Category: Featured

  • U.S. Vapor Product Mail Ban Takes Effect

    U.S. Vapor Product Mail Ban Takes Effect

    Photo: will milne

    The ban on mailing vapor products through the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) takes effect Oct 20. The USPS has posted for public inspection its rules for mailing e-cigarettes with the Federal Register.

    The rules don’t exempt cannabis vapor products, as many in the industry had hoped. The USPS is leaving it up to the U.S. Congress to carve out an exemption for hemp-based vaping products.

    Under the new rules, retail customers will no longer be able to receive vapor products by way of USPS delivery. However, USPS will still mail vapor products under narrowly defined circumstances:

    • Noncontiguous states: intrastate shipments within Alaska or Hawaii
    • Business/regulatory purposes: shipments transmitted between verified and authorized tobacco industry businesses for business purposes, or between such businesses and federal or state agencies for regulatory purposes
    • Certain individuals: lightweight shipments mailed between adult individuals, limited to 10 per 30-day period
    • Consumer testing: limited shipments of cigarettes sent by verified and authorized manufacturers to adult smokers for consumer testing purposes
    • Public health: limited shipments by federal agencies for public health purposes under similar rules applied to manufacturers conducting consumer testing

    The rules were originally set to into effect in March and then April; however, the USPS held back publishing the rule pending review.

     

  • Update of ‘Clearing the Smoke’ Report Urged

    Update of ‘Clearing the Smoke’ Report Urged

    Forty-two public health leaders have signed onto a letter urging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) to review and update the 20-year old Clearing the Smoke report so that it can address the evolved tobacco and nicotine marketplace.

    Two decades ago, the Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine) issued its landmark report Clearing the Smoke—Assessing the Science Base for Tobacco Harm Reduction. The report had been compiled at the request of the FDA as it considered—even before Congress gave it the authority to do so—how best to regulate the growing tobacco and nicotine marketplace.

    The signatories of the letter point out that much has changed in the tobacco and nicotine marketplace since the report was first published. Science, technology and innovation have dramatically advanced over the past two decades. Consumers can now choose from a range of nicotine delivery products spanning the entire continuum of risk—from deadly combustible cigarettes on one hand to less-harmful noncombustible products such as snus, e-cigarettes and tobacco heating products.

    However, a slow product approval process means these products are not being made available to the public at a pace that would help significantly reduce the harms of cigarette smoking. What’s more, a lack of education efforts means consumers remain uninformed about the less-risky product choices available to them.

    The signatories maintain that an update of the Clearing the Smoke report will help put all stakeholders on a track that will collectively advance public health objectives. They believe that the National Academy of Medicine, which produced the original report, is the most appropriate body to undertake such a review on behalf of the CTP.

    The letter’s signatories include Scott Ballin, former vice president and legislative counsel of the American Heart Association; K. Michael Cummings, professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Medical University of South Carolina; David Abrahams, professor in the department of social and behavioral science, at the College of Global Health at New York University; Aaron Biebert, former president and CEO of Clear Medical Solutions; Allan C. Erickson, former president for public education and tobacco control at the American Cancer Society; Ray Niaura, professor of public health global studies at New York University; and John R. Seffrin.

  • Broughton Moves Into New Markets

    Broughton Moves Into New Markets

    Photo: Broughton

    Broughton has unveiled a rebrand that reflects its evolving service offerings to support clients through their whole product life cycle journey. The company states that it is on a mission “to help our clients deliver life-enhancing products to market, by providing the most trusted integrated services in the world.”

    Building on years of experience in the pharmaceutical and next generation nicotine products space, Broughton offers its clients fully integrated scientific and regulatory consultancy, combined with comprehensive in-house laboratory services. The launch coincides with the announcement that the business is expanding its services into the rapidly evolving cannabinoids industry.

    Moving forward the company will focus on accelerating life-enhancing products to market within strategic markets including pharmaceuticals, nicotine and cannabinoids. Its combined expertise in formulation science, device technology, software applications and aerosol science makes Broughton the ideal strategic outsourcing partner to support client pipeline portfolios of future next generation products, according to the company.

    “The launch of the Broughton brand formalizes our rapidly developing position as a full-service solutions provider to the life sciences sector,” said CEO Paul Moran, who founded Broughton Laboratories in 2006. “We will continue our commitment to investing further into global operations delivering scientific and regulatory consultancy combined with comprehensive product development and laboratory services.

