Author: Staff Writer

  • New Zealand: New Vapor Packaging Rules Go Into Effect

    New Zealand: New Vapor Packaging Rules Go Into Effect

    New Zealand flag on boat
    Credit: govt.nz

    Thousands of vaping products in New Zealand started being removed from store shelves Friday as new regulations on packaging come into effect.

    The move is part of the amended Smokefree Vaping Act rolled out 15 months ago, which includes it only being legal to sell vape products registered with the Ministry of Health, according to 1News.

    Action for Smokefree 2025 director Deborah Hart on Friday told Breakfast the new regulations mean manufacturers need to be more transparent about what’s in their products.

    “The Government has been rolling out regulations right from the very start of the (Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products) Act. So from the start of the Act until today, one of the things we’ve been doing is around the safety of the product,” she said.

    “Six months ago importers and manufacturers had to start notifying what was in their products – had to notify labels, packaging and what’s in the products.

    “And today they had to do all that, they can only sell what’s been notified, and to notify they had to adhere to the safety regime that had been set up by the Government. So that’s fantastic.”

  • Vapor, Oral Products Continue to Boost BAT Sales

    Vapor, Oral Products Continue to Boost BAT Sales

    A seven percent rise in full-year adjusted revenue to 25.7 billion pounds ($34.8 billion) was reported by BAT Friday, helped by sales of e-cigarettes and oral nicotine.

    The world’s second-largest tobacco company also announced a dividend increase of 1.0 percent to 217.8 pence and a 2 billion pound share repurchase program for 2022, according to Reuters.

    It posted a 51 percent rise to 2.05 billion pounds in adjusted sales of its “new categories” product line which includes e-cigarettes, heated tobacco and oral nicotine. Though the division has yet to turn a profit, BAT said it was on track to report revenue of 5 billion pounds and profitability by 2025.

    “Continued growth in new categories is a cornerstone of BAT’s long-term plans for success,” Third Bridge analyst Ross Hindle said. “With over 1.1 billion smokers still using combustibles, the opportunity to convert consumers towards New Categories is highly attractive.”

    The company said 4.8 million more consumers than last year used non-combustible products such as Vuse e-cigarettes, glo heated tobacco and Velo oral nicotine.

  • Geek Bar Launches Shisha Vapes for U.K. Market

    Geek Bar Launches Shisha Vapes for U.K. Market

    Photo: Geek Bar

    Geek Bar is launching its first range of shisha vapes, which will be widely available across the U.K.

    The Geek Bar shisha vape includes 575 puffs and uses the same battery technology as previous Geek Bar products. The range, which comes with 2 ml e-liquid capacity and contains 20 mg/ml nicotine to comply with U.K. regulations, is available in a number of flavors, including Watermelon Berries Shisha, Hawaii Sunshine Shisha and Pineapple Guava Shisha.

    The fruit flavored range is designed to help adult smokers quit conventional cigarettes. A study conducted by Nicotine & Tobacco Research last year highlighted that vaping sweet flavors associated with fruits were more likely to help an adult smoker give up their habit than use of tobacco flavored e-liquid, according to Geek Bar.

    “Shisha pipes have become increasingly popular in the U.K., and we wanted to give those who smoke them a safer option just like we do for conventional cigarette users with a range of disposable vape products which have been a phenomenal success in the U.K.,” said Geek Bar CEO Allen Yang.

    “Due to the popularity of Geek Bar in the U.K., we’re delighted to add this new shisha range to our product offering. We are plugging an important gap in the market which will support improved public health in the U.K.”

    The new shisha range will use Geek Bar’s new packaging which will allow both retailers and consumers to check the authenticity of the product from a compliance perspective as well as make it clear that the product is for sale to only over 18-year-olds.

  • Gay: Are Prescription Vapes Better Than Consumer Vapes?

    Gay: Are Prescription Vapes Better Than Consumer Vapes?

    By George Gay

    I love the following heading, which heralded a recent Taiwan News story: Over 40 percent of Taiwanese vapors unaware e-cigarettes may contain nicotine.

