The head of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Tuesday said he has commissioned an independent review of the agency’s food and tobacco programs following months of criticism over its handling of the baby formula shortage and e-cigarette reviews, according to AP.
The announcement comes as FDA Commissioner Robert Califf attempts to push past several controversies that have dominated his second stint running the agency, including his issuing of a marketing denial order (MDO) to e-cigarette maker Juul Labs and later having to rescind that order.
“Fundamental questions about the structure, function, funding and leadership need to be addressed” in the agency’s programs, Califf said in a statement. The agency’s Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) is facing challenges navigating policy and enforcement issues from “an increasing number of novel products that could potentially have significant consequences for public health.”
Califf said the non-profit Reagan-Udall Foundation — a non-governmental research group created by Congress to support FDA’s work — would convene experts to deliver evaluations within 60 business days of both the food and tobacco operations.
Two e-liquid manufacturers may be forced to pull their products from store shelves after they lost their bid to force the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to allow them to market their vaping products.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied Wages and White Lion Investments LLC, doing business as Triton Distribution, and Vapetasia LLC’s requests Monday for review of the agency’s marketing denial orders (MDOs) in a 2-1 decision.
The manufacturers didn’t show that the FDA acted arbitrarily or capriciously when it rejected their premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs), the Fifth Circuit said.
“In a mockery of ‘reasoned’ administrative decision-making,” Judge Edith Jones, a former chief judge of the Fifth Circuit who has served since the Reagan administration, wrote in her dissent. “FDA (1) changed the rules for private entities in the middle of their marketing application process, (2) failed to notify the public of the changes in time for compliance, and then (3) rubber-stamped the denial of their marketing applications because of the hitherto unknown requirements.”
If the ruling holds, Triton and Vapetasia will not be able to sell their reduced-risk electronic nicotine-delivery system (ENDS) products.
The companies had applied to market products with flavors like sour grape, pink lemonade, crème brulee and milk and cookies and names such as “Jimmy The Juice Man Strawberry Astronaut” and “Suicide Bunny Bunny Season.”
Dozens of other smaller vape companies also have accused the regulatory agency of operating unfairly, and will likely be disheartened by this ruling, reports Alex Norcia for Filter.
Todd Wages, a partner at Triton Distribution, told Filter he was “very disappointed” in the court. “We’re exploring our next steps. I will not stop fighting until I can’t any longer, until every door is closed,” he said.
The FDA rejected applications to market 55,000 flavored e-cigarettes in August, 2021, including Triton’s, and said applicants would likely need to conduct long-term studies establishing their products’ benefits to win approval.
A Fifth Circuit panel in October then agreed with Triton’s claim that the new requirement for long-term studies differed from earlier FDA guidance and called the action a “surprise switcheroo” and the panel allowed Triton to keep selling its e-cigarettes until another panel could hear its appeal.
Eric Heyer, the lawyer representing Triton Distribution, told Filter that the company “intends to file a petition for rehearing en banc by the entirety of the Fifth Circuit.”
Most circuit court appeals are decided by a three-judge panel, however special circumstances could motivate the court to allow a majority of the active judges to vote to rehear the case “en banc.”
Moving forward, Triton had asked the court in briefs to allow the company to “enjoin FDA from taking further adverse action on the Petitioners’ PMTAs for 18 months to allow Petitioners to conduct the necessary studies to prove comparative efficacy” if the panel ruled against Triton. The court denied that request.
The head of the Vapour Products Association of South Africa (VPASA) says the booming sector is plagued by continual misinformation and disinformation despite scientific evidence demonstrating that vaping is less harmful than smoking.
Chief executive of VPASA, Asanda Gcoyi said vaping is the single, most effective tool which can move smokers away from the deadly addiction to cigarettes, according to a story on IOL.
“We accept that vaping is not without risk, but it is a potentially less harmful alternative to smoking. What we cannot afford to do is to unduly stymie this technological innovation that can be the single most effective tool to move smokers away from their deadly addiction to cigarettes,” she said. “We have a collective responsibility to share correct information about vaping and other less harmful alternatives to smoking so that smokers can make an informed decision for their health.”
In the ongoing efforts to shed light and demystify vaping in South Africa, VPASA is on a drive to ultimately debunk some of the most prominent vaping myths circulating, according to Gcoyi.
The first myth is that vaping is as harmful as smoking.
“Although not risk-free, vaping is a potentially less harmful alternative to combustible tobacco. There are significantly lower levels of exposure to harmful chemicals in people who switch from smoking to vaping compared with those who continue to smoke,” she says. “The science that dates back as far as 2015 says vaping is a less harmful alternative to smoking, and recent updates continue to support this.”
The second myth is that vaping causes popcorn lung.
“According to Cancer Research UK, popcorn lung (bronchiolitis obliterans) is an uncommon type of lung disease, but it is not cancer,” says Gcoyi. “It is caused by a build-up of scar tissue in the lungs, which blocks the flow of air. E-cigarettes don’t cause the lung condition known as popcorn lung.”
Gcoyi said there was also a myth that vaping causes lung cancer.
“The fact is that burning tobacco in all its forms means exposure to carcinogenic chemicals. If you are a smoker, switching to vaping will reduce your risk of cancer. Most toxins from smoking are absent in electronic nicotine and non-nicotine delivery systems aerosol, she said. “Electronic non-nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) are a tool for consuming nicotine that is less harmful than if consumed via the combustion of tobacco. Coffee is brewed for caffeine. Vaping atomizes e-liquid for nicotine. Both caffeine and nicotine would [be harmful] if burned.”
An FDA-funded study falsely claims that e-cigarette use negatively impacts health and increases utilization and cost.
By VV staff
Misinformation is incorrect or misleading information. It is different from disinformation, which is deliberately deceptive. Both are rampant in the vaping industry; however, it is difficult to distinguish between them.
Complicating the issue, it’s impossible to tell if researchers of disproven or flawed anti-vaping studies conducted defective studies intentionally or if they were just bad at their jobs. Many vapor industry advocates claim researchers are intentionally coming to conclusions that fit the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s “supposed goal” of eventually banning all nicotine products, especially when the studies are being funded by the FDA.
In one recent study, researchers found that the use of electronic cigarettes costs the United States $15 billion annually in healthcare expenditures—more than $2,000 per person a year. The study, published on May 23 in Tobacco Control, is the first to look at the healthcare costs of e-cigarette use among adults aged 18 and older, according to researchers at the University of California San Francisco School of Nursing.
“Our finding indicates that healthcare expenditures for a person who uses e-cigarettes are $2,024 more per year than for a person who doesn’t use any tobacco products,” said lead author Yingning Wang of the University of California San Francisco Institute for Health and Aging.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, combustible cigarette smoking-related illness in the United States costs more than $300 billion each year, including more than $225 billion for direct medical care for adults. With an estimated 30 million smokers, that is $10,000 a year more than for a person a who doesn’t use tobacco products.
The researchers based their estimates of healthcare costs and utilization on data from the 2015–2018 National Health Interview Survey. Healthcare utilization included nights in the hospital, emergency room visits, doctor visits and home visits. “Healthcare costs attributable to e-cigarette use are already greater than our estimates of healthcare costs attributable to cigar and smokeless tobacco use,” said Wang. “This is a concerning finding given that e-cigarettes are a relatively new product whose impact is likely to increase over time.”
