Tag: news

  • Reagan-Udall Submits CTP Review to FDA

    Reagan-Udall Submits CTP Review to FDA

    The Reagan-Udall Foundation today submitted its recommendations to Robert Califf , commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The findings are what many in the industry are calling “meaningless” and “less than compelling.”

    The report concludes that vaping industry stakeholders observed a lack of “consistent implementation” of what the industry understood to be the policies of the Center for Tobacco Products (CTP), particularly with respect to tobacco harm reduction and the requirements needed to navigate the premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) process.

    The “Operational Evaluation of FDA’s Tobacco Program” was facilitated at Califf’s request. The announcement came as Califf attempted to push past several controversies that 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.

    The report did highlight several wide-ranging problems that the report states hinder its ability to regulate the industry and reduce tobacco-related disease and death. The report stated that the CTP should make “process improvements and identify and address the policy and scientific questions” that underpin its regulatory framework. The review concluded that CTP’s implementation of its program also has been affected by “changes in leadership and administrations.” In its first 13 years, CTP has operated under seven different commissioners in three different administrations, and recently hired a third CTP director, Brian King.

    “From the stakeholders’ perspective, policy shifts with broad impact on the industry occurred without notice. The Center has faced significant challenges in clearing its policies through the career and political infrastructure. It took years to establish requirements and standards governing application reviews, frustrating industry and creating problems for the Center itself when it received deficient applications,” the report states. “Issues in application reviews resulted in litigation necessitating re-review of some applications. The current environment reflects an unintended shift from what was structured by law as a pre-market authorization framework to the reality of a post-market regulatory environment, which is much more difficult to deal with given that there are few incentives for industry to come into compliance and many incentives for industry to delay the process.”

    The evaluation and resulting recommendations focused on four program areas: regulations and guidance, application review, compliance and enforcement, and communication with the public and other stakeholders, according to the review. The review and recommendations are meant to assist the agency in making changes to better carry out its regulatory responsibilities; to strengthen its relationships with stakeholders

    The report identified several fundamental issues that the center needs to address and it states that the report offers “cross-cutting as well as program-specific recommendations to help CTP operate more effectively,” according to the authors of the review.

    The key points from the report can be summarized as follows:

    • The panel observes that CTP has been forced to operate primarily in a reactive mode, moving
      from one challenge to the next, mainly provoked by the outside forces. The Center should transition to becoming a more proactive and strategic program. With more substantial engagement with stakeholders and the public, CTP should take the time now to think strategically about where it is today and where it needs to go in the next several years.
    • Although CTP has a critical mission to protect the public health from tobacco-related disease and death and is regulating products that have no inherent benefit and huge societal costs, it is a government regulatory program with a duty to run efficiently, fairly, and transparently. This responsibility to function as an effective product regulator should be captured in the Center’s mission, vision, and goals and carried out to the best of the Center’s ability.
    • The panel recognizes that to improve the effectiveness of its application review, the Center should make process improvements and identify and address the policy and scientific questions that underpin its regulatory framework.
    • CTP needs to work with other entities on strategies to clear the market of illegal tobacco products more rapidly and provide more transparency to the public on its efforts to do so. This work is challenging but essential as CTP adopts a more strategic approach. While there is much the Center can do on its own, the panel notes that enforcement of the premarket requirements in the tobacco laws, particularly to help prevent youth use of tobacco products, requires the involvement and support of agencies other than FDA. The authors encourage the agency to elevate this issue and pursue a more comprehensive approach that leverages the resources of other agencies with a declared role in tobacco control.

    “Overall, the panel is confident that many of the concerns raised in this report can be addressed by CTP’s
    talented and dedicated staff, with the support of FDA leadership,” the report states.

    Numerous comments from purported staffers of the FDA for the Reagan Udall assessment claimed the regulatory agency is in a state of disarray and being influenced by outside forces, not scientific research. One comment stated that reviewers of premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) in the CTP Office of Science (OS) lack the autonomy to exercise “best scientific practices” in their reviews of PMTAs. The report fails to address these issues.

    The panel was comprised of former federal public health leaders, regulatory strategists, and process improvement specialists. Lauren Silvis, served as chair of the group, which included Jane Axelrad, Keith Flanagan, Charlene Frizzera, and Alberto Gutierrez.

