Tag: consumer choice center

U.S. States Fail to Harness Vaping’s Potential: Report

Photo: pavelkant
The Consumer Choice Center has released its second U.S. State Vaping Index, which looks at 50 states plus the District of Columbia. It reveals that only three states, including Alaska, North Dakota and Tennessee, received an A+ in the study for an evidence-based approach to vaping policy.
This rating means these states are in a position to harness the enormous potential of vaping as a harm-reduction tool while still letting consumers choose for themselves. Other states that perform well are Arizona, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Wisconsin.
By contrast, 12 states have overwhelmingly embraced restrictive policies on vapers and vaping, including Utah (0 points), California (second to last at 5 points), Vermont (10 points), Oregon, New York, New Jersey, Nebraska, Massachusetts, Illinois, Hawaii, D.C. and Colorado (all at 15 points). The number of low scores has doubled since the 2020 edition of the Vaping Index.
“Vaping saves lives,” said Emil Panzaru, research director for the Consumer Choice Center. “If every smoker in the United States switched to vaping over 10 years, you’d have 6.6 million fewer premature deaths in the U.S.
“Unfortunately, policymakers across America do not recognize that vaping is a valid harm-reduction substitute for traditional combustible tobacco products. Vapes are often mistakenly referred to as tobacco products, and in turn, targeted with draconian flavor bans, taxed higher than cigarettes, subject to registries meant to gatekeep the products, and faced with bans on online sales.
“These policies deter consumers from switching away from the more dangerous habit of smoking and fuel black markets for vape products. The end result is a patchwork of state laws at odds with the most up-to-date public health practices from around the world.”
The purpose of the U.S. Vaping Index is to inform consumers about vaping policies in their area and highlight the need for more informed and level-headed lawmaking. The Consumer Choice Center weighed five factors in the index:
1) Whether the state considers vapes to be tobacco products;
2) State-level vaping flavor restrictions;
3) Requirements for state registries (which mirror the FDA-approved database);
4) Additional excise taxes on vaping; and
5) The presence or absence of online sales bans.
“Let’s set the empirical record straight,” said Panzaru. “The best available research by authorities such as Public Health England recognizes that vaping is 95 percent safer than combustible tobacco for users. Evidence in the New England Journal of Medicine finds that vaping is twice as effective at smoking cessation than any nicotine tablet, patch or spray at helping people quit smoking.
“What’s more, a review of 15 different studies found little evidence of a supposed gateway effect leading teens down the path from vaping to smoking or hard substances.”
“Rather than embracing policies that ignore the evidence and do not work, state authorities should commit to studying and learning from the example of Sweden, the first country to become smoke-free in Europe thanks to the research-driven recognition of vapes as harm-reduction tools,” Panzaru concluded.
October 16, 2024
Video: FDA Urged to Prioritize Access to Safer Alternatives
Consumer advocates spoke out against what they describe as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s “alarming neglect” in facilitating access to safer nicotine alternatives for millions of adult consumers during a House Oversight hearing today.
“Despite the bipartisan mandate of the Tobacco Control Act of 2009, the FDA’s performance has fallen short of expectations, leaving countless individuals without viable options to effectively transition away from combustible cigarettes,” the Consumer Choice Center wrote in a press note.
“With over 26 million premarket tobacco product applications (PMTA) languishing in bureaucratic limbo, the FDA has only authorized fewer than 50 granted to just a handful of firms, completely disregarding the 180-day review deadline set imposed by Congress,” said Consumer Choice Center U.S. Policy Analyst Elizabeth Hicks.
“Less than 10 unique devices are available on the regulated marketplace, all of which come from industry incumbents, not to mention the growing categories of nicotine alternatives such as heaters, pouches, toothpicks, and more.
“This blatant failure highlights a systemic issue within the agency, where regulatory inertia trumps the urgent need to provide consumers with safer nicotine alternatives such as e-cigarettes which studies have shown to be 95 percent less harmful than combustible cigarettes. As a result, consumers are being pushed towards the illicit market, which does not adhere to regulatory standards, to find their preferred nicotine alternative products,” said Hicks.
“Consumers are deeply troubled by the FDA’s abject failure to fulfill its obligations under the Tobacco Control Act. It is imperative that the FDA swiftly rectify this situation by implementing a transparent and expedited regulatory pathway that prioritizes access to scientifically validated, less harmful nicotine products,” she concluded.
The Consumer Choice Center’s concern was echoed by Philip Morris International, which in an e-mailed statement expressed the hope that the hearing would spur the FDA into action to fully embrace the tobacco harm reduction principles enshrined in the Tobacco Control Act.
“Today’s House Oversight hearing put a bright spotlight on the fact that the agency is failing to help millions of adult smokers access smoke-free options that are better alternatives to combustible cigarettes,” the company wrote. “More than 26 million premarket tobacco product applications have been submitted to the FDA for review, but the agency has authorized fewer than 50 of those applications, and none within the 180-day deadline set by Congress.
“FDA’s goal to strike ‘an appropriate balance between regulation and encouraging development of innovative tobacco products that may be less dangerous than cigarettes’ is far from the reality of its actions. To assist adult smokers’ transition away from cigarettes, the FDA must develop a fair, efficient and effective regulatory pathway to bring scientifically validated, less harmful products to market with the appropriate safeguards to ensure they do not appeal to youth.”
April 11, 2024
Consumer Group Says No to PMTA Registries