The results of the study appear to be based on two key assumptions, according to Jamie Brown, professor of behavioral science and health and director of the Tobacco and Alcohol Research Group at University College London.
“First, that the identified associations between e-cigarette use and poor health status are caused by e-cigarettes. The majority of people who use e-cigarettes are also former or current cigarette smokers. Despite the attempts at adjustment, it is likely that at least some of the association is actually caused by cigarettes,” said Brown. “The second assumption appears to be that the alternative is simply that these people would not be using e-cigarettes. However, we know that e-cigarettes help people to quit smoking cigarettes and that cigarette smoking causes enormous healthcare expenditure. Therefore, the key question is: What is the net impact on healthcare utilization when trying to account for how e-cigarettes affect how many people smoke cigarettes? These types of models have tended to suggest net benefits are likely.”
Credit: Adrian_ilie825
Peter Hajek, director of the Tobacco Dependence Research Unit at Queen Mary University of London, called the study a “baffling” piece of work. “The authors report that people who use e-cigarettes have poorer health and incur higher health costs than nonsmokers, but it is not clear why they assume that the excess health expenditure incurred by smokers who are trying to limit their smoking by using e-cigarettes—often because of acute health problems—is caused by their recent vaping rather than by their lifetime smoking,” said Hajek. “This is like claiming that the extra health expenditure incurred by people with broken legs is caused by using crutches.”
Researchers for the study sought to put a price tag on the health costs of e-cigarette use, certainly a reasonable component in the policy trade-offs over the use of e-cigarettes, according to Chuck Dinerstein, director of medicine at the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), who has over 25 years of experience as a vascular surgeon.
He stated that in order to get their data, researchers developed a model using the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), a household survey of the general population in the U.S. that includes detailed questions on health and use of tobacco products. “The researchers point to a study using NHIS data that per smoker—meaning combustible—attributable healthcare expenditures are $5,602,” explained Dinerstein. “The finding of this study, for both those exclusively using e-cigarettes and the dual users, is roughly a third as much. E-cigarettes reduce healthcare utilization and costs.
“The researchers point out that exclusive e-cigarette users had ‘higher odds of reporting poor health status than never tobacco users.’ That would be no surprise; no one is claiming e-cigarettes do no harm; they are less harmful than the alternative. Just like the prescription of buprenorphine is less harmful than the free-market acquisition of fentanyl … E-cigarettes have been marketed for 15 years and have been the tobacco product of choice for young adults for eight years. I find the assumption that e-cigarettes alone have manifested increased health costs at this point debatable.”
Cameron English, director of bio-sciences at ACSH, believes that the study had several critical flaws, with the most serious being the assumption that e-cigarette use would negatively impact an individual’s health and that this negative impact would increase utilization and cost. “The authors assumed what they should have demonstrated,” stated English. “That’s especially troublesome because existing evidence suggests that vaping is far less harmful than smoking. Instead of boosting healthcare expenditures, e-cigarette use probably reduces the amount of money spent to treat sick smokers. In sum, the Tobacco Control paper is terrible.”
While the research itself is scientifically suspect, two other troubling details should also be highlighted, according to English. “First, FDA paid for this low-quality study—then publicly denied any involvement until the paper was published. Second, the agency’s actions appear to reflect a broader effort to shape the peer-reviewed vaping literature then use it to justify excessive e-cigarette regulations.”
It should also be noted that while the FDA’s primary concern is saving youth from the dangers of vaping, researchers in the FDA-funded study’s opening cite concerns about the increased use of e-cigarettes by youth, especially those aged 15 to 24. “The Truth Initiative, an anti-smoking group funded by money from the Tobacco Settlement, reports that those [aged] 15 to 17 are ‘16 times more likely to vape than people aged 25 to 34,’” explains English. “Among the limitations of the study, the researchers indicate that the young, those we should be most concerned about, were not included in the study. ‘We did not include youth in the analysis due to their low healthcare utilization,’ [the researchers said].”
EVALI caused chaos
Whether it’s misinformation or disinformation, it’s costing lives. It’s keeping combustible cigarette smokers from switching to less harmful products. Another recent study led by researchers at the American Cancer Society shows that perceptions of e-cigarettes as being “more harmful” than cigarettes by adults in the United States more than doubled between 2019 and 2020, and perceptions of e-cigarettes as “less harmful” declined between 2018 and 2020.
Credit: andriano_cz.
The study also found that an increase in cigarette smoking prevalence (2019–2020) was restricted to those who perceived e-cigarettes as “more harmful” than cigarettes while increases in prevalence of e-cigarette use were restricted to those who perceived e-cigarettes as “less harmful” than cigarettes, according to a press release.
Prevalence of dual use of both products increased only among those who perceived these products “as harmful.” The results coincide with the e-cigarette or vaping use-associated lung injury outbreak (EVALI) and the Covid-19 pandemic. The data was published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
“While all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, pose a risk to the health of the user, major health events, such as the EVALI epidemic in late 2019 and the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, paved the way to new smoking/e-cigarette health risks,” the release states. “During this time, the quality and type of information individuals were exposed to may have shaped how they compare the potential harms of tobacco products, which, in turn, may have altered tobacco use behaviors.”
How individuals perceive the harm of e-cigarettes versus traditional cigarettes can predict their individual decision to use tobacco products, but according to the study authors, this is the first study to provide evidence that this relationship translates to population-based prevalence changes.
“While this study showed sharp changes in public perceptions of e-cigarette versus cigarette harms during EVALI and Covid-19, the more relevant finding for public health is that increases in cigarette smoking and e-cigarette use prevalence occurred primarily in individuals who perceived their preferred product as relatively less harmful,” said Priti Bandi, principal scientist of risk factors and screening surveillance research at the American Cancer Society and lead author of the study. “This suggests that public perceptions of e-cigarette versus cigarette harms influence population tobacco use patterns.”
In this study, researchers analyzed data from the National Cancer Institute-sponsored Health Information National Trends Survey collected from more than 10,000 U.S. adults from 2018 to 2020. The results showed that perceptions of e-cigarettes as “more harmful” than cigarettes doubled each year, increasing most between 2019 and 2020 (2018: 6.8 percent; 2019: 12.8 percent; 2020: 28.3 percent) while uncertainty (responses of “don’t know”) in relative harm declined (2018: 38.2 percent; 2019: 34.2 percent; 2020: 24.7 percent).
“Less harmful” relative perceptions declined (2018: 17.6 percent; 2019: 15.3 percent; 2020: 11.4 percent) while “as harmful” perceptions remained steady (2018: 37.4 percent; 2019: 37.7 percent; 2020: 35.6 percent). Exclusive cigarette smoking increased between 2019 and 2020 among those who perceived e-cigarettes as relatively “more harmful”(2018: 18.5 percent; 2019: 8.4 percent; 2020: 16.3 percent), exclusive e-cigarette use increased linearly among those who perceived them as relatively “less harmful” (2018: 7.9 percent; 2019: 15.3 percent; 2020: 26.7 percent), and dual use increased linearly in those who perceived them “as harmful”(2018: 0.1 percent; 2019: 1.4 percent; 2020: 2.9 percent).
