise, however. Apparently, many distributors and retailers of small consumer electronics are still not aware of their obligations under WEEE even though it has been in force for more than 15 years.

    Additionally, most vapers have been recruited from the ranks of smokers, and a significant number of smokers have over the years shown scant regard for the environment. Cigarette-butt litter has had a constant presence on our streets and in our waterways for decades, and no amount of appeals to consumers seem to have convinced them of the need to dispose of butts responsibly.

    Multiuse Products

    This might be overly pessimistic because there clearly are differences between cigarette butts and used single-use vapes and, in respect of the latter, it would presumably be much easier, for instance, to introduce deposit and return schemes. But I cannot help being concerned that there are few differences between cigarette and vape consumers, or between those consumers and most people, who seem to be unwilling to make modest changes to their habits even in the face of an existential climate crisis.

    Even some leading lights in the vape industry are not necessarily opposed to a ban on single-use vapes. Interviewed on BBC radio news, Doug Mutter, the chief executive of VPZ, a leading vape retailer and manufacturer of vape liquids, expressed some interesting ideas about how to address the issues surrounding single-use vapes and, in particular, explained how his company was working successfully to transition consumers from single-use to multiuse products. But elsewhere, he has been quoted as saying that he would not oppose a ban provided it did not lead to a black market—or, presumably, did not stoke the black market already in operation.

    Muddying the Debate

    This was a canny remark that, to my way of thinking, pointed up more than one issue. The first is that government austerity measures over the past 13 years have reduced the U.K.’s ability to control the influx and sale of illicit products, something that has created an unlevel playing field on which some vape companies are paying to join the producer compliance schemes required under WEEE provisions while others are not.

    But it also points up another issue: the fact that the debate about the impact of single-use vapes on the environment is constantly muddied with talk about illicit products and sales to young people, both of which are policing issues, not environment issues. Some of the stories currently doing the rounds in the media, even in those media outlets many would consider reliable, are awash with what seems to be deliberately misleading information about vaping among young people.

    Partly as a result of such stories, I assume, pressure is building behind a ban on single-use vapes by the U.K. government, and that pressure could build quickly. These are dangerous times for the industry because the ruling Conservative Party in the U.K. is struggling with its popularity ratings ahead of a general election next year; so, with vaping a minority sport, the party and government might see some electoral benefit in acquiescing to such a ban, especially since the government’s overall environmental focus has been dimmed in recent times because it seems to take the climate crisis as a long-term problem that can be addressed down the road.

    Single-use vapes are particularly vulnerable to a ban because, while they are largely the same as multiuse vapes in that they contain difficult-to-handle nicotine and batteries, their volumes, and potential volumes, make them an easy target. While those opposed to vaping in general find themselves on difficult ground when faced with the argument that vaping is providing for many people a route out of the highly risky smoking habit, they probably feel they are on firmer ground when it comes to single-use products. They might concede that vapes serve a useful purpose but question the need for single-use products, and they are unlikely to be persuaded by arguments about the latter providing a more cost-effective and convenient option for consumers than other products.

    Nevertheless, ANDS deserves credit for commissioning the Waste Experts report, which was launched at an event held in the Terrace Pavilion of the U.K.’s Houses of Parliament and was hosted by the Conservative Member of Parliament Mark Pawsey, who, as chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Vaping, has been active during many years in trying to encourage a measured debate around vaping and its benefits.

    The trouble is that the vaping debate seems to have no ending. It keeps going round and round, like the London Eye ferris wheel that can be seen from the Terrace Pavilion. The Waste Experts report seems to bring closure to one part of the debate, but it is technical stuff and so not likely, in my view, to shift the needle of public opinion.

    Only one thing will shift that needle, and that is ensuring the ground is not littered with carelessly discarded single-use vapes, whatever that takes. The public is generally steeped in superficiality; it values the look of the environment over its health. And, by the way, if the aim is to include consumers in this cleanup, it would be a good idea, I think, to warn of the actual dangers posed by batteries but not to over-egg the dangers. Consumers are not going to spend much time wandering around looking for official disposal points if they have been panicked into thinking that the product in their back pocket is liable to explode or catch fire.

    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.
  • Executive Experience

    Executive Experience

    Photo: Smoore

    Eve Wang, vice president of the world’s largest atomization company, shares her vision for vaping.

    By Timothy S. Donahue

    The largest atomization technology company in the world is Shenzhen Smoore Technology Co. Based in Shenzhen, China, the company has maintained its position as the global leader in the atomization technology market since the beginning years of the vaping industry.

    Smoore has seen significant growth since its establishment in 2009 and operates three atomization businesses: nicotine delivery (including vaping and heat-not-burn), medicinal applications and healthcare.

    Within the nicotine-delivery business, Smoore’s technology brand, FEELM, holds a prominent position as one of the industry’s leading closed-system vaping solution providers. This diverse business structure allows Smoore to deliver innovative solutions across multiple industries to meet several varied consumer needs.

