Juul Labs is leaving Canada’s Vaping Industry Trade Association (VITA), citing nonalignment on critical policy issues.
“While we have appreciated the opportunity to collaborate with VITA , we will not be renewing our membership as we are not aligned on too many critical policy issues,” Juul Labs wrote in a statement. “For example, we support Tobacco 21 legislation—raising the minimum purchase age of tobacco and vaping products to 21—enhanced access controls at retail and limiting flavor options.”
Juul Labs Canada said it will continue to focus on combating underage usage of vaping products, while preserving the historic opportunity to switch adult smokers off of combustible cigarettes.
The Intertabac and Intersupply 2021 trade shows, the largest combined vaping and other tobacco product industry events, will not take place due to the ongoing coronavirus Covid-19 pandemic. Billed as the world’s largest tobacco trade show, the event was scheduled to take place Sept. 16-18, 2021 in Dortmund, Germany. Westfalenhallen Unternehmensgruppe, the owner of the Intertabac show, announced today that the event is cancelled after talking with exhibitors and sponsors.
“Working closely with the industry associations and partner associations, the conceptual sponsors, the advisory board and the exhibitors of the twin fairs, it has become clear that the vast majority is against holding the events this September, as previously announced,” said Sabine Loos, managing director for Westfalenhallen Unternehmensgruppe, in a statement.
Intertabac showcases nearly every product that is associated with consuming nicotine, from vaping products and combustible cigarettes to machine-made and premium cigars, pipes, shisha, smokeless and other tobacco-related products. In 2019, 13,800 people attended the event which had over 500 exhibitors from 47 countries according to Intertabac.
Last year’s event was also cancelled. The dates for Intertabac 2022 is scheduled for Sept. 15-17, 2022, according to Westfalenhallen Unternehmensgruppe .
How much politicians know about e-cigarettes and other novel tobacco products has a major effect on their perceptions of safety and risk, new research suggests.
A survey of members of the European Parliament (MEPs) found that those who were knowledgeable about novel tobacco products were far more likely than those with no knowledge to consider them less risky than smoking.
The survey conducted by ECigIntelligence and TobaccoIntelligence, independent data providers to the sector, found that:
A high proportion of MEPs have no knowledge about new nicotine products.
Views on risk seem linked to knowledge of the products. Those MEPs with knowledge of the products are more likely to consider the products less risky than smoking; those with no knowledge are more likely to consider the products the same or more harmful compared to smoking.
Most MEPs believe new nicotine products are likely to help existing smokers quit.
MEPs predominantly think that vaping is safer than smoking, but up to one in five think that some new nicotine products can be as risky as smoking.
The survey was carried out online and anonymously, and all data remains confidential other than in consolidated analysis. It was sent to all MEPs (from all member states and political parties), and responses were obtained from over 30 MEPs, representing nearly 5 percent of the European Parliament.
The Covid-19 pandemic slowed the regulatory process in 2020, creating an expected uptick in 2021.
By Chris Howard, special to VV
After CBD’s explosive growth in 2019 following the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill that legalized hemp, 2020 began navigation of a regulatory environment in flux. Burgeoning federal and state regulation, as well as increased research into consumer trends and tastes, begins outlining the future of CBD.
The Covid-19 pandemic slowed progress in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) decision making around CBD, setting up 2021 as a crucial year for the industry, although it is unlikely that any FDA regulations will be finalized this year. Vapor industry veterans, who witnessed the regulatory battles with the FDA, are rightfully wary of the government’s efforts to oversee CBD, but the initial steps seem promising. It is still early days for the CBD industry, and the FDA appears willing to collaborate with the industry on many issues that are important to manufacturers and retailers alike.
As we look ahead, I offer some thoughts on the current CBD market, where regulatory efforts are and finally, what to expect as the CBD space matures.
State of the market
After CBD’s rise to prominence in 2019, last year represented more incremental growth. According to the Brightfield Group, a leading cannabis and CBD market research provider, the United States CBD market grew from $627 million in 2018 to over $4 billion in 2019, an increase of over 650 percent. In 2020, market growth slowed to 14 percent as CBD could be found in more stores and additional uncertainty caused retailers to tread carefully. Despite this recent modest growth, the Brightfield Group projects the CBD market will continue to grow from $4.7 billion in 2020 to nearly $15 billion by 2024.
