Author: Timothy Donahue

  • Industrial Sabotage

    Industrial Sabotage

    Credit: Stock Photo Pro

    The Mary Miller Amendment will kill the hemp industry, including its industrial sector.

    By Rod Kight, Jonathan Miller and Chris Fontes

    When the Mary Miller Amendment (MMA) passed the U.S. House Agriculture Committee, I wrote an article about how it is specifically designed to kill the hemp cannabinoid industry. Unfortunately, and even though this industry generated $28 billion in revenue last year, there are groups that want it dead, including a small cartel of marijuana corporate conglomerates who seek to destroy the hemp industry so they can control the entire cannabis supply chain to the exclusion of small hemp businesses.

    In addition to deploying millions of dollars into lobbying efforts to shut down the hemp industry, these conglomerates have launched a massive disinformation campaign about hemp products and child safety that is largely bereft of substantive factual support.

    But that’s not all. In addition to killing the hemp cannabinoid industry, the MMA will also kill the industrial hemp industry. Aside from the marijuana cartel, there are others who do not care about the hemp cannabinoid industry but who do care about industrial hemp. These groups are fine with the MMA because, to their understanding, it does not impact “industrial” hemp. This view is not only incorrect, but it is a direct result of the disinformation campaign referenced above. To be clear, the MMA will kill all hemp, including “industrial hemp.” This is because the MMA does the following:

    • It changes the definition of “hemp” so that total THC must not exceed 0.3 percent. Some people have argued that the MMA merely codifies current U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) policy in measuring THC in the field. That’s not true because the MMA goes well beyond measuring THC in the field to making a sweeping change to the current definition of “hemp” in the Farm Bill. Contrary to popular belief, THCa, the nonpsychoactive precursor to THC, is not mentioned in the Farm Bill’s definition of hemp. Importantly, it is not part of the legal “metric” for determining whether cannabis material is lawful “hemp.” In fact, the opposite is true. The current definition of hemp specifically includes its “acids.” (THCa is one of many acids the plant produces. The “a” in THCA stands for “acid.”) The only statutory reference to THCa in the Farm Bill is via an inference.

    The Farm Bill directs the USDA to use a “post-decarboxylation” method to test hemp in the field. This means that a hemp crop cannot be harvested unless it passes a total THC test, which accounts for the THCa concentration. In other words, even though THCa is never mentioned in the Farm Bill, it is implied by virtue of the required post-decarboxylation test that must take place before a hemp crop can be harvested. Once this test is passed, the hemp crop may be harvested. Thereafter, the concentration of THCa is irrelevant and, under the Farm Bill, the sole metric to distinguish between lawful hemp and unlawful marijuana is the concentration of delta-9 THC, not THCa. This is a critical point since most harvested hemp crops would fail if the THCa concentration was included as the compliance metric in defining harvested hemp, something that the MMA would require. Notably, grain crops require late flowering and will have no legal pathway if the MMA becomes law and “total THC,” rather than delta-9 THC, becomes the new legal compliance standard.

    • It excludes viable seeds from the definition of “hemp” when they come from a plant with total THC that exceeds 0.3 percent, even though cannabis seeds contain almost no THC, and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration itself considers them to be lawful. Notably, all grains, including hemp seeds, are “viable” before they are rendered nonviable.
    Credit: 24K Productions

    As discussed above, the MMA’s requirement that all post-harvest material pass a post-decarboxylation test would deem all hemp seeds from such plants to be Schedule 1 controlled substances. Given that as much as 88 percent of harvested hemp plants fail a total THC test and are illegal marijuana under the MMA, the grain market will collapse if the MMA is enacted into law. I should note that this specific provision has nothing to do with health, safety or anything else along those lines. Rather, it is solely about consolidating power in the hands of a few corporate marijuana conglomerates who perceive all competition, even from hobbyist home growers, as a threat to their bottom lines.  

    • It excludes “quantifiable amounts” of THC, including THCa, from the definition of “hemp.” Hemp is cannabis. It is not some other species of plant. One of the most notable and fundamental characteristics of the cannabis plant is that it expresses THC. By eliminating all THC, the MMA would render all hemp, including industrial hemp, a Schedule 1 controlled substance since ALL hemp plants express THC in quantifiable amounts.

    The founder of one of the top cannabis laboratories in the country informed me that his lab can detect THC at levels down to picograms per milliliter (0.0001). This roughly equates to a drop of THC in an Olympic-sized pool. Moreover, even if an industrial hemp plant could be grown with no quantifiable amounts of THC, the fiber market is not currently viable enough on its own to support an industry. It does not produce sufficient revenue to support testing labs, regulators’ budgets or the bottom lines of most businesses. Given time, this will change, but only if the entire hemp industry is allowed to survive and thrive.

