Category: Regulation

  • Brazil Agency Upholds Vaping Sales Ban

    Brazil Agency Upholds Vaping Sales Ban

    Image: VlaDee/pavlofox

    The board of directors for the Brazilian Health Surveillance Agency (Anvisa) voted unanimously on April 19 to maintain a ban on the sale of e-cigarettes and other vaping products, reports Brazil Reports.

    Manufacturing, selling, importing and advertising vapes has been banned in the country since 2009, but e-cigarettes remain widely available in small shops and online stores across Brazil.

    According the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics, 16.8 percent of students aged 13 to 17 said they had tried vaping at least once in their lives. An estimate 4 million Brazilians vape, according to Covitel, which carries out health-related surveys.

    Anvisa’s vote follows a public consultation on the measure. Anvisa justified its position based on the rise in underage vaping in countries that permit e-cigarettes, the addictive properties of nicotine and the lack of long-term studies on the effects of vaping on health, along with the potential impact of allowing vaping on Brazil’s overall tobacco control policies, which have been praised internationally.

    In July 2019, Brazil became the second country to fully implement all measures set out by the World Health Organization  with the aim of reducing tobacco consumption and protecting people from chronic non-communicable diseases.

    In voting to uphold the ban, Anvisa President Antônio Barra Torres cited a December 2023 World Health Organization publication recommending government prohibited electronic cigarettes based on current evidence.  

    The Brazilian Tobacco Industry Association, ABIFUMO, said that banning vapes is “ignoring the learnings of more than 80 countries that have already authorized their sale with clear rules for control, restriction of points of sale and taxation of manufacturers.”

    Philip Morris Brasil said that “maintaining the ban on vapes is out of step with the uncontrolled growth of the illicit market, proven to be accessible to around 4 million Brazilians who use a product daily without any control of quality.”

    Meanwhile, the Senate is debating a bill that would authorize the production, import, export and consumption of e-cigarettes in Brazil. The proposal is still in its early stages and does not have a date for voting.

     

  • Playing Whack-a-Mole

    Playing Whack-a-Mole

    The CTP’s inability to apply its enforcement priorities often leaves state regulators and businesses baffled.

    By Rich Hill

    The recent onslaught of vapor registry bills in the United States is creating a lot of anxiety. Proposed registries have brought tension to public hearings and drama on social media. Unfortunately, like most current domestic issues, neither side appears to appreciate the perspective of the other. While only a handful of states have enacted product registries, many legislatures have considered and/or are considering such legislation. Understanding what these registries do, why they are promoted and their consequences is essential for all sides of this debate.

    Rationale for Developing Vapor Product Registries

    At present, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) has granted marketing authorization for only a handful of tobacco-flavored vapor products and insists that all other vapor products are illegal. That said, the CTP has communicated its enforcement priorities related to deemed products numerous times. More specifically, the CTP has indicated its intention to prioritize enforcement efforts concerning certain deemed tobacco products (1) not covered by timely filed premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs), (2) that have been the subject of marketing denial orders or those covered by PMTAs subject to negative determinations, including those rejected on procedural grounds (i.e., refuse-to-accept or refuse-to-file letters), and (3) that raise youth-use concerns.

    Unfortunately, the CTP’s inability to apply these enforcement priorities consistently to the ever-changing and large number of unscrupulous manufacturers often leaves state regulators and businesses baffled about which products are at increased risk of enforcement action.

    In short, this circumstance, with thousands of products remaining the subject of pending PMTAs that fall outside of the scope of the CTP’s enforcement priorities being sold alongside thousands of noncompliant flavored disposable vapor products, many of which fall within the scope of the FDA’s enforcement priorities, creates confusion in the marketplace and for state product regulators. Given the shortfalls in enforcement against vapor products that are not the subject of still-pending PMTAs, state tobacco regulators need a mechanism by which to determine which products should and should not be sold in their states—hence the value of vapor product registries.

    Rich Hill

    How Do Vapor Product Registry Bills Work?

    Vapor product registry bills establish registries requiring companies to submit evidence demonstrating that products that have FDA marketing granted orders are the subject of pending PMTAs filed by specified dates related to PMTA deadlines or are the subject of administrative or judicial reviews. For example, registration in Louisiana requires manufacturers to attest to the marketing granted or still-pending PMTA status of each product and pay a registration fee. Then these products will be placed on a public-facing registry.