    “The panel provided recommendations to help the Agency’s tobacco program strengthen its operations as it works to reduce the harm associated with tobacco use,” said Lauren Silvis. “The Center for Tobacco Products has made significant progress in establishing a regulatory program for tobacco products and our recommendations are intended to help the Center develop additional tools for achieving its public health objectives.”

    Through multiple listening sessions, interviews, and an online portal, the group received and carefully reviewed input from a range of stakeholders, including FDA staff and the public, according to the report. The author’s claim the report offers “cross-cutting and program-specific recommendations” for the FDA to consider, “focusing on regulations and guidance, application review, compliance and enforcement, and communication with the public and other stakeholders.”

    The report did not address tobacco policy issues, which are outside the scope of the evaluation, according to a Reagan-Udall Foundation.

    One industry stakeholder, who asked not to be named for fear of retribution from the FDA for its brands under PMTA review by the agency, said the report’s findings were “a joke” and “completely ignorant of the real problems at the CTP.”

    Califf said Monday he will review the recommendations with the aim of outlining the agency’s next steps by February.

    Earlier this month, Reagan-Udall delivered its food report that was commissioned at the same time as the tobacco report. The food response suggests the agency’s leadership be restructured to improve its response to emergencies, including the recent shortage of baby formula

    Reagan-Udall was created by Congress to help further FDA’s mission. The non-profit receives funding from both the FDA and the industries it regulates, including drugmakers.

    The report can be found at reaganudall.org.

  • CTP Director: Nicotine Salts Show Potential

    CTP Director: Nicotine Salts Show Potential

    Brian King (Photo: FDA)

    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.”

  • Bidi Vapor Prevails Over FDA in PMTA Denial Suit

    Bidi Vapor Prevails Over FDA in PMTA Denial Suit

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has ruled that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s marketing denial orders (MDOs) for Kaival Brands’ Bidi Vapor products are arbitrary and capricious.

    “The Administration refused to consider the marketing and sales access restrictions plans based on both its need for efficiency and its experience that the marketing and sales access restrictions do not sufficiently reduce youth use of electronic nicotine products,” Chief Judge William Pryor wrote. “Because ‘agency action is lawful only if it rests on a consideration of the relevant factors,’ and the Administration failed to consider the marketing and sales access restrictions plans, the marketing denial orders were arbitrary and capricious.”

    In the court’s 2-1 split decision, additionally, the majority stated:

    • The court recognizes relevant distinctions between closed/cartridge systems (that are easy to conceal and use) and the open tank liquids sold in vape shops
    • FDA’s refusal to review marketing plans was error and not harmless (disagreeing with Fifth and DC Circuits)

    In the 70-page opinion, Bidi Vapor, Diamond Vapor, Johnny Copper, Vapor Unlimited, Union Street Brands and Pop Vapor, the petitioners in the case, had all appeals granted, denial orders vacated and remanded.

    In her dissent, Judge Robin Stacie Rosenbaum wrote, “Spoiler alert: This opinion contains spoilers on how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration will resolve petitioner vaping product companies’ premarket tobacco product applications on remand from this appeal.”

    She then stated “never mind. There’s nothing to spoil here. Anyone who knows all the relevant facts necessarily already knows how this one ends.”

    She stated that the while the majority faulted the FDA for not considering the companies’ proposed restrictions on youth use, the FDA’s framework for evaluating PMTAs leaves “no room for doubt that the FDA will deny—in fact, under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, must deny—the applications on remand. To paraphrase the Borg, then, remand is futile.”

    This story will be updated.

  • Bidi Vapor Prevails Over FDA in PMTA Denial Suit

    Bidi Vapor Prevails Over FDA in PMTA Denial Suit

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has ruled that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s marketing denial orders (MDOs) for Kaival Brands’ Bidi Vapor products are arbitrary and capricious. The majority stated that the FDA was wrong not to “even look at” the company’s marketing plans to prevent youth access.

    “The Administration refused to consider the marketing and sales access restrictions plans based on both its need for efficiency and its experience that the marketing and sales access restrictions do not sufficiently reduce youth use of electronic nicotine products,” Chief Judge William Pryor wrote. “Because ‘agency action is lawful only if it rests on a consideration of the relevant factors,’ and the Administration failed to consider the marketing and sales access restrictions plans, the marketing denial orders were arbitrary and capricious.”