    Rod Kight

    The MMA pulls the rug out from underneath the multibillion-dollar hemp industry that Congress created in 2018. This includes the grain and fiber sectors. Even though the MMA is promoted as an effort to close the so-called hemp loophole, what it will really do is kill the entire legal hemp industry while giving away billions of dollars to the illegal marijuana industry. If Congress truly believed that hemp products constitute a public health crisis, then it would have enacted legislation requiring the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or another federal agency to oversee it many years ago. The fact that it hasn’t done this belies the shrill cries of concern of the marijuana cartel’s disinformation campaign that mask its true intent to destroy its hemp competitor.

    Moreover, there are better ways to address safety than by killing the hemp industry, including by promulgating regulations that prohibit access by minors, mandating quality control in production and standardizing labeling so adults can make educated decisions about what products they choose to purchase. These three regulatory zones, what I call the “Three Pillars,” have been addressed in hemp industry-sponsored bills in state legislatures throughout the country, many of which have been defeated due to intense lobbying against them by the marijuana industry.

    Finally, for proponents of “industrial” uses for hemp who also think that it is OK to give the illegal corporate marijuana cartel a giveaway while destroying thousands of legal small businesses, be aware that MMA will kill the entire hemp industry, including the industrial sector that they purport to support. 

    Rod Kight is an attorney who represents businesses in the hemp industry.Jonathan Miller is general counsel to the U.S. Hemp Roundtable. Chris Fontes is president of the U.S. Hemp Authority.

  • A Cold Chill

    A Cold Chill

    Credit: Yusif

    While FDA menthol market authorizations are rightly seen as a victory, they may be pyrrhic.

    By Rich Hill

    The flavored electronic nicotine-delivery systems (ENDS) road has been a bumpy ride. Going back to pre-deeming days, flavored ENDS were ubiquitous, as were unquantified, anecdotal reports of their cigarette-smoking cessation efficacy. Following the accelerated premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) submission timeline, as everyone knows, the Center for Tobacco Products’ (CTP) decisions decimated flavored ENDS. Likewise, even the most sophisticated companies were receiving marketing denial orders (MDOs) for menthol ENDS. Throughout this bloodbath, the CTP oft repeated that flavored products need to demonstrate a cessation benefit to adult smokers weighed against the risk of youth initiation. Until recently, this had not played out.

    Njoy’s marketing granted orders (MGOs) for menthol Ace and Daily products was a watershed moment demonstrating that an ENDS product with a flavor other than tobacco could be granted marketing authorization status. However, the authorization does leave some questions unanswered.

    CTP’s Menthol Positioning

    In 2022, the CTP staked out its position on menthol in the cigarette context with the product standard prohibiting menthol in cigarettes. The center asserted that menthol reduces irritation and harshness of smoking, increases appeal and makes cigarettes easier to use—especially for youth, increases nicotine’s sensory effects in the brain and makes it more difficult to quit smoking. While the first points on irritation and harshness are unique to cigarettes, the CTP’s other points arguably apply to menthol and nicotine more generally—a dour omen for ENDS and other products.Given this position, particularly on youth initiation, it came as little surprise that several menthol ENDS products received MDOs over the past several years.

    An About Face?

    The Njoy Ace and Daily menthol product MGOs were a surprise considering the CTP’s menthol position and flavored vapor product denials. What was different about Njoy’s applications that tipped the scales?

    Beyond Njoy’s successful showing of product characterization, toxicology and abuse liability data, according to the Njoy Ace Technical Project Lead Review (TPLR), behavioral studies and marketing restrictions appear to have made the difference. Alongside other behavioral studies, Njoy simply did what the CTP required and conducted a longitudinal study comparing cigarette smoking cessation efficacy between tobacco and menthol ENDS products. Per the TPLR, “[t]he applicant’s findings and additional analyses conducted by statistics demonstrate a statistically significant added benefit of using menthol-flavored Njoy Ace compared to classic tobacco flavor … in achieving past-30-day [combustible cigarette] smoking cessation ….” Among other data in the TPLR, Table 3 reports that in the Intention to Treat Analysis, initial flavor at baseline analysis resulted in 26.6 percent past-30-day abstention rates for menthol versus 19.3 percent for tobacco at 6 months. When analyzed by flavor at time of switching, past-30-day cessation rates of 27.1 percent for menthol versus 19.3 percent for tobacco at 6 months were reported.