    Positive Aspects of Product Registry Bills

    Regardless of one’s position on registry bills, the legislation at least has the potential to create positive change. By way of example, registry bills can:

    • Provide objective criteria. Vapor product registries can theoretically provide objective criteria upon which wholesalers and retailers can rely in making purchasing decisions. While there will be fewer products available, these products may be purchased without the threat of state regulatory enforcement.
    • Supplement CTP enforcement resources. The CTP has limited enforcement resources. While flavored disposable vapor products have been a high enforcement priority for the center, these products still proliferate the retail space. Vapor registries could aid in making up for the CTP’s enforcement limitations.
    • Target youth-friendly products. The 2023 National Youth Tobacco Survey reported that certain flavored disposable vapor products make up the majority of products used by youth. Registries may help in clearing the market of these products that lack pending PMTAs and are the most popular among youth.
    • Generate Revenue. Of course, registries also provide another revenue stream for state governments. With registration fees for each product, the amounts are not insignificant.

    Consequences of Vapor Product Registries

    All legislation and policy decisions invariably come with costs. Vapor product registries are no different. Some examples include:

    • Inhibit harm reduction efforts. Vapor products are harm reduction tools that benefit adult cigarette smokers seeking to quit or reduce their combustible cigarette use. Prohibiting access to such products prohibits access to the tools necessary to reduce combustible cigarette-related mortality and morbidity.
    • May not slow bad actors. Bad actors will continue to be bad actors. If a company violates the rules now, there is little reason to believe that a vapor product registry will prevent such actions.
    • Burden state resources. States are continuing to be required to do more without increased resources. In many instances, state tobacco regulatory enforcement agencies may simply lack the resources to effectively enforce registry requirements.
    • Innovation outpaces regulation. As the industry has observed before, evolution in the space moves more quickly than the regulatory arms can keep up. Innovative products falling outside of the scope of existing regulatory structures undoubtedly will winnow the effectiveness of product registries in the future. Indeed, most recently, innovations such as nicotine analog products are not covered by most registry bills.
    • Prohibitive scope can be too broad. In several instances, products not within the scope of the problem are swept into the “solution.” In a number of cases, modern oral nicotine products—products that sit at the lowest levels of the continuum of risk—are included in these product registry bills, which continues to undercut harm reduction efforts.

    Final Thoughts

    The problems that created the need for product registry legislation will continue. Until federal regulators embrace a harm reduction agenda and provide adult smokers, who will not or cannot quit, the products that have been demonstrated to assist their transition away from combustible cigarettes, the marketplace, whether legitimate or not, will respond by making them available. Vapor product registries, in and of themselves, will not solve the problems in isolation. The policies driving the need for such registries, ineffectual prohibitionist policies, need attention as well. Until the collective vapor product space, including manufacturers, retailers and consumers, aggressively advocates for policy change, new laws and regulations further limiting the ability to serve adult consumers are likely to evolve.

    Richard Hill is senior director of E-Alternative Solutions.

  • Momentum Grows for One-Use Vape Ban: Philippines

    Momentum Grows for One-Use Vape Ban: Philippines

    Photo: Mihail Reschetnikov

    Momentum is building in the Philippines for a proposal by Finance Secretary Ralph Recto to ban disposable e-cigarettes, reports The Philippine Star.

    The Department of Health has indicated support for the proposal, just like some senators, but the Department of Trade and Industry, which enforces the country’s vape law, has yet to take a stand.

    Eric Singson, mayor of Candon in the tobacco-producing Ilocos Sur province in Northern Luzon, said he was open to the idea. “If it is really hazardous to a person’s health, then it’s OK with me, we will subscribe to regulation, just like the Tobacco Regulation Act,” he said.

    Both the Department of Agriculture and National Tobacco Administration have yet to communicate their respective positions.

    Several countries in Europe including the United Kingdom, Ireland and Belgium have announced disposable vape bans.

    “If that is the trend, then maybe there is a very good reason for banning it. If it’s something of a health concern to the users, especially the minors, then I’m open to it,” Singson told The Philippine Star in an interview in.

    In Asia, disposable vapes are already banned in Singapore, Thailand and Taiwan.

    Recto proposed the ban in response to the rise in youth vaping and the impact of disposable products on the environment, with illicit e-cigarettes further eroding tax revenues.

  • Britain’s Generation Ban Passes First Vote

    Britain’s Generation Ban Passes First Vote

    Photo: sezerozger

    Lawmakers approved British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s plan to ban anyone aged 15 and under from ever buying cigarettes despite opposition from some prominent members of his Conservative party, reports Reuters.

    The bill passed a vote in Britain’s parliament with 383 in favor and 67 against.

    Fifty-seven Conservatives, including Business and Trade Secretary Kemi Badenoch, voted against the plan. Earlier, two former prime ministers, Liz Truss and Boris Johnson, had come out against the legislation, with Truss describing the draft legislation as “unconservative” and Johnson calling it “nuts.”

