The U.S. Food and Drug Administration should extend the ban on menthol cigarettes to other products, like pipe tobacco and cigarette tubes, according to researchers at the Rutgers Center for Tobacco Studies and Ohio State University, reports EurekAlert!.
“Tobacco companies have rebranded their roll-your-own cigarette tobacco as pipe tobacco to avoid taxes and rebranded flavored cigarettes as flavored cigars to skirt a federal ban,” said Andrea Villanti, deputy director of the Rutgers Center for Tobacco Studies and co-principal investigator of a study published in Tobacco Control discussing the addiction potential of menthol cigarette alternatives. “We have already seen companies advertising pipe tobacco and cigarette tubes alongside cigarettes and filtered cigars. The products we tested in our study are likely to be products that tobacco companies will promote following a ban on menthol cigarettes.”
Research showed that mentholated pipe tobacco and tubes in a roll-your-own cigarette were the most appealing substitutes for menthol cigarettes and resulted in the highest number of indicators for future nicotine addiction. The proposed menthol ban does not include these products, however.
“The present findings suggest that components of menthol roll-your-own products, including menthol rolling papers, cigarette tubes and pipe tobacco, should be included in the menthol cigarette and flavored cigar product standards,” said Theodore Wagener, director of the Center for Tobacco Research at the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center—Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute and corresponding author of the study. “Their absence from this restriction will result in a critical loophole that is already being exploited by the tobacco industry and has the potential to lessen the potential public health benefits of the proposed menthol ban.”
On Dec. 18, 2017, the FDA filed for substantive scientific review of six MRTP applications from R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company for the following smokeless tobacco products: Camel Snus Frost, Camel Snus Frost Large, Camel Snus Mellow, Camel Snus Mint, Camel Snus Robust and Camel Snus Winterchill.
On Oct. 25, 2022, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company requested to withdraw these applications from FDA review.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued marketing denial orders (MDOs) for several menthol-flavored vaping products marketed by Logic Technology Development. The products include the Logic Pro Menthol e-Liquid Package and Logic Power Menthol e-Liquid Package. It’s the first time the FDA has issued MDOs for menthol products after receiving a scientific review.
The move seems inline with the regulatory agency’s goal to ban menthol flavors from tobacco products. The FDA also isn’t expected to approve any flavored vaping product other than tobacco.
“Ensuring new tobacco products undergo premarket evaluation is a critical part of the FDA’s work to reduce tobacco-related disease and death,” said Brian King, director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products (CTP), in a release. “We remain committed to evaluating new tobacco products based on a public health standard that considers the risks and benefits of the tobacco product to the population as a whole.”
Gregory Conley, director of legislative and external affairs for the American Vapor Manufacturers Association, told Tobacco Reporter that the latest move by the FDA to ban menthol vaping flavors is reminiscent of the agency’s “fatal flaw” review of PMTAs that resulted in millions of denials. The term “fatal flaw” was used by the FDA for PMTA submissions that didn’t have specific studies. The term has been at the center of nearly all lawsuits filed against the FDA for its handling of the PMTA process.
“The dysfunction at the FDA knows no bounds. For the last year-plus, the FDA has sat back deferred decision making on menthol vaping products,” Conley said. “Lest anyone believe that FDA was hard at work coming up with ways to achieve balance, today they revealed that their big plan for menthol vaping products is to follow the exact same ‘fatal flaw’ review process that has led to dozens of lawsuits being filed against the agency.”
The agency stated that after reviewing the company’s premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs), the FDA determined that the applications “lacked sufficient evidence to demonstrate that permitting the marketing of the products would be appropriate for the protection of the public health (APPH), the applicable standard legally required by the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.”
The FDA stated that the evidence provided within Logic’s denied PMTAs did not demonstrate that menthol-flavored e-cigarettes are more effective in promoting “complete switching or significant cigarette use reduction” relative to tobacco-flavored e-cigarettes.
Logic must now decide if it will resubmit its applications or submit new applications to address the deficiencies for the products that are subject to the MDOs. However, these acts could prove futile since the FDA states that for non-tobacco-flavored e-cigarettes, including menthol-flavored e-cigarettes, “existing evidence demonstrates a known and substantial risk” with regard to youth appeal, uptake and use.
