Flonq introduces its solution to address the lack of ability to control nicotine consumption.
Contributed
A range of studies suggests that e-cigarettes can be an effective tool for helping conventional tobacco smokers quit. However, once individuals switch from tobacco smoking to e-cigarettes, there is no clear baseline for before and after comparison, since most users are unable to track how frequently they vape. Vape companies and manufacturers should propose solutions as part of their responsibilities. How can this be achieved? Alfabet Labs, the company behind the Flonq brand, offers its perspective on this issue.
One of the most recent studies on the effectiveness of electronic cigarettes as a smoking cessation tool was conducted by the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The report concluded that there is high-certainty evidence that nicotine e-cigarettes are more effective than other methods, such as nicotine-replacement therapy—like patches or gum.
However, the goal after switching to e-cigarettes is to control, decrease or quit nicotine consumption. This presents a challenge, as it’s hard to accurately measure e-cigarette use to control nicotine intake. The main issue is figuring how to measure usage intensity, given the wide range of products and user behaviors.
So what should be the basis for comparing the consumption dynamic after switching to e-cigarettes? Should industry professionals measure the number of times an e-cigarette is used per day, the number of puffs taken, or the volume of e-liquid consumed? A consensus on measurement standards has yet to be established.
Vaping vs. cigarettes
The Eurobarometer study, which revealed key trends in smoking behavior in the EU, clearly illustrates the issue of accurate vape measurement. According to the report, the average daily consumption of tobacco was slightly higher than 14 units.
The data also reveals insights into e-cigarette usage. Among smokers who use e-cigarettes, the range resulted to be the following: 60 percent reported using them less than 10 times per day, 28 percent less than 20 times and approximately 11 percent over 21 times. A similar pattern was observed among ex-smokers who used e-cigarettes.
However, what is particularly important is that nearly half of the respondents reported being unsure about their previous daily usage of e-cigarettes. This uncertainty among former smokers about their past usage highlights the need for more research in this area.
Measuring consumption
The Nicotine & Tobacco Research journal conducted a study asking young adults who vape to provide suggestions for improving the scientific measurement of vaping.
Participants reported that they don’t actively monitor the number of puffs they take during a vaping session or over the course of a day. One participant remarked, “I would never count how many [puffs] I take.”
Additionally, several respondents noted that it is challenging for them to estimate how many times they vape during the day. They also expressed uncertainty about the amount of nicotine they consume per session. One participant said: “I wish that I could measure how much I’m [vaping]. I have no idea how much nicotine I’m taking in … I’m probably taking in more than a pack [of cigarettes] a day.”
Another respondent added, “No one can count how many times or how many hits in an hour. It’s pretty subconscious.”
It’s clear that using vapes to quit smoking or manage nicotine dependence won’t be effective without devices that include features for monitoring consumption. Whether it tracks the number of puffs, daily usage or other patterns, the device should provide a comparison point for the user.
Practical solutions
The Flonq vaping brand recently introduced its solution to address the lack of controlling the nicotine consumption in the industry. The brand presented META by Flonq—an advanced pod system designed for tracking and managing nicotine use. The device features a wide range of features that respond to the market demand for consumption transparency.
The real-time tracking system
The device monitors data such as the number of puffs, usage time and nicotine index level, all displayed on a single touch screen. The device collects data throughout the entire period of vape usage.
META Smart AI assistant
The integrated AI assistant helps to analyze nicotine usage patterns. With built-in behavioral therapy techniques, META is designed to offer personalized guidance.
Nicotine index
A key highlight of the device is the nicotine index developed by Flonq, which measures estimated nicotine saturation and determines the optimal timing for the next puff. It updates in real time, allowing users to follow a suggested plan to reduce nicotine intake or quit smoking.
“Whether you want to vape, reduce your nicotine intake or move toward a smoke-free life, the choice is yours,” says Marlen Nazarov, Flonq’s founder and CEO. “Our company’s focus is to respect your decision to vape while encouraging mindful choices.”
Overall, it seems that META offers consumers a straightforward and user-friendly way to track their nicotine usage—something the market needs to implement right away. This can be achieved through smart technologies such as integration with mobile apps, Bluetooth connectivity and alerts to notify users of excessive consumption. As the industry evolves and expands, these efforts will be essential in helping users manage their nicotine intake, make positive changes to their health and, what’s also important—to improve the industry’s overall image.
A sociocultural grouping of outlier views is influencing public discourse and driving change.
By George Gay
In its Winter 2023/2024 white paper, Philip Morris International examines the increasing influence of the Fifth Estate on public discourse. “Encompassing a vast and diverse range of independent commentators, social media users, content creators and online communities, the Fifth Estate poses unprecedented challenges and opportunities for established institutions by empowering individuals and citizen-led movements to drive change,” the company stated in a press note introducing the paper.
The Fifth Estate “landscape” is said to comprise online communities, independent commentators, citizen journalists, bloggers, vloggers, social media users, grassroots advocacy bodies, consumer forums, commenters, and cultural and other movements while the paper is said to be informed by the results of a survey conducted by Povaddo on behalf of PMI between Dec. 6 and Dec. 13, 2023, among 6,048 general population adults aged 21 and older in Brazil, Italy, South Africa, South Korea, the U.K. and the U.S.