    Along with the adult cessation data, Njoy agreed to a long list of marketing restrictions—beyond what is observed in other applications. The restrictions included limitations on advertising means including no radio, television, outdoor, print, search engine advertising, social media promotions, product placements, engagements or activations or influencers, sponsors, etc., among others. Talent portrayals would be limited to models over 45 years of age. Njoy identified a range of sales restrictions as well.

    Ultimately, after assessing the youth data and risks, the TPLR executive summary states, “[t]he PMTAs contain sufficient evidence to show that the new products have the potential to benefit adults who smoke combustible cigarettes and who switch completely or significantly reduce their combustible cigarettes  use …. The applicant also proposed robust marketing plans that include restrictions beyond those required with PMTA authorization. The Office of Health Communication and Education has determined that these restrictions may help further limit youth exposure to the new product, the products’ labeling, advertising, marketing, and/or promotion, and the potential for youth initiation.”

    Questions Remain from the Njoy Decision

    The MGO, however, raises two interesting questions. First, how much adult benefit is enough to overcome youth uptake? And second, what impact do marketing restrictions have on marketing authorization decisions?

    The Math on Youth Use vs. Adult Cessation – How Much Differential is Enough?

    The TPLR reports youth Njoy use data from both applicant data and national surveys and concludes that “[w]hile ENDS with nontobacco flavors and high nicotine delivery may help adults who smoke switch from CC to ENDS, these same characteristics may facilitate initiation and continued nicotine use by youth.” The cost-benefit analysis is troubling because CTP provides no real quantitative measure comparing youth use rates to adult cessation rates. Rather than a numerical comparison, the analysis seems to rely upon the totality of the evidence. As the TPLR states, “the totality of evidence provided by the applicant suggests that the menthol-flavored [product] … is associated with significantly higher smoking cessation rates than tobacco-flavored Njoy Ace products, and epidemiology concluded that the new products are highly beneficial to adults who smoke CC.” The close of the TPLR user population synthesis states that menthol-flavored new products pose a risk to youth but went on to assert that the data “demonstrate added benefit of using menthol-flavored compared to classic tobacco-flavored … Njoy Ace in achieving past-30-day smoking cessation—a showing required to outweigh the risks associated with flavored ENDS among youth.”

    For some time, many in industry have wondered how much cessation difference between tobacco and flavored ENDS would be enough to outweigh risk to youth. While the balancing test is not numerically quantified, this marketing decision does provide some level by which to assess menthol products.

    Are Marketing Plans Back on the Table?

    In the White Lion Investments dba Triton Distribution v. FDA5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision from January 2024, the majority opinion found that the FDA ignored marketing plans in the Triton PMTAs: “[w]orse, after telling manufacturers that their marketing plans were ‘critical’ to their applications, FDA candidly admitted that it did not read a single word of the 1 million plans.”

    Njoy’s marketing plan, however, seems to have an effect on the outcome. Reviewers remarked that the Njoy plan was “robust and is expected to limit youth exposure” to marketing materials. Interestingly, the TPLR states that the marketing plan was “not considered in the APPH assessment,” but then goes on to refer to the plan positively, stating, “the applicant’s approach to marketing may help further limit youth exposure to the new products.”In Njoy’s case, the marketing plans may not have moved the APPH needle but were considered as a net positive in youth prevention.

    Are marketing plans important to your application? Beyond being a required part of the PMTA submission, it appears that in this case, the restrictions at least supplemented the adult benefit data to good effect.

    Will Menthol MGOs Have an Impact in This Market?

    While the menthol market authorizations are rightly seen as a victory, such a victory may be a pyrrhic one.

    The presence and consumer acceptance of flavored disposable ENDS products looms over this seminal marketing authorization. The fact is that many menthol-flavored ENDS products with pending PMTAs remain on the market. Even in the face of the availability of menthol ENDS, flavored disposable ENDS sales have skyrocketed.

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) in 2023 assessing e-cigarette unit sales across the various categories of products and flavors using scan data from brick-and-mortar retailers only. The MMWR reported that “the percentage of disposable e-cigarette sales more than doubled, from 24.7 percent in January 2020 to 51.8 percent in December 2022.” The predominant disposable flavors reported were “flavors other than tobacco, menthol or mint” (71.4 percent in 2020 and 79.6 percent in 2022). At the same time, menthol ENDS sales overall did not significantly change, while tobacco and mint flavors declined. With half of the market occupied by flavors that consumers clearly want, the growth space for a couple of menthol products seems limited.

    VV Archives

    While the FDA continues to publicize enforcement efforts, the flavored disposable ENDS trend will not abate anytime soon. Given that flavored disposables are crushing the category, it seems unlikely that the MGOs for Njoy’s menthol products will play a significant role in shifting market share in the near term.