    The ban enjoys strong support among healthcare professionals, who say that smoking causes 80,000 premature deaths every year, along with many more smoking-related illnesses.

    In a recent YouGov poll, a third of voters supported the phased approach and 30 percent supported a ban for everyone at the same time. Only a quarter said there should be no ban.

    Badenoch said that while she agreed with Sunak’s intentions, she opposed the bill as she was concerned about its impact on people’s rights and difficulty in enforcing the policy.

    Earlier this year, New Zealand scrapped a similar law after a new coalition government took power in late 2023. The government said it favored a harm-reduction approach to discourage smoking, but critics accused it of succumbing to tobacco lobbying.

    Britain’s generational tobacco ban will now progress to the next stage in parliament, where it can be subject to amendment.

  • FDA Denies Market Access to Yibo Products

    FDA Denies Market Access to Yibo Products

    Photo: Surendra

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on April 15 issued marketing denial orders (MDOs) to Shenzhen Yibo Technology Co. for 65 disposable e-cigarettes marketed as “MNGO Disposable Stick.”

    The products involved include flavors such as tobacco, menthol, pink lemonade, strawberry mango, watermelon freeze, iced banana, and others, with each flavor offered in a range of nicotine concentrations from 2 percent to 6 percent.

    According to the 2023 National Youth Tobacco Survey (NYTS), disposable e-cigarettes were the most commonly used device among current e-cigarette users, and almost 9 out of 10 current e-cigarette users reported using flavored e-cigarettes with fruit flavors being the most popular.

    The MDOs also include several “Clear” flavor products that were described by the applicant as flavorless or unflavored. However, data submitted in the company’s applications showed these products contained ingredients that are flavor enhancers or are known to impart a menthol or mint flavor, according to the FDA. Based on the entirety of evidence, the agency determined that the products have a characterizing flavor.

    “The onus is on tobacco companies to provide the evidence demonstrating that the necessary public health standard has been met, and when they fail to do so, FDA will appropriately deny the marketing authorization of new tobacco products,” said Brian King, director of FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, in a statement. “In this case, the applicant did not meet the necessary bar.”

  • Spain Approves Anti-Smoking Plan

    Spain Approves Anti-Smoking Plan

    Photo: nyker

    Spain has approved a new anti-smoking plan that will expand the number of places where smoking is prohibited, implement a sharp increase in tobacco taxes and place vapers in the same category as conventional smokers as “deterrent” measures, according to Eurasia Review.

    The document was approved April 5 by the Spanish Health Ministry and will be included in a new legislative package to be formally approved in Parliament.

    “As of today [Friday, April 5], this plan is a reality, and this achievement is a source of national pride,” said Health Minister Monica Garcia, a member of the left-wing Sumar platform, a junior partner in Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez’s coalition government.

    The document is an update to the current 14-year-old plan and aims at reducing the number of smokers, protecting public health and preventing new tobacco consumers.

    The Plan for the Prevention and Control of Smoking 2024–2027 has five main objectives: preventing the onset of smoking, encouraging smoking cessation and facilitating help to stop smoking, reducing environmental exposure to tobacco emissions and related products in public and private spaces, and promoting applied research and monitoring in tobacco control as well as promoting coordination and the establishment of anti-tobacco alliances.

    There is a question of whether in the near future smoking will be banned on bar and restaurant terraces; the leisure and tourism sector accounts for 13 percent of Spain’s national GDP.

    The plan includes the “legislative extension of smoke-free and e-cigarette aerosol-free spaces in certain community and social outdoor environments,” but there is no current ban only a “recommendation” not to smoke in these public spaces.

    An increase in tobacco taxes is expected. Since 2005, tobacco taxes have increased by 122 percent.

    The plan also includes generic or neutral packaging for tobacco products—unattractive color, brand name in Arial typeface and in smaller font size to allow for larger health warnings such as “smoking kills” or “tobacco kills.”

    Additives that “give flavors to tobacco and related products (in line with what the EU agrees)” will also be banned under the new plan.

     

  • Russian Vape Ban ‘Radical’: Korolev

    Russian Vape Ban ‘Radical’: Korolev

    Photo: Tobacco Reporter archive

    A proposed ban on vapes in Russia is a “radical measure,” according to Maxim Korolev, editor-in-chief of the industry news agency Russian Tabak, reports HCH. 

    In an interview with NSN, Korolev commented on the recent bill that would completely ban the retail sale of nicotine and nicotine-free vapes in the Russian Federation “for the purpose of saving people.”

    “The ban is too radical a measure because it will deprive a significant number of Russians of the opportunity to receive nicotine without carcinogens,” said Korolev, estimating this size of the impacted group at between 30 million and 40 million people.