“It is challenging for individuals to make conclusions about the short[-term] and long-term health effects of tobacco products without clear, effective and ongoing communication from public health authorities, especially when new contextual events that change health harms happen,” said Bandi in a statement. “There is a need for behavioral interventions to encourage individuals to be informed consumers of available scientific findings and appreciate that while no tobacco product is safe, there are inherent differences between relative and absolute harms between tobacco products that can influence behavior. In turn, public health education campaigns must facilitate informed decision-making by translating emerging scientific evidence accurately to appropriate audiences.”
Many people also mistakenly believe that the most dangerous thing about smoking is nicotine. Many falsely believe that nicotine causes cancer. “When people who smoke perceive nicotine-replacement therapy or nicotine vapor products to be as harmful or more harmful than smoking, they are less likely to use less harmful products when attempting to quit smoking,” says Kim Murray, a research fellow with the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.
Murray believes that the widespread misperception about nicotine is due to misinformation. The misinformation is rampant in media and government messaging. This can have damaging impacts on public health.
Credit: Wachiwit
“Unfortunately, the number of people believing the misinformation about nicotine vapor products is rising,” she wrote in an opinion piece. “One of the biggest sources of misinformation is fake news shared on social media. There is a real need for informative and accurate information about smoking and nicotine, but most people don’t know where to find the information,” states Murray. “A logical resource should be their healthcare provider. However, most of the time, that would be the wrong choice because 60 percent of nurses incorrectly perceive nicotine as carcinogenic, and 72 percent believe that nicotine patches could cause heart attacks.”
In April, researchers concluded that more than 60 percent of all doctors incorrectly believe all tobacco products are equally harmful, making them less likely to recommend e-cigarettes for people trying to quit smoking, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.
The authors of the study, led by Rutgers University, asked more than 2,000 doctors in the U.S. in 2018 and 2019 how they would advise patients on using e-cigarettes as a method of combustible smoking cessation. One in four physicians discouraged all use of e-cigarettes and were more likely to advise against e-cigarettes if the hypothetical smoker they were counseling were a younger, light smoker compared to an older, heavy smoker.
Although no associations were found between harm reduction beliefs and being asked about e-cigarettes by patients, the association between physicians’ harm reduction beliefs and their e-cigarette recommendation practices was significant.
“It will take a lot to change minds and dispel the now entrenched, and largely mistaken, mistrust of nicotine. As in many areas of public life, urban myths and half-truths, which are ingrained over time, are often easier to believe than the truth for many in society. It is difficult to persuade people that the beliefs that they hold are wrong,” states Murray. “Consumers deserve accurate information to enable them to make informed choices. The country won’t achieve health equity and social justice if we continue to misinform those who choose to use nicotine in a safe manner.”
This article first appeared in Vapor Voice 3, 2022.
In the recent past, three stories have come to my notice that have recorded how vaping products have been seized by various authorities: in Hong Kong, where such products are banned; in Australia, where they are prescription devices; and in the U.K., where they are freely available. In Western Australia (WA), the ABC reported, WA Health recently seized 950 e-cigarettes, bringing the total seized for three years to about 16,000 “nicotine vaping products.”
In Hong Kong, the HKFP reported, about 360,000 products had been seized since the implementation on April 30 of a ban on alternative smoking products including e-cigarettes. And in the City of Westminster (population an estimated 250,000), the U.K. Vaping Industry Association (UKVIA) reported, 4,500 disposable vapes were seized because they did not conform to local standards along with 420 counterfeit vapes and 2,366 snus products “with no English labeling.”
The three stories were different, but they had one thing in common: None of them indicated what became, or what was to become, of the seized products, and I find this extraordinary and worrying, especially given that the three stories cited are probably the tip of the worldwide seizure iceberg.
We are deeply into a global existential crisis caused by, among other things, climate change and pollution, so you might imagine that the first questions to come up would concern, among others, the carbon footprint of the manufacturing processes that produced the seized products, and how we can prevent these products, which will include batteries, from ending up in landfills.
It would be hugely damaging if the products seized in the U.K. were just disposed of, even if they were recycled, but in Australia and Hong Kong, where, respectively, a ridiculous restriction and a ludicrous ban are in operation, disposal would simply heap one act of stupidity on top of another.
If no such mechanism exists already, a way should be found to allow seized products to be diverted from markets where, for one reason or another, they have arrived but are unacceptable to other markets where they are acceptable. This, admittedly, would prove difficult, though not impossible, where counterfeit products were concerned, but otherwise should not be beyond the wit of those skilled in marketing and distribution.
For instance, products seized in Hong Kong could be sent to countries that don’t ban them and where they comply with domestic standards, keeping the carbon footprint of the shipping as low as possible and selling them at the cost of the shipping to local suppliers to compensate for any market displacements.
Credit: Earnest Tse
A similar scheme could be applied to the disposal of vapes seized in the U.K., which apparently had “excessive levels of nicotine.” They could be shipped to someplace where such restrictions are not in place, once again keeping the carbon footprint of the shipping as low as possible and selling the products at the cost of shipping to local suppliers to compensate for any market displacements. Otherwise, in this case, simply change the rules.
As far as I am aware, nicotine-level restrictions are usually based on arbitrary figures devised by bureaucrats who have never smoked or vaped and whose scientific advisers probably couldn’t justify such restrictions on a rational basis. I think I am right in saying that the EU imposes delivery limits on traditional cigarettes while, at the same time, denying that there are any health benefits in doing so. In fact, probably the only significant effect of imposing such delivery limits is to make it easier for young people to start smoking.
In the past, policies based on irrational ideas were frustrating; now, faced with a mounting existential crisis, we simply cannot afford to allow rank stupidity to prevail because, applied on a wider basis, as they are, such policies are driving the planet further and further down the tubes.
In my view, it is time to face the facts, but I’m not sure that everyone agrees. As part of the UKVIA story, Raj Mistry, executive director of environment and city management at Westminster City Council, was quoted as saying the raid that uncovered the illicit goods showed the local authority’s commitment to keeping Westminster clean and safe.
“We are putting these questionable traders on notice that they will not be tolerated in our city,” he said in part. “We’ll continue to take action against such unsafe trading activities in order to keep our residents and visitors safe.”
This emphasis on clean and safe makes nice newspaper copy, but it is a bit misleading. As far as I can see, none of the seized vaping products could be seen as being unclean, whatever that might mean, and there was no suggestion that either the off-standard or counterfeit products were unsafe, though that couldn’t be ruled out in the case of the latter.
Credit: Adobe Stock
On the other hand, London, of which the City of Westminster is a part, is certainly not clean or safe because air pollution throughout the capital is a huge public health issue, causing the premature deaths of thousands of people each year.