    I mean, if vapors have reached a level of consciousness that has allowed them to dabble in the concepts of awareness and unawareness, and to articulate, for instance, an unawareness to researchers, they need to be accorded rights. Regulators need to engage with these vapors before, for instance, removing flavors from them.

    It cannot be right to take such action without holding a consultation, difficult as that might be with what, after all, would be a somewhat ethereal interlocutor. We can only hope that if regulators fail in this duty, a good lawyer will step forward and mount what would have to be a pro bono challenge on behalf of vapors.

    I suppose I shouldn’t laugh at the heading. I often make the vapors/vapers error while typing, and it is only through the eagle eyes of my proofreader wife that these errors get corrected. But the heading struck another chord. What does it say about more than 40 percent of vapers in Taiwan, and, I assume, fairly large proportions of vapers in other places, that they happily consume something of which, to an important extent, they are ignorant? And what happens during a visit by such a vaper to one of those doctors who wrongly believes that nicotine in the amounts inhaled during vaping is dangerous? Imagine the confusing consultation if you will.

    Doctor: Ah, there you are. Come in, take a seat.

    Patient: Thank you.

    Doctor: No, no, leave it where it is, just sit on it; and for goodness’ sake, leave your clothes on.

    Patient: Sorry.

    Doctor: Now, firstly, let’s talk about your smoking.

    Patient: I don’t smoke anymore.

    Doctor: You don’t? Well done. How did you give up?

    Patient: I switched to vaping.

     

    Doctor: Dear me, that’s no good. Nicotine is dangerous and addictive.

    Patient: Vapes don’t include nicotine.

    Doctor: They don’t? Oh well, I was going to prescribe these nicotine patches, but I guess you won’t be needing them.

    Patient: But I thought you said nicotine was dangerous and addictive.

    Doctor: I did? Yes, you’re right. Excuse me, I seem to be a little confused. Perhaps I need to step outside for a smoke. Care to join me? These are really low nicotine cigarettes as “recommended” by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

    Patient: Is that right? Well, in that case, I don’t mind if I do.

    Doctor: By the way, how’s the back pain?

    Patient: I don’t have any since I started taking the opioids you prescribed.

    Doctor: Splendid. Do you want a drink with that?

    It makes you wonder how extensive such ignorance is in other fields and in other places. How many times do some people have to pick themselves off the floor before they realize wine contains alcohol? And how many fits of the giggling munchies do some people have to experience before they realize marijuana contains tetrahydrocannabinol … well, before they realize it contains stuff that makes you a bit silly—a bit sillier.

    In defense of the 40 percent or more of vapers, it has to be said that in most jurisdictions, vaping devices would be regulated as a consumer product and so vapers would probably assume that, like in the case of much of the food they eat, they don’t have to delve into things too deeply. In addition, the immediate effect of vaping with nicotine would be far more subtle than the effects of drinking wine or smoking marijuana, so perhaps they could be forgiven their ignorance. And, in any case, I always thought there were effects for which it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to identify a cause.

    But perhaps I was wrong, and it is always possible to get to the bottom of things. Take a look at what is my favorite heading so far this year: Study links smoking by grandfather to women’s body fat. This is not a joke—at least I don’t think it is. I guess there wasn’t room in the heading for the “s” that would have rendered the grandfather plural and taken some of the guilt off his shoulders. Poor chap; it seems so unfair. I wonder who he was?

    “Now researchers believe they have pinpointed higher body fat in females with grandfathers or great-grandfathers who began smoking before the age of 13,” said The Guardian story of Jan. 22. I’m not sure what the word “pinpointed” is supposed to mean here, but it suggests to me an accuracy of linkage (given the heading) that cannot possibly be right, especially given the equivocations of the next sentence but one (with my emphasis added). “The research suggests exposure to substances can lead to changes that may be passed through the generations, though the team [at Bristol University] say more work is needed to confirm this and understand how it may happen.’