    “This next phase of our expansion is a natural evolution to grow capacity and capabilities into the broad life sciences sector as technologies improve to target unmet market needs.”

    “One exciting aspect of this change is that it facilitates the expansion of our existing pharmaceutical quality and product stability services to support providers of pharmaceutical inhalation products,” said Broughton Chief Scientific Officer Chris Allen. “With expertise in device optimization, human factor studies, navigating complex regulatory pathways for combination products and a track record of quality compliance, our broad expert team can support device development from concept to commercialization.’’

    “The expanding team at Broughton hold extensive knowledge of their specialist fields,” said Moran. “This rebrand brings together this expertise with a fresh focus on the journey of our clients’ products to meet an unmet market need. This is an exciting time for the business that will enable us to continue to innovate as we contribute to global health and wellbeing.”

    As part of its rebranding, Broughton has created a new website at www.broughton-group.com.

  • FDA Authorizes Product Not on the Market Since 2019

    FDA Authorizes Product Not on the Market Since 2019

    Photo: Altria Group

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has authorized the marketing of four oral tobacco products that are no longer on the market—Verve Discs Blue Mint, Verve Discs Green Mint, Verve Chews Blue Mint, and Verve Chews Green Mint, manufactured by Altria subsidiary U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Co.

    “We are pleased that FDA has determined that Verve oral nicotine products are appropriate for the protection of public health,” said an Altria spokesman. “While we discontinued selling Verve on Feb. 2, 2019, we applied learnings from this successful application to our on! submissions, which remain under review by FDA. Oral nicotine products play an important role in our vision of moving beyond smoking and remain an important part of our portfolio of products to transition adult smokers away from cigarettes.”

    In a press release dated Dec. 17, 2018, Altria said it would stop the production and distribution of Verve oral nicotine products based upon the expected financial performance of these products and the regulatory restrictions that burdened the company’s ability to quickly improve these products. “We do not see a path to leadership with these particular products and believe that now is the time to refocus our resources,” wrote Chairman and CEO Howard Willard at the time.

    It its Oct. 19, 2021, marketing order, the FDA said it had determined the marketing of Verve products would be consistent with the statutory standard, “appropriate for the protection of the public health.” This includes a review of data showing that youth, nonsmokers and former smokers are unlikely to initiate or reinitiate tobacco use with these products.

    “Ensuring new tobacco products undergo a robust premarket evaluation by the FDA is a critical part of our mission to protect the public—especially kids,” said Mitch Zeller, director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, in a statement.

    “While these are mint flavored products, data submitted to the FDA show the risk for youth uptake of these particular products is low, and stringent marketing restrictions will help prevent youth exposure. Importantly, evidence shows these products could help addicted smokers who use the most harmful combusted products completely switch to a product with potentially fewer harmful chemicals.”

  • PMI Affirms Outlook After Strong Quarter

    PMI Affirms Outlook After Strong Quarter

    Philip Morris International reported net revenues of $8.12 billion in the third quarter of 2021, up 9.1 percent over those reported in the previous year’s third quarter. Adjusted operating income grew 9.4 percent to $3.55 billion. The company’s adjusted operating income margin was 43.7 percent, compared with 43.6 percent in the third quarter of 2020.

    PMI shipped 164.84 billion cigarettes and 23.49 billion heated tobacco units in the third quarter of 2021, down 0.4 percent and up 23.8 percent, respectively, from the previous year’s quarter.

    The company estimated the total number of IQOS users at quarter-end to be approximately 20.4 million, of which approximately 14.9 million have switched to IQOS and stopped smoking.

    Combined, PMI’s shipment of cigarettes and heated tobacco units increased by 2.1 percent from the previous year’s quarter, driven by higher heated tobacco unit shipments in Eastern Europe and Japan and higher cigarette shipments in PMI Duty Free and Turkey, among other factors.

    “Our business delivered another strong quarterly performance, coming ahead of our expectations with adjusted diluted EPS [earnings per share] of $1.58, representing growth of 8.5 percent, excluding currency,” said PMI CEO Jacek Olczak in a statement

    “The continued excellent performance of IQOS drove total shipment volume and organic net revenue growth of 2.1 percent and 7.6 percent, respectively, and was complemented by further sequential share gains for our combustible products.”

