Author: Staff Writer

  • Vuse’s U.S. Market Share Hits Double Digits Over Juul

    Vuse’s U.S. Market Share Hits Double Digits Over Juul

    It just keeps growing. In the latest Nielsen analysis of convenience-store data, the market-share gap between Vuse and Juul vaping products has stretched to a double-digit lead for Vuse.

    The analysis, released Tuesday, covers the four-week period ending Sept. 10.

    Vuse’s market share rose from 39 percent in the previous report to 39.7 percent, compared with Juul declining from 29.4 percent to 28.1 percent.

    Vuse also has also now edged ahead of Juul in the year-over-year comparison at 32.9 percent to 32.7 percent, respectively. It’s the first time Vuse has led the year-over-year comparison.

    According to Barclays, Nielsen largely covers the big chains. For the smaller chains, the group extrapolates trends, which is why trend changes don’t appear immediately in Nielsen, according to the Winston-Salem Journal.

    The looming potential for an outright ban of Juul Labs’ e-cigarettes from U.S. retail shelves has accelerated the market-share gains of R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.’s Vuse brand, according to reports.

    Meanwhile, No. 3 NJoy dropped from 2.9 percent to 2.8 percent, while Fontem Ventures’ blu eCigs slipped from 1.6 percent to 1.4 percent.

    Juul’s four-week dollar sales in the latest report have dropped from a 50.2 percent increase in the Aug. 10, 2019, report to a 17.7 percent decline in the latest report.

    By comparison, Reynolds’ Vuse was up 41.4 percent in the latest report, while NJoy was down 5.6 percent and blu eCigs fell to 30.2 percent.

  • Juul Sues FDA for Failure to Disclose Documents

    Juul Sues FDA for Failure to Disclose Documents

    Credit: Insurance Journal

    The battle between Juul Labs and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration continues to gain steam. The vapor manufacturer has now filed a lawsuit against the FDA over the agency’s refusal to disclose documents supporting its marekting denial order (MDO) that bans a company from selling e-cigarettes on the U.S. market.

    In a complaint filed on Tuesday with a federal court in Washington, D.C., Juul Labs accused the FDA of invoking the “widely abused” deliberative process privilege to improperly withhold scientific materials that are “central” to understanding the basis for the June 23 issuance of the MDO, according to Reuters.

    The company claims the materials would show whether the FDA conducted a legally required balancing of the public health benefits and risks of its products, including claims Juul e-cigarettes help smokers quit combustible cigarettes, and whether the agency’s reasoning was scientifically sound.

    “The public deserves a complete picture of the scientific facts behind one of the agency’s most controversial and closely scrutinized decisions in recent years,” Juul Labs stated.

    An FDA spokeswoman declined to comment, saying the agency does not discuss pending litigation.

    Juul Labs accused the FDA of violating the federal Freedom of Information Act by withholding a majority of the “scientific disciplinary reviews” underlying the sales ban.

    The company said it filed an administrative appeal of its MDO through the agency, but the FDA missed a Sept. 13 deadline to resolve it.

    A federal appeals court temporarily stayed Juul’s MDO on June 24.

    Earlier this month, Juul Labs settled youth marketing lawsuits with 33 states and Puerto Rico.

  • Proposed South Africa Vape Tax Would Double Prices

    Proposed South Africa Vape Tax Would Double Prices

    The proposed excise duty on vaping products in South Africa should be imposed on all “actors” equally to ensure fair competition and an equal playing field for all participants, according to BAT South Africa. However, prices would rise, the company warned.

    Speaking at a standing committee on finance, the tobacco giant represented by Dane Mouyis said that according to its own data, electronic vaping products account for less than 0.5 percent of the entire nicotine product market of South Africa, according to Business Tech.

    However, there is an over-proportioned number of retailers that are creating their own vaping liquid.

    Mouyis said that many people are “doing it themselves” importing a few litres of nicotine liquid only to turn it into many more vials of vape liquid – an excisable product.

    Under National Treasury’s proposal, the average excise rate for e-cigarettes is proposed at R2.91 ($0.17) per millilitre and apportioned in a ratio of 70:30 between nicotine and non-nicotine elements.