In fairness, I should point out that Mistry’s comments would have concerned all of the illicit products discovered in the raid that uncovered the tobacco and nicotine products, which included, as well as the tobacco and nicotine products already mentioned, counterfeit mobile phone covers, counterfeit Apple AirPods, counterfeit Sony PS4 consoles, USB chargers with no safety labeling and unlabeled packs of shisha tobacco. Even so, the potential safety problems raised by all of these products would be infinitesimal compared with those associated with pollution, which is where I would concentrate my efforts if I really wanted to keep things clean and safe.
I wrote the above just ahead of the arrival on May 31 of the World Health Organization’s World No Tobacco Day (WNTD). Normally, I pay no attention to this annual event, which I have always assumed is observed only by those who have no positive interaction with tobacco during the rest of the year as well. But this year, something has changed.
This year, it seems to have come to the WHO’s attention that it is supposed to be a body concerned with health issues that cannot, like smoking, be dealt with at a national level— issues, such as those to do with pandemics, that don’t observe borders. So, this year, the theme of its WNTD is “Tobacco: Threat to our environment.”
To my way of thinking, this represents a smart move and a good move. It is a good move, I believe, because it pushes at the door of reality. It doesn’t say so, but it offers the slightest of hints that the biggest threat to the health of the world isn’t tobacco or smoking but environmental collapse. At the same time, it is a smart move from the point of view of those implacably opposed to tobacco because it helps to underline the growing alignment between health and environmental activists.
The tobacco and nicotine industry needs to be aware of this alignment and to take action wherever it can to ameliorate the negative effects it is having on the environment, and, wherever possible, to publicize what it is doing. It needs to do this because of the historical problems it has created through its lack of significant action in respect of such issues as deforestation and the careless disposal of cigarette butts and in respect of the more contemporary problems associated with e-cigarettes and some other lower risk products. And there should be no greenwashing. The industry should address these matters because it is the right thing to do, and it possibly needs to address them if it wants to keep on operating.
Credit: Kulichok
Ahead of WNTD, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) in the U.S. issued a report titled “Tobacco and the environment: Case studies on policies to protect our environment and our health from tobacco.” As the title suggests, the report looks at how, in ASH’s view, the tobacco industry passes to society in general the health and environmental costs it creates. And it talks up possible remedies, such as that based on the “polluter pays” principle and the application of extended producer responsibility, and even the shuttering of the industry through policies such as those concerned with what is known as the tobacco endgame.
Much of the report is based on the problems caused by traditional tobacco production and consumption, but e-cigarettes are included. “From mining to manufacturing, using and disposing, each stage of the e-cigarette product lifecycle presents novel environmental harms compared with traditional cigarettes,” the report says in part, quoting the American Public Health Association. “Tobacco companies already recognize that e-cigarettes pose new environmental burdens, necessitating them to manage new areas of impact due to the increasing use of electronics and batteries in [their] products.”
I don’t agree with all aspects of the report, but it is impossible, in my view, to disagree with the underlying message that the industry has a duty to act decisively to greatly reduce the impact it has on the environment—a duty that, as far as I can see, supersedes any other duty that it might have.
But let’s return to the Australia story and what might turn out to be a more positive outcome than is suggested by the seizures in WA. The story gets off to a depressing start with a WA Health spokesperson, Michael Lindsay, saying e-cigarettes are a major concern for health officials.
“It’s very uncontrolled; the sorts of things that have been found in e-cigarettes include heavy metals and volatile organic compounds,” he was quoted as saying. “Several of these chemicals are known to cause damage to human cells and DNA and cause cancer. These are not chemicals that people should be breathing in or inhaling, and it’s really important that they are removed from the marketplace to protect public health.”
Readers of this magazine will not be surprised that Lindsay did not mention that e-cigarettes were used largely by people as a low-risk substitute for high-risk traditional cigarettes or that he made no mention of pollution. But there is hope because a recent federal election in Australia saw a change of government. “Unfortunately, the outgoing Health Minister Greg Hunt was a fierce opponent of vaping, and let’s hope future health ministers are much more sensible and rational,” said a director of the Australian Tobacco Harm Reduction Association, Alex Wodak.
Earlier in the piece, Wodak was quoted as saying that in Australia, e-cigarettes were disproportionately regulated compared to traditional cigarettes. “We know that the overwhelming majority of people who vape in Australia are current smokers or, even more so, former smokers, and they’re doing it to reduce the harm from smoking,” he said.
“We’re trying to enforce laws which are really stupid.”
Amen to that.
This article first appeared in Vapor Voice 3, 2022.
Disposables took center stage during the second annual vapor trade show in the Middle East.
VV Staff Report
It was a big show. Held June 16–18, 2022, at the Dubai World Trade Centre, the World Vape Show (WVS) Dubai 2022 brought together more than 250 exhibitors representing some of the leading suppliers and manufacturers in the vaping industry, showcasing thousands of global brands in the fast-growing Middle East market. Combined, exhibitors and visitors represented approximately 66 countries, according to WVS staff.
Numerous exhibitors said that sales exceeded expectations. Dimitrius Agrafiotis, executive director of the Tennessee Smoke Free Association and the owner of several vape shops in Greece, was at the show representing Innokin, a China-based hardware manufacturer. He told Vapor Voice that the Innokin show stand seemed to stay full of prospective buyers and that new products, like the company’s disposable Lola, a water-based vaping product (see “Trouble the Water,” page 24), were selling very well. The company’s Klypse system also won an award for the best new pod system.
“We haven’t had much time to stand around,” he said. “The Aquios system vapes are doing well and our new Klypse system is really turning heads. [The show] is definitely a lot bigger than last year in both terms of exhibitors and visitors.”
Phil Bruno, international sales manager for California-based Streamline Group, the manufacturer of the Juice Head brand, agreed that the show was a major success. “We are so thrilled to have exhibited at the World Vape Show in Dubai. The experience was outstanding, and we were able to connect with many potential customers,” said Bruno in an email. “It was an absolute pleasure meeting everyone and representing Juice Head in Dubai. We look forward to future events in the Middle East and other countries as well.”
By far the most popular products being hawked by vendors at WVS Dubai were disposables. During a seminar session on the impact of disposable products, Omar Fdawi, owner of Xtra Disposable Vape, said that disposals are great for a customer who’s looking to quit smoking because the transition from smoking is comparatively easy. However, he also noted that the long-term effects of disposables and their environmental impact should be considered.
“As a gateway, in order to quit smoking, it’s a fantastic method,” he said. Disposables have a shallower learning curve than larger, more complex devices. In an ideal situation, however, consumers would then quickly move on to nondisposable devices, such as closed pod systems, with a lower environmental footprint, according to Fdawi.
Todd Jiang, sales director for international business at Zinwi Biotech, a China-based e-liquid manufacturer, said the WVS Dubai brought a variety of visitors, and many were searching only for disposable products. He expects regulators to put into place rules for disposable products soon.
“For instance, the U.K.; I guess the regulators already put this through and they want to establish some new rules or standard regulations for disposable products,” he explained. “It will happen in maybe one or two years, even quicker. But [in Dubai], I think it depends on how this market will grow and how the regulators will step into this industry. The environmental impact of disposables is a serious concern.”