“The Fifth Estate has become a significant societal force that can be leveraged for good or ill,” Moira Gilchrist, PMI’s chief communications officer, was quoted in the press note as saying. “On the one hand, the digital technologies that underpin it enable everyday people to stand up for what matters to them and help drive broad societal action.
“Conversely, this new power center can favor emotion and ideology over facts, perpetuating polarization and misinformation. The question facing businesses, regulators and society at large concerns how we can help steer this emerging force in a positive direction and address the valid concerns being expressed.”
I welcome the paper and the debate I hope it will encourage, and for that reason, I would recommend that the subscribers to this magazine take the trouble to read it if they haven’t done so already. As my contribution to the debate, I would like to make a few observations, some of which are not covered in the paper, and some are.
Much of what Gilchrist had to say in the part of her opening remarks quoted above is uncontroversial, I would have thought, though one surely must add the proviso that a significant proportion of the world’s population—perhaps a quarter to a third of it—live under autocracies where they can stand up for what matters to them only if they are willing to put their liberties and even their lives on the line.
But what brings me up short is the word “steer” in the final sentence. Is the Fifth Estate something that should or could be steered, who gets to choose what the “positive direction” is in which it should be steered, and who should steer it?
The paper is titled “Rethink Disruption: The Rise of the Fifth Estate,” so it is unsurprising that the potential of the Fifth Estate is seen as being embedded in mass participation and the disruption—hopefully progressive—that can cause. And this mass participation is compared with the hierarchical power bases that have existed in the past and still exist, including the traditional media that make up the Fourth Estate.
What puzzles me is that, on my reading, the paper speaks positively about “structured examples of the Fifth Estate.” Surely, a structured Fifth Estate is just the Fourth Estate under a different name. Somewhere within that structure will emerge those with the power—the gatekeepers, as the paper refers to them. What is the difference between the interactions within a structured Fifth Estate and the letter pages of a newspaper operating as part of the Fourth Estate, which is well guarded by its gatekeepers?
I suppose that you could argue that without structure, the Fifth Estate descends into chaos and that much misused term, anarchy, while structure can support democracy while driving change. But is this the reality on the ground? Was the early success of the Arab Spring down, at least in part, to mass, chaotic participation while its ultimate failure stemmed from a lack of structure in that participation? Perhaps.
I suppose you could also argue that the objectives of the Arab Spring were above the pay grades of those messaging their way to revolution, but where does this leave the Fifth Estate? Is it there just to pick up the crumbs that fall from the tables of the people who continue to gorge on power and drive us toward endless wars and environmental catastrophes?
Importantly, is there more democracy now than before the advent of the Fifth Estate or less? Does democracy work better now than before the arrival of the Fifth Estate? I would say that the answer to both questions is a resounding no, at least in the U.K., where I live.
Of course, the U.K. is something of an outlier in the countries surveyed because it is hardly a democracy. Our head of state is hereditary while more than half of our politicians are unelected, with 26 of them being theologians representing the First Estate. Recently, protests in the U.K., even walking slowly in the street, have been made illegal.
And it isn’t only in the U.K. where this is a problem. In a piece in the Feb. 8 issue of the London Review of Books that takes a wider view while focusing on Germany, the U.K. and the U.S., Jan-Werner Mueller says, “[b]oth the legal and physical space for protest is being shrunk.” And you must wonder whether this is because of the rise of the Fifth Estate rather than despite it.
Credit: Maurice Norbert
Even within democracies, those desperate to hang onto power will surely see the rise of networked people and groups with radical ideas as being a threat. You would have to be terribly naive to believe that the hold of those with entrenched power who pay only lip service to democracy is going to be overcome long-term by a bunch of people armed with mobile phones, up against police forces becoming ever more militarized.
Of course, the overthrow of governments or the weeding-out of the corrupting forces within our political systems is not what PMI had in mind when it produced its paper, which, I guess, was aimed at promoting a debate around tobacco harm reduction (THR). In a section titled “PMI Viewpoint,” which starts with a quote by CEO Jacek Olczak, “[c]igarettes belong in museums,” the paper says that PMI is on a mission to end cigarette smoking as quickly as possible.
“Embracing the role of individuals and encouraging a people-centric debate involving policymakers, public health authorities and civil society is critical to achieving that goal,” it says. Elsewhere, it adds: “Corporations and institutions can support the best of the Fifth Estate by fostering open debates on issues that matter, promoting diverse voices and engaging responsibly with online communities.”
But this is not really a “debate,” I would suggest. If I were to say that I believed cigarette smoking was a better alternative than the consumption of new-generation products, I would not be part of the debate, even if I produced evidence to support my ideas. The debate is over. According to the paper, what remains is working out how best to achieve the objective, which is switching smokers to “better alternatives.”
To my way of thinking, however, it must be accepted that while manufacturers of new-generation products may, where it is legal to do so, put forward their products as “better alternatives,” it is surely up to the smoker to decide whether they are—a point that PMI does make. What, after all, is “better?”
Many readers of this magazine, like me, have asked smokers who have tried less risky alternative products why they didn’t stick with them and been told something like they are just not cigarettes. Less frequently, others will cite environmental concerns, which I believe is one way THR advocates have let themselves down. They should by now have caused exacting research to have been conducted into the relative demerits of smoking and vaping in respect of the environment.