    I’m not sure whether one of my grandfathers was a smoker (the other took snuff), because I never met him, but I guess I can work back and say probably not because none of his granddaughters or his great-granddaughters was fat. Certainly, none of his three daughters was fat, something the researchers might like to put down to the fact that the daughters’ grandfather did not smoke while young. I would suggest a more likely and direct cause was that their father was killed during WWI, and while his widow managed to feed their daughters well, there was never the sort of excess of food that would render a young person fat, leading to her being fat in later life.

    Smoking might not be good for you, but it doesn’t “kill,” and expending effort trying to trace its effects through multiple generations strikes me as a waste of time, partly because smoking is dying out. Additionally, you cannot, as far as current knowledge has it, go back in time and alter the behavior of your grandfather or great grandfather, and, given that smokers are not moved by the grotesque health warnings they are exposed to and that threaten terrible consequences being visited upon them in the near future, it seems unlikely they are going to quit because of the possibility their smoking might or might not lead to their female grandchildren or great-grandchildren becoming fat. Being shot by a sniper does kill, and the effects of such a death are immediately tragic and not hard to trace, so I think we would be better off trying to research how we can prevent pointless conflicts.

    But I digress. Let me take a look at another story, this one on the BMJ website, entitled “Should e-cigarettes be licensed as medicines?” Perversely, I was attracted to this one because I have a dislike of headings that ask questions. I mean, I don’t believe in keeping a dog and barking myself. On this occasion, however, my eye was drawn to an introduction that read, “As the U.K. announces support for medicinal licensing of e-cigarettes, Nicholas S. Hopkinson argues that this will give doctors another means to help smokers quit. But Jorgen Vestbo, Andrew Bush and Jonathan Grigg say that its benefit is unproved and that harms are likely.”*

    What I found intriguing here was the statement attributed to Vestbo, Bush and Grigg making the point that “its [medicinal licensing of e-cigarettes’] benefit is unproved.” Given that later in the piece these three, under the name of Vestbo, write, “[n]o country in the world [like there are countries not of this world] other than the U.K. has licensed e-cigarettes as drugs …,” it seems to be obvious that the benefit of medicinal licensing could not have been proved. This is especially so given that, as far as I am aware, no “e-cigarette” has been given a medical license in the U.K.

    So this is the dangerous-precedent/slippery-slope-type of thinking that, if it had been ingrained in humans from the beginning, would have meant we would never have ventured outside our caves to look for food, with the inevitable result that we would have died out. Now you possibly think that might have been no bad thing, and I would not entirely disagree with you.

    But we are where we are, and, in my view, medicinal licensing needs to be given a chance. The idea that the U.K. is to try medicinal licensing, providing manufacturers want to go down that route when other countries are not, provides a fantastic opportunity to test fully whether such a system is beneficial. The U.K. will be going head-to-head with countries that won’t introduce medical licensing; so, by comparing the results it achieves with those from otherwise “similar” countries, useful conclusions could be drawn.

    In fact, we are currently in a situation whereby, to my way of thinking, we can set the world up as a giant quit-smoking laboratory. We can study the relative performances, in whichever way is thought best, of the U.K. with its medicinal licensing of e-cigarettes and acceptance of combustible cigarettes; New Zealand with its introduction of a smoking endgame along with its acceptance of e-cigarettes; and India with its ban on e-cigarettes but not on traditional cigarettes.

    OK, I can imagine that some people might complain that what I am suggesting would raise ethical concerns to do with using people as a means to an end rather than as ends in themselves, but the “experiments” would involve only observations of what was being caused to happen, independent of the observers.

    It cannot be denied that there are potential benefits to what the U.K. is proposing. For one thing, as Hopkinson points out, medically licensed devices have the potential to be more effective than consumer devices because they can be made available in strengths greater than those permitted for consumer products.

    Additionally, Hopkinson points out, the fact that devices would go through a medical licensing process “should provide further reassurance to healthcare professionals that they can help their patients to quit smoking in this way, particularly in mental health settings where smoking rates remain high.”

    And he makes the point that the introduction of e-cigarettes that have been through a stricter medicinal licensing process is likely to improve confidence among smokers who so far have been reluctant to try this approach.