    At the same time, he noted, a significant share of tobacco sales in Russia avoids taxes and regulations. “What our smokers who want to quit are now getting as an alternative is also not very clear,” said Korolev. “Perhaps this is not the worst measure if it later makes it possible to introduce legal products for alternative purposes, that is, with nicotine, but with carcinogens, without combustible tobacco.”

    Korolev insisted that Russians should be given the opportunity to choose alternative options to tobacco products.

    “[F]or decades, we hooked the entire male population on the nicotine needle through military service: almost everyone there started smoking. Now, we need to give people the opportunity to use alternative options before simply banning everything indiscriminately.”

    In 2023, the smoking rate in Russia was 18.7 percent, down from 24.2 percent in 2019. In 2022, there was a noted increase in smokers using e-cigarettes and vapes.

  • Navigating the Fog

    Navigating the Fog

    Image: VlaDee/pavlofox

    Brazilian lawmakers mull regulation of e-cigarettes.

    By Claudio Teixteira

    In the face of growing concerns about public health, the expansion of the illicit market, and the persistent inaction of the Health Agency in assuming its regulatory responsibilities, the Federal Senate of Brazil has taken matters into its own hands with a bill for the regulation of electronic cigarettes in the country. This initiative, driven by Senator Soraya Thronicke, seeks to fill a legal loophole that has favored organized crime for over a decade and ensure adequate consumer protection. The bill under discussion in Brazil has the potential to mark a before and after in the vaping policy of the largest market in Latin America. Below, some fundamental aspects of this project are detailed, and the perspectives of experts on the subject are gathered.

    Nearly 15 years have passed since the Brazilian National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) banned commercial activities related to electronic cigarettes, and the discussion about this measure remains as relevant as it was at the beginning.

    Although the current law does not restrict personal use or possession of vaping devices, the ANVISA’s decision in 2022 to maintain the ban, after an exhaustive review process and public consultation, has generated a polarized debate among the Brazilian population. The consultation conducted last February has revealed considerable interest from consumers and various social sectors in reviewing and softening the current rules, favoring a more open and evidence-based policy.

    The ANVISA’s decision not to engage in the regulation of vaping products has spurred a significant legislative reaction from the Federal Senate. This situation highlights a critical moment in Brazil’s public health policy, marking a possible turning point in how the country addresses the regulation of these contemporary and widely debated products.

    In this context, Bill No. 5,008 of 2023, promoted by Thronicke, emerges. This legislative initiative is proposed as a direct response to the ANVISA’s inaction and seeks to establish a comprehensive regulatory framework for electronic cigarettes and similar devices in Brazil. The project covers many aspects, including production, marketing, importation and exportation as well as the regulation and specific supervision of these consumer products.

    Intending to establish precise requirements for their control, this bill represents a comprehensive effort to manage the presence and distribution of vaping devices in the Brazilian market, ensuring proper regulation from their manufacture to their promotion.

    Benefiting Organized Crime

    The senator has expressed concern that Brazil, unlike 84 percent of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries, lacks specific legislation to regulate electronic cigarettes. According to her, this omission leaves consumers vulnerable, facing a proven ineffective ban that does not align with the more advanced legal and regulatory standards adopted globally.

    Thronicke emphasizes that the protection of public health must be the priority, with a particular focus on the safety of young people. She proposes implementing strict regulations covering all aspects from production to marketing, promotion and consumption of these products. The senator maintains that adopting such measures is essential to minimize the risks associated with the use of electronic cigarettes and ensure a market supply that is responsible and regulated.

    The senator has expressed her deep dissatisfaction with Brazil’s current lack of regulation of electronic cigarettes. In an interview with Poder360, she pointed out how this legislative gap directly benefits organized crime. She highlighted the critical need to be held accountable for this omission and wondered who truly benefits from this legal void.

    “I wish those responsible for this omission face the consequences. I need to know who is behind this and who is facilitating organized crime operations. In this legal limbo scenario, the only beneficiaries are, without a doubt, criminal groups,” emphasized the senator, underscoring the importance of addressing and closing this legislative gap to combat the advancement of organized crime in this sector effectively.

    The senator’s concern extends to the quality and safety of vaping products in the Brazilian market. Many of these products evade regulations and contain components of unknown composition, posing a significant risk to public health. Furthermore, she criticizes the current prohibitive policies for their inconsistency, banning potential alternatives in favor of products whose dangers are already widely documented.

    Thronicke argues that if bans are to be implemented, they should be applied equitably, including traditional tobacco products. “If the decision is made to ban electronic devices, then conventional cigarettes should also face prohibition. It takes courage to do so, especially when nicotine is legal in Brazil, and electronic cigarettes represent just another way of consuming it.”