Because they have not, as far as I am aware, they find themselves having to oppose bans on single-use vapes on the specious grounds of the illegal trade, not on environmental grounds. It is little wonder that THR advocates’ championing of single-use vapes is seen by their detractors as more about profit than the welfare of smokers.
Of course, PMI employs some very smart people who are aware of these issues. As part of its viewpoint, it is said that the key to transitioning away from smoking lies in “enacting policies that build awareness and increase the acceptability, availability and affordability of these better products.” The idea that there is still a need to increase acceptability is clearly a tacit acknowledgment that currently, a lot of smokers are justified in dismissing alternatives as just not being cigarettes.
The viewpoint goes on to say that embracing a people-centric debate based on science and free of misinformation is essential. But here, I think there is a danger that the debate is slipping into nice words and phrases, “science” and “free of misinformation,” that have little meaning. Science can be used for good, but it is often used to mislead and create misinformation. There is no way I can see that most smokers can distinguish good science from bad, nor, often, information from misinformation, and I don’t see how that situation can be altered by the Fifth Estate, structured or not.
And, in part, THR advocates are to blame for the confusion over information and misinformation. In their haste, for whatever reason, to winkle smokers away from cigarettes, they have been willing to use what I would regard as dubious figures and facts, so I support the paper’s position regarding the importance of fact-checking. But even here, you run into problems.
I mean, how far back do you go? Whose word do you accept? Is it acceptable to state, based on World Health Organization authority, that 8 million smokers die prematurely of smoking-related diseases each year? The claims made within such a statement do not amount to facts, but tobacco control and THR advocates seem to wave them through.
In the end, it seems to me that there need be no conflict between the Fourth and Fifth Estates. The honest players in both can complement each other. In the U.K., we have had several major scandals recently, which have been uncovered by the Fourth Estate, but the Fifth Estate has helped keep the pressure on the government to rectify the problems uncovered.
That pressure doesn’t always work, however, because the government is under pressure from other directions, and this is the pressure that concerns me. Whether you are talking about the Fourth or Fifth Estates, you can be reasonably confident that you can grasp what they are doing—their agendas.
Largely, their cards are on the table, which is more than can be said for those of what I shall call the Sixth Estate, perhaps the Fifth Column: the corporate lobbyists, including those working within so-called think tanks whose funding is obscure and whose influence is networked. I cannot help thinking that the reason why I may no longer walk slowly in the street for fear of arrest—something that is not just of passing concern to an old guy such as me—is down to lobbying by some of these shadowy figures.
Finally, the Fifth Estate is founded generally on the existence of the smartphone, and, indeed, many of the illustrations in the PMI paper might convince the casual observer that it was a generic advertisement for such devices. But I am told that smartphones are having the effect of undermining attention spans. Is it possible to have a serious, reasoned debate when people scroll through a white paper to get to the pictures of dogs dressed as cosmonauts?
Tobacco growers demanding to be heard during COP4 (Photo: ITGA)
The parties to the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control will meet this week in Panama for their 10th gathering (COP10). Originally scheduled for November 2023, the event was postponed to Feb 5-10, 2024, due to civil unrest in the host country.
Experts who have been following the preparations expect debates this week about the “tobacco endgame,” which includes nicotine reduction, retailer quotas and generational tobacco purchasing bans. They also anticipate talks on contents and emissions testing and measurements, filters and ventilation, and pricing and tax increases.
In the runup to the event, documents have been released for discussions about extending advertising/sponsorship restrictions to corporate campaigns and newer media; supporting anti-tobacco litigation; and discouraging industry diversification into pharmaceuticals and other areas. Also on the agenda: a proposal to redefine aerosol from tobacco-heating products as smoke—a move that critics have described as an attempt to rewrite basic scientific principles.
In addition, the COP delegates will consider recognizing tobacco control as fundamental to the right to health, clearing the way to attack the industry as a violator of human rights and subject it to additional liability. Participants in the Panama event will likely also debate emerging evidence on new products. They may push for e-cigarettes and tobacco-heating products to be regulated like combustible cigarettes, a development that critics say is not based on science and would discourage the tobacco harm reduction efforts that have been underway in many countries.
Industry officials, grower representatives and consumer groups have criticized the COP for its exclusionary practices and what they view as a prohibitionist agenda. While FCTC Article 5.3 instructs member states to protect policymaking from undue industry influence, critics say this provision has been used as an excuse to shut down all communications.
“The [FCTC] treaty, which came into force in 2003 and held its first COP in 2005, originally had the very legitimate aim of controlling tobacco consumption in order to counter its harmful effects on health,” said Jose Javier Aranda, president of the International Tobacco Growers Association, in a statement.
“Since then, its objectives have been radically modified. Throughout the treaty’s long history, tobacco growers and their legitimate representatives at global level, the International Tobacco Growers’ Association have observed an increase in the radicalization of the methods applied by the FCTC, in which exclusion and lack of transparency have set the tone.”
“At COP10, decisions are being made without the input of those most affected—the consumers. This exclusion is unacceptable. Harm reduction saves lives, and it’s imperative that this is recognized and integrated into global tobacco control policies, said Michael Landl, director of the World Vapers’ Alliance, in a statement.
“By sidelining the voices of those directly impacted, the WHO FCTC is ignoring a fundamental human rights issue,” said Nancy Loucas, executive coordinator of The Coalition of Asia Pacific Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates. “Individuals seeking to protect their loved ones and themselves from the harms of smoking are being denied access to less harmful alternatives. This is not just a failure in policy but a failure in compassion.”