    Where Does This Leave Us?

    Foremost, good on Njoy for cracking the code—most observers have been very skeptical that an ENDS product with any flavor would ever be granted marketing authorization. Ultimately, Njoy demonstrated what the industry knows to be true from ENDS consumers—flavors, including menthol, are a net positive for adults who smoke to transition away from higher-risk combustible cigarettes. However, questions remain about how the risk-benefit test will be applied—how that math actually works and who, other than the largest companies, can afford to produce such evidence.

    Rich Hill is senior director and new product compliance counsel at E-Alternative Solutions.

  • Power Moves

    Power Moves

    Credit: Bodu9

    Many in positions of authority ignore alcohol problems and exaggerate vaping issues.

    By George Gay

    The U.K. Vaping Industry Association (UKVIA) has welcomed, with a few reservations, the publication of a report by the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) that broadly supports vaping as an effective, less risky alternative to tobacco smoking.

    This is not surprising because much of what the RCP has to say is in line with what the UKVIA has been saying for some time. Still, it is good to have such a well-respected medical organization on your side, especially given the heft of its 267-page report, “E-cigarettes and harm reduction: An evidence review,” which was published on April 18.

    George Gay
    George Gay

    The report looks at several themes, including how e-cigarettes can be used to support more people to make quit attempts while discouraging young people and never-smokers from taking up e-cigarette use; trends in tobacco and vaping use; the effectiveness of e-cigarettes to treat tobacco addiction; the differences in health effects of vaping in people who smoke, vape or do neither; the role of the tobacco industry in the rising use of e-cigarettes; and the ethical dilemmas presented by e-cigarettes.

    In responding to the report on April 22, the UKVIA firstly warned the government “not to consider banning flavors as [to do so] would be going against the advice of one of the most eminent and respected medical bodies in the U.K.” I am not sure this is completely true because the report seems to leave enough wiggle room for the government to ban at least some flavors without flouting the RCP advice.

    My reading is that the RCP believes that to exploit fully the potential of vaping as a means of encouraging smokers to quit their habit it is necessary in part to allow consumers access to a “range” of flavors. But I think it is calling for more research to try to identify those flavors that are the most efficacious from the point of view of encouraging smokers to quit but also those, if any, that are off-the-scale attractive to the underage.

    This is one of the strengths of the report, I believe. For too long, it has been all too easy for commentators to say there is, in respect of vaping flavors, a need to balance the interests of smokers wanting to quit their habit who are attracted to certain flavors and those of the underage who should be discouraged from vaping by restricting the flavors available. Often, the flavors concerned are the same ones, and the commentators never put forward credible ways of finding this balance, which leaves policymakers and, therefore, policies in a state of limbo.

    The RCP, while, to some extent, dancing to the same tune about the need for balance, has at least come forward with some better steps, and it will be interesting to see if the government takes up the RCP’s advice or if it blunders on in the normal way. My concern is that with a problematic national election coming up this year or, at the latest, January next year, I cannot see it learning any new steps. More likely, it will continue to put its feet down like ready money.

    One reason the RCP can put forward a more credible idea for preventing underage use is that it seems to be aware that the flavors-and-the-underage issue is something of a red herring. It is aware that many underage people take to vaping because they can. As the UKVIA has been saying for a long time and as the RCP acknowledges, the government has slashed the funding for the main agency charged with policing the retailing of such products.

    At this point, I should declare that I have not read the RCP report, only the 13-page executive summary, which, as far as I can tell, includes all 54 recommendations of the full report. And there are limits. This brings me to one of my concerns. A 267-page report is impressive, but it is not going to get through to the average smoker, and smokers need to be addressed directly if they are going to be encouraged to quit.

    Credit: Pavel Kant

    The report will be addressed to other “experts” in the field and perhaps the government, which might or might not follow through on the recommendations, some of which are excellent. But there is no point in having, for instance, a recommendation that smokers be provided with accurate reduced-risk messages if that recommendation sits in a huge report on a shelf gathering dust.

    And it must be said that while there have been two previous RCP reports going back 17 years, the intellectual dial of vaping seems not to have been advanced very far. The first report was the 2007 252-page “Harm reduction in nicotine addiction: Helping people who can’t quit” while the second was the 2016 206-page “Nicotine without smoke: Tobacco harm reduction.” In total, with the latest report, that’s 625 pages.

    No doubt much of those 625 pages comprises repetition. Still, nevertheless, one wonders how come, with so much intellectual firepower aimed at the subject, U.K. vaping policies are still sometimes a muddle. After all, the RCP reports are just three of what must be a pile of reports that could usefully be used to support Lord Nelson should his current column, like much of the U.K.’s infrastructure, fall into disrepair.