    In the court’s 2-1 split decision, additionally, the majority stated:

    • The court recognizes relevant distinctions between closed/cartridge systems (that are easy to conceal and use) and the open tank liquids sold in vape shops
    • FDA’s refusal to review marketing plans was error and not harmless (disagreeing with Fifth and DC Circuits)

    In the 70-page opinion (nearly half of which was the dissent), Bidi Vapor, Diamond Vapor, Johnny Copper, Vapor Unlimited, Union Street Brands and Pop Vapor, the petitioners in the case, had all appeals granted, denial orders vacated and remanded.

    In her dissent, Judge Robin Stacie Rosenbaum wrote, “Spoiler alert: This opinion contains spoilers on how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration will resolve petitioner vaping product companies’ premarket tobacco product applications on remand from this appeal.”

    She then stated “never mind. There’s nothing to spoil here. Anyone who knows all the relevant facts necessarily already knows how this one ends.”

    She stated that the while the majority faulted the FDA for not considering the companies’ proposed restrictions on youth use, the FDA’s framework for evaluating PMTAs leaves “no room for doubt that the FDA will deny—in fact, under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, must deny—the applications on remand. To paraphrase the Borg, then, remand is futile.”

    This story will be updated.

  • An Inside Perspective to the CTP Review

    An Inside Perspective to the CTP Review

    By Chris Howard and Rich Hill

    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.

  • Many Comments on EU Tobacco Changes

    Many Comments on EU Tobacco Changes

    Credit: Savvapanf Photo

    An overwhelming majority of EU citizens who responded to a European Commission initiative say they support tobacco harm reduction products.

    The Commission’s “Call for Evidence” on the legislative framework for tobacco control received an unprecedented level of feedback, with consumers of alternatives to tobacco products – vaping, heated tobacco and oral nicotine pouches – making their voices heard in huge numbers, according to EU Political Report.

    More than 24,000 EU citizens responded to the call, launched by the Commission as part of its ongoing evaluation of what future EU tobacco laws will look like through revision of the Tobacco Products Directive.

    The massive interest in the issue may surprise some and may put the European Commission on the back foot as has been seen by some as having previously failed to support ‘tobacco harm reduction’.

    The 4-week public consultation, from May 20 May to June 17, had one of the biggest ever responses to a consultation. On average, calls of this length receive around 354 submissions. In recent years, only the “call for evidence” for a digital euro for Europe received a similar scale of a response, but still fell short of the 20,000 submission mark despite taking place over a longer period of time (10 weeks).

    Of the 24.000 submissions, more than 90 percent came from individual EU citizens, suggesting the extent to which this issue is a priority for the European public at large. Many submissions came from citizens in Germany, Italy and Romania.

    It showed that the biggest issue for citizens across all member states is the regulation of reduced-risk products such as e-cigarettes. On this, it has been argued that the Commission it out of sync with public opinion.

    The Commission has favored the introduction of new restrictions on reduced risk products, including flavor bans and sale restrictions but some in the industry hope the public response could now force it to reconsider these plans.

    In June, the Commission announced plans to prohibit the sale of flavored heated tobacco products in the EU. The proposal came, it said, in response to the “significant increase” in the volumes of heated tobacco products sold across the EU.

    A Commission report showed a 10 percent pick up in the sales volumes of heated tobacco products in more than five Member States and overall in the EU, heated tobacco products exceeded 2.5 % of total sales of tobacco products.

    An overwhelming majority of submissions supported tobacco harm reduction products, including vaping and nicotine pouches, as “critical tools” that have helped smokers to quit. Respondents were nearly unanimous in opposing any plans to restrict access to such products for adults over the age of 18.

  • Bloomberg: Juul Revenues Down Sharply

    Bloomberg: Juul Revenues Down Sharply

    Juul Labs Inc. had its first quarter revenues plummet 23% from the prior year, according to people with knowledge of the matter, according Bloomberg.

    The company received $259 million of revenue for the quarter ended March 31, said the sources, who say they saw the company’s results as it seeks financing alternatives.

    “As we continue to operate in the market and go through the FDA’s review process, we are in the early stages of exploring a variety of options including various potential financing alternatives to protect our business and to address the impact of the FDA’s now stayed order so we can continue offering our products to adult consumers who have or are looking to transition away from traditional cigarettes,” a spokesperson for Juul said in a statement when asked for comment by Bloomberg.

    Juul Labs had a loss of $28 million in the period, compared with earnings of $29 million for the same period a year earlier, based on unadjusted results before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization.