COP10 will be followed the third session of the Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco, Feb 12-15.
The Taxpayers Protection Alliance’s (TPA) Consumer Center accused the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control of ignoring science and the rights of consumers in its pursuit of restrictive tobacco control measures, as the global body prepares for its 10th Conference of the Parties (COP10) this year.
Martin Cullip, an international fellow at TPA issued the statement criticizing the WHO FCTC’s focus on policies known as MPOWER, which rely solely on restrictions on the supply and demand of tobacco products while ignoring other proven measures to help smokers quit.
“While the WHO has had some success in the past, it is far from effective,” Cullip said. “Twenty years ago, when the FCTC treaty was first implemented, there were around 1 billion smokers worldwide and this number is not changing meaningfully.”
Cullip said that despite decades of WHO’s restrictive tobacco control policies, most countries are not reducing smoking fast enough and will miss the WHO’s target to reduce smoking rates by 30 percent.
He said the current approach focusing on control and restrictions, hasn’t delivered on its intended outcomes. “International treaties should have three main aims: grow global membership, encourage parties to implement measures consistent with the aims of the treaty, and measure outcomes as a result of its actions,” he said. “The WHO FCTC does the first two effectively, but not the third one at all.”
“It is the lack of regard for outcomes which has led to many, including former WHO health directors, to declare that its approach is ‘not fit for purpose,’” he added.
Cullip said the WHO’s focus had shifted from tackling the harms of tobacco smoke to fighting nicotine itself. “It seems that reducing death and disease is not an objective for them,” he said. “Their approach has changed to an attack on nicotine, which on its own, causes very little harm, instead of combustible tobacco, which kills.”
He blamed the WHO’s “anti-scientific position” for the rise in global smoking rates, which leave smokers confused and more likely to carry on smoking rather than considering safer products that don’t burn tobacco.
Cullip also criticized the WHO’s alleged disregard for harm reduction strategies, which seek to reduce harm for those who won’t abstain from tobacco use.
He said the WHO has consistently failed to respect article 1(d) of the FCTC which includes “harm reduction strategies” as one of the main pillars of tobacco control.
“Instead, the WHO promotes prohibition. Despite the abject failure of the war on drugs and any other prohibition in modern history, the WHO chooses to wage the war on nicotine. These recommendations distract countries from implementing measures that can improve the lives of their populations,” he said.
Cullip said the WHO’s process excludes public participation and disregards consumer rights, violating the spirit of the Ottawa Charter which emphasizes individual control over health choices.
“It is well past time the WHO FCTC process listened to the public it is supposed to serve,” he said. “The evidence in favor of harm reduction is increasing, and the WHO cannot ignore stakeholders who are central to the debate forever.”
Cullip called on the WHO FCTC to embrace all approaches in its policy discussions, honestly assess evidence and allow for greater public participation to achieve effective tobacco control strategies.
He also suggested that countries explore alternative methods beyond those dictated by the WHO to address their individual smoking challenges.
“Keeping doing more of the same and hoping for a different outcome is insanity. The number of smokers won’t go meaningfully down unless the WHO recognizes that a change is needed. Safer nicotine products are not the enemy, it is smoked tobacco,” he said.
What can the next-generation nicotine industry expect in 2024?
By Paul Hardman
The U.K. government’s proposal for a “smoke-free” generation and changing consumer opinions toward nicotine products are causing a shift in consumer habits. The year 2023 shone a spotlight on e-cigarette compliance, with a potential ban on disposable vapes on the horizon. So, how will this year’s events impact the manufacturing of nicotine products, and what trends and regulations are we likely to see going into 2024?
Nicotine Pouches
Nicotine pouches represent an extraordinary opportunity to support tobacco harm reduction in adult smokers. Sweden, the world’s most advanced nicotine pouch market, is on the brink of being smoke-free, with less than 5 percent of its population smoking.
However, in the U.K., there is a regulatory gap that allows those under 18 to purchase nicotine pouches legally. In addition, there are concerns that nicotine pouch manufacturers could fall into the same traps as some disposable e-cigarette companies, by creating products that appeal to youth.
If youth use becomes an issue, the easiest move for regulators is to categorize nicotine pouches in the same way as oral tobacco products like snus—rendering them illegal. An alternative response might be to categorize these products as nicotine-replacement therapies and place them under medical product regulations, which would restrict their access.
To keep these products available to adult smokers who wish to quit, manufacturers can act as if regulation is already in place: generate data, devise safety frameworks and ensure the quality of products entering the market. Importantly, manufacturers should present and market their products in responsible ways, including avoiding bright colors, not imitating other consumer goods (e.g., soft drinks) and refraining from using any type of cartoon/video game characters.
Non-Heated Technologies
We have yet to witness a vape product approved via the U.K. Marketing Authorization Application (MAA) pathway, which enables nicotine products to be marketed as smoking cessation nicotine-replacement tools and prescribed by healthcare professionals. However, non-heated vape technology might facilitate MAA approval by addressing the core problem of delivered dose uniformity (DDU).