“The FDA conducts a rigorous, scientific review of submitted premarket tobacco product applications, evaluating the data for each product to determine if it meets the public health standard,” said King. “In this case, the applicant did not provide sufficient scientific evidence to show that the potential benefit to adult smokers outweighs the risks to youth.”
A recently accepted manuscript of an article set for publication in Nicotine & Tobacco Research found that flavored vaping and other tobacco sales restrictions in California did not affect youth e-cigarette use.
The MDO letter that Logic received today is not limited to the two products named above, according to the agency. In general, the FDA publicly names only products that the applicant is marketing to avoid potential disclosure of confidential commercial information.
In addition to ensuring that Logic complies with this order, the FDA intends to ensure compliance by distributors and retailers. Specifically, the FDA notes that all new tobacco products on the market without the “statutorily required premarket authorization” are marketed unlawfully and their distribution or sale is subject to enforcement action.
Recently, the U.S. Department of Justice filed complaints for permanent injunctions in federal district courts against six e-cigarette manufacturers on behalf of the FDA. The cases represent the first time the FDA has initiated injunction proceedings to enforce the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act’s premarket review requirements for new tobacco products.
Retailers should contact Logic with any questions about products in their inventory.
New data from the 2022 National Youth Tobacco Survey (NYTS) shows that 2.5 million U.S. youth use e-cigarettes, according to the published findings in the Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report released by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“The FDA remains deeply concerned about e-cigarette use among our nation’s youth. It’s clear that we still have a serious public health problem that threatens the years of progress we have made combatting youth tobacco product use,” said FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf. “We cannot and will not let our guard down on this issue. The FDA remains steadfast in its commitment to using the full range of our authorities to address youth e-cigarette use head-on.”
The study shows that about one in 10 middle school (3.3 percent) and high school (14.1 percent) students reported current e-cigarette use; current use is defined as use within the past 30 days. About 85 percent of surveyed students reported using flavored e-cigarettes while 27.6 percent reported daily use. Respondents most commonly used disposables, with Puff Bar being most common (14.5 percent) followed by Vuse (12.5 percent) and Hyde (5.5 percent). Puff Bar and Vuse were pre-specified options on the survey, but Hyde was written in by students as their preferred brand.
Since methodology changes occurred, including in survey administration and data collection procedures due to the Covid-19 pandemic, comparisons between the 2022 NYTS and previous years is limited.
Following the release of this data, the FDA has issued a warning letter to Puff Bar for receiving and delivering e-cigarettes in the U.S. without a marketing authorization order. The FDA has requested a response within 15 working days of receiving the letter, detailing how the company intends to address the FDA’s concerns, including the dates on which they discontinued the sale and/or distribution of these tobacco products and plans for maintaining compliance with the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Failure to address the violations puts the manufacturer at risk of regulatory action, such as a civil money penalty, product seizure and/or injunction.
The Puff products subject to this warning letter are nontobacco nicotine products.
After reviewing premarket tobacco product applications for 32 Hyde e-cigarettes, the FDA issued marketing denial orders (MDOs) for these applications submitted by Magellan Technology Inc. In conducting its scientific review, the FDA determined that the applications lacked sufficient evidence demonstrating that the products would provide a benefit to adult users that would be adequate to outweigh the risks to youth. No Hyde products have received marketing authorization orders from the FDA.
“Congress gave the FDA authority to hold manufacturers and retailers who violate the law accountable,” said Brian King, director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products. “FDA is actively working to identify violations and to swiftly seek corrective actions, particularly for products popular among youth. We will use all compliance and enforcement tools available to us, as appropriate, to protect our nation’s youth.”
During an exclusive interview with the Associated Press, the director of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Tobacco Products (CTP), Brian King, said the FDA is well on its way in setting a foundation for substantial reductions in combustible tobacco smoking with the product standards such as a menthol ban and flavor bans for e-cigarettes and cigars.
When asked about several surveys that have shown many adults think e-cigarettes are as dangerous as traditional cigarettes, King said he was fully aware of the misperceptions surrounding vaping products those misperceptions aren’t consistent with the known science.