Driving this growth is a mixture of increased consumer awareness and interest as well as improved access. Sales continue to increase in key market areas, especially e-commerce, creating more competition for CBD specialty stores and vape shops selling these products. C-stores were previously well positioned to capitalize on the market, but research from Technomic, a management consulting company, shows that consumers are being selective where they shop to better hand-pick CBD products.
Chris Howard
Consumer form factor preference (the types of products available containing CBD) has been another important area of analysis. Tinctures remain popular, especially with new CBD users. Lotions have become a huge source of interest for consumers with many over-the-counter topical, beauty and skin care companies investing heavily in these products. Refining offerings will be a key part of crafting common sense regulation and helping CBD companies make more confident investments in their product lines.
Regulations in 2021
It is no surprise that the FDA took significant interest in CBD as it quickly grew from an industry valued in the hundreds of millions to one worth billions. Yet, the agency has been slow to definitively rule on any regulations apart from taking a firm stance against companies making therapeutic or health claims, especially during the pandemic.
Where does that leave us now? The FDA’s studies into CBD are ongoing, both analyzing the effects of the compound as well as auditing the contents of current products, although progress has slowed due to Covid-19. Meanwhile, there remains some pressure from congress to create policy around CBD to act as a stopgap while the FDA creates long-term guidance.
I remain optimistic that the FDA will introduce a framework for the specific purpose of regulating products containing CBD that permits the marketing and sale of all form factors in the U.S. This includes food and dietary supplements, a source of much back and forth between CBD advocates and regulators. That said, it is unlikely that a rule will be finalized in 2021. I expect this to be subject to a lot of discussion this year. We will find out more based on how the Biden administration addresses CBD in the year ahead.
In the meantime, CBD companies are forced to navigate a labyrinth of state-by-state regulations. CSP and Grocery Business research indicates 46 states have created CBD laws. State laws can run directly counter to existing federal guidelines, such as those concerning food and beverage products—which are prohibited federally but which are permissible for sale within some states. The patchwork created by these various regulations continues to make national distribution of CBD products a challenge and in some cases even threatens the supply chain of hemp growers and manufacturers.
Looking ahead
While we await final FDA guidance on CBD, I see companies in this industry dealing with many of the same issues we’ve seen over the years in the vapor industry.
The cost of entry for many in the space will become increasingly burdensome once the FDA begins setting regulations, forcing many smaller CBD companies to exit the market. This is similar to what we have seen with PMTAs in vapor, where the larger companies have been far more well equipped to maintain a compliant product selection.
Although it has not been a concern yet, CBD companies should remain mindful and vigilant to ensure that they are taking the necessary steps to prevent youth use of CBD products. Taking a proactive stance now and preventing youth use will help avoid many of the issues faced by the vapor category over the past two years.
Although there are many complex considerations with CBD, it is hard not to get excited about this industry’s future. With continued strong market growth and an apparent pathway to sensible regulation from the FDA for sellers and consumers alike, the future remains bright. In 2021, I hope to see more progress from regulators as we continue to create a strong framework that will work to the benefit this industry and consumers for years to come.
Chris Howard is vice president, general counsel and chief compliance officer for E-Alternative Solutions.
Policy experts weigh in on the vaping industry’s future under the Biden administration.
By Maria Verven
Within days of assuming office, U.S. President Joe Biden issued executive orders to respond to Covid-19, by far the biggest global health threat in over 100 years. It may be months or even years before anyone knows how the new administration and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and its new director, Rochelle Walensky, will respond to another major health threat: the 480,000 annual deaths caused by combustible cigarettes.
Vapor Voice interviewed vapor industry leaders and legislative experts for their opinions on how the vapor industry might fare under the new administration. The panel includes:
Mark Anton, executive director, Smoke-Free Alternatives Trade Association (SFATA)
“Let’s get the junk science funded by big pharma and the tobacco Master Settlement Agreement out of the narrative of harm reduction. The federal government must be guided by the best science to ensure responsible decision-making.”
Gregory Conley, president, American Vaping Association (AVA)
“Legal nicotine vaping products are far less hazardous than smoking and serve a vital public health role in helping adult smokers quit.”