One example of a non-heated vape technology involves ultrasound sonication, which enables the atomization of e-liquids to create an aerosol, similar to technology used in medical nebulizers. The droplet size and dosage can be predefined according to the dimensions of the mesh, ensuring uniformity in the vapor, thus improving DDU. As we go into 2024, we will likely see more manufacturers exploring this approach. In parallel, e-liquids will be developed specifically for this technology.
Product Development
Nicotine product manufacturers have been moving toward a quality-by-design (QbD) development process, and we will see this continue in 2024. There are no specific guidelines or requirements for the stability testing of nicotine products other than the scientific justification for shelf life. Employing a QbD approach demonstrates a higher level of due diligence, which could produce safer, higher quality nicotine-delivery systems.
In addition, manufacturers are starting to implement extractables and leachables studies during the development process in anticipation of the new guidelines being set out by the European Committee for Standardization. Once these guidelines are published, we can expect to see a more standardized approach throughout the industry.
Paul Hardman is a managing consultant at Broughton, an independent life sciences contract research organization offering analytical testing services integrated with scientific consultancy and global regulatory support.
Leaders in product compliance, innovation, sustainability and the prevention of youth access to vaping were among those honored at this year’s UKVIA Industry Recognition Awards.
The annual event was hosted at the QEII Centre in London and saw parliamentarians, public health professionals, enforcement officials, vape manufacturers and others celebrated for their contributions to the progress of the industry and to the ambition for a future without smoking.
There were 16 award categories this year, including Most Responsible Vaping Business, Outstanding Vaper Education Program for Smokers and the Vaping Regulations Enforcement Award.
Colin Mendelsohn, founding chairman of the Australian Tobacco Harm Reduction Association and retired general practitioner of 30 years, received the Most Supportive Public Health Professional/Researcher Award.
Also winning awards were Adam Afriyie, Member of Parliament and vice chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Vaping, and Martin Cullip, international fellow of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance’s Consumer Center, who won Most Supportive Parliamentarian and Outstanding Industry Service Award, respectively.
John Dunne, director general of the UKVIA, said, “Our annual industry recognition awards celebrate the individuals and organizations—both within and outside the industry—who have made outstanding contributions to the vaping sector.
“I hope this year’s winners continue to set a leading example and that the rest of the industry will be inspired to go even further to take our sector to new heights and show the policymakers and regulators that we are committed to the highest standards in helping the government achieve its smoke-free generation.”
Ahead of the Industry Recognition Awards, Chris Kelly, chief executive of headline sponsor Phoenix 2 Retail, said: “More than ever, our industry needs to make a strong statement to the government and regulators by showcasing what it is doing to raise standards across the board.
“It’s good to see the awards this year recognizing innovative solutions that address the big issues of youth vaping and the environmental impact of single-use vapes. Equally, it’s good that those who have been at the forefront of compliance have been held up for what they are doing in this crucial area.”
The full list of winners is available at the UKVIA’s website.
The American Vaping Association (AVA) plans to shut down operations, reports Vaping360, citing a letter to supporters from AVA President Gregory Conley. The group was an advocacy organization representing both consumers and the independent industry, and it was in operation for almost 10 years.
“While this may be the end of AVA, our common goal remains,” wrote Conley in the letter, “ensuring that smokers have access to safer alternatives. Despite rough times to come, I am hopeful for the future.”
“As many of you may know, back in July 2022, I took on a new role as the director of legislative and external affairs for the trade association the American Vapor Manufacturers (AVM),” Conley wrote. “Since that time, AVA has gone dormant, although I have remained in my position as a volunteer to assist with administrative functions.”
Following the dissolution of the AVA, Conley will continue in his role with the AVM, representing AVM members rather than his more universal spokesperson role with the AVA.
The AVA’s remaining funds will be split into donations to the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association and the Influence Foundation, which funds Filter’s online publication.
“Looking ahead,” Conley wrote, “the vaping industry—and the tobacco and nicotine industry as a whole—face immense challenges, from byzantine regulatory hurdles to billionaire-funded misinformation campaigns. My work with the AVM will continue and is geared toward addressing some of these challenges head-on.”
“The more things change, the more they stay the same,” is an expression that has been around for almost two centuries, and it speaks to the fact that the small picture(s) of life may change, but the larger one does not. The vape industry and all the challenges and changes that have happened in the past decade are totally contrary to that famous saying.
A decade ago, the vape industry was the epidemy of the Wild, Wild West, full of vape shops springing up on every corner, and any/everyone creating e-liquids in their bathtubs at home. Regulation and competition changed all that and brought some semblance of “orderliness” to the market, but as state and federal regulations bombarded the industry, and with the FDA creating onerous and unattainable guidelines, the vape space has truly become one of survival.
I recently attended a vape event in Phoenix which brought together several dozen top manufacturers, distributors, and buyers, and universally everyone lamented the same concern: business is down.
Why is business down?
The reasons are many, including strict regulations, and now, even more enforcement of those regulations, but overall, the cause was much simpler. The huge COVID-19 rebound in 2020-22 put more money in consumers’ pockets and more time on their hands. Those issues combined created an artificial bubble that many thought would last. But time has passed. Add in the inflation that has pushed up food and other cost of living expenses, and some former necessities are now becoming unaffordable luxuries.
“It’s a balancing act between the addictive nature of some nicotine products and the limitations of buyer’s budgets,” said Jamie Reed with Simple Vape Supply from Orange County California. “I’ve been in the industry for over ten years, and this is evolution in its purest form and based around ’survival of the fittest.’”