“We do know that e-cigarettes — as a general class — have markedly less risk than a combustible cigarette product,” King said. “That said, I think it’s very critical that we inform any communication campaigns using science and evidence. It has to be very carefully thought out to ensure that we’re maximizing impact and avoiding unintended consequences.”
King also said he believes “there’s a lot of really important science and innovations” that have occurred in the vaping industry in recent years, adding that the most notable is nicotine salts in e-liquids.
“We know that when you smoke a tobacco product, it’s a very efficient way to deliver nicotine across the blood-brain barrier. So it’s been very difficult to rival that efficiency in another product,” said King. “But in the case of nicotine salts you have the potential to more efficiently deliver nicotine which could hold some public health promise in terms of giving smokers enough nicotine that they would transition completely.
“But you also have to consider the opposite side of the coin, which is the inherent risks of initiation among youth. So I do worry about that … there’s a lot happening and I think that it could be promise or peril. But I think it’s important that the science drives that.”
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration Today issued a final guidance on guidance perception and intention studies.
The guidance, “Tobacco Products: Principles for Designing and Conducting Tobacco Product Perception and Intention Studies,” is intended to help applicants design and conduct tobacco product perception and intention (TPPI) studies that may be submitted as part of a modified risk tobacco product (MRTP) application, a premarket tobacco product application (PMTA), or a substantial equivalence report (SE Report).
TPPI studies can be used to assess, among other things, individuals’ perceptions of tobacco products, understanding of tobacco product information (e.g., labeling, modified risk information), and intentions to use tobacco products, according to the FDA.
These studies provide critical information during the review of product applications and this guidance provides recommendations on how to perform these studies.
The final guidance addresses several scientific issues for applicants to consider when designing and conducting TPPI studies to support tobacco product applications:
Developing study aims and hypotheses
Designing quantitative and qualitative studies
Selecting and adapting measures of study constructs
Determining study outcomes
Selecting and justifying study samples
Analyzing study results
The guidance document is intended to provide clarity to applicants regarding existing requirements under the law, according to FDA.
“FDA guidance documents, including this guidance, should be viewed as recommendations for consideration, unless specific regulatory or statutory requirements are cited,” the release states.
Recently, U.S. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Robert Califf announced an external evaluation of both the Human Foods Program and the Center for Tobacco Products (CTP). The FDA press release observed that “… even greater challenges lie ahead as we determine how the agency will navigate complex policy issues and determine enforcement activities for an increasing number of novel products that could potentially have significant consequences for public health. To that end, the review will push toward ‘organizational excellence.’”
Califf is right—the CTP clearly requires assistance. The purpose of this article is to review how the CTP arrived in this untenable situation and to suggest areas of focus for the review of the CTP processes.
How Did We Get Here?
There is little doubt that the CTP is in an unenviable position. No matter which way the agency turns, it is impossible to please everyone. The anti-tobacco/vaping groups will never be satisfied until all tobacco products are gone—so realistic harm reduction propositions from the center will always be met with opposition. And when the CTP tries to develop policies with a focus on efficiency, many in the industry claim that they are “prohibitionist” and that they have no regard for harm reduction and/or the human and economic consequences of their decision-making.
Recently, several court opinions and CTP actions have significantly contributed to the challenging environment for the CTP:
West Virginia v. EPA. While not directly related to the CTP, the West Virginia v. EPA Supreme Court decision has reopened the question as to whether discretion of regulatory agencies may become more limited in the future. The court seems poised to chip away at longstanding doctrines (or apply them more forcefully) to limit agency power and place policymaking back with the legislature.
Cigar Association of American v. FDA. More recently, in the Cigar Association of America v. FDA case, Judge Amit Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia examined whether the FDA’s decision not to exempt premium cigars from the Deeming Rule was arbitrary and capricious. The court ultimately found that the FDA ignored evidence in the rulemaking record—and ruled against the agency.
Juul v. FDA. Days later, the CTP found toxicological issues with Juul’s popular vapor products and issued marketing denial orders (MDOs) for those products. Not surprisingly, Juul immediately requested and received an emergency stay of the MDOs from the D.C. Circuit. Without missing a beat, the CTP promptly “… administratively stayed the marketing denial order. The agency [determined] that there are scientific issues unique to the Juul application that warrant additional review.” Several commentators questioned the CTP’s rationale for its decision to re-review Juul’s applications, and some have gone so far as to suggest that this quick reversal indicates a less than appropriate review of Juul’s data or worse—a lack of confidence in the CTP’s decision-making. Either way, the entire chain of events draws into question the CTP’s review process.