U.S. states must recognize the unintended consequences of passing laws requiring premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) registries for alternative nicotine products such as vaping devices, heaters, and nicotine pouches, according to the Consumer Choice Center, an organization claiming to represent consumers in more than 100 countries.
In the first months of 2024, more than a dozen bills have been introduced in U.S. states calling for a state-based registry for alternative nicotine products. Such legislation has already been passed in Oklahoma, Louisiana and Alabama.
“While the intention behind these bills is to manage consumer access to unregulated nicotine products on the illicit market, the reality is that the FDA is not approving enough new devices and products to create a competitive, regulated marketplace that meets consumer demand,” said Elizabeth Hicks, U.S. affairs analyst at the Consumer Choice Center.
While 26 million nicotine alternative products submitted PMTAs to the Food and Drug Administration, only 23 have been approved. Of those 23 approved products, 12 are tobacco-flavored e-liquid refills.
“The FDA is hiding the ball here on product approvals and how few new products are actually coming to market. If the goal is to improve public health across the country, then consumers deserve to choose from a variety of different nicotine alternatives,” said Hicks.
The Consumer Choice Centers urges state legislatures to refrain from adding to counterproductive federal policies and instead advance tobacco harm reduction through a competitive marketplace.
March 12, 2024
Researchers Call for End to ‘War on Nicotine’
Photo: kues1
A new research paper attempts to clarify the confusion surrounding nicotine consumption and the role it plays in the diseases caused by smoking. The paper, released by the Consumer Choice Center, outlines six main reasons why the “war on nicotine is pointless” and should end.
“Instead of celebrating declining numbers of smokers and far fewer deaths, many governments, public health agencies and anti-smoking activists have been on the hunt for new enemies,” the researchers wrote. “They decided to scapegoat nicotine, and as a result, the fight against smoking gradually transformed into a fight against nicotine. Such an approach has dire consequences: fewer people switching to less harmful alternatives.”
The paper was co-authored by Michael Landl, director of the World Vapers’ Alliance, and Maria Chaplia, research manager at the Consumer Choice Center
The authors list six reasons to stop the war against nicotine:
People consume nicotine, but they die from smoking
Nicotine in patches and gums is not a problem — it is neither (a problem) when vaped nor in a pouch
Addiction is complex and not solved by a war on nicotine
Nicotine makes some people smarter, stronger and more attractive
Misconceptions about nicotine are hindering progress
Prohibition never works
The researchers advise policymakers to prioritize practical solution. “Public health needs to make use of all available possibilities,” they write. “People who cannot quit smoking should be encouraged to switch to less harmful alternatives. Nicotine is not the main problem when it comes to smoking, the toxins are.
The authors also say regulation should be risk proportionate. “Regulation must be drafted according to the actual risk of a product,” they write. “Vaping or snus are less harmful than smoking, hence must be treated differently. Nicotine doesn’t become a poison when delivered through vaping. When nicotine isn’t a problem in gums and patches, it can’t be a bigger problem in vaping. The moral panic when it comes to nicotine must end.
“Addiction is complex and is not solved with a war on nicotine. When it comes to addiction, public health policies should not single out a single substance. Potential benefits of nicotine must be explored and unbiased scientific endeavors must be ensured. Public policy must accept that many people use nicotine recreationally. A war on nicotine will fail like the war on drugs or alcohol prohibition failed. Public misconceptions about nicotine must be fought. They discourage people from switching to less harmful alternatives and therefore hurt public health.”
November 29, 2021
Consumer Group Urges Law Enforcement
Fred Roeder
The Consumer Choice Center has released a new report that considers existing age restrictions on the sale of vaping products and then suggests several policies to reverse low enforcement rates of current rules.
To reduce the rate of vaping by youth, the Consumer Choice Center report recommends four actions:
Enforce strict age restrictions on vaping devices and liquids at the point of sale.
Use modern age-verification technology for online sales.
Learn from other industries such as alcohol and fireworks on how to improve compliance rates.
Retail and industry should be encouraged to be more proactive with the enforcement of rules.
Don’t punish legal adult vapers for the lack of enforcement of age restrictions.
According to Fred Roeder, health economist and author of the report, most countries have already enacted age-to-purchase laws.
“We don’t face a lack of legislation but a lack of compliance with existing rules and regulations. We looked at similarly regulated industries such as alcohol and gambling and found that these tend to have smarter enforcement mechanisms,” he wrote.
“There are many innovative tools out there to ensure only adult customers can buy vaping products. Digital ID checks and industry initiatives to ID customers that look young are better ways to solve the problem than additional laws such as flavor bans.”
November 29, 2020
States Ranked on Vapor Regulations
The Consumer Choice Center (CCC) has published an index ranking each U.S. state on the consumer-friendliness of its vapor regulations.
Rankings are assigned based on a legislative actions, including restrictions, taxation, and online sales prohibitions.
According to the index, California is the “worst state for vaping.” New York, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Rhode Island are also among the least consumer-friendly states. Virginia, Colorado, Texas and Maryland each received “A” scores.
“The worst states … are far behind all the other states because of flavor bans, exorbitant taxation on vaping products, and restrictions on online sales,” said David Clement, North American affairs manager and deputy director at the CCC. “Our research indicates these states go above and beyond to deter adult smokers from switching to vaping, which could vastly improve and prolong their lives.”
“What lawmakers should note is that a number of states are providing a positive framework of regulation for vaping that boosts consumer choice while contributing to public health by encouraging smoking cessation,” said Yaël Ossowski, who is also North American affairs manager and deputy director at the CCC.
“Excessive flavor bans, taxes, and prohibitions on online commerce grow the black-market sector and harm consumers who want less harmful alternatives to smoking. If states want to innovate in 2020 and provide adult smokers with an alternative that is less harmful, they should look to reform their state laws to better accommodate this new technology that is helping millions.”