Simple manufactures and distributes over 100 different assortments of nicotine cartridges, including disposables, including various iterations of CBD, Delta-8 and Kratom.
“It’s interesting,” Reed added. “When I got hired, I was told that there was an ‘expiration date,’ and we all knew that this industry might not last, and that the cream would rise (to the top). We planned to be one of those surviving companies, and we’ve been able to adapt to the times.”
Her company, along with many that are still around, were mostly run by rebels, radicals, and envelope pushers; and many have in fact changed accordingly, but some have merely learned how to “play the game” and outwardly appear to be toeing the line, but the reality may be different.
“We were aware that the COVID blip was a one-time event. People were home, they had government money to spend, and no one was checking in on them or requiring any urine tests. The Delta (8,10) boom really added to that, and everyone jumped on that bandwagon,” she said excitedly.
That line of CBD was an example of how the industry has and continues to push back. The FDA says you can’t do this, so the industry says, “F-you, then we’ll do that.”
With regulation eliminating or reducing product selection, almost any industry will do the same thing: adapt; repurpose, or reposition.
Of the dozens of people I spoke with at the event, the numbers (from shop owners and manufacturers) were pretty consistent, and most of them were down 20 to 30 percent. Many were saying that purchase sizes were lower than normal and a typical ten-thousand-dollar order was now half that. They saw some shops closing, but most were working on smaller revenues.
Manager J-K Thorne holds some of the flavored products that are no longer available at Wild Impulse vape shop. (Shane Hennessey/CBC)
Meanwhile, on the other side of the equation, vape liquid manufacturers who are trying to “play the game” right and submitting premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration are frustrated at the amount of time it takes and how much money is being thrown into a (seemingly) dark hole.
I spoke with one of the owners of a large vape manufacturing business and distribution company in Idaho, and he shared some facts and figures about their process of trying to make their products “legal.” Legal, in the eyes of the FDA, has caused his company to squander over $5 million in the past few years trying to get authorization.
Mike Larsen is a detailed and focused vape guy who has been in the industry for over a decade and is with Lotus Vaping Technology, which started in 2011. As a partner and director of sales, he is on the front line of everything the company does to stay legal and compliant and is riding the roller coaster ride on a daily basis.
“Disposables have really changed the game,” he said, “and they have reduced the role of vape shops where people used to come for education and guidance. Consolidations and closures have also reduced the shop numbers by 30 to 40 percent, and now you have larger conglomerates doing the work of the multitude of shops.”
We spoke about a possible flavor ban nationally, and he said he was skeptical.
“The PMTA process has already reduced or eliminated flavors, so it may not be necessary to go to that length. There have been between six and seven million submissions by thousands of companies, and so far, just 23 have been approved. I know of a few companies that submitted over a million applications themselves. And here’s the irony: everyone approved has been a Big Tobacco company, and they make up just a fraction of the total vaping market.”
The second irony on top of that, is that those so-called approved products are ones that no one wants.
We talked about whether those approvals were fair or were the result of favoritism and bias, and he smiled since we both knew the answer.
“When you look at the PMTA process and the rigid requirements, it seems pretty obvious that they were written to the advantage of the larger, established companies, and the “small guy” had very little chance in this skewed game. You can’t even budget for something like this,” he continued. “The original filing costs over a million dollars, and I know several companies that have put another ten million in, only to get denied. Who has deep pockets like that? In 2016 I could have named over 150 liquid companies doing good business; today I can name about three dozen.”
And that is why the number of companies manufacturing tobacco and vape products is half what it was and is getting smaller every year. The FDA changes the rules of the game continually.
“There’s something happening here, but what it is ain’t exactly clear,” is the beginning line of a song that speaks to changes going on in society. That song by Buffalo Springfield may have nothing to do with vape, but the message says the same thing: there is something happening here although it may be clearer than we realize. We all knew this would happen; it was predicted a decade ago.
In the vape space, the more things change…the more things change.
Norm Bour is the founder of VapeMentors and works with vape businesses worldwide. He can be reached at norm@VapeMentors.com.
Fentanyl misinformation could come with consequences much worse than those experienced with EVALI.
By Timothy S. Donahue
Earlier this year, media reports began to circulate that a dangerous trend was beginning to emerge in the vaping industry: the proliferation of fentanyl-laced vapes. “This lethal combination of the potent synthetic opioid fentanyl and electronic cigarettes has raised serious concerns among health experts, law enforcement agencies and the general public,” wrote PharmChek, a drug abuse data source.
The first report of fentanyl-laced vaping products appeared in September 2019, when the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) San Diego division was contacted by local authorities regarding a suspected fentanyl overdose death. The roommate of the deceased, who admitted to vaping fentanyl regularly, told agents there was fentanyl and possibly other drugs located in their shared residence as well as fentanyl-laced “vape” tanks, according to the DEA. The San Diego County Medical Examiner reports that this was the first case in which they had found fentanyl in vape pens.
The vaping devices were not sold in any store. They were not marketed as fentanyl vape pens. The products were adulterated products that were then sold on the black market, according to the DEA. Media reports at the time did not mention that vapes were altered illegally and instead blamed the nicotine vaping industry for the contaminated devices.