    In June, the FDA banned Juul products on US shelves, citing a lack of evidence demonstrating the overall safety of the company’s products, and noting Juul’s “disproportionate role in the rise in youth vaping.” Then the company won an emergency court order temporarily blocking the decision, and the agency separately stayed its order, allowing the company to keep selling products.

    As of the first quarter, Juul had $323 million of cash on hand, down from $428 million at the same point last year, according to people who asked not to be identified because results are confidential for closely held Juul, according to Bloomberg.

    Its debt totaled approximately $2.15 billion, including a $394 million term loan due in August 2023 and around $1.7 billion of 7 percent notes due 2025 that “payment-in-kind securities,” allowing the company to delay interest payments.

  • Joytech Parent Submits PMTA to FDA

    Joytech Parent Submits PMTA to FDA

    China-based JWEI has announced today that they have successfully submitted a premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for a device created with “new innovative technology” that focuses on safety, harm reduction and is designed to curb underage use.

    “JWEI has been a leader in this industry from the start and this milestone again reiterates our commitment to the industry and public health: ensuring our adult customers continued access to less harmful alternatives to traditional tobacco products, while setting a new standard preventing underage youth access.” said VP of JWEI Group Jason Yao.

    JWEI is the parent to the brands Joytech, Eleaf, Wismec and Joyevita. The company did not offer additional information on the specific device submitted for the PMTA.

    JWEI developed a set of principles to guide through every step of its new product development, led by safety and effectiveness studies in early 2019. “The design philosophy is the foundation and guide rails for designing, manufacturing, verifying, validating, and continuously improving innovative, responsible, reliable, and high-quality products,” the release states.

    The limited product debut in the UK has received overwhelming recognition from users and commercial partners after a few months’ actual use, according to JWEI

    “As one of the world-leading device manufacturers and innovators of e-cigarette and vaping products, JWEI has over 3,600 granted patents and multiple internationally recognized manufacturing and quality certifications (GMP, HACCP, ISO9001, ISO13485, EHS, and ERP),” according to a press release.

  • Vaporesso Gets Chinese Production License

    Vaporesso Gets Chinese Production License

    Vaporesso, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Smoore, has obtained a production licence from China’s State Tobacco Monopoly Administration (STMA), the country’s top regulator of tobacco products.

    The license gives Vaporesso products lawful status in the country, Hong Kong-listed Smoore said in a statement on Wednesday. The licence will be valid through July 2023, according to the South China Morning Post.

    Smoore is among the first group of companies to comply with China’s tightened rules for the e-cigarette industry, which recently became regulated as a traditional tobacco product.

    In March, STMA published final guidelines for the industry, which require that manufactures comply with certain technical standards, including permitted ingredients and additives.

    Licensed manufacturers must also trade with downstream wholesalers on a transaction platform overseen by STMA, according to the rules.

    Licensed manufacturers must also trade with downstream wholesalers on a transaction platform overseen by STMA, according to the rules.

    Less than 50 e-cigarette related companies, including retailers and manufacturers, have met the new restrictions and received licences from the authority so far, STMA’s website shows.

    There are an estimated 1,500 companies involved in the vaping industry, according to calculations by the Electronic Cigarette Professional Committee of China Electronics Chamber of Commerce (ECCC) last year.

    However, more licenses are expected to be issued in coming months as regulators work through a backlog of applications, according to news reports.

  • NJOY Rumored to be Readying for Potential Sale

    NJOY Rumored to be Readying for Potential Sale

    E-cigarette maker NJOY Holdings Inc has hired bankers for a possible sale of the company, the Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday, citing people familiar with the matter.

    The report added the privately held NJOY is likely to be valued at up to $5 billion, according to the sources who cautioned the process was still at an early stage and there was no guarantee a deal would materialize.

    If NJOY does not receive a high enough valuation, the company could raise money and stay private, potentially paving the way for a future initial public offering, the Wall Street Journal said.

    The e-cigarette maker is simultaneously exploring a new fundraising round and aims to raise between $300 million and $500 million, the report added.

    NJOY has two devices that have received marketing approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, including its Ace device and Daily disposables.

    Late June, Bernstein analyst Callum Elliott wrote in a note that Altria could try to buy privately owned NJOY, which “has already succeeded with its PMTA process applications.”

    Rival Juul Labs Inc said on Friday it was in the early stages of exploring several options, including financing alternatives, as the company deals with lawsuits and a probable ban on sales of its e-cigarettes by U.S. health regulators.

    NJOY and Mudrick Capital Management, a majority owner of the company, did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.