    These statements underline the urgency and complexity of formulating precise and compelling regulations for electronic cigarettes and other reduced-risk products in Brazil, focusing on safeguarding public health and combating illegality.

    Her concerns are evident when she points out how the absence of regulation benefits organized crime through the illicit trade of these products. She also highlights the risks of using unregulated devices and liquids whose ingredients are unknown and potentially harmful. “What is currently sold in Brazil evades any regulation. In Brazil, it’s simple to adulterate these products. The substances used for refilling or containing are made up of unknown ingredients, representing a serious health risk,” the senator emphasized.

    Knowing the Bill

    • The bill proposes that companies wishing to manufacture or import electronic cigarettes in Brazil register their products with the ANVISA. This process would include paying a “sanitary surveillance and inspection fee” set at BRL100,000 ($20,000) for each registration application or renewal.
    • Additionally, registering these products with the Brazilian Federal Revenue service will be required. As part of the process, interested parties must also submit a toxicological evaluation report to the ANVISA that should comprehensively analyze the additives and materials used in the products. This measure seeks to ensure rigorous control over the quality and safety of electronic cigarettes available in the Brazilian market to protect public health and ensure that only safe and regulated products are accessible to consumers.
    • The National Institute of Metrology, Quality and Technology and the National Telecommunications Agency will play crucial roles in establishing technical and safety criteria for the proper functioning of vaping devices. These guidelines will include regulations on safety in the charging process and standards for the wireless communication of devices, aiming to ensure that their use is safe and effective.
    • On the other hand, the bill introduces rigorous regulations for liquids containing nicotine, establishing a maximum volume limit of 22 mL and a maximum nicotine concentration of 35 mg per milliliter.
    • Additionally, the devices must be designed to prevent inappropriate tampering and ensure that they are inaccessible to children as part of a comprehensive effort to increase the safety of these products and primarily protect minors.
    • For heated-tobacco products and their respective packaging, the legislative project specifies that each package must contain 20 units, with a nicotine emission that does not exceed 1 mg per tobacco stick.
    • Product packages must include an informative leaflet covering essential aspects for the consumer, including instructions for use and storage, contraindications, possible adverse effects and warnings directed at at-risk groups.
    • The products must detail their ingredients, the nicotine concentration, the batch number and production and expiration dates. In addition, they must incorporate warning messages about health risks and the obligation to keep these products away from children and adolescents.
    • The products must display explicit warnings about several critical aspects of consumer safety and health. Firstly, they must prominently indicate the prohibition of their sale to minors under 18 years of age along with a strong recommendation against their use by nonsmokers. The need to keep the product out of reach of pets will also be emphasized.
    • Specific contraindications will be detailed to ensure that consumers are fully informed about situations in which the use of the product is not recommended or can be risky. This includes warnings focused on high-risk groups, such as pregnant women, people with diabetes and patients with heart conditions, reinforcing the project’s commitment to public health protection and the promotion of responsible consumption.
    • The product label must provide detailed information on the possible adverse effects of using the product and warnings about the risks of dependency and toxicity arising from its prolonged use.
    • The products will include detailed contact information, such as the company’s legal registry and the manufacturer’s or importer’s address, to ensure effective communication with consumers and facilitate the submission of complaints if necessary. According to the senator, this set of requirements promotes high transparency and accountability, encouraging these devices’ safe and informed use.
    • The packaging of electronic cigarette products must clearly and visibly display on their exterior a series of crucial information for the consumer. This includes a detailed list of ingredients, categorized explicitly and understandably by the type of additives and nicotine concentration. It is also crucial to include the batch identification, the production date and the product’s expiration date.
    • A prominent warning that the product must remain out of reach of children and adolescents is essential, along with a message about the health risks that must occupy at least 20 percent of the packaging surfaces most visible to the consumer.
    • Regarding the wording of the products, a specific prohibition will be implemented on using numbers, expressions or graphic elements that evoke flavors associated with desserts, sweets or any other element that may attract children and adolescents.
    • The ANVISA will determine the substances whose use will be prohibited, thus ensuring thorough control over the components of these products to safeguard public health.
    • The advertising of electronic cigarettes and related products will be subject to a rigorous ban in all media, including television, radio, billboards, print publications and digital platforms, such as social networks. The only exception allowed will be promoting these products within physical sales points or through e-commerce platforms, provided that strict age control is implemented to prevent minors from accessing them.
    • Expressly, any direct or indirect reference to youth culture is prohibited, including images of people who may be perceived as under 25 years of age, to deter interest in these products from this age group. These measures aim to reduce the appeal of electronic cigarettes and similar products among young people, safeguarding their health and well-being.
    • A robust age verification system will be required at the point of sale to confirm that the purchaser is over 18 years old, using biometrics or other equivalents.
    • Sales points must also comply with regulations prohibiting placing electronic cigarettes near products intended for children, such as candies and toys, thus avoiding any association that may be appealing to minors.
    • Furthermore, an explicit ban will be imposed on the free distribution of electronic cigarettes by manufacturers, importers or traders for promotional purposes to prevent encouraging consumption among new users, particularly young people.