    Earlier this year, the international ESG rating agency Sustainalytics awarded Smoore International Holdings, parent to the FEELM and Vaporesso brands, the top position among global electronic atomization companies. Smoore consistently ranks first among global electronic atomization companies in the ESG ratings published by MSCI, the world’s largest index company.

    Tobacco Reporter invited Eve Wang, vice president of Smoore, to share her vision for the vaping industry and her insights into how Smoore will move forward as atomization technology continues to improve and develop into various marketplaces beyond the vaping industry.

    Tobacco Reporter: As an atomization technology solution provider, how important are Smoore’s investments in R&D?

    Eve Wang: Centered on Smoore’s mission of atomization makes life better, we have a long-term approach to everything we do and believe that continuous technological innovation is the only approach to develop the atomization industry. Last year, Smoore invested £160 million ($199.5 million) in R&D, which accounted for 11.3 percent of the total revenue in 2022. This investment has resulted in 2,254 new patent applications worldwide, including 1,125 invention patents.

    Our commitment to continuous technological advancement is best shown by the fact that we employ 1,500 R&D personnel, which accounts for more than 40 percent of our entire nonproduction workforce.

    As a young and developing industry, constant R&D in both technology and manufacturing is vital to drive growth and ensure the highest quality standards. Our professional testing facilities feature more than 700 different types of testing equipment, valued at over £23 million, and we have many partnerships with leading research institutes and analysis laboratories to complement our already comprehensive testing capabilities. We have developed the world’s first fully automation pods production line, and our ceramic coil disposable automation line is not only the world’s fastest but also allows our products manufactured by FEELM to achieve a first pass yield of over 99.5 percent.

    Looking toward the future, Smoore is exploring how to apply vape atomization technology within the healthcare sector, and our dedication to cutting-edge research and development, regulatory compliance and superior consumer experience supports our commitment to the longevity and sustainable growth of our business.

    Is Smoore seeking to invest beyond the vaping industry?

    We keep exploring the boundaries of innovation and the application of atomization technology in new application scenarios, such as medicinal and healthcare sectors. For example, last year in China we registered a ventilator in combination with an atomization drug delivery device and successfully obtained the production license for this technology.

    We have also set up a team in the United States which has developed two drug delivery devices targeting asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and started the development of relevant medicinal preparations.

    How do you see the vapor industry developing, and what will be the biggest growth areas in terms of technology and geography?

    According to a report by Frost and Sullivan, the global retail market for e-vaporization is expected to reach $122.2 billion by 2027. It is expected that in the long run, companies that prioritize regulatory compliance and harm reduction while also focusing on consumer experience will emerge as the ultimate winners.

    However, as an emerging industry aimed at assisting smokers toward a smoke-free society, e-cigarettes are still in their infancy and face a range of challenges which makes it crucial for all stakeholders in the industry to collectively provide the best possible harm reduction solutions for current adult smokers.

    Therefore, we have developed and launched a new 2 mL e-liquid compliant disposable solution to provide 800 puffs with the innovative technology FEELM Max, where conventional products typically provide around 600 puffs.

    How is the FEELM Max technology different from that used in conventional products?

    As the world’s first ceramic coil disposable solution, FEELM Max benefits from a cotton-free design that, with a compliant e-liquid volume of 2 mL, can provide 800 puffs whilst current solutions offer 600 puffs. This is a significant step toward setting a new industry compliant benchmark for 2 mL.

    In addition to more puffs, this innovative heating technology is designed to bring cleanness and silkiness, ensuring a satisfying experience for consumers. Our constant power technology provides a vapor and taste consistency, and together with a transparent e-liquid tank design offers an enhanced consumer experience.

    The ceramic coil is like an electric car, symbolizing a more advanced technology. Several major brands have already adopted our new technology, recognizing that differentiation is key in a competitive market. We are committed to providing superior vaping experiences that meet the evolving needs of consumers around the world.

    What is the largest market for Smoore and its subsidiary’s products?

    In 2022, Smoore’s global enterprise customer business revenue was £1.22 billion, with the U.S. market ranking first, accounting for 35.4 percent. The revenue share of Europe and other markets increased from 24.1 percent in 2021 to 43.6 percent in 2022, up by 19.5 percentage points. Smoore will continue to provide technology solutions and products worldwide, all tailored to fully comply with all local regulations.

    What are Smoore’s concerns about the growth of noncompliant products in the marketplace?

    We believe that effective regulation is vital for sustainable growth and that proportionate regulation can support the industry’s evolution.

    However, the presence of noncompliant or counterfeit products entering the U.K. market is a significant concern for us. These products not only pose potential health risks to consumers but also bring negative effects on the long-term development of the vaping industry. These illicit products can discourage innovation and deter potential investments in research and development, hindering the industry’s ability to evolve and improve.

    Like any industry, there are always those who operate illicitly. However, it is vital that the responsible majority within our sector, together with government, regulators, enforcement bodies, trade associations and partners, collaborate on initiatives and share intelligence to eradicate illegal and noncompliant vapes. This collective effort is necessary to ensure that the sector’s reputation is not only maintained but also improved.