Coco Li, founder of Elf Bar, one of the largest disposable product manufacturers, said that her company, too, is really concerned about the environmental issues surrounding disposables. “We’re going to have a recycle plan in the U.K. maybe from the beginning of July,” she said. “We are going to have this marketing campaign in the U.K. and also in Russia, Malaysia [and other countries] where we will have recycling bins. There is another way too. We can find results from technical ways. Our research team and the technical team are doing a lot of research into finding different ways to solve this problem.”
In addition to worrying about the environmental impact of disposable products, many show attendees said they were concerned about the growing youth use of disposable products. Atif Amin, marketing manager for the My Vapery chain of vape shops, said his company has been training and educating its staff on the strict rules designed to prevent underage vaping.
“If you suspect that the individual that’s coming to purchase is underage, ensure that you check the required identification,” he said. “Beyond that, as a retailer, it’s pretty much as much [as] we can do. If someone else is purchasing the product on behalf of a minor … that’s out of our hands. We do our due diligence and do our best and train our staff to ensure that they’re following all the regulations. And if they’re seen not to be following the regulations, we obviously have to monitor that and deal with that situation accordingly.”
In the end, most manufacturers at WVS Dubai said it all comes down to the design of the product itself. John Dunne, director general of the U.K. Vaping Industry Association (UKVIA) who moderated the disposables seminar, said that using technology like biometrics could help curb youth use, and technology could also help find a solution to the environmental impact of disposables.
Dunne stressed the importance of involving all manufacturers in the discussion on how to dispose of products. The UKVIA, he said, had been talking to Elf Bar and other manufacturers about the possibility of dismantling products at the end of their lifecycle and shipping them back to China for reuse in new vaping products.
“We need to be looking at all of these different options and how we can, as an industry, work together to do it,” said Dunne. “Because it can’t be done by a single retailer. It can’t be done by a single brand on their own. Because even if you have a national recycling program, who’s going to pay for that? Is it the government? Probably not. If it’s the manufacturers? Well, how do you proportion that? Some manufacturers are very big. Some manufacturers are very small. These are all of the challenges that we’ve faced in the U.K. when we’ve looked at the problem. And I’m sure the UAE is no different. But I think what’s important is [that] we have to start talking about it. Because if we don’t, the regulators certainly will.”
The next WVS event will be held in the U.K. at the ExCeL exhibition center in London from Dec. 1–2, 2022.
This article first appeared in Vapor Voice 3, 2022.
Aquios Labs introduces the industry’s first e-liquids with a water concentration of more than 3 percent.
By Timothy S. Donahue
Jack Sanders has been in the vapor industry for only six years. He has been in China for the last nine years, and for the last year, he’s been researching a revolutionary idea. When the pandemic forced him to stay in Shenzhen, the capital of e-cigarette production that accounts for about 90 percent of the global vaping market’s manufacturing output, it turned out to be a life-changing happenstance. The situation gave Sanders the motivation he needed to potentially disrupt an already disruptive industry.
The vaping industry has always embraced innovation. From its beginning, it set out to take customers away from the combustible cigarette sector by offering less risky alternatives for consuming nicotine. Except for maybe synthetic nicotine and nicotine salts, the major innovations in e-cigarettes have been in hardware. Now, Sanders and his new company are introducing a new e-liquid system that its founder says is going to transform the industry.
It all started with a conversation, almost a joke, among close friends that set Sanders on a journey to take water-based vaping seriously. “We can do this,” he said at the time. Aquios Labs in April launched its new AQ30 disposable vaping system in the United Kingdom. The water-based e-liquids could be troubling for the competition. Sanders, co-founder and CEO of Aquios Labs, says the first generation of this new technology, which requires a specialized atomizer, can support e-liquids with up to a 30 percent water concentration. Water allows for the usage of less PG and/or VG as a base for the nicotine and flavoring.
“We noticed that there was really nothing new in terms of e-liquids and technology breakthroughs. There’s not been much in terms of e-liquid innovation since nicotine salts came out, so we thought we’d give this idea we had a go,” explains Sanders. “The technology just basically evolved through numerous tests and numerous hours spent in R&D. We managed to make a [coil] technology that matched the liquid with a higher water content. It was never just the e-liquid itself that we were developing.”
Sanders and his team began to delve deeper into research on water-based liquids, and they found that no one had gotten above 3 percent. As the team got closer to its objectives, through researching and testing, they began to discover that water-based e-liquids brought ancillary benefits as well. Nicotine, for example, can be delivered into the body faster with the addition of water into the liquid. The system can also be used with nicotine salts and synthetic nicotine.
“You can reduce the temperature of the boiling point. So, PG and VG, their boiling point is about 188 degrees Celsius [370 degrees Fahrenheit] and 290 degrees Celsius [540 degrees Fahrenheit], respectively,” explains Sanders. “So obviously, being able to bring the temperatures down makes the liquid’s chemical stability better. Lower temps also enhance flavor profiles in the e-liquids.”
Aquios Labs is positioning itself as a technology company rather than a consumer-facing brand, hoping to integrate water-based vaping into existing product portfolios. The first generation of its technology, dubbed AQ30, can support up to 30 percent water content using a combination of specially formulated e-liquid and hardware design. The first commercially available water-based vaping devices came to market in mid-May. Aquios says it is already developing the capability to support even higher levels of water content.
“We’re aiming to get the majority of the liquid to be water. It’s in the R&D process. I can’t put out a date on when that would be released, but it’s definitely in the process, and we are more than capable of reaching these points,” explains Sanders. “Currently, the [Aquios] technology is only available in disposable devices because it’s the most stable. But we are working on refillable tanks and to be able to sell separate juices and separate coils for refillable or open systems.”
Sanders says it’s all very intricate research. One change in the water content and the coil technology needs to change as well. “The technology and the core elements of the devices that we’re producing, they have to be matched. It must be the AQ30 liquids matched with the AQ30 coil. Any kind of deviation, like any less water, we need to change the tech. Any more water, we need to change the tech,” says Sanders.
The tricky part of the equation in water-based vaping has always been getting enough vapor production because the addition of water reduces vapor production significantly. It is also challenging to ensure the liquid has the proper flavor and doesn’t leak or create dry hits. Everything has to be just right. Sanders says that it entailed a lot of R&D, but with the help of Innokin’s engineers, the problem was solved. However, he can’t give that secret away yet. How the nicotine remains soluble in water is proprietary.
Sanders says that several devices have been stored for months, and there has been no detectable drop in performance. He just can’t discuss the technology behind the Aquios system because the products are just starting to enter the global market, and no secret is safe in the competitive vaping industry.
“I just can’t talk about it,” Sanders says. “How the technology must change for varying amounts of water … the technology changes. How that works exactly, I just can’t say. This is as far as I can delve into this right now. I don’t expect it will be long, however, before someone tries to figure out exactly what we are doing. And if they do that, then fantastic. It means that I know that there’s a lot of interest in the product. But we’re working on the next stage of development already, so it would just become a game of catch-up for other companies. We also have the best manufacturing partner that is highly skilled.”