    “Today, we are reaffirming our strong growth outlook for 2021, with an adjusted diluted EPS forecast toward the upper-half of our previous range and representing currency-neutral growth of 13 percent to 14 percent, despite ongoing tightness in device supplies due to the global shortage of semiconductors, which impacts our ability to fulfill consumer demand for IQOS.”

  • Eastern Co. Posts Record Results

    Eastern Co. Posts Record Results

    Photo: Ludmila

    Eastern Co. of Egypt achieved record sales and production volumes in fiscal 2020-2021, reports Daily News Egypt.

    The company manufactured about 70 billion local cigarettes, 16 percent more than in its previous fiscal year. Sales increased by 12 percent to 67 billion cigarettes 2020-2021.

    Eastern Co. also recorded a net income of EGP16 billion ($1.02 billion) in 2020-2021, compared to EGP14.5 billion in 2019-2020. Profits totaled EGP4.28 billion, up from the EGP 3.79 billion in the previous year.

    The company is also exploring the sale reduced-risk smoking products in Egypt.

    In an Oct. 17 statement to the Egyptian Exchange, Eastern Co. said it had examined the potential consumption and demand for such products in the local market.

  • WHO Urged to Adjust its Vapor Stance

    WHO Urged to Adjust its Vapor Stance

    Photo: ekim

    One hundred tobacco harm reduction (THR) experts have published a joint letter challenging the World Health Organization’s (WHO) approach to tobacco science and policy. The group is urging members of the Ninth Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP-9) of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) to encourage the WHO to support and promote the inclusion of tobacco harm reduction into its regulatory advisements.

    “Smoke-free nicotine products offer a promising route to reducing the harms arising from smoking. There is compelling evidence that smoke-free products are much less harmful than cigarettes and that they can displace smoking for individuals and at the population level,” the letter states. “Regrettably, WHO has been dismissive of the potential to transform the tobacco market from high-risk to low-risk products. WHO is rejecting a public health strategy that could avoid millions of smoking-related deaths.”

    The letter was published on Oct. 18 and will be sent to COP-9 delegates. In a joint statement, Ruth Bonita, former director of WHO Department of NCD Surveillance, and Robert Beaglehole, former director of the WHO Department of Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, stated that they were “extremely disappointed by WHO’s illogical and perverse approach” to reduced-harm nicotine delivery products, such as vaping.

    “A key challenge in global tobacco control is to assist cigarette smokers to transition from burnt tobacco products to much less harmful options that provide the nicotine without the toxic smoke,” the statement reads. “WHO’s continuing disregard of the wealth of evidence on the value of these products is condemning millions of smokers to preventable disease and premature death.”

    The letter goes on to make seven points about the current vaping regulatory environment, such as the value of vaping in THR and the unintended consequences of poor regulatory policies. The authors then go on to make six suggestions for the WHO to consider:

    • Make tobacco harm reduction a component of the global strategy to meet the Sustainable Development Goals for health, notably SDG 3.4 on non-communicable diseases.
    • Insist that any WHO policy analysis makes a proper assessment of benefits to smokers or would-be smokers, including adolescents, as well as risks to users and non-users of these products.
    • Require any policy proposals, particularly prohibitions, to reflect the risks of unintended consequences, including potential increases in smoking and other adverse responses.
    • Properly apply Article 5.3 of the FCTC to address genuine tobacco industry malpractice, but not to create a counterproductive barrier to reduced-risk products that have public health benefits or to prevent critical assessment of industry data strictly on its scientific merits.
    • Make the FCTC negotiations more open to stakeholders with harm-reduction perspectives, including consumers, public health experts, and some businesses with significant specialized knowledge not held within the traditional tobacco control community.
    • Initiate an independent review of WHO and the FCTC approach to tobacco policy in the context of the SDGs. Such a review could address the interpretation and use of science, the quality of policy advice, stakeholder engagement, and accountability and governance. The Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response (IPPPR), initiated to evaluate the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, offers such a model.

    In a separate statement, David Sweanor, adjunct professor of law, chair of the Advisory Board of the Centre for Health Law, Policy and Ethics University of Ottawa, Canada, said that effective public health efforts need to be based on science, reason and humanism. Instead, he noted, the WHO is aligning itself against all three when dealing with nicotine.