    The regulations surrounding the consumption of harm reduction products will be established in line with the rules applied to traditional cigarettes, including restricting their use in enclosed spaces under existing legislation.

    The controversial prohibition of open-system devices is among the critical challenges to implementing and complying with the proposed regulation. These are characterized by a reservoir that can be refilled and generally offers the option to recharge. In contrast, closed systems comprise devices designed typically for single use, which are nonrechargeable and disposable after use.

    Such devices, due to their customization capability and low cost, present a significant alternative for those users looking to quit smoking by allowing them to adjust the nicotine concentration according to their specific needs.

    However, a critical limitation of the proposed law is that the prohibition significantly restricts the tools available for harm reduction and smoking cessation. This limitation to specific devices poses notable challenges in compliance and effective implementation of the regulation, implying the allocation of resources that could be used more effectively in other tobacco control strategies and in promoting awareness of the associated risks.

    ‘Chemical Weapons’

    The journey of the bill proposed by Thronicke in the Brazilian Senate is anticipated to be full of obstacles. One critic is conservative Senator Eduardo Girao, who has fervently defended the approval of his project, the PL 4.356/2023, which seeks to ratify the prohibitions already imposed by the ANVISA on electronic cigarettes, which he describes as “authentic chemical weapons with a technological varnish.”

    Girao argues that e-cigarettes are designed to attract new consumers, thus compensating for the loss of users that the tobacco industry has experienced in Brazil and globally over the last decades. During a plenary session of the Senate on March 11, he warned about the “serious health consequences in the short [term], medium [term] and long term” that an increase in the consumption of these devices could entail, especially among young people. Among these consequences, he mentioned an increase in the incidence of respiratory diseases, cardiovascular diseases and cancer.

    Despite this opposition, there are voices like that of Deputy Heitor Schuch suggesting that it’s unlikely any bill will succeed without explicit backing or a prior determination by the health agency.

    The scenario underscores the complexity of the legislative and regulatory debate around electronic cigarettes in Brazil, reflecting the divergence of opinions both within the political spectrum and in the academic and medical fields. The situation highlights the need for a deep and balanced analysis that considers both public health and the realities of nicotine consumption in the country. Amid this debate, various voices, including politicians, scientists and civil society representatives, urge Brazil to adopt a coherent and safe regulatory framework for nicotine products.

    With 22 million active smokers and about 3 million vapers, the lack of defined regulation and clear inequality in access to less harmful alternatives underline the urgency of establishing effective regulation through legislation. This measure is essential for promoting public health, social equity and economic stimulus. This raises the question of whether this will be the moment Brazil moves toward a more equitable and effective tobacco control policy.

    However, as several experts, including Schuch, have highlighted, the likelihood of any bill progressing without the endorsement or a preliminary determination by the health agency seems slim. This scenario highlights the complexities surrounding the formulation and implementation of public policies in tobacco control, emphasizing the importance of a consensus among the stakeholders involved to move toward solutions that adequately address the public health challenges in Brazil.

    Finding the Right Balance

    For professor Ingrid Dragan Taricano, a prominent toxicologist, regulating electronic cigarettes is at a decisive moment. Taricano identifies several aspects that underline the urgent need to regulate these devices, covering everything from public health and the protection of minors to environmental implications and risk and safety assessments from a toxicological perspective.

    Following the essential principle of toxicology, which holds that “every substance is toxic; it is the dose that makes the poison,” Taricano highlights the need to carry out rigorous health-risk assessments to establish safe exposure limits to any substance that comes into contact with humans. This approach emphasizes the importance of addressing concerns about toxic substances in electronic cigarettes and raises a crucial question: What is the safe dose for each component of these products?

    Bill PL 5008/2023 incorporates this vision by requiring the submission of toxicological evaluation reports for registering electronic nicotine-delivery devices with the ANVISA. Taricano views this proposal positively, highlighting its relevance within the regulatory framework to ensure a comprehensive evaluation considering the additives used, the manufacturing material and an objective toxicological comparison with traditional cigarettes.

    Taricano emphasizes the importance of toxicology as a cornerstone for developing policies and regulations regarding electronic cigarettes. This scientific discipline provides the foundation for establishing quality and safety criteria, restricting certain ingredients and flavors and adopting measures to prevent young people’s access to these products.