    To ensure that tax is gathered from this trade, Mouyis said that in collaboration with Oxford Economics, it was found that a rate of R1.45/ml should be the absolute upper limit of the duty.

    The representative said that considering South Africa’s affordability, a 70 cents duty is more appropriate.

    Asanda Gcoyi from the Vapour Products Association of South Africa, which represent both manufacturers and retailers, warned that the tax would drive price increases onto the consumer, and one could see the average price of vape products increase by 138% and e-liquid consumption drop by 36%.

    BAT stressed that an aggressive excise tax would rush consumers away to an illicit market that would subsequently grow. Gcoyi echoed this sentiment.

    The tobacco company proposed the following changes for vaping products in the country:

    A registration system must be introduced with the excise for manufacturers and retailers – to open the market up to the South African Revenue Service (SARS). Gcoyi added that the proposed tax was problematic as the rationale behind it was flawed.

    She said that the scientific basis of the tax is inaccurate in that the National Treasury sees the vaping industry as attempting to undermine global tobacco efforts – while many international studies have actually pointed to vaping as being a harm reduction practice dissimilar to traditional smoking.

    She added that the goal of the excise is unclear as the Treasury has provided little detail on how it would be beneficial to public health, and not enough research has been concluded on youth uptake.

    The introduction of the excise will have significant unintended and irrational consequences, one being that the proposed duty would make vaping more expensive than smoking and create an illicit trade – thus going against the doctrine of harm reduction, said Gcoyi.

    The Vapour Products Association has since called on businesses to oppose the excise duty and for the Treasury to conduct further market research on the implications of its proposal.

  • California’s E-Scrap Recycling Program Excludes ENDS

    California’s E-Scrap Recycling Program Excludes ENDS

    Credit: Sharaf Maksumov

    The newly expanded e-scrap recycling program signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom will not include vaping products. AB 2440 and SB 1215 set up an extended producer responsibility program for loose batteries and added battery-embedded products to the Electronic Waste Recycling Act of 2003.

    Newsom signed the bills Sept. 16 as part of a package of climate-related bills, according to Resource Recycling.

    Under SB 1215, consumers will be required to pay an electronic waste recycling fee upon the purchase of certain new or refurbished products starting Jan. 1, 2026. However, a covered battery-embedded product is one containing a battery “that is not intended to be easily removed from the product by the consumer with no more than commonly used household tools,” the bill’s text states, excluding medical devices, energy storage systems and electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) products.

    “This month has been a wake-up call for all of us that later is too late to act on climate change. California isn’t waiting any more,” Newsom said in the press release. “Together with the Legislature, California is taking the most aggressive action on climate our nation has ever seen.”

  • Several Studies Refute Link Between Vaping, Smoking

    Several Studies Refute Link Between Vaping, Smoking

    An anti-smoking group announced that several studies have found no evidence that the use of e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products (HTPs) are leading non-smokers and youth towards cobustible cigarette smoking in countries such as the U.S., the UK, Australia, Japan, France and Switzerland.

    Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)-UK cited the results of five large surveys of 11 to 16-year-olds in the UK between 2015 and 2017 showing that “most young people who experiment with e-cigarettes did not become regular users,” according to media reports.

    “Overall, there is no evidence that e-cigarettes have driven up smoking prevalence in this age group. In fact, smoking prevalence among young people has declined since e-cigarettes came onto the market,” ASH-UK stated.

    A time-series analysis conducted by researchers led by Emma Beard between 2007 and 2018 in the UK showed that the increase in the prevalence of e-cigarette use in England among the entire sample does not appear to have been associated with an increase in the uptake of smoking among young adults aged 16 to 24.

    A 2022 study by University of Bristol researchers found that, based on the “current balance of evidence, using triangulated data from recent population-level cross-contextual comparisons, individual-level genetic analyses and modeling, we do believe, however, that causal claims about a strong gateway effect from e-cigarettes to smoking are unlikely to hold, while it remains too early to preclude other smaller or opposing effects.”