During the Next Generation Nicotine Delivery 2023 conference held in Miami in June, Tony Abboud, executive director of the Vapor Technology Association (VTA), said that vaping industry veterans may remember something similar in vaping’s recent past that resembles the fentanyl crisis.
In August 2019, an Illinois man succumbed in a hospital to a mysterious lung disease caused by a vaping product. Soon after, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported the initial instance of what it called e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury (EVALI). The number of cases hit its peak in September before dropping off through February 2020, at which point there were 2,807 reports and 68 deaths.
Experts believe that one of the primary causes of the EVALI outbreak was vitamin E acetate, which had been added to some vaping products as a thinner. Additionally, many cases included tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-containing products, not nicotine vaping products. Neither the CDC nor the U.S. Food and Drug Administration challenged the disinformation being disseminated by media outlets and anti-nicotine groups blaming nicotine e-cigarettes for the EVALI crisis. It nearly decimated the vaping industry.
EVALI and the false reporting surrounding its cause boosted misinformation surrounding nicotine vaping products. A study led by researchers at the American Cancer Society at the time showed 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 that perceptions of e-cigarettes as “less harmful” declined between 2018 and 2020 when the EVALI concern was at its peak.
It wasn’t until late October 2019 that any government organization stated publicly that nicotine vaping products were not the cause of EVALI. Abboud warned conference attendees that if the e-cigarette industry doesn’t react differently to the misinformation surrounding nicotine vaping and illicit fentanyl-laced vaping products, the industry may not survive.
“The misinformation that went along with the EVALI crisis had a traumatic impact not just on businesses but on consumers’ perceptions about vaping products in general. And it was driven largely by the media,” explained Abboud. “It was on the media every single day …. The most important thing, obviously, at this time, was for our regulatory bodies to figure out and speak clearly about what was causing the problem. That did not occur in the manner that it should have occurred.”
The false link between nicotine vaping products and EVALI was also hijacked by anti-nicotine advocates, such as Matthew L. Myers, who was with the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids at the time, and Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire philanthropist and financial backer of anti-vaping organizations. The day after the CDC EVALI announcement, Myers and Bloomberg hit the airwaves talking about flavored vaping products and their commitment to spend $160 million to remove flavored vaping products from the market. Flavors attract kids, and EVALI would kill them, the group claimed.
“What they said was frankly unconscionable because they leveraged the [then] current EVALI crisis that did not have anything to do with flavored nicotine products to their benefit. The impact of this kind of narrative led to the next day when President Trump announced [d] his ban on all flavors,” said Abboud. “At this point, we knew that the industry was facing somewhat of an existential crisis because they were talking about removing a huge segment of the market and a larger segment of the independent vaping industry. And that would have dramatic repercussions down the road.
“We immediately started acting. We had to get on TV to explain what was really going on with vitamin E acetate to make clear that this was an illicit THC issue. We had to frame the issue in terms of public health. We also had to create the issue in terms of jobs. But we had to do more than that. We had to launch a public affairs campaign that made clear what was at stake with this policy decision that was made in this vacuum without frankly any sort of regulatory process behind it.”
After several e-cigarette advocacy organizations sat down with President Trump to discuss flavors, the FDA only banned flavors in closed pod systems. Disposables were still going to avoid enforcement. Many in the industry say this FDA decision was the catalyst to the current issues of flavors and youth use. The FDA has not authorized a flavor other than tobacco. “But in that, the industry was largely preserved, and companies were able to stay in business,” said Abboud.
Credit: Momius
The next false flag
On May 18, Tom Price, a former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, published an op-ed on FoxNews.com where he started a narrative in the media about fentanyl-laced vaping products being imported from China in disposable vaping products. He offers no evidence of China’s involvement in the importation of fentanyl-laced vaping products other than China making most of the e-cigarette hardware.
“Reports suggest these Chinese manufacturers are also boosting disposable vapes with illegal levels of nicotine to increase addiction levels among our children. But while added nicotine makes e-cigarettes more addictive for our kids, adding fentanyl to them can make them deadly,” Price wrote. “Given the extent that China funnels fentanyl into America, it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise that reports indicate officials have found some of these vapes laced with fentanyl.”
There is no denying that fentanyl is a public health crisis. People are dying from overdosing on fentanyl because the U.S. has a huge problem in keeping illicit drugs out of the country, said Abboud. However, the “out-of-the-blue op-ed” tying fentanyl to Chinese-made disposable flavored vaping products is a new approach and new message.
Abboud then revealed a series of op-eds that were published in June all making the same points. “It was quickly [brought up again] in June by the former GOP National Committee member from Nevada who makes almost identical statements, ‘flavored disposable vaping products are dangerous, but those coming from communist China are especially dangerous because they include fentanyl,’” said Abboud. Now, according to the op-ed, “kids are experimenting with vaping fentanyl. You see what’s happening here. That was June 10. Then media reports began talking about fentanyl vapes from Mexico. On June 11, a Georgia State senator penned an op-ed (that toed the same line).”
The unsubstantiated claims that e-cigarettes contain fentanyl are increasing in frequency. Curiously, these cases have involved illicit THC vape pens or other devices—not disposables and not e-cigarettes purchased from reputable manufacturers, according to Abboud. Yet, a bill has now been introduced in the U.S. House filed by a member of Congress from the state of Florida that would remove flavored disposable vaping products from the market because of the fentanyl crisis. This call was amplified by a Florida-based retail association that made the same false claims about nicotine e-cigarettes.