Finally, the CTP is still under pressure to complete decisions on premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) for those companies addressed in the Maryland court decision which, according to the CTP, will not be completed until next summer. Further compounding the CTP’s problems, the center continues “processing” approximately 1,000,000 synthetic nicotine PMTAs past the congressional deadline for marketing decisions on July 13, 2022. How the center will respond to this pressure is anyone’s guess. So far, it seems like the CTP continues to move at its own pace, following the Maryland court’s order to the best of its abilities.
These external and internal factors point to one conclusion that cannot be ignored—the CTP appears to be struggling and needs something to change. With the above in mind, the following are a few areas ripe for external (and internal) review at the CTP.
Credit: Fizkes
Operational Changes
Operationally, the CTP seems to have the resources (personnel and budget) to successfully regulate tobacco products. That said, certain policy choices and administrative actions (both self-inflicted and externally inflicted) appear to hamper the center’s ability to effectively manage the space. Importantly, effective regulation is hamstrung by the complexity of the U.S. tobacco regulatory scheme, a lack of clear standards for product testing and approval and a too opaque product application process.
The most challenging operational issues come from the existing regulatory scheme, which is too complex for tobacco products. The Tobacco Control Act dictates the parameters/guardrails, but the CTP has latitude in how the process is implemented. The comprehensive PMTA guidance and robust final rule demand a scientific depth that goes too far. The question is: Is all of the delineated scientific data really necessary to determine that a product is appropriate for the protection of public health (APPH)?
If comparing to combustible cigarettes, it would seem that most electronic nicotine-delivery product APPH determinations could be made based on chemistry alone. Piling on bench toxicology, human factors, pharmacokinetic and behavioral studies, it’s no wonder the review process takes so long.
Standards are not clear. Without clear standards, the CTP and industry both are left constantly employing guesswork and conjecture to facilitate decision-making. While understandably there is no simple formula for APPH, clear expectations would be beneficial and efficient. By way of example, which device characteristics really need testing? What is the depth of stability testing necessary? What constitutes a sufficient PK [pharmacokinetic] study? While the initial meeting with the Office of Science is often useful to help answer questions like these, better defining product-specific standards and setting minimums would go a long way to streamlining the approval process.
Transparency is lacking. While one can review the Technical Project Lead Reviews and some of the review standards memos that the CTP places on its website, few PMTA applicants have any idea what’s going on with their applications at any given time. Other than the initial pre-PMTA meeting and the sole deficiency letter, there is little that applicants know about the status (both administratively and substantively) of their applications. While more transparency about the status of applications would be welcome, more back and forth on issues in applications would benefit everyone—particularly the CTP. In the case of Juul, reports indicate that Juul provided thousands of pages of data related to the toxicological issue that the CTP raised in the MDOs. If the now outdated additional information requests were utilized by the CTP, Juul would have pointed out this data, and at least one issue could have been resolved well short of a trip to the courthouse.
Credit: Oleg
Policy Changes
It goes without saying that U.S. government policy can be fickle to say the least. Setting and maintaining long-term policy is difficult—especially in light of changing administrations every few years. Despite this, overriding policy tenants as they relate to harm reduction can, and should, form the cornerstone of tobacco regulatory policy. If harm reduction is the priority, then regulators need to prioritize pathways for reduced-harm products to enter the market, incentivize innovation and focus on providing offramps to combustible cigarette smokers seeking to quit smoking.
Harm reduction policy. During the tenure of former Commissioner Gottlieb at the FDA, many in the industry thought harm reduction would prevail and that all would recognize vapor products’ place at the opposite end of the continuum of risk from combustible cigarettes. Unfortunately, the significant uptick in youth experimentation with a few types of vapor products prodded the CTP into a tough position. Public health groups, dissatisfied with the CTP’s pace, forced the center into a corner via litigation.