    That last point does raise a question about whether some smokers would baulk at being treated as patients in need of medical devices, but what I like overall about Hopkinson’s piece was its positive approach. There was a spring in his step such that even when he wrote of other tools being available for smoking cessation, those tools were such as to support smokers to make the switch.

    On the other hand, the piece by Vestbo, Bush and Grigg seemed to my way of thinking to be negative, though I would urge you to read it for yourself, or yourselves if there is more than one person still reading this piece. There was no spring in the step and, when it came to other tools available for smoking cessation, the propositions were not about support but about punishment. The three wrote of an “arsenal of evidence-based tools, such as further increases in taxation and decreased availability, that can further reduce smoking prevalence with far less risk of known—and unknown—adverse health effects.”

    Why is it that such people believe smokers should be subjected to restrictions not imposed on others, many of whom also indulge in risky behaviors? I could probably understand their position if the extra taxes they call for were ringfenced for use in supportive quit schemes, but they are not. They go into general revenue where they are used to pay for things that benefit the wider public. Perhaps nonsmokers need to think about declaring an interest when they call for additional taxes on smokers.

    *Nicholas S. Hopkinson, professor of respiratory medicine and chair of Action on Smoking and Health (U.K.); Jorgen Vestbo, professor of respiratory medicine; Andrew Bush, professor of pediatrics and pediatric respirology and the European Respiratory Society’s guidelines director; and Jonathan Grigg, professor of pediatric respiratory and environmental medicine and chair of the European Respiratory Society’s tobacco control committee.

  • Pennsylvania Recalls More Than 500 THC Vape Brands

    Pennsylvania Recalls More Than 500 THC Vape Brands

    Pennsylvania regulators recalled hundreds of medical marijuana vape products because the state says they contain ingredients unapproved for inhalation. The state health department released a list of more than 500 cannabis vape products with ingredients not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

    “Although some of these added ingredients may be considered safe in other non-inhaled products, patient safety is the top priority of the Medical Marijuana Program,” the state wrote in an email announcing the recall, according to the Pittsburgh City Paper (PCP), as reported by MJBiz Daily.

    Credit: Promesa Art Studio

    The PCP stated that the agency did not respond to a request for more information. The FDA has not approved any cannabis product for marketing. The agency does not have the authority to approve the marketing for or the regulation of any cannabis products, unless a company makes health claims.

    The recall comes after a months-long process in which Pennsylvania officials reviewed medical marijuana vaping products. In November, state regulators gave licensed grower/processors two weeks to resubmit vaporized cannabis products that contain additives, including flavors or terpenes, for approval.

    Health officials then told patients in December that some of the products sold by medical marijuana retailers might not be safe to inhale. The e-cigarette or vaping use-associated lung injury (EVALI) crisis of 2019-2020 was caused by vitamin E acetate in black market THC vaping devices.

  • Study Claims Patches Better Than Vapes as Quit Aids

    Study Claims Patches Better Than Vapes as Quit Aids

    Credit: kues1

    A new study claims that those using e-cigarettes to quit smoking found them to be less helpful than more traditional smoking cessations aids such as patches and gum.

    The study, published Monday in the journal BMJ, analyzed the latest 2017 to 2019 data from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study, which follows tobacco use among Americans over time.

    “This is the first time we found e-cigarettes to be less popular than FDA-approved pharmaceutical aids, such as medications or the use of patches, gum, or lozenges,” said John Pierce, the director for population sciences at the Moores Cancer Center at the University of California, San Diego, according to CNN.

    A three-month randomized trial in the United Kingdom, published in 2019, found e-cigarettes, along with behavioral interventions, did help smokers quit tobacco cigarettes. In guidance published in late 2021, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decided to recommend that smokers use e-cigarettes to help them quit.

    Another recent study, published in JAMA Network Open, found adult smokers with no plans to quit are more likely to stop smoking if they switch to daily vaping, according to new research led by Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center.

    The Roswell Park study also used data collected from 2014 to 2019 as part of the PATH study. 

  • Portland 2nd Major City in Maine to Ban Flavored Vapes

    Portland 2nd Major City in Maine to Ban Flavored Vapes

    Credit: Ianm35

    The Portland City Council in the U.S. state of Maine voted unanimously Monday night to ban flavored tobacco products come June.