    In nations where effective regulation has been implemented, specific limits for nicotine concentration have been determined, and proven quality components of e-liquid have been required. This scenario contrasts significantly with deregulated markets, where devices can contain dangerous substances without supervision, as Taricano warns.

    She criticizes positions against regulation that focus solely on the presence of harmful elements in electronic devices, overlooking the fundamental toxicological principle that “every substance is toxic, and everything is a matter of dose.” According to Taricano, user safety can only be guaranteed through the appropriate regulation of the quantities and quality of the components.

    Taricano highlights the complexity of establishing balanced regulation that protects public health without inhibiting innovation or individual freedom. For her, it’s fundamental that regulatory decisions are supported by a solid scientific base, ensuring that both the risks and benefits of using electronic cigarettes are considered. In this sense, science must be the beacon that guides toward informed and effective regulation, always with consumer well-being as the highest priority.

    ‘An Obstacle to Quitting’

    Alexandro Lucian, a renowned expert in harm reduction associated with smoking and leader of the Directory of Information for Tobacco Harm Reduction, a nongovernmental organization dedicated to improving anti-tobacco policies, highlights the bill’s importance as an essential tool to address current issues of smuggling, tax evasion and the indiscriminate use of products attractive to young people.

    Lucian points out that this project seeks to ensure that consumers have access to products that comply with appropriate health regulations and are adequately informed about the risks involved in their use.

    However, Lucian emphasizes that the bill requires significant reforms. He criticizes the imposition of an annual registration fee of BRL100,000 and the misclassification of electronic cigarettes as tobacco derivatives, which could hinder the legalization of numerous existing initiatives, thus fostering the illegal market and posing a risk to public health. “This fee will prevent most of the initiatives already existing in the country from becoming legal, fueling illegal trade and bringing incalculable risks to public health,” he says.

    He also underscores the need to review the project section that suggests banning open systems, which many users prefer. He argues that restricting legal access to these systems could further stimulate illegal trade. Lucian highlights that these systems, by offering the possibility to adjust the nicotine dose, facilitate the process for traditional cigarette smokers to migrate to electronic ones and, over time, give up the smoking habit.

    ‘An Obstacle for Small Businesses’

    From the consumer’s perspective, Ignacio Leiva, leader of ASOVAPE Chile and coordinator of the “Vaping Is Not Smoking” campaign, is a recognized activist who has significantly contributed to formulating progressive vaping regulations in Chile. Sharing his vision of the situation in Brazil, Leiva considers that Thronicke’s project represents a notable advance for Brazilian legislation, which currently faces unfavorable conditions due to the total ban.

    According to him, this situation has fostered the rise of a black market that not only puts consumers’ health at risk due to the lack of control over product quality but also deprives the state of significant tax revenues in addition to benefiting marginal groups that trade in these products.

    Leiva expresses concern about the BRL100,000 required for product registration, which he sees as a particularly onerous barrier for small-sized and medium-sized enterprises, possibly favoring large corporations and potentially resulting in a monopoly in the sector.

    While he supports advertising restrictions for conventional tobacco, Leiva advocates for greater freedom in promoting harm reduction products. He highlights the need to inform society about less harmful alternatives. He argues that regulation facilitating access to safe and regulated options can motivate a positive change in consumption habits, reducing tobacco use and benefiting public health. Moreover, he defends adopting fair regulatory measures that do not unjustly favor large corporations to the detriment of smaller market players.

    Leiva emphasizes the importance of achieving a balance between offering less harmful alternatives to smokers and protecting minors. He positively values the measures included in Thronicke’s proposal to prevent minors from using electronic cigarettes. He applauds the initiative to restrict the sale of these products alongside items aimed at the child and youth audience. This approach reflects, in his opinion, a solid commitment to the protection of young people, ensuring that efforts to minimize the harms associated with tobacco do not increase the use of electronic devices among the most vulnerable population.

    Protecting Public Health and Promoting Equity

    The voices of politicians, civil society members and scientists urgently highlight the need for a more coherent and safer regulatory framework for managing nicotine products in Brazil. There is widespread agreement on the need to focus policies on protecting public health and combating illegal trade as well as addressing smoking-related complications.

    It is also recognized that adopting appropriate regulations in the country would benefit public health and boost the economy through job creation, increased revenues and significant fiscal contributions to the state. This perspective underscores the importance of a balanced approach that combines health objectives with economic incentives to positively impact the population’s well-being and the country’s economic development.

    Although Brazil records lower smoking rates compared to other nations, there remains a significant fraction of the adult population, approximately one in eight adults, who continue to smoke. This represents about 22 million people. This data, derived from national statistics on tobacco consumption, highlights the pressing need to implement effective public health policies.