Assuming the goal of the Tobacco Control Act remains to reduce smoking-related morbidity and mortality, harm reduction strategies are central to achieving that goal. Importantly, harm reduction strategies should be palatable to all stakeholders. While the CTP has several initiatives moving forward, is there a plan for initiatives dedicated to moving smokers to safer alternatives? Efforts to move smokers to less risky alternatives do nothing when those less risky alternatives cannot succeed via the PMTA pathway. Current tobacco policy is remarkably dissimilar from the variety of strategies employed for other unsafe behaviors where harm reduction is embraced as the primary alternative. In areas such as drug use and sexually transmitted diseases, our society generally accepts reduced-harm efforts, but for tobacco, collectively we are still searching for that sweet spot.
Given all the challenges that the CTP faces, working on harm reduction policies hand-in-glove with nongovernmental groups and industry probably does not seem like the best use of time. When the center was first formed, frequent scientific meetings were held on various issues (such as harmful and potentially harmful constituents). These have fallen off in recent years, likely in part due to Covid and also due to the onerous demands on the center. Prioritizing genuine and open conversations between the CTP, industry and tobacco control groups is critical to developing strong harm reduction policies. Holding scientific meetings (either through the CTP or the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee) on harm reduction plans and policies would add transparency and bring all ideas to the table.
The FDA should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good when considering reduced-harm products. At present, PMTA reviews appear to be searching for the perfect. Reviews seem to focus on the smallest details that might pose a risk while ignoring a more generalized comparison to combustible products with 70 known carcinogens (and a track record of 480,000 deaths per year). APPH does not mean no risk—it means less risk than the deadliest consumer product ever invented, the combustible cigarette. Reconsidering how APPH is adjudged would be an excellent first step in combatting morbidity and mortality attributable to smoking.
Investing in harm reduction must be incentivized. If one wants to develop a new product, the timeline is a hard stop. A year of product development, up to three years of PMTA testing (including two years of stability and time to plan, conduct and write up the studies) plus one year to three years of the CTP review before the possibility of a marketing order sounds like a pretty poor investment. The PMTA process must change to bring less risky products more rapidly to market.
Society must not forget about smokers. Youth tobacco issues are important, but the 1,300 smokers dying each day are important too. A balanced harm reduction policy—controlling youth access and exposure while moving combustible cigarette smokers to quitting tobacco altogether or moving to a less risky product is necessary.
Moving Forward
Hopefully the external review will be a fruitful exercise—one that provides robust alternatives for the CTP to consider. The review, if rightly focused, will address foundational issues that will, in the end, lead tobacco regulation to a reasonable, reduced-harm world where smokers are given hope for a future.
Chris Howard is vice president, general counsel and chief compliance officer at E-Alternative Solutions, an independent, family-owned innovator of consumer-centric brands.
Rich Hill is the compliance director and associate general counsel of E-Alternative Solutions.
The Reagan-Udall Foundation has picked Clinton-era U.S. Food and Drug Administration commissioner Jane Henney to spearhead its 60-day review of operations in the agency’s food safety and tobacco divisions, according to Politico.
Henney, the first woman to lead the agency, has not formally been announced yet.
The FDA Commissioner Robert Califf made the move in an attempt to push past several controversies that have dominated his second stint running the agency, including his issuing of a marketing denial order (MDO) to e-cigarette maker Juul Labs and later having to rescind that order.
One month into his new job, Brian King is already praising his agency’s hard work. The director of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) released a statement that he wanted to make it “unequivocally clear” that the agency was “working diligently” to process synthetic nicotine premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs).
“A substantial number of applications were submitted by May 14 – nearly one million from more than 200 separate companies – with some several thousand pages long,” King stated. “Preparing these applications for review takes several steps and submissions varied widely in their organization, size, and completeness of data, which impacts the time it takes to process the information.”
Amanda Wheeler, president of the American Vapor Manufacturers Association (AVM), Tweeted, “Read between the lines: Millions of applications submitted, ZERO approved, yet King assures us the system is working. We do know the only thing preventing vape products from saving lives is the FDA itself, rigging the system in favor of prohibition over harm reduction,” in response to King’s statement.
Despite the challenges of reviewing PMTAs, King stated that the agency was “making significant progress” in processing and reviewing the applications. The FDA has issued refuse-to-accept (RTA) letters for more than 88,000 products for applications that “do not meet the criteria” for acceptance. Applications are required to provide important information needed for processing and reviewing.