    “The result is that one of the greatest opportunities to improve global health, separating nicotine use from smoke inhalation, is being squandered. Global trust in health authorities, and the WHO in particular, has never been so important,” the statement reads. “Yet the WHO is abandoning science, rationality and humanism on nicotine and instead apparently pursuing the moralistic abstinence-only agenda of external funders. This is a public health tragedy that extends well beyond the unnecessary sickening of the billion-plus people who smoke cigarettes.”

  • Journal to Examine Tobacco Industry Transformation

    Journal to Examine Tobacco Industry Transformation

    Photo: Olivier Le Moal

    Nicotine & Tobacco Research is calling for papers that examine the tobacco industry’s move from producing and selling hazardous tobacco products toward less-harmful alternatives.

    In recent years, an increasing number of tobacco companies have announced their intention to reduce their dependence on income from combustible tobacco products. Market leader Philip Morris International, for example, has since 2018 variously claimed to be building “a smokefree future,” and “unsmoking” the world.

    The journal is preparing a special themed issue that will examine whether a transformed tobacco industry is possible, what a transformed tobacco company would look like and whether there is evidence that the tobacco industry is transforming in any meaningful sense.

    Nicotine & Tobacco Research is inviting submission on papers exploring relevant issues, such as how progress toward industry transformation should be measured and the ethics of tobacco industry transformation.

    Manuscripts must be submitted through the journal’s submission system by March 1. 2022.

    Nicotine & Tobacco Research will not consider for publication papers submitted by tobacco industry employees or affiliated organizations, including organizations that themselves receive funding from or that are fully or partially owned by a tobacco company.

    Nicotine & Tobacco Research is sponsored by the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. The journal expects to publish its themed in early 2023.

  • Howard: Will Harm Reduction Prevail?

    Howard: Will Harm Reduction Prevail?

    Photo: Photolia Premium

    It could be some time before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issues marketing orders for flavored vapor products.

    By Chris Howard

    For the past 10 years, we have ridden a rollercoaster together. We have experienced the same highs and lows and shared the hope that harm reduction will prevail in the end. Then, over the course of the past several weeks, the journey ended abruptly with marketing denial orders (MDOs) for so many. Not surprisingly, several question whether the vapor industry can ever recover.

    The FDA’s Recent Actions

    For what it’s worth, the recent actions of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration should not have been a surprise to anyone in the vapor industry. We have known for several years that being part of a highly regulated segment would not be easy. In fact, the FDA made its expectations clear in its 2016 Draft Guidance entitled Premarket Tobacco Product Applications for Electronic Nicotine-Delivery Systems (ENDS). In sum, this document revealed that obtaining a marketing order for vapor products would require scientific expertise, extensive data development and very deep pockets.

    That said, the FDA’s rationale for such broad-based denials has raised questions among many. More specifically, the FDA provided the following rationale in its Aug. 26, 2021, news release:

    In light of the public health threat posed by the well-documented, alarming levels of youth use of flavored ENDS, the agency has reviewed the applications subject to this action to determine whether there is sufficient product-specific scientific evidence to demonstrate enough of a benefit to adult smokers that would overcome the risk posed to youth. Based on existing scientific evidence and the agency’s experience conducting premarket reviews, the evidence of benefits to adult smokers for such products would likely be in the form of a randomized controlled trial or longitudinal cohort study, although the agency does not foreclose the possibility that other types of evidence could be adequate if sufficiently robust and reliable.

    The primary question we are left to ponder is whether this balancing of interests exceeds the FDA’s standard for assessing whether a product is appropriate for the protection of public health. Based on Section 910 of the Tobacco Control Act, which describes the appropriate standard of review, it appears that this balancing is one of many facets of an application that the FDA is required to consider.

    Appropriate for the Protection of Public Health

    Section 910 of the Tobacco Control Act provides the FDA’s standard of review for new tobacco products:

    …whether the marketing of a tobacco product for which an application has been submitted is appropriate for the protection of the public health shall be determined with respect to the risks and benefits to the population as a whole, including users and nonusers of the tobacco product, and taking into account—

    (A) the increased or decreased likelihood that existing users of tobacco products will stop using such products; and

    (B) the increased or decreased likelihood that those who do not use tobacco products will start using such products.