    On Monday night, city councilors unanimously approved a ban after hours of testimony. Among those who spoke were several tobacco retailers, who argued that the ban would hurt their business, while customers would simply travel to other towns to purchase flavored products.

    The council said this ban is only a step in the right direction. This makes Portland the second Maine city to ban flavored tobacco products, following in the footsteps of the Bangor City Council. The Bangor ban takes effect on June 1. The town of Brunswick plans to consider a ban later this month.

    Maine lawmakers are also looking at a potential statewide ban of flavored tobacco. A bill about the subject is expected to come up for a vote sometime this spring, according to the Associated Press.

  • Retail Group Launches Guide to Help U.K. Vapor Sellers

    Retail Group Launches Guide to Help U.K. Vapor Sellers

    The Association of Convenience Stores (ACS), a U.K.-based retailers group with more than 33,500 members, has launched a new guide to help retailers with the sale and supply of e-cigarettes and other vaping products.

    The guide, which is part of a wider group of Assured Advice guides, covers the regulations that govern the sale and supply of e-cigarettes, retailers’ responsibilities when selling these products, how to ensure packaging and labelling are compliant with the regulations, and advice on how to make sure underage sales do not take place.

    Within the guide, ACS recommends retailers use the Challenge25 policy when selling e-cigarettes and vaping products. Challenge 25 is a retailing strategy that encourages anyone who is over 18 but looks under 25 to carry acceptable ID.

    As part of an update to Challenge25 materials launched in January, there are new posters, badges and other downloadable materials which refer specifically to e-cigarettes. The new guide is available to download from the ACS website. The Assured Advice guides have the backing of Surrey and Buckinghamshire trading standards departments.

  • Mississippi House Passes 3rd-Party Age Verification Bill

    Mississippi House Passes 3rd-Party Age Verification Bill

    The U.S. state of Mississippi’s House of Representatives Thursday passed legislation that would require sellers of any type of alternative nicotine and marijuana products and package retailers to have a third-party age verification service.

    Nick Bain

    HB 976, authored by State Rep. Nick Bain (R), revises the provisions of law that regulate alternative nicotine products such as an electronic cigarette, any other product that consists of or contains nicotine that can be ingested into the body by chewing, smoking, absorbing, dissolving, inhaling or by any other means, according to Y’All Politics. The rules would include synthetic nicotine products.

    The bill also amends Section 67-1-81 of Mississippi Code to, “require holders of a package retailer permit to have an independent, third-party age verification service available on the property of the location in which alcoholic beverages are sold; and for other related purposes.”

    The legislation says that before selling alternative nicotine products, the person or business must verify that the individual is at least 21 years of age by performing an age verification through a third-party verification service that obtains the purchasers full name, date of birth, and residential address and compares the information available from public records to the personal information entered.

    In accordance with national standards, the third-party verification system used must have at least a 95% accuracy rating in order to be in compliance with the identification requirements listed in the bill.

    An amendment was added that would require medical marijuana dispensaries to be included in this bill.

  • Washington County, Oregon Flavor Ban Placed on Hold

    Washington County, Oregon Flavor Ban Placed on Hold

    Credit: Vlad

    A Washington County ban on retailers selling flavored vaping and other tobacco products has been put on hold and will be on the ballot in May after petitioners gathered signatures to stop the ban, the county announced.

    Ordinance 878, passed November 2, 2021 by the Washington County Board of Commissioners, banned the sale of flavored tobacco products and flavored synthetic nicotine, according to news reports.

    The ban went into effect December 2, 2021 but retailers had until January 1, 2022 to take the products off the shelves, when the ordinance was enforced.

    However, enough signatures have been gathered to place the ordinance “on hold” while a Washington County Election official verifies the signatures to reverse the ban. The county has 15 days to verify the signatures.

    This means Washington County retailers can now sell the flavored tobacco products and the ban will not be enforced while signatures are verified.

    Meanwhile, the ordinance can still go back in place if there aren’t enough signatures, or if a majority of voters approve it in May.