“Without the required information, applications cannot proceed past the acceptance phase of the review process,” King stated. “The RTA letters state that it is illegal to sell or distribute in the U.S. marketplace any new tobacco product that has not received premarket authorization.
Of the nearly a million applications submitted by May 14, the FDA only accepted an estimated 350, with the vast majority being for e-cigarette or e-liquid products, according to the statement. Accepted applications are then evaluated in the filing stage before going under scientific review.
“The substantive review phase includes evaluation of the scientific information and data in an application, which often results in follow-up questions and conversations with companies, including in situations where elements of an application raise questions needing clarification,” stated King. “It is only after the substantive phase that a company may be granted a marketing order. If no marketing order is granted, it remains illegal to market the product. To date, no non-tobacco nicotine product has received a marketing granted order.”
All bark, no bite
After July 13, 2022, a non-tobacco nicotine product can only be legally marketed in the United States if it has received a marketing order from the FDA. This means that it is illegal for a retailer or distributor to sell or distribute a synthetic nicotine products is in violation of the law and its manufacturer, retailer, or distributor may be subject to FDA enforcement.
King stated that the agency’s compliance and enforcement work is a multi-step process that cannot “happen overnight.” it takes time to ensure that any enforcement taken is supported by the available evidence with respect to the legal standards. Typically, the FDA will first issue warning letters to promote compliance and then follow up to ensure the violations addressed in the warning letter are corrected. If firms continue to violate the law, the FDA can pursue further actions, such as civil money penalties, seizures, and injunctions.
Many retailers simply ignore the FDA warnings. One owner told Tobacco Reporter that they “know” the agency is overworked and understaffed and is unlikely to follow up or pursue further steps. The agency has also made some very public mistakes over the past month, including its reversal of Juul’s marketing denial order (MDO), that has damaged the agency’s public perception.
While there isn’t much data surrounding what tobacco products remain on the market that have received warning letters, however, numerous companies on the agency’s MDO list still market products in the U.S.
It isn’t only for tobacco products that the agency doesn’t enforce its warnings. A considerable proportion of drug supplement products remain available for purchase after issuance of FDA warning letters, according to a research letter published in the July 26 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. Researchers found that the FDA issued warning letters regarding 31 supplement products. Only one of these 31 products was recalled by the manufacturer.
At a mean of six years following the issue of warning letters, nine of the products (29 percent) remained available for purchase online, according to the authors. Four of these nine products (44 percent) listed the presence of at least one prohibited ingredient on the label: One label declared the prohibited ingredient included in the FDA warning letter and three listed other FDA-prohibited ingredients. Five of the nine products were found to contain at least one FDA-prohibited ingredient after chemical analysis: Four products contained one prohibited ingredient and one product contained three. Two products contained the ingredient for which the FDA issued the warning letter.
Despite its challenges, the FDA issued 17 new warning letters on Aug. 1 to manufacturers for marketing products without FDA approval. On July 28, the agency issued 102 warning letters to retailers for illegally selling non-tobacco nicotine products to underage purchasers.
“Our goal is clear communication and transparency, and toward that end, we intend to include information about non-tobacco nicotine products in our regular metrics reporting in the future,” stated King. “To keep stakeholders and the general public informed, we also launched a non-tobacco nicotine product webpage that includes information about how synthetic nicotine is made and our regulation of non-tobacco nicotine products.”
The court rejected Fontem’s July 12 request for a stay, saying that the e-cigarette company had waited too long to file the motion.
“Fontem has demonstrated that the marketing denial order is causing it harm, but by waiting more than two months after the marketing denial order’s issuance to seek emergency relief, Fontem weakened its claim of irreparable harm,” the court wrote.
The court also stated that Fontem “has not made a strong showing” that it is likely to succeed in its appeal of the MDO on merits.
“The court ruling does not affect our progress through the FDA’s administrative appeals process, through which we intend to convince the agency that approval should be granted for Myblu products,” said a spokesperson for Fontem US.
“In the meantime we continue to supply Myblu to the majority of retailers. The MDO does not apply to Blu disposables which constitute 50 percent of Blu share in the U.S. market.”