The unsubstantiated association between vaping and fentanyl is showing up in regulatory conversations as well, but interestingly, only disposables are implicated even though the organic media stories have involved all device types, according to Abboud. He said the first place that he found the association made in a regulatory context was when R.J. Reynolds filed a citizen petition on Feb. 6, 2023, asking for the FDA to use its enforcement powers to remove flavored disposable vaping products from the market because “illicit market-supplied vaping products are being laced with products such as fentanyl, which is lethal in doses as small as 2 milligrams.” A few days later, a bill was introduced in Congress to force the FDA to act on removing flavored disposables.
In March, Robert Califf, commissioner of the FDA, testified before the House Appropriations Committee. “He is questioned by Representative Newhouse, and the question posed was ‘Can you tell us about your plan to get these potentially dangerous Chinese products off of the market and out of the hands of kids, and can you tell us what companies that you have (taken off the market) and that these products don’t contain harmful contents like fentanyl?’ There really hadn’t been much reporting on this issue before this, but (Califf) was asked this question,” said Abboud.
Califf told Congress that “There’s recently been some publicity,” and “it’s no surprise but of great concern to me that fentanyl may be showing up now in vaping products, [that] it was just a matter of time” and that the United States needs an all-of-government approach to protect kids from this threat.
The VTA reviewed all the stories that it could find that mentioned vaping and fentanyl. Abboud confirmed that the device in Reynolds’ petition was not disposable. The devices that were confiscated were vape pens, an open system and a pod device. The authorities, in that case, said that they found that the devices were altered when fentanyl or heroin was injected through the device into the e-liquid. All the other fentanyl reports involved cartridge-style vape pens or THC products. “Of all the cases that we looked at, only one of them even mentioned a disposable, a flavored disposable,” said Abboud. “Perhaps it’s time to ask the question ‘Why are we seeing this manufactured media narrative that is not supported by any publicly available data?’ Creating unfounded fears among consumers about fentanyl will harm the entire vaping industry and will make a mockery of the concept of tobacco harm reduction altogether.”
The ultimate issue is that misinformation, as it relates to e-cigarettes, drives people back to smoking. The FDA has also talked about this publicly. CTP Director Brian King has expressed concerns over the misinformation surrounding vaping products, and he understands that there are misperceptions as it relates to nicotine and many products. However, the vaping industry is once again in a position where disinformation is driving a false narrative that will spin out of control, according to Abboud.
“My perspective is that this is an intentional false flag. If, as asserted, millions and millions of illegally imported disposable vapes are coming into the country laced with fentanyl, where’s the outbreak? This is not something that would just ‘not’ be reported on. And as I’ve said, we looked at the reports, and there is just slim evidence that there is any connection between the fentanyl epidemic and nicotine vaping,” explains Abboud. “The problem, of course, is that we have illicit THC vapes [in] the United States that are the real issue. And given how unforgiving the Chinese government is toward illicit drugs, does anybody really believe [Chinese manufacturers] are going to make THC vapes adulterated with fentanyl and take the risk of being imprisoned or worse in their own country?”
It seems like deja vu all over again. Abboud said that if the vaping industry allows a manufactured crisis that associates fentanyl with nicotine vaping devices to take hold, the entire industry will never recover in the eyes of the consumer. “As soon as you say vaping and fentanyl, consumers will not distinguish between disposables and open systems. They will reduce their risk, and for many, that will, unfortunately, mean a return to smoking,” said Abboud. “As with EVALI, we have hyped and overgeneralized headlines in the media talking about vaping. We have had direct calls for eliminating flavored nicotine in vaping and specifically flavored disposable products.
“And we have regulators who contribute to this misleading narrative, specifically the statement made by the FDA commissioner in front of Congress. The bottom line is that I don’t think this industry gets three strikes. EVALI, strike one. I think this [fentanyl in vape devices] narrative, if it takes hold, the way it appears to be being pushed to take hold is strike two. The vaping industry won’t get a third at-bat.”
Vaporesso has received recognition at this year’s London Design Awards with four products being awarded for their exceptional design. Vaporesso is the open system subsidiary of Smoore Technology.
The London Design Awards is an international competition that recognizes exceptional designs and outstanding creative projects worldwide, celebrating the vibrancy and diversity of the international design community.
The four products from Vaporesso – the COSS, ECO NANO, LUXE XR, and XROS 3 NANO – have “showcased the brand’s formidable innovative prowess and have also been recognized with awards from many organizations,” a press release states.
“Winning these awards is a testament to the creativity, skill, and dedication of our team,” said Jimmy Hu, vice president of Vaporesso. “We are thrilled to have our efforts recognized on such a prestigious global platform. It validates our commitment to delivering innovative, high-quality products that enhance the vaping experience for our customers.”
The London Design Awards, held annually, applauds outstanding design achievements across various creative sectors. It acknowledges exemplary projects, products, and professionals who demonstrate innovation, creativity, and excellence within their respective industries.
Meanwhile, the London Design Awards not only honors design excellence but also fosters creativity, encourages innovation, and facilitates collaborations between designers and design-driven businesses.
The awards have grown in stature and popularity since their inception, attracting a wide range of participants from various design fields.