Michael Siegel, professor, Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health
“Vaping is, for many smokers, a life-saving health decision. It is much safer than smoking and is literally saving the lives of smokers who would likely die if they weren’t able to stop smoking.”
David T. Sweanor, adjunct professor, advisory board chair, Centre for Health Law, Policy & Ethics, University of Ottawa
“It’s the smoke, stupid.”
Vapor Voice: What policy changes might the Biden administration make regarding vaping products?
Anton: During the Biden administration, SFATA is taking the lead in youth prevention with the creation of the Responsible Industry Network, which we presented to HHS and the FDA. This would allow adults to access flavors while protecting small businesses through the FDA’s PMTA (premarket tobacco product application) process.
Mark Anton / Credit: SFATA
Adults need access to products that help them transition away from combustible cigarettes, so unfavorable e-cig policies and flavor bans should not be on their agenda. Vaping is truly a good tool for tobacco harm reduction. The industry is made up of former smokers who strive to develop the best manufacturing practices without the FDA’s help. To protect against youth use, SFATA supports the enforcement of T21 [Tobacco 21], passed by Congress and signed by the president. Covid[-19] policies have prevented true enforcement.
Finally, the CDC should always give true assessments and release reports to the media and medical and public health journals. Last year, the CDC failed to give a full accounting of EVALI (vaping-related lung illnesses), when they should have made a declarative statement that vaping nicotine e-cigs was not the cause.
Conley: Sadly, there is no use answering this question as there’s no indication whatsoever that the Biden Administration will make favorable decisions with regard to vaping products. I would be thrilled to be wrong, but after a decade of fantasizing about smart policy and regulations and only getting the opposite, it’s time to stop dreaming and work within the broken system we have.
Siegel: Introduce legislation to ban the sale of tobacco products, including vaping products, with the exception of stores only open to [consumers] 21-plus that only sell these products. And direct health insurance companies to cover electronic cigarettes just as they cover other forms of nicotine-replacement therapy.
Encourage physicians to promote vaping for smokers who are unable to quit using other means. And direct the CDC, FDA and other national health agencies to endorse the use of vaping products for smoking cessation, especially when traditional medications do not work. Finally, discontinue the requirement for PMTAs for vaping products and, instead, directly regulate these products by forcing the FDA to promulgate safety regulations.
Sweanor: Follow the science on relative risk and communicate truthfully with the public. And empower those who use nicotine to have control over their health though ready access to a wide range of low-risk alternatives to cigarettes and risk proportionate regulation of the spectrum of products. Access to alternatives to cigarettes should be no less urgent a public health goal than access to Covid[-19] treatments and vaccines. Government policy should reflect this urgency.
What were the most egregious policies implemented during the Trump administration?
Anton: Clearly, CDC misinformation about EVALI, falsely accusing e-cigarettes and seeking to ban flavors without sufficient scientific evidence is high on the list of misguided policies. And despite all the research to the contrary, they created hysteria by calling e-cigarette use by minors an ‘epidemic’ when it was not. The true epidemic is 480,000 smokers dying every year from smoking combustible cigarettes.
Conley: [Former]President Trump created a wave of issues when he declared that flavored vaping products should be banned because they were killing people. He was undoubtedly being fed bad information from his advisors, but it was ridiculous coming from the supposed pro-business, anti-regulation POTUS. Even Trump’s biggest fans realized that one of his flaws was his inability to hire competent people who shared his worldview. Putting Alex Azar in as Secretary of Health and Human Services assured there would be no positive movement to reform vaping regulations at any of the agencies HHS oversees.
Greg Conley / Credit: AVA
Siegel: The ban on flavored e-cigarettes in pod systems and the requirement that companies must submit PMTAs to stay on the market both need to be reversed. There does need to be regulation of nicotine strengths, especially for nicotine salts, but getting rid of flavors isn’t going to solve the problem of youth vaping, and it is hurting many adult ex-smokers.
Sweanor: I think the biggest failure was the failure to remove the mounting barriers confronting less hazardous products such as e-cigarettes. After a steep decline in cigarette sales by substituting safer products, particularly vaping, cigarettes started making a comeback as the CDC and other agencies engaged in a massively misleading campaign against vaping.
Meanwhile, the FDA put vaping at a marketplace disadvantage compared to cigarettes. Research showed those most at risk were misinformed about the relative risks.