The report shows that 25 states allow flavored vaping products with no additional taxes and no shipping restrictions. Twenty states have previous flavor bans, some taxes and a few shipping restrictions. There are five states that have partial flavor bans, high taxes and shipping restrictions.
The center stated that the focus is on state regulation of vaping, “as it plays a big part in their availability to adult consumers who want to switch away from combustible tobacco.”
The weighted scoring system analyzes additional flavor restrictions, taxes and the ability to sell vaping products online. Regulations are assessed on stringency in addition to Food and Drug Administration regulations.
States that received between 0 and 10 points received an “F” grade, between 11 and 20 points is “C” and states with points between 21 and 30 received an “A” grade.
October 2, 2020
Consumer Group Urges Liberal Tobacco Policies

Illustration: The Consumer Choice Center
The liberalization of vaping has considerable potential to help millions of people switch from traditional tobacco smoking to vaping, according to the Consumer Choice Center (CCC). Vaping is widely believed to be a less harmful way of consuming nicotine than smoking.
The CCC examined 61 countries and assessed how “smart” tobacco harm reduction policies could make the switch easier.
Fred Roeder
“We looked at 61 countries (including the U.K.) around the world and compared the current rate of daily and occasional vapers,” said Fred Roeder, health economist and managing director of the CCC. “We used the United Kingdom’s progressive tobacco harm reduction policies as a reference point and estimated how many current smokers could be helped to switch to vaping by having a more permissive vaping framework.”
“More liberal rules on advertising to smokers, displaying products at the point of sale for cigarettes, lower taxation, and public health bodies endorsing the evidence of vaping being at least 95 percent less harmful than traditional smoking can help smokers to switch to vaping.”
The CCC estimates that nearly 200 million adults in the analyzed 60 countries could switch to vaping and urges public health bodies and regulators to endorse tobacco harm reduction
June 1, 2020