    A 2020 study by Dr. Colin Mendelsohn and Wayne Hall concluded that claims of vaping serving as a gateway to smoking are unconvincing. “Smoking more often precedes vaping than vice versa, regular vaping by never-smokers is rare and the association is more plausibly explained by a common liability model,” they stated.

    Another comprehensive analysis of whether vaping causes smoking uptake was published by the University of Queensland in Australia. That study concluded also that there was little evidence of a gateway effect. If a gateway effect does exist, it is likely to be small, the study said.

    A 2021 study by Wayne Hall and Gary Chan on the “gateway” effect of e-cigarettes found that “e-cigarette use has not been accompanied by increased cigarette smoking among young people in the United States, as would be the case if e-cigarette use were a major gateway to cigarette smoking.”

  • Supreme’s Growth Driven by Vapor Product Sales

    Supreme’s Growth Driven by Vapor Product Sales

    guy holding 88vape e-cigarette
    Credit: 88Vape

    The UK-based wholesale vaping product distributor and manufacturer Supreme stated in a press release Thursday that trading in the current financial year remained in line with the company’s market expectations.

    The AIM-traded firm, which was holding its annual general meeting, stated that it delivered a strong performance for the year ended March 31, underpinned by organic growth across its leading divisions, as well as acquiring complementary businesses.

    Paul McDonald, chairman of Supreme, stated the company had continued to develop an “extensive network” of customers across the retail space, and was “delighted” with the progress made in increasing its retail penetration, alongside the positive impact of recent brand and product launches.

    “Trading for the current financial year remains in line with market expectations, with the business well-placed to deliver on our strategic aspirations, supported by the recent acquisitions of vaping business Liberty Flights and the purchase of trade and assets of Cuts Ice and Flavour Core,” McDonald stated.

    “Our fast-growing vaping category continues to underpin the group’s growth.”

    Alongside the strong performance of Supreme’s 88vape brand, including new customer wins across grocery and convenience retail, McDonald stated that the company is committed to evolving its vaping segment as evidenced with the recent acquisitions of Liberty Flights in June, and Cuts Ice and Flavour Core in August.

    McDonald said the two transactions were “highly complementary and immediately earnings enhancing,” and would deliver scale to the group, adding that the company was “well-placed” to help mitigate the impact of inflation on consumers.

    “Looking ahead, we continue to explore additional merger and acquisition opportunities to complement the group’s organic growth, and the board remains confident in Supreme’s strategic ambitions, underpinned by the exciting prospects within vaping,” he stated.

  • Norcia: FDA Amps up Attacks on Unauthorized Vapes

    Norcia: FDA Amps up Attacks on Unauthorized Vapes

    Credit: Puwasit Inyavileart

    During an interview with Politico on Sept. 6, Brian King, the director of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Tobacco Products (CTP), would not say whether the agency was willing to take unauthorized vaping products off the market.

    In his first interview since taking the reins of CTP, King said that he was “committing to explore all viable pathways that are legally and scientifically defensible,” adding that “nothing is off the table.”

    He did not acknowledge anything about the commission of external experts looking into CTP procedures, however, writes Alex Norcia of Filter, the agency is already in the process of seeking court orders, threatening lawsuits and demanding the destruction of unauthorized next generation nicotine products.

    Filter has confirmed that the FDA, by September 1, advised the Department of Justice (DOJ) that at least two open-system vape companies were in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) because the manufacturers did not file premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) and were continuing to sell their products,” Norcia writes. “According to a letter to one of the vape companies, viewed by Filter, the feds are seeking court orders, threatening lawsuits and demanding the destruction of unauthorized products.”

    CTP has denied an estimated 99 percent of marketing applications and dozens of companies have sued over their denials, which they have largely argued were “arbitrary” and “capricious.”

    “We plan to seek a court order to permanently enjoin you … from, among other things, directly or indirectly manufacturing, distributing, selling, and/or offering for sale any new tobacco product at or from any of your facilities, unless and until, among other things, the product receives, and has in effect, marketing authorization from FDA,” reads the letter, signed by DOJ Senior Litigation Counsel Christina Parascandola and dated September 1. “The enclosed proposed consent decree,” it continues, “states the terms upon which the government would be willing to settle the suit that we plan to file.”