At the end of Biden’s term, what state do you think the vaping industry will be in?
Anton: The outlook is not very bright for the small vaping industry based on Biden’s cabinet selections; many have anti-vaping outlooks and ignore the multitude of studies in support of the harm reduction potential of vaping products. The focus has been on youth use even though it’s decreasing at record levels. Much of the vapor industry success or demise will hinge on the Biden administration’s willingness to look honestly at the science. Additionally, Congress has pushed to ban flavors despite the fact that flavors are an important tool for the average smoker to quit smoking.
Politics have clouded the potential of this industry’s ability to reduce harm in the U.S. regarding smoking combustible cigarettes. If the Biden administration follows this path, we will be worse off. But if they choose science and real life, it will be better. Much hinges on the role the FDA will play in issuing marketing authorizations.
Conley: Right now, most adult vapers can easily access tens of thousands of different vaping products in every flavor you can think of. While there will always be a gray market and internet sales, the legal market will never be as free as it is today.
Four years from now, there will still be a legal market for tobacco-derived nicotine vaping products authorized by the FDA. It may not be a great market, but it will exist. Companies with authorized products will do everything in their power to disrupt the gray market such as stand-alone devices, nicotine-free or tobacco-free nicotine e-liquids that many vapers rely on.
Siegel: It will probably be worse off. If the administration enforces the PMTA rules, many vaping products will be taken off the market. Big tobacco companies and a few large independent companies will dominate the market. The growth of the e-cigarette sector will wane. Many ex-smokers will return to smoking, and e-cigarettes will no longer serve as an off-ramp for as many smokers.
Dr. Michael Siegel
Sweanor: Ultimately, disruptive technology, science, rationality and human rights will win, and cigarettes will go the way of previous categories of unreasonably hazardous goods and services. The question of whether that happens within four years depends on the way politics unfolds and the emergence of leaders who see the opportunity and relentlessly pursue it.
Is limiting the level of nicotine a viable solution for users of conventional tobacco?
Conley: Bloomberg-funded prohibitionists and legislators who can’t differentiate between classes of vaping products are not going to be swayed by nicotine limits. Their goal is prohibition. When you give in to the prohibitionists, all you’re doing is guaranteeing they’ll be back next year to argue that we need flavor bans because nicotine limits didn’t work.
Siegel: Yes. Limiting nicotine in e-cigarettes will help reduce youth addiction to these products. There is also evidence that very low nicotine cigarettes can result in much lower levels of addiction in cigarette smokers.
Sweanor: No. It’s a replication of the disastrous Volstead Act that ushered in Prohibition, which forced beer and wine to have no more than a minimum level of alcohol.
David Sweanor
The total U.S. nicotine market is over $80 billion, and the cigarette market alone is over $60 billion, with tens of millions of consumers. The products are far more dependence-producing than alcoholic beverages. A prohibitionist policy is very unlikely to garner political acceptance and could rapidly lead to the sort of entrepreneurship and criminality long associated with other abstinence-only campaigns.
Many who are pushing for such a policy also oppose the wide availability of consumer-acceptable low-risk alternatives to cigarettes, demonstrating that this is a flawed moralistic strategy rather than a pragmatic public health one.
What chance do any of these proposed changes/solutions have at being implemented?
Anton: The previous FDA leadership has called the millions of smokers who have transitioned from combustible cigarettes to flavored vapor products ‘anecdotal evidence’ without investing any funds into research. The Biden administration and the new FDA leadership now has the opportunity to affect public health on a massive scale by investigating this hypothesis.
The U.K.’s National Health policy recommends that smokers who want to quit switch to vaping. They recognize vaping is safer than cigarettes. This is from the country that put warning labels on cigarette packs four years before the U.S. The Responsible Industry Network is a framework that will help prevent youth access, limit marketing to age-restricted stores and develop a pathway to prevent the loss of tens of thousands of small businesses. It brings together all the elements of the Tobacco Control Act (TCA)—protecting youth from smoking and tobacco use while assisting millions of adults who are trying to stop smoking.
While these are foundational items of the TCA and the FDA, politicians are missing the opportunity to help millions of current smokers because vaping is so politicized and youth use and access to vapor products has been blown out of proportion.