    What smokers see by and large are not these reports but the sensational media pieces such as those aimed at stirring up a moral panic about vaping among the young. And unfortunately, such negativity is not confined to the imaginings of journalists. In a 700-word opinion piece in The Guardian newspaper on April 16, the chief medical officer of England, Chris Whitty, had two things to say about vaping.

    “In addition, the [tobacco and vapes] bill will substantially reduce the ability of vape companies to market to children, an utterly unacceptable practice.” And “It [the tobacco industry] tries to pass off new tobacco products as ‘safe,’ as it did with ‘low tar cigarettes’ and cigarette filters—but no tobacco products are safe.”

    Now I have a lot of time for Whitty, who I believe is a man of integrity, but I think he should reflect on the second of these statements. How does he think this statement will be interpreted by smokers, who are more likely to read it than the 267-page RCP report?

    To my way of thinking, many smokers will conclude that on the “evidence” he offers there is no point in switching from tobacco cigarettes to vapes or even nicotine pouches. Is that the message he wants to convey?

    He seemingly conflates tobacco products with nicotine products and says that no tobacco product is “safe,” which is true, but then no product is safe, especially alcohol, as I am sure he will be aware.

    As a heading in The Guardian had it on April 23, “Record level of alcohol deaths revealed after heavy drinking in pandemic.” “Years of inaction on alcohol harm has led to this, and the heartbreaking thing is these deaths were totally avoidable,” Richard Piper, the chief executive of Alcohol Change U.K., was quoted as saying in The Guardian article. “Our government has the responsibility and the power to put preventative measures in place, including proper regulation of alcohol marketing, clear alcohol labeling and a minimum price for a unit of alcohol.”

    But the government does not take such action because hypocrisy rules. The first of the major findings described in a press note announcing an April 25 report by the World Health Organization, “A focus on adolescent substance use in Europe, Central Asia and Canada,” stated, “Alcohol is the most frequently consumed [illicit] substance among adolescents, with 57 percent of 15-year-olds having tried alcohol at least once and nearly four in 10 (37 percent) indicating they’ve consumed alcohol in the past 30 days.”

    Credit: Viktor

    The press note goes on to say, “Roughly one in 10 (9 percent) adolescents across all age groups have experienced significant drunkenness—being drunk at least twice—in their lifetime, a rate that alarmingly climbs from 5 percent at age 13 to 20 percent by age 15, showcasing an escalating trend in alcohol abuse among youth.

    “Furthermore, recent patterns reveal that the incidence of drunkenness within the past 30 days also increases with age, jumping from 5 percent among 13-year-olds to an alarming 15 percent among 15-year-olds, highlighting an urgent need for targeted intervention strategies to curb this growing issue of underage drinking.”

    And just in case it is pointed out that the WHO report covers a wide geographical area that might not correctly represent the situation in the U.K., the report says, in part, that with respect to “lifetime” use of alcohol, the “United Kingdom (England) reported the highest prevalence for 11-year-olds (35 percent for boys and 34 percent for girls) and 13-year-olds (50 percent for boys and 57 percent girls).”

    With respect to current alcohol use, the report says that “At age 13, it ranged from under 1 percent of boys and girls in Tajikistan to 32 percent of boys in Bulgaria and girls in [the] United Kingdom (England).”

    But nothing will happen in the U.K., at least nothing that will be aimed at curbing alcohol use because most people are not interested in the health of young people to the extent that they would inconvenience themselves to help them. You will not find health advocates saying that a balance needs to be sought between allowing adults to get off their heads on alcohol and protecting young people from the harms caused by alcohol to developing brains.

    Moreover, in the U.K. in recent years, young people have been uncaringly plunged into poverty, hospitalized with malnutrition and forced to attend collapsing schools in areas with appalling levels of pollution. Hypocrisy rules.

    The government, which has been promoting alcohol through its taxation policies, is not alone. The Guardian, which is totally po-faced when it comes to smoking and vaping, also promotes drinking. On May 4, shortly after it had covered the WHO report, it carried a story taking up two-thirds of a page titled, “Sparkling form: Pet nat goes from hipster bars to M&S [a major, up-market food and beverage retailer].”

    I shall quote only the final sentence of the story, which was accompanied by a large picture of young people drinking and laughing, “The funky labels and crown caps have made Pet nat a hit with younger drinkers, and, according to Beames [a wine manager], opening a bottle of Pet nat is less formal, more fun.”