What sets Aquios Labs apart from other device manufacturers, beyond its high amount of water usage in its liquids, is the dedication and expertise of the company’s manufacturing partner, China-based hardware manufacturer Innokin, says Sanders. Innokin has been in the vaping industry for more than a decade and has a market presence in more than 80 countries. Innokin’s long history includes pioneering variable wattage capability and, more recently, the success of its Zenith tank, which has won numerous awards for being one of the best mouth-to-lung tanks on the market due to its exceptional flavor delivery.
“We utilized Innokin’s innovation expertise on our hardware. Without the partnership, we would not be able to release a water-based disposable right now,” Sanders says. “Hardware innovation is not as simple as it looks. We needed to balance power, airflow, wicking, the heating element, internal structure, etc. If someone opens it and sees what we are doing, that’s not enough for reverse-engineering. Just think about Zenith tanks; any factory can get the samples, but no one had made something on the same level yet.”
Several brands are already using the Aquios system. In the U.S., it’s used in Esco Bars. Additionally, Innokin says that it was “already placing a significant bet” on the future of water-based vaping. The company went beyond just manufacturing the hardware and also partnered with Aquios in launching Innokin’s own lineup of vaporizers using the Aquios system in April under the Lota brand.
“Innokin has always believed that new technology has the power to eliminate the need for combustible tobacco. When we were introduced to Aquios, our product development team was immediately sold on the unique advantages of water-based vaping,” George Xia, a co-founder of Innokin, said. “Water-based technology and e-liquids result in a vaping experience that no other device can replicate, with no leakage, enhanced flavor clarity and faster nicotine satisfaction.”
Lota’s initial launch included a portfolio of three water-based devices, each with their own position for specific global markets and consumer needs. The Lota Enviro is a disposable device with a clear mission to reduce the carbon footprint of typical disposable vapes. Enviro achieves this with a unique paper shell design using recyclable materials and user-recyclable components. After the Enviro has been fully depleted, the device can be disassembled by the end user, and every component aside from the e-liquid reservoir can be fully recycled. The Enviro launched with 10 flavors and provides a 600-puff lifespan with 2 mL e-liquid capacity for TPD-regulated markets.
The Lota F600 is the brand’s flagship disposable vaporizer, which is also targeted toward TPD markets. The F600 features a 600-puff lifespan and delivers a constant 3.6 V output, which means consistent performance from the first puff to the last, according to Innokin.
The third product in the launch is the Lota Prefilled Pod. The Lota Prefilled Pod Kit integrates revolutionary Aquios water-based vaping technology into a closed pod system with a rechargeable battery. Each 2 mL pod is designed to last for 600 puffs, and the battery provides constant 3.6 V output for a consistent vaping experience throughout each charge cycle.
The Aquios devices are also more environmentally friendly than most current vaping products. Sanders says that the disposable products that use the Aquios system can be easily broken down by the consumer and recycled through traditional means. “The outer shell, which makes up most of the device, is made from reinforced cardboard. This can be recycled in any standard recycling bin,” he says. “The lithium-ion battery has been designed to easily detach from the atomizer and can be recycled at any battery disposal point.”
Aquios products have been well received by consumers. Sanders says reviews online have shown that people were skeptical at first because the technology is new. However, after vaping Aquios and comparing it to their old device, consumers realize there is a big difference between the two systems.
“The Aquios vape is a lot smoother. Lowering the PG and VG allows for a lot of advantages, especially in reducing irritation. I know that I’m personally a little bit allergic to PG, so any high-PG ratio liquids for me are not good. It just doesn’t agree with me,” he explains. “Also, with the reduction of the VG, liquids aren’t oversweetened by the VG. The flavoring is amplified. By reducing the amount of VG, you get a much cleaner, natural taste as well.”
Moving forward, Sanders says he hopes Aquios can collaborate with multiple different companies in producing a range of coils for multiple different tanks. Those coils would be paired with Aquios liquids with varying water amounts, such as 30 percent, 40 percent or even as high as 50 percent water. Currently, the company is based in the U.K. and is developing its European market. It’s a natural place to start because it’s the largest market that has fully embraced vaping as a harm reduction tool. Aquios has its sights set on the global market, however.
“Moving into additional markets is something that I do think is in the pipeline right now,” says Sanders. “We’re focusing on getting through the intial launch, but there are numerous markets we are looking at in terms of growth and opportunity. The general feeling of this liquid and the tech behind it is that together the system produces a much smoother and more pleasurable vape. I think it’s a product that can be successful in every market.”
“That’s the end result,” he says. “You don’t have as much of the dry mouth. You don’t have as much irritation in your throat from continuous vaping or higher nicotine levels. It’s going to be something cool. And I think it’s going to be something that—once it has a larger market presence and more people have the opportunity to test it out—consumers are going to realize that it’s something worth having. This is the product they will want to vape. It’s a game changer.”
South Africa’s National Treasury expects new taxation rules for e-cigarettes to be in place by the beginning of 2023.
By Timothy S. Donahue
The comedian Chris Rock once said, “You don’t pay taxes—they take taxes.” This can be especially true in heavily taxed countries like South Africa, where imposts include income tax (on both a personal and corporate level), value-added tax (VAT), dividends tax, capital gains tax and a wealth tax like estate duty. Now, it seems South African vapers should prepare to pay an additional tax if government officials have their way.
South Africa’s National Treasury manages national economic policy, prepares the South African government’s annual budget and manages the government’s finances. The agency says it will publish the draft Taxation Laws Amendment Bill 2022 containing the provisions on electronic nicotine-delivery systems (ENDS) and electronic non-nicotine-delivery systems (ENNDS) sometime in June or July.
Industry stakeholders will then have an opportunity to provide written comments on the draft legislation. Additionally, the country’s standing committee on finance will also have its own consultation process on the draft bill. The draft legislation will be formally brought forward for consideration at the medium-term budget policy statement expected sometime in October.
The government has proposed to introduce a specific excise tax on both the non-nicotine and nicotine liquid solutions used in e-cigarettes. Users could pay excise duty ranging from zar33.60 to zar346.00 ($2.08 to $21.38) per product, depending on the nicotine content and size of that product. The average excise rate for e-cigarettes is proposed at zar2.91 per mL.
Essentially, users could pay zar2.03 per mL of e-cigarette solution containing nicotine and zar0.87 per mL of e-liquid solutions that contain no nicotine if the draft proposals are accepted and become legislation in the current form. Products with a higher nicotine content, it is proposed, will attract a higher rate of duty compared with lower nicotine products.
“Unlike conventional tobacco products, these products are mostly unregulated in South Africa, hence the Department of Health has also started a process of amending the current tobacco control legislation to include these products in the regulatory framework,” the draft states. “Similarly, other governments around the world have started a process of regulating the consumption and use of ENDS through tax and nontax measures.”
Wesley Grimm, a senior associate, and Rudi Katzke, a partner, at Webber Wentzel, a law firm headquartered in Johannesburg, South Africa, say that the South African government is proposing to introduce a specific excise tax on vaping products using existing policy guidelines applicable to other excisable products, like tobacco products. They say that much like other excisable products, the demand for vaping products is largely inelastic and that short-term consumer resistance to the tax will likely dissipate.