    The prohibition of products recognized as harm reduction options in Brazil poses a severe challenge in terms of social justice. A higher incidence of smoking is observed in the lower socioeconomic classes compared to the ability of middle and high classes to access less harmful alternatives, which evidences an apparent disparity in access to healthier options.

    This inequality suggests that strategies to promote a healthier lifestyle are predominantly available to those with greater economic capacity, leaving people with fewer resources and limited options to quit or reduce tobacco use. This scenario underscores the need to adopt inclusive measures that allow all layers of society to benefit from safer and more effective alternatives for smoking cessation.

    The current prohibition becomes a significant obstacle to implementing public policies aimed at improving access to harm reduction methods in communities most impacted by smoking. In this context, adopting effective regulation emerges as a crucial element, with the potential to make harm reduction strategies accessible to all levels of society, thus helping to mitigate health inequality.

    The discussion on regulating less harmful alternatives, such as electronic cigarettes, becomes especially relevant, offering solutions to the adverse consequences of prohibition in Brazil’s social fabric. Furthermore, this debate opens a new avenue in the fight against smoking. Considering social justice issues, it is imperative to promote policies that foster equity and ensure fair access to safer options for all citizens.

    Claudio Teixeira is a journalist, director of C3PRESS Agency and editor of The Vaping Today. He lives in Brazil.
  • Belgium to Ban Sale of Disposables

    Belgium to Ban Sale of Disposables

    Photo: Bennphoto

    Belgium will ban the sale of disposable e-cigarettes effective Jan. 1, 2025, making it the first EU country to do so, reports The Brussels Times, citing Federal Health Minister Frank Vandenbroucke. The country has received approval from the European Commission for the ban.

    “The disposable e-cigarette causes a lot of damage to society and the environment,” said Vandenbroucke. “This harmful product mainly targets our young people. I am therefore pleased that we can remove this from the market.”

    Vandenbroucke said that marketing for vapes is “very savvy” and “youth-oriented” despite sales of vapes to minors being banned in Belgium. Youth use is widespread, and in 2023, about three in four points of sale sold disposables to minors, according to an inspection.

    “Belgium is playing a pioneering role in Europe to break the power of the tobacco lobby,” Vandenbroucke said upon receiving approval for the ban from the European Commission. “This is another milestone in our fight against tobacco.”

    “We strive for a smoke-free generation and want people, especially young people, to be better protected and to come into less contact with tobacco or alternative smoking methods,” Vandenbroucke said. “With this measure, we ensure that we remove an extremely harmful product from the market, which is also cheap and therefore attractive to young people.”

    Nondisposable e-cigarettes will still be allowed as many use them to quit smoking combustible cigarettes. “Still, we have been able to agree that they can no longer be offered with lights and other things to make them attractive,” Vandenbroucke said. “It should not be a product to start smoking but to stop smoking.”

  • Massachusetts Court OKs Generational Ban

    Massachusetts Court OKs Generational Ban

    Brookline, Massachusetts (Credit: Wangkun Jia)

    The highest court in Massachusetts ignored objections from vape shop owners and tobacco retailers and upheld the legality of a novel bylaw that bars cigarette sales to anyone born after January 1, 2000, in the town of Brookline. The restriction, the first of its kind in the United States, is designed to prevent future generations from using not only tobacco but also nicotine.

    Retailers argued that the 2021 Brookline bylaw was pre-empted by a state law approved in 2018 that raised the minimum age for purchasing a tobacco product from 18 to 21, according to media reports. The retailers pointed out that the Brookline bylaw effectively means someone born after January 1, 2000, will not be able to purchase a nicotine product regardless of their age.

    Over time, as the population ages, the bylaw will effectively ban the sale of tobacco products in the town.

    In the Supreme Judicial Court’s unanimous opinion, written by Justice Dalila Wendlandt, the court acknowledged the Brookline bylaw is more restrictive than the state’s minimum age standard, but the justices had no issues with that. They said the bylaw “augments the state statute” by further limiting access to tobacco products to persons under the age of 21.

    The court rejected claims by the tobacco retailers that the state law was designed to clarify what had become a muddled regulatory environment as municipality after municipality raised the minimum age for buying tobacco products.

    “The retailers claim that the purpose of the Tobacco Act was ‘actually to benefit tobacco retailers . . . by eliminating the confusion that arises when the minimum age for purchasing tobacco varies from town to town and city to city across the Commonwealth,’” the opinion said. “To the contrary, the act reflects the legislative intent to protect young persons and other vulnerable populations from the deleterious health effects of tobacco product use.”

    The case drew attention in Massachusetts and around the nation and the world and the outcome is likely to prompt more communities to follow Brookline’s lead, creating a patchwork quilt of regulation of tobacco products.