    What is meant by “fun” here, I wonder? Drinking alcohol can lead to mental and physical incapacities, fights, car crashes, pedestrian deaths, domestic abuse, crime in general, you name it—none of which can be laid at the feet of vaping.

    And it is clear the WHO is not interested in going after alcohol; it is on the trail of eliminating vaping. If you read its report, after the key findings and the introduction, you will see that the first of three quotes made hugely visible against brightly colored backgrounds has nothing to do with alcohol, even though alcohol is identified in the report as the main problem; it is about vapes: “I think the biggest health concern facing young people today is vapes. I think that they should either make vapes less accessible, take the nice flavors out of them or ban them (Girl, Ireland).”

    You will look through the report in vain for a highlighted quote on alcohol, but there is another on vapes and one on “addiction illnesses.”

    Why, I wonder, are so many people in authority seemingly willing to ignore the problems caused by alcohol while making up problems in respect of vaping? I am fast concluding that most of them have drunk too much and lost too many brain cells in the process.

    Finally, I think it is a shame that the RCP, in a report that, while somewhat repetitious, provides much food for thought, finds it necessary to attack the tobacco industry for being “self-serving,” an accusation that can be leveled at every industry, business, individual and organization—even, heaven forfend, the RCP and me.

    The 13-page executive report references “research” 20 times and 10 times to say that more of it is needed. And yes, I think each piece of research should be covered by a story in Vapor Voice written by me.

  • Thailand: Home Vaping Violates Child Protection Laws

    Thailand: Home Vaping Violates Child Protection Laws

    VV Archives

    Exposure to secondhand vapor from vaping at home could be considered a violation of Thailand’s child protection laws, according to child health and rights experts who are calling for more awareness of the dangers of vaping around children, reports The Pattaya Mail.

    Under national laws, vaping around children could be considered “domestic violence,” according to Thai authorities. They are calling for stricter enforcement.

    The Royal College of Pediatricians of Thailand wants stronger government measures to restrict the import and sale of e-cigarettes and increase educational campaigns about the risks of nicotine.

  • Flonq Ultra Provides the Ultimate Outlook

    Flonq Ultra Provides the Ultimate Outlook

    The Flonq Ultra stands on its own as a high-quality disposable vaping system.

    By Mike Huml

    It would be easy to say that the Flonq Ultra is simply a variation of the Flonq Max Pro and call it a day. After all, they share many of the same features—e-liquid and battery capacity, a screen, USB type-C charging, and so forth. However, that wouldn’t be at all fair to a device that by all rights stands on its own and in every case above the rest. As a disposable device, the Ultra combines simplicity and quality in a concise package that any vaper can appreciate.

    The Flonq Ultra features a modest, yet adequate, 650 mAh battery, which is charged via a USB type-C port located on the bottom of the device. It holds 18 mL of e-liquid, which should last for about 20,000 puffs before running dry. Airflow comes from two pinholes next to the charging port, which provides an extremely smooth, quiet and nonturbulent draw.

    The Ultra is slightly less bulky than the Max Pro, being a bit flatter and symmetrical. As such, the only two ways to set the device down are either on the face where the screen is located or on the opposite side. Despite that, leaking and spitback are never a problem.

    The screen and button are located on the front face of the Ultra, and the screen displays the remaining battery life and e-liquid as labeled rotary icons. As each segment fades away, it naturally indicates the level of battery or liquid depletion. The screen also shows a rocket ship icon that’s white in normal mode and red while in burst mode.

    Burst mode increases the power output and allows for quicker drags more akin to an analog cigarette while normal mode caters to the standard mouth-to-lung vaping style of taking slower, longer drags. As such, burst mode won’t necessarily deplete the battery or liquid reservoir faster than normal mode unless long drags are taken.

    The back face of the device, opposite the screen, has a small latch for a lanyard. For those willing to forego any semblance of fashion, the Ultra can be hung around the neck or wrist to make it easily accessible and less likely to be dropped or lost.

    While the screen and mouthpiece are made of glossy, hard plastic, the majority of the device is a matte, rubberized texture. Normally, this would lend itself to dirt accumulation, but unlike many other devices that combine colored hard and rubberized plastic, which accentuates the contrast in dirtiness, most wear and tear will be unnoticeable given the uniformity of the materials used. This also arguably makes the device less slippery and more comfortable to hold.

    Flonq offers 25 flavors in nicotine strengths of 5 percent, 2 percent and 0 percent—no nicotine. That’s a great variety, especially considering that many vapers are looking to taper down their nicotine consumption, and a surprising number of disposable devices simply don’t offer that option and are only available at high concentrations.