A close up view of one and two hundred rand notes folded over in a young womens hand
“National Treasury omitted to deal with this occurrence in detail in a recent workshop with industry stakeholders. In our view, it will be interesting to see if National Treasury’s proposal to tax vaping products with a higher nicotine content at a higher rate than those products with a lower nicotine content will have any impact on consumer buying patterns,” says Grimm.
During the National Treasury’s Taxation of ENDS and ENNDS Workshop, the agency reiterated its position that the health risks associated with vaping remain “largely unknown,” according to Grimm. However, one of its stated objectives is to curb (and potentially end) the use of vaping products, including severely limiting access to the products by younger users.
“National Treasury insists that there is a health imperative to regulate and tax the vaping industry within its existing anti-tobacco framework. In our view, the proposal to tax vaping products does not necessarily support [the] government’s stated policy intention of reducing the consumption of tobacco products,” according to Grimm and Katzke. “More specifically, there is insufficient data to speculate on whether National Treasury’s proposed tax on vaping products will prevent youth use.”
The taxing of vaping products could have tragic unintentional consequences. Grimm and Katzke say that lawmakers should consider what happened in the traditional tobacco sector from March 2020 to August 2020, when South Africa banned all retail sales of traditional tobacco products, ostensibly to help stem the spread of Covid-19. By cutting off the supply of what it deemed “nonessential items,” the government hoped to prevent virus transmissions from people sharing cigarettes and thus prevent the health sector from being overwhelmed by sick cigarette smokers, according to government statements at the time.
The tobacco industry challenged that decision in court, claiming that the measure was disproportional and counterproductive. In December 2020, South Africa’s High Court agreed and declared the measure unconstitutional. However, significant damage had already been done to the lawful tobacco industry, according to Grimm and Katzke.
Credit: Enter Line Design
“Taxing vaping products will most likely stimulate the illicit trade in these products as has happened in the combustible tobacco sector,” they add. “Many commentators from the industry raised this point at the workshop, and National Treasury did not address the proliferation of the illicit cigarette and tobacco trade, or the likelihood that taxing the vaping industry will likely stimulate the illicit trade in these products.”
Already accounting for a third of the market in South Africa before the country’s Covid-19 lockdowns, the illicit tobacco trade soared to unprecedented heights during the tobacco ban. A recent study, conducted by the University of Cape Town’s Research Unit on the Economics of Excisable Products, found that an estimated 93 percent of smokers were able to purchase cigarettes on the illicit market during South Africa’s sales ban. Shortly after the ban was lifted, South African Revenue Service Commissioner Edward Kieswetter predicted it would take years to investigate and prosecute the corruption and illegal activities that had taken root in those four months.
A 2021 study, commissioned by the Vapour Products Association of South Africa (VPASA), analyzed the economic impact that the vaping industry has in South Africa. The study concluded that the industry’s total gross value-added contribution to GDP is zar2.49 billion, with an estimated zar710 million in resulting tax payments (mainly income tax and VAT) made in 2019. The VPASA report found that more than 350,000 South Africans use vaping products, that vaping product sales in 2019 amounted to zar1.25 billion and that the vaping industry generated 3,800 jobs.
The South African government plans to implement its proposed vaping tax on Jan. 1, 2023. The proposals must still go through the normal legislative cycle before being promulgated into law. The draft discussion document will consider comments from vape consumers, manufacturers and importers, which could have an impact on the commencement date of the proposed tax and on its final form. The draft bill, which is anticipated as early as June 2022, is expected to shed further light on the precise nature of the proposed vaping tax.
Grimm and Katzke say the government should carefully consider what it hopes to achieve by taxing vaping products. In their view, the goals of limiting youth usage and improving the health of South Africans “will not, necessarily, or directly,” be achieved by merely taxing vaping products. Instead, more understanding of the safety and efficacy of e-cigarettes and the impact that a vaping tax would have on consumers is needed.
“We suggest that government should help fund additional research into these aspects and continue to engage with industry in shaping its new tax policy,” say Grimm and Katzke. “Government should also take meaningful and decisive steps in combating the illicit cigarette and tobacco trade, publicize any successes on that front, and ensure that the lawful tobacco industry is better protected from illicit competitors.”
Headlines in news stories about vaping and tobacco products are often inaccurate.
By George Gay
Many years ago, at one of my family’s sporadic gatherings, a then late-middle-aged family member told a story about a distant relative who, on returning from the Boer War discovered that his young son had developed a stammer. The father’s reaction, so the story went, was to take the boy up to the second floor of his house, hold him by his ankles out of the window, and tell him he would get the same treatment the next time he stammered, only with the added benefit that he would be allowed to free fall.
The boy never stammered again, according to the storyteller, who related this incident, I think, as an example of how, sometimes, even cruel means were justified by successful outcomes. His audience, made up mostly of younger people, were clearly not of the same opinion. They stood, in open-mouthed shock, until one of them said something like: “Of course he never stammered again, the poor chap probably never spoke again.” Whether this suggestion was true, I don’t know, but it seems to me that it cannot be ruled out.
Why did I relate the above story? Well, I was reminded of it when I saw online the following headline from a Healthline Health News story: “Low-Intensity Electric Impulses May Help Struggling Smokers Quit.” I could see a similar conversation being played out:
Researcher at conference: “Yes, the results were amazing. We just hung these smokers out of the window on live electric wires, and they quit immediately.”
Audience member: “And are they still tobacco-free?”
Researcher, now somewhat cagily: “Yes … they stopped inhaling completely.”
Audience member: “Do you mean they’re dead?”
Researcher: “Well, yes, though we’re unsure whether the cause of death was due to the electric shock or the shock of being suspended out of the window. More research is needed.”
I have a passion for headlines, and I am also very taken by the word “struggling” in the one above. It seems to try to suggest a certain empathy with smokers, but I’m not sure this isn’t misleading. On the other hand, struggling is a good word here because it seems to illustrate the breakdance you perform when you accidentally grab a live wire, and I can imagine the young boy struggling as his father grabbed him by the ankles—though not as he was being held out of the window.
Credit: Vadosloginov
Struggling is the justification, I guess, for experimenting with applying “low-intensity electric impulses” to these smokers, who have been convinced that they are victims no longer in charge of their own destinies. They have been convinced that they are addicted to smoking and that it is all but impossible to give up without the intervention of people willing to do stuff to them.
OK, I don’t want to be unfair. I’m sure the people applying the electrodes are well meaning. The story said a new study had found that smokers receiving noninvasive low-intensity electric or magnetic impulses, also described as noninvasive brain stimulations (NIBS), were twice as likely to go without cigarettes for three months to six months as were those receiving a placebo treatment. The story added that NIBS had emerged as “a new therapeutic option for several conditions, including pain management, weight reduction, alcohol use disorder and/or depressive disorder.”
The point here, however, is that while the management of pain and depression involves complex matters that have mostly defied the best efforts of researchers to come up with effective remedies that don’t do more harm than good, smoking is a fairly simple matter for which, in recent times, at least one effective—and, joy of joys, noninvasive—remedy has been developed.
Individuals, companies, organizations and some governments have spent a lot of effort and time developing and improving vaping devices—and other low-risk tobacco and nicotine products—that can wean smokers off cigarettes. And with encouragement, or at least a lack of discouragement, these devices would, I’m sure, be continually improved both in their efficacy and, importantly, in respect of their environmental credentials.