    Filter agreed not to disclose the names of the individuals and companies that received the letters (one of the companies has now ceased business operations) because of the possibility that litigation could unfold. The FDA did not respond to Filter’s request for comment by publication time.

    “Defendants shall bear the costs of destruction and the costs of FDA’s supervision.”

    One industry insider, who requested anonymity so as not to affect his company’s PMTA process, said that the letter was “a clear escalation”—the first time, to his knowledge, that the FDA had gone beyond warnings and explicitly threatened to sue over sales of unauthorized nicotine vapes.

    “Their exercise of enforcement discretion to date has reached almost legendary proportions, so this would be at least a small deviation from that,” Cliff Douglas, the director of the University of Michigan Tobacco Research Network and the American Cancer Society’s former vice president for tobacco control, told Filter. “My sense is that there are many, many instances of such behavior across the country, which Mitch Zeller and others have referred to as requiring FDA to play whack-a-mole, so a big question would appear to be whether this signals a new direction or is a random example of enforcement action.”

    The two companies known to have received letters, at least, have been ordered to physically destroy their own products, under FDA supervision, according to Norcia.

    “Within thirty (30) days after entry of this Decree, Defendants shall, under FDA’s supervision and pursuant to a written destruction plan approved in writing by FDA prior to implementation, destroy all Defendants’ ENDS products in their custody, control, or possession as of the date this Decree is signed by the parties,” the letter reads. “Defendants shall bear the costs of destruction and the costs of FDA’s supervision incurred under this paragraph.”

  • Second Chance: MDO Legal Win Presents Opportunity

    Second Chance: MDO Legal Win Presents Opportunity

    Photo: andranik123

    How companies can make the most of a recent court ruling requiring the FDA to reassess thousands of PMTA rejection notices.

    By Neil McKeganey

    It would be hard to overstate the threat that youth vaping in the United States poses to the use of e-cigarettes as a means of tobacco harm reduction. Respected national surveys have shown a rising trend in youth vaping, with the threat to the vaping industry as predictable as night following day.

    Former Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb could not have been clearer in signaling that threat when he said that the offramp to adult smoking could not be justifiably achieved at the cost of the on-ramp of teen vaping. If anybody was in any doubt about the risks that youth vaping poses to the entire e-cigarette industry, those doubts would have surely been extinguished in the recent ruling against Juul Labs, which required the company to pay in excess of $438 million to compensate states for the harms caused by past marketing practices increasing the likelihood of youth using their eponymously named vaping device.

    For vaping companies, the threat of youth vaping may have lifted slightly in a recent U.S. court ruling requiring the FDA to pay attention to what vapor companies are doing in trying to restrict youth access to their products. Odd as it may sound, after having encouraged vapor companies to pay attention to their marketing and sales practices in light of the rising trend in youth vaping, the FDA’s position appears to have been that those efforts were almost certainly doomed to fail, with youth accessing what are often easy-to-conceal vaping products with relatively little difficulty through their social networks.

    With vapor companies having invested heavily in age verification software, point-of-sale restrictions and in the removal of flavored e-liquids, it would have been a bitter pill to swallow to be told that the regulators had largely ignored those efforts to reduce youth access to their products.

    The logic behind the FDA’s decision seems to have been that it would be easier to expedite the large number of premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) by adopting a “Fatal Flaw” approach—rejecting those applications that did not present data from either longitudinal customer studies or randomized trial evaluations and simply ignoring what the companies were doing to lessen the likelihood that their products would be found in the hands of youth.

    By ruling against the FDA in legal action initiated by six vapor companies that had received marketing denial orders without the FDA even paying attention to their youth sales restriction efforts, the judges have effectively provided vapor companies with a second chance to have their PMTA applications reassessed.

    So, what should vapor companies do given the legal victory that has been dropped in their lap? Clearly, it is going to be important for companies to do all they can to restrict youth access to their vapor products. But actions taken by these companies is not the same thing as being able to present evidence to the FDA that their products are not being used by youth.