    The flavors available are varied, and anybody can find something to love. Vanilla, tobacco, menthol, fruits, beverages—nearly every flavor profile is represented in some way, including flavorless in the “Clear” variety. Each flavor is crisp and distinct, even when the liquid reservoir starts to run low.

    Many of the fruit flavors also include a touch of menthol, making them very refreshing, especially on warmer days. Every flavor tastes very natural and bold, with no break-in period or weird flavors to speak of. The color of each Ultra corresponds to the flavor selection, so Lemon Mint will always be a lime green color. There are far too many combinations to have each color available for each flavor, but it’s nice that the variety of flavors is represented as an aesthetically pleasing color spectrum.

    The Flonq Ultra clearly succeeds as the large, flagship offering. It holds a monstrous amount of liquid that can last heavy users several days at minimum and average users a week or more. The battery capacity is large enough to last at least a day, but passthrough functionality allows the Ultra to be used while charging to mitigate any downtime. Even so, a full charge only takes about 30 minutes.

    Along with the Max Pro, the Flonq Ultra is undoubtedly one of the best disposable vapes on the market. All the extra features only serve to enhance convenience and simplicity rather than add complication, which should be a main focus for any disposable device. After all, the purpose of disposables is to not have to deal with much in the way of maintenance—refills, coil swaps, battery changes and so forth.

    The screen is attractive and easy to decipher, providing essential information after every drag. Aesthetically, the Ultra steers away from the toy-like vibe and more toward the medical device look, save for the bright colors. Nothing about it comes across as gaudy or cheap. The shape is a bit more suited to smaller hands compared to the Max Pro due to the symmetry and being a bit thinner, but that shouldn’t be an issue for the majority of vapers.

    There’s not much more to be said about the Flonq Ultra. Overall, it’s fantastic. It’s simple, convenient and provides an excellent vape experience. It can be used right out of the box, the screen is useful and intuitive, and boost mode provides a little extra oomph that allows for slightly different vaping styles.

    When put next to the Flonq Max Pro, look and feel are the biggest differentiating factors. There are minor nuanced differences, such as the Ultra having a lanyard hook or airflow being slightly more open with the Ultra, but they are very similar. The Flonq Ultra stands on its own as a top-tier disposable and surely should not be overlooked.

  • FDA Wants Tracking Numbers of Imported Vapes

    FDA Wants Tracking Numbers of Imported Vapes

    Credit: Eduardo Barraza

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Department of the Treasury have announced a proposed rule that would require an importer to submit the FDA-issued Submission Tracking Number (STN) of electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) products into the electronic imports system operated by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

    The new requirement will help streamline the process of reviewing the admissibility of ENDS products into the United States, according to the FDA’s website.

    After an applicant submits a marketing application for a new tobacco product, FDA assigns a unique identifier called an STN. Under the proposed rule, if finalized, any ENDS product, including e-cigarettes, for which the STN is not submitted may be denied entry into the U.S.

    An FDA-issued STN is one data element that is important to FDA’s admissibility review and determination, which also includes review of other information about the product as well as possible sampling and examination of the product, according to the agency.

    “Beginning tomorrow, the docket for the proposed rule, titled ‘Submission of Food and Drug Administration Import Data in the Automated Commercial Environment for Certain Tobacco Products,’ will be open for public comment through October 15, 2024.

    Visit the rulemaking docket at regulations.gov to learn more and comment on the proposed rule.”Beginning tomorrow, the docket for the proposed rule … will be open for public comment through October 15, 2024.

    Visit the rulemaking docket at regulations.gov to learn more and comment on the proposed rule.

  • Federal Court Reverses ‘Elf’ Trademark Suit

    Federal Court Reverses ‘Elf’ Trademark Suit

    VV Archives

    A ban on a Chinese company selling “Elf Bar” vapes can’t stand because a district court failed to analyze whether the rightsholder’s use of “Elf” on an illegal product negated its trademark rights, the Federal Circuit court stated Wednesday.

    “Elf Bar” seller Shenzhen Weiboli Technology Co. Ltd. argued the “unlawful use doctrine” precluded a preliminary injunction as plaintiff VPR Brands LP failed to clear its “new tobacco product” with the government as required under federal law, according to media reports.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals stated in its opinion that the district court wrongly dismissed the defense without considering the propriety of the doctrine, a proper standard, or Weiboli’s evidence.

    The Federal Circuit ruled that the district judge who ordered the injunction “misread” precedent and relied on a “deficient” legal analysis.

    A U.S. federal judge on Feb. 23 ordered Shenzhen Weiboli Technology to stop marketing its Elfbar e-cigarettes in the U.S., finding that VPR Brands, which makes and sells Elf brand vapes, is likely to succeed on its claims that the Elfbar vapes infringe its trademark, reports Law360.