    So clearly, the risk of initiation of flavored ENDS products by youth is relevant as is the likelihood of ceasing use by smokers generally. Without a doubt, the FDA has determined that evidence related to part (A)—cessation—must outweigh part (B), initiation. This risk balancing, in the FDA’s own words, is reflected in data from clinical studies or longitudinal studies demonstrating that adult use of flavored ENDS leads to cessation (or switching) outcomes that exceed the risk of youth initiation of tobacco product use. And yet, despite this seeming clarity, many questions surround this analysis. For example, by how much must adult cessation exceed youth initiation? What if both tobacco varieties and flavored varieties show the same or similar cessation rates? Has the FDA considered the reduction in use by youth resulting from the recent change in the age to purchase tobacco products to 21 when examining the balancing of risks versus benefits?

    These questions are likely to remain unanswered for quite some time. Many committed companies are already beginning efforts to satisfy the FDA’s outstanding requests for clinical studies and/or longitudinal data, but the development of data will take several months. Obviously, this is likely to do significant damage to an already fractured market—and even more potential damage to smokers seeking an alternative to combustible cigarettes.

    Flavors Are Critical for Harm Reduction

    Despite these tumultuous past few weeks, the FDA is arguably the biggest advocate for harm reduction. Given the agency’s desire to provide options to adult smokers to move away from traditional combustible cigarettes, it seems clear that a pathway for flavors to return does indeed exist.

    Along with the rest of the industry and many public health researchers, I believe that the removal of all flavored products would negatively impact harm reduction efforts in the United States. Some vapers will undoubtedly return to smoking combustible cigarettes. And smokers who might have transitioned to ENDS products may now elect not to do so. In the studies conducted at my company, E-Alternative Solutions, we demonstrated that adults prefer flavors and that flavors assist adults in transitioning from combustible cigarettes to potentially less harmful alternatives. Existing literature documenting the research conducted by others also supports this proposition. Moreover, anecdotal reports are easy to find on Twitter and multiple other social media forums.

    While it may not be apparent from the FDA’s recent actions, I do not believe that flavored ENDS are finished in the United States. While the bar appears high, I hope and expect, for the sake of adult smokers in this country, that we will see flavored ENDS on the U.S. market again. That said, it could take time until the agency issues market orders for flavored vapor products.

    What’s Next?

    The FDA’s recent decisions will likely prompt many to appeal and some to resort to litigation [at least two suits are known to have been filed already]. The FDA appears prepared to address these initiatives and is prioritizing enforcement of those failing to comply with MDOs and/or who are selling vapor products that have not undergone premarket review. While these activities are ongoing, many will begin longitudinal studies and the hard work to identify alternative methods to show the FDA that flavors are determinative in adult smokers’ efforts to switch from combustible cigarettes.

    Ultimately, we will have to wait while the remainder of the story unfolds. Hopefully, the FDA will be prepared to work directly with sophisticated manufacturers to ensure that flavored ENDS can continue to play a role for adult smokers seeking alternatives.

     

  • Triton May Sell ENDS Pending MDO Review

    Triton May Sell ENDS Pending MDO Review

    Photo: denissimonov

    Wages and White Lion Investments, parent to Triton Distribution, may continue to market its electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) devices in the U.S. until its appeal against the Food and Drug Administration’s marketing denial orders (MDO) has been evaluated in court.

    On Oct. 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit put the MDO on hold pending review. The judges also granted motions to expedite the appeal case and a ruling for emergency relief.

    Triton Distribution filed a motion to stay after the FDA denied the company’s premarket tobacco product application. The company claims that it had been irreparably harmed as a result of the FDA’s actions and faced an imminent shutdown of its business.

    In its motion, Triton contends that the FDA retroactively changed the requirements for PMTAs. “By imposing a new, across-the-board requirement that flavored ENDS products be demonstrably more effective at promoting smoking cessation than otherwise identical tobacco-flavored products, FDA acted contrary to its authority under Section 910 of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA), 21 U.S.C. § 387j, and not in accordance with law,” Triton wrote.

    At least six companies have filed lawsuits challenging the agency’s decision to make the companies remove their products from the market. Last week, the FDA rescinded the MDO issued to Turning Point Brands and the company will be allowed to continue marketing its vapor products while the FDA re-reviews the company’s PMTA.