    To this end, research undertaken by the Centre for Substance Use Research (CSUR) in Scotland may help many of the companies concerned. For the last two years, the CSUR has been measuring the prevalence with which over 200 e-cigarette devices are being used by youth and adults within the United States. This ongoing research provides vapor companies with product-specific data showing the extent to which their products are being used, or more crucially, are not being used by youth.

    Valuable as the data from this study undoubtedly are, vapor companies also have to be able to show the benefit of their products to adult smokers. The fastest route to obtaining this data is through an actual use study in which adult smokers using a company’s vapor products are monitored over a number of weeks to determine how many smokers are able to quit or reduce their cigarette smoking through using the company’s vapor products.

    To obtain a marketing authorization, vapor companies have to be able to show two things—that their products are not being used by youth and that they can help adult smokers in quitting or reducing cigarette consumption. Succeed in these two things and vapor companies can have a bright future. Fail in either one and the future looks a lot bleaker.

  • Alaska Governor Vetoes Vape Purchasing Age Increase

    Alaska Governor Vetoes Vape Purchasing Age Increase

    Credit: Eyegelb

    Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy vetoed SB 45, a bill that would have raised the minimum age to purchase e-cigarettes and other tobacco products in the state from 19-years-old to 21-years-old. The move would have brought the state in line with federal minimum age requirements.

    The governor vetoes the bill because it also included the implementation of a tax on e-cigarettes and other vaping products.

    The bill sought to create parity in the excise tax rate on electronic smoking products, which are currently not subject to state-level taxes as they are not considered either cigarettes or other tobacco products (OTP).

    The bill would have subjected electronic smoking products to a tax rate of 35 percent of the wholesale price, which would still be less than the state’s rate of 75 percent of the wholesale price on other tobacco products.

    “Governor Dunleavy’s decision to veto this bill is a huge relief to Alaskans who rely on vaping products to stay away from deadly combustible cigarettes. Rejecting the tax hike will also make it easier for those who currently smoke to achieve cessation using vapor products, said Tim Andrews, director of Consumer Issues for Americans for Tax Reform. “Governor Dunleavy’s veto was necessary and highly appropriate. As a proud signer of the ATR Taxpayer Protection Pledge, Governor Dunleavy has made a commitment to his constituents to oppose all tax increases. This veto is proof of his dedication to the taxpayers of Alaska and we applaud this pro-science, pro-taxpayer decision.”

    Dunleavy did not say whether or not he supported the age increase, but noted that it is not possible to separate out components of a bill once it has been passed by the legislature.

    “There were many conversations about what an appropriate level to tax would be, but ultimately a tax increase on the people of Alaska is not something I can support,” Dunleavy wrote in his veto letter to Senate President Peter Micciche.

    Since the governor vetoed the bill after the adjournment of the legislature’s second regular session, the veto will not be addressed unless a special session is called before the next legislative session convenes, according to Halfwheel.

  • VTA Files Amicus Brief in Triton PMTA Lawsuit

    VTA Files Amicus Brief in Triton PMTA Lawsuit

    Credit: William A. Morgan

    The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Vapor Technology Association’s (VTA) unopposed motion to file an amicus brief in support of Petitioners’ Petition for a Rehearing En Banc in the case Wages & White Lion Investments, a/k/a/ Triton Distribution v. FDA.

    Recently, a panel of 5th Circuit judges denied Triton Distribution’s appeal of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s marketing denial order for its flavored e-liquid products in a 2-1 decision. Thereafter, Triton filed a petition for en banc review, asking the entire 5th Circuit to reconsider the ruling.

    The VTA’s amicus brief supports Triton’s request by explaining that it involves issues of “exceptional importance” necessitating review by the entire 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

    The VTA’s amicus brief highlights three key points: economist John Dunham and Associates’ evaluation of the adverse economic impact that the ruling would have if it led to the removal of all flavored open system vaping products from the states comprising the 5th Circuit (Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas); the leading tobacco control scientists who have warned that removing flavors will deter adult smokers from quitting and have recommended limiting the sale of flavored vaping products to adult-only stores; and the results of the VTA’s analysis of the FDA’s compliance data between Jan. 1, 2020, and June 30, 2022, which reveal that the rate of illegal youth sales of cigarettes and cigars are twice the rate of vaping products.