    According to U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon, VPR has shown there is a likelihood of confusion and the company stands to suffer harm if its Chinese competitor is allowed to keep selling the Elfbar vapes.

    In November, VPR asked for an injunction blocking Shenzhen Weiboli from continuing to use the Elfbar mark, arguing the alleged infringement is costing VPR about $100 million because of the effect on future sales.

    VPR claims Shenzhen Weiboli is not only infringing VPR’s Elf trademark but also its patent for its e-cigarette device.

  • Airbox Fined for Illegal ‘Distance Selling’ in Slovakia

    Airbox Fined for Illegal ‘Distance Selling’ in Slovakia

    Credit: Pavlofox

    Airbox of Slovakia has been fined HUF189 million ($527,283) for illegally selling electronic nicotine delivery devices online in Hungary, reports the Daily News Hungary. The Hungarian Competition Authority (GVH) has blocked the company’s website.

    The GVH started proceedings against Airbox in February after it found that the company was likely misleading customers on its Hungarian-language website about the legality of its products in Hungary.

    Hungary law prohibits the online marketing and distance selling of flavored tobacco products and electronic smoking devices. The GVH found that Airbox had engaged in unfair commercial practices.

    Earlier, the GVH acted against two Slovak companies for illegally selling Elf Bar and other vaping products in Hungary.

  • Bloom, Cresco Labs to Launch Products in Florida

    Bloom, Cresco Labs to Launch Products in Florida

    Credit: Aleksandr Kondratov

    Today, the Bloom brand announced a partnership with Cresco Labs to expand distribution across the state of Florida. Launching in November 2024, Bloom’s Surf all-in-one vape will be exclusively produced by Cresco Labs in Florida and available at all 33 Sunnyside dispensaries throughout the Sunshine State.

    Florida is the seventh state in which Bloom products will be available to consumers. Bloom is currently available in California, Illinois, Michigan, New Mexico, and New York, with New Jersey and Virginia also slated for launch in Q3 and Q4, respectively.

    “Cresco’s Sunnyside is hands-down the right retailer to bring Bloom to Florida. Bloom’s products were originally developed for medical markets, designed for patients who rely on cannabis as medicine with a focus on a consistent and accessible product experience,” said Casey Ly, co-founder and co-CEO of Bloom. “Sunnyside’s focus on product education, a welcoming shopping experience and convenient locations makes them the ideal partner. We look forward to introducing our top-selling classic strains at all 33 locations this fall.”

    According to BDSA analytics, Bloom is one of the top five fastest-growing cannabis brands in the U.S. Founded in 2014 and celebrating ten years of business this year, Bloom is still focused on its core mission: to provide consumers with a vaping experience that replicates flower consumption, according to a press release.

    “Our patients want high-quality cannabis products that are effective and easy to use, and Bloom’s innovative hardware design provides a precise, flavorful vaping experience that patients will love,” said Connie Woolsey, vice president of retail of Cresco Labs. “Sunnyside offers a wide variety of innovative and quality cannabis products in the Florida market and we are looking forward to expanding our line with Bloom products.”

    Bloom will launch its Classic line products in its proprietary Surf device in .5g and 1g formats. Bloom’s Live line will launch later, in Q4 2024.

  • New Data Highlights Cessation Potential of Vaping

    New Data Highlights Cessation Potential of Vaping

    Photo: Teo

    New data from Action on Smoking and Health UK (ASH UK) found more than half of ex-smokers in Great Britain who quit in the past five years—amounting to 2.7 million adults—used a vape in their last quit attempt.

    Further, it revealed the main motivations for vaping amongst current smokers included “cutting down on smoking,” “protect others from the risk of second-hand smoke” or “to help them quit.”

    ASH UK also reported that misperceptions around vaping are at an all-time high, with 50 percent of smokers wrongly believing vaping to be as or more harmful when compared with smoking.

    The new data also found that, while current and ever use of vaping amongst young people has decreased between 2023 and 2024, under 18s are still accessing these age-gated products.

    “The latest figures from ASH UK once again highlight the stop smoking credentials of vaping for adults and reinforce the instrumental role these products have and must continue to play in stubbing out the health burden of smoking for good,” said UKVIA Director General John Dunne in a statement.

    “That said, if vaping is to reach its full potential in supporting the smokefree ambition, action must be taken to address growing misperceptions about the less harmful alternative which are no doubt being exacerbated by mainstream media scare stories and some mixed messaging in the public health sphere. This could be achieved through the introduction of national public education campaigns which arm adults with the best, science-backed information to help them quit.