But these efforts have been hugely undermined to the point where, by the end of this year, the three most populous countries, China, India and the U.S., will have either banned vaping devices or significantly reduced their appeal. Vaping’s detractors constantly moan that one of its problems is that nobody knows what long-term effects it will have.
However, a story can be published under a health news heading supportive of a little-tested proposed quitting method that works if at all by affecting the brain, without a hint of any concern about our not knowing what the long-term effects of such brain stimulations might be.
The situation is bizarre.
But now I want to digress because I always like to spend time with my most recent favorite heading, and that isn’t the one featured above. My most recent favorite heading has to be this one from the Manila Bulletin: “Thailand ready to legalize smoke-free products like the Philippines.”
Vaping concept word cloud background
In part, I like this heading because it speaks to a debate that crops up every time a new minister is appointed to head the U.K.’s education department: English grammar. What usually happens with a new right-leaning education minister is that she comes into her post with a demand that the English language curriculum be changed so that pupils are drilled in the (soon-to-be-forgotten) minutiae of complex grammatical rules that are, in reality, of interest only to academics and the otherwise friendless.
On the other hand, a new left-leaning education minister will demand the curriculum be changed so that pupils are encouraged to be creative rather than necessarily grammatically correct, resulting, in extremis, in their producing highly creative but unreadable twaddle.
What tends to get forgotten in this debate, and in most others, is that there is a middle way in which basic grammar is taught to everyone, but the more esoteric grammar is pursued only by those with a love of such things.
To my way of thinking, the most important thing to keep in mind when writing in English is word order. But it is one of the most overlooked. Take any daily English newspaper and you are likely to see a sentence that says something like, “Joe Bloggs was yesterday sentenced to five years imprisonment in the Central Criminal Court.” Of course, this is not true. There is overcrowding in English prisons, but I don’t think anybody has put forward as a solution the idea that convicts should serve their time within the country’s courts.
The sentence should read something like, “Joe Bloggs was yesterday sentenced in the Central Criminal Court to five years’ imprisonment.”
And if we in England cannot get such basics right, it is unfair for me to poke fun at a heading in a publication whose journalists and editors are working in their second language. But, in my defense, the heading is funny because, to use one of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s favorite words, it “deems” the Philippines, a country of about 112 million people, to be a smoke-free product.
All that is needed to make sense of the heading is to change the word order to something like, “Thailand, like the Philippines, ready to legalize smoke-free products.”Or if the subs cannot take the commas, then it can be rendered as, “Thailand to follow the Philippines and legalize smoke-free products.”
But now I would like to digress again because, mainly, I’m more interested on this occasion in looking not at my most recent favorite heading but at my most recent least favorite heading, which appeared in Yle News: “One in three teens buys snus on social media, study finds.”
Wow, even though the story refers to Finland, which bans sales of snus but might be thought of as being within one of the world’s major spheres of snus interest, 33.3 percent is a huge percentage of the teenage population to be buying snus on social media, especially when you consider that, despite the ban, some teenagers must be obtaining snus in other ways, and yet others must be indulging in different types of tobacco products.
But, of course, the heading shouts out a message that is not true. When you read the body of the story, it becomes clear the heading should read, “One in three teenage snus users buys snus on social media, study finds,” which puts a different complexion on things. On this basis, there might be only three teenage snus users in Finland, one of whom buys her products on social media.
Of course, the sub-editors wouldn’t like my suggested revisions because a couple of words have been added to the heading, which now, horror of horrors, contains the word snus twice. But in the interests of accuracy, surely it would be worthwhile running what would admittedly be a clumsy heading, or at least it would be worthwhile spending a couple of minutes getting around the problem caused by a misleading heading.
It would be easy to get around the number-of-words problem by dropping the superfluous “study finds.” And you could cut out the snus repetition by replacing the second usage with the word “products.” Or if you wanted to go for a harder-hitting headline, you could run it as, “One in three teenage users buys snus on social media.”
Truth matters, and unfortunately, many casual readers, I’m sure, will have taken the heading to mean what it says. And they will have gone on to have conversations with friends and family, who will have passed the story to others … no doubt in exaggerated form. To me, the heading is likely in this way to nurture a moral panic, and, in so doing, undermine a product people can use to move away from smoking and toward a far less risky future.
The story, which was based on a School Health Promotion study, seemed to look at students widely, though the only groups specifically identified were those in grades 10–12 and vocational students. And one serious problem with the story, to my way of thinking, is that it indulges in the usual blurring of lines when it comes to references to young people, with the use, in a story of fewer than 300 words, of “children” (three mentions), “young people,” “students” (two mentions), “teens” (including in the heading, three mentions), “youths” (two mentions), “youngsters” and of course the panic-inducing “kids.”
And to add to the moral panic, the Institute of Health and Welfare (IHW) is quoted as calling for parents to keep an eye on their children’s social media activity, adding that online platforms were making it easier for young people to buy tobacco products. It could have added, but it didn’t, that it might have been a good idea to keep an eye on what was being delivered to the family’s home.
You have to ask yourself what exactly the problem is here. Well, according to the story, the study found that up to [my emphasis] 43 percent of students in grades 10–12 and 67 percent of vocational school students used a tobacco product at least once last year, “with snus becoming increasingly popular.” Here we have our old friend “up to,” which could mean that no grade 10–12 students used a tobacco product at least once last year.
Of course, it seems ludicrous, too, to base a study on whether students used a tobacco product once in a year. These people are students, not saints. I bet some of them skipped class at least once last year, drank alcohol and told fibs about the reindeer eating their homework.
And look at the tired piece about snus, ostensibly the subject of the story but simply tagged on to the end of the sentence as an unsupported afterthought: “with snus becoming increasingly popular.”
But I think the crowning glory of the story is that, after warning specifically about young people obtaining snus on social media, it comes up with the following: “However, the most common way kids are introduced to tobacco products is through friends, the study found.”
Of course, there was no quoting the IHW as warning parents to keep an eye on the direct interactions of young people. Perhaps that was regarded as a step too far. Having stoked moral panics over tobacco products and social media, it was thought to be unhelpful to start a moral panic over friends.
Juul Labs on Friday said it is in the early stages of exploring several options including financing alternatives, as the company deals with lawsuits and a potential ban on sales of its e-cigarettes by U.S. health regulators.
Bloomberg News earlier reported, citing sources, that Juul’s bankers at Centerview Partners are sounding out investors for a possible $400 million first-lien term loan due August 2023.
The proceeds would help refinance an existing term loan, which has around $394 million outstanding and matures on the same date, the report added.
A spokesperson for Juul told Reuters that the company is looking at options to protect its 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.”
Bloomberg News in its report said Juul was also considering a new $150 million second-lien term loan, which may have an August 2024 maturity, to help pay down some of the first-lien term loan and to increase liquidity, the report said.
Financing proposals for either loan are due July 21, according to the report.
Last month, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) blocked sales of Juul e-cigarettes and said the applications “lacked sufficient evidence” to show that sale of the products would be appropriate for public health.