    We believe in maintaining the very highest product standards whilst also being fully compliant in all local markets in which we operate. That’s why we have developed and launched the 800-puff compliant disposable vape: FEELM Max. FEELM Max represents a commitment to both technological innovation and regulatory compliance, moving the vaping industry forward in a responsible and sustainable way.

    Many vapor products that have been authorized for marketing in the U.S. were developed by Smoore. What is the secret behind Smoore’s high share of Food and Drug Administration marketing orders?

    Smoore is always committed to full regulatory compliance and product quality. In 2022, out of over 6.7 million e-cigarette product listing applications, the FDA only approved eight from JTI, nine from R.J. Reynolds Tobacco and six from Njoy. Smoore, as the atomization technology manufacturer, has aided the most clients in the ENDS [electronic nicotine-delivery system] category to pass the PMTA [premarket tobacco product application] process.

    Last September, Smoore had the distinction of being invited to an industry meeting convened by the commissioner and director of the Center for Tobacco Products. We actively engaged in explorations and discussions regarding the future of a more compliant and sustainable vaping industry.

    Smoore’s achievements stem from the long-term focus on the improvement of atomization technology and the commitment to innovation, compliance and product safety; we always deliver user-centric and user-friendly technologies and products to clients, consumers and industry.

    As the FDA commented when approving one of the closed-system pod vaping products: “It met the standard because, in several key considerations, chemical testing is sufficient to determine that the levels of harmful and potentially harmful constituents in the aerosol of these products are lower than those in the smoke from combusted cigarettes.”

    What is Smoore/FEELM’s strategy for the disposable market?

    The disposable vape has been a widely accepted product in the e-cigarette market. Even as far back as 2018, when closed-system vapes dominated the industry with a 72 percent market share, it was predicted that disposables would account for more than 70 percent of the closed-system market over the next five years.

    However, such rapid growth inevitably leads to challenges, and the market has seen a proliferation of noncompliant products and counterfeits, coupled with problems such as the illegal overfilling of e-liquids and the quality issues from the black market, as reported by the BBC. These issues have sounded alarm bells across society, calling for superior, compliant and healthier solutions.

    How will Smoore confront the challenges associated with disposable products, such as environmental concerns?

    As the first Chinese e-cigarette company to be included in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index, Smoore aims to minimize any environmental impact from our operations and products as much as possible.

    In May 2022, we officially launched our carbon neutrality plan, setting a net-zero target by 2050. We will continue to increase the use of renewable energy in our operations, aiming for 50 percent energy consumption from renewable sources by 2030.

    Whenever I come across a discarded disposable vape on the ground, I will pick it up and bring it back to the company, where my colleagues can professionally process and recycle it. But more needs to be done to encourage active participation by consumers in recycling their vapes. Therefore, we have launched the industry’s first end-to-end whole-chain recycling scheme, including manufacturers, brands, retailers, the Royal Mail and waste management specialists, Waste Experts.

    Working closely with our clients, we have created a household collection service whereby consumers who return 10 or more old disposable vapes for recycling will receive a free disposable product incorporating our latest technology as a reward.

    What do you consider to be Smoore’s greatest industry innovations?

    The cotton coil is widely adopted within the vaping industry, and there are many challenges that affect the consumer experience.

    Smoore drew inspiration from traditional Chinese ceramic making to develop the ceramic technology. We discovered that, compared to the cotton coil, the ceramic coil has advantages such as high thermal efficiency, leakage prevention and the ability for planned automated production as well as delivering strong taste consistency.

    Therefore, in 2014, Smoore initiated research into ceramic heating technology, and in 2016, Smoore’s ceramic coil technology brand FEELM was officially launched in the market, aiming to “feel the moment of vaping” and representing our long-term commitment to vaping sensory and technology. Today, FEELM has already become a very well-recognized tech brand by the industry, especially for ceramic coil technology. Since 2018, we have shipped over 3.5 billion pod products worldwide, and we cover more than 50 different countries and regions.

    We remain devoted to our mission of improving public health through the advancement of atomization technology.

    What are the greatest challenges facing the global e-cigarette industry, and how is Smoore helping solve those challenges?

    Smoore recently commissioned a survey, which was conducted by One Poll, among 2,000 adult smokers. The results revealed that 42 percent of respondents had little or no trust in e-cigarettes. Meanwhile, nearly two-thirds (62 percent) believed that e-cigarettes were more harmful or at least as harmful as traditional cigarettes whereas evidence from the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities highlights that e-cigarettes are at least 95 percent less harmful than smoking.

    That’s why we have established an independent panel of experts in science, smoking cessation and compliance to look at creating a new rating system that will allow adult smokers and vapers to make informed decisions about their choice of vapes based on their harm reduction profile.

    We are committed to innovating alternatives to traditional smoking, to reducing harm and to benefit public health. We strongly believe in the potential of e-cigarettes to provide a viable and less harmful alternative for smokers who struggle to quit.

    Smoore hopes to fulfill our mission: Atomization makes life better—better for our clients and consumers. We aim to achieve this by providing better technological solutions and products in the future in novel tobacco, medicinal and healthcare fields.