Siegel: The likelihood [that] these policies will be implemented is very low. I just don’t think the mainstream tobacco control and health organizations support the idea of harm reduction in tobacco control.
Sweanor: I have little ability to discern the likelihood of rational policies, in part because the current politics around nicotine seem to favor a War on Drugs mentality where the pursuit of total abstinence takes precedence over a public health orientation. Much will depend on Americans who use nicotine, a demographic Biden appears to care very much about.
The original “Vaping Vamp,” Maria Verven owns Verve Communications, a P.R. and marketing firm specializing in the vapor industry.
A Canadian vapor trade group extended an open invitation to Nova Scotia’s new government. The Canadian Vaping Association (CVA) letter to Premier Iain Rankin and 16 cabinet ministers stated that the organization wants to “work with industry to repair the destructive vaping legislation implemented by the previous administration.”
Credit: Toptop54
The Canadian province’s current legislation prohibits all flavored vaping products excluding tobacco and has a .50 cent per/ml tax. The policies have resulted in a drastic increase in traditional cigarette sales, as confirmed by the Atlantic Convenience Store Association and Abacus Data finding 30 percent of adult vapers are at risk of returning to smoking, according to the letter.
“Vaping has conclusively shown to be less harmful than smoking, and as such, vaping regulation must balance adult smokers’ constitutional right to life, liberty, and the security of the person with youth protection. In acting to protect youth, Nova Scotia has overcorrected to the detriment of public health,” the letter states.
The flavor ban has resulted in the closure of over 85 percent of Nova Scotia’s specialty vape retailers, job losses and broken lease agreements. The regulation has also strengthened illicit marketing of the products.
“The CVA has developed solutions to balancing youth use with adult harm reduction that have been successful within Ontario and British Columbia,” said Darryl Tempest, executive director of the CVA. “We continue to work to seek solutions to prevent use with youth and never smokers. The CVA asks for the opportunity to meet with the new administration to discuss solutions and present the science.”
Ireland has the highest rate of people who use e-cigarettes in the European Union at 7 percent, while the EU average is 2 percent.
Credit: Haiberliu
According to a new survey from Eurobarometer, Ireland also has the highest percentage of people in the EU who use cannabis products at 17 percent. Tim Hayes of the European Commission said the number of Irish people smoking cigarettes has continued to decline, according to breakingnews.ie.
“Luckily, the number of people smoking is steadily declining in Ireland, and now only one in five smoke tobacco on a daily basis,” he said. “Nevertheless, about one in ten smoke e-cigarettes, and surprisingly, almost one in five have smoked cannabis over the last year.”
An association of Australian retailers has formed a new Committee to serve as the voice for sellers of vaping products in the country. The National Retail Association (NRA) states that the committee will continue lobbying the government against the “illogical” policy that allows people to buy vaping products freely online from overseas retailers, but not in Australia.
Credit: Patty Jansen
The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) recently ruled that from 1 October, consumers would only be allowed to access nicotine e-cigarettes and vape products with a doctor’s prescription from a pharmacy. The essentially locks out thousands of small businesses that have a proven history of responsibly selling regulated products such as tobacco, lotteries, and alcohol. The NRA is urging any retailer or importer of vaping products to join the NRA’s Emerging Business Committee to have their voices heard in Canberra.
Jeff Rogut, the former CEO of the Australasian Association of Convenience Stores (AACS) has been appointed as advisor and spokesperson for the committee. Rogut has been a spokesperson for retailers for more than 10 years and has strongly supported the rights of retailers and smokers through numerous government submissions and appearances at government inquiries.
Rogut said the NRA believes Australian retailers should be able to responsibly sell nicotine products over the counter in the same way as stores in New Zealand, the US, the UK, Canada, Korea, and other countries around the world.
“Vaping is one of those things that has grown in popularity and there are an estimated half a million consumers of vaping products in Australia,” says Rogut. “The issue is that nicotine is an illegal product and cannot be sold by retailers, and we’ve recently seen the shortsightedness of the government in not allowing convenience stores, tobacconists or anybody else to sell it. They are looking at restricting that to pharmacies, which we are lobbying quite fiercely against. They’re making all of this legislation and regulations without fully understanding the full impact of their decisions.”
The NRA and AACS have long urged the Federal Health Minister to allow small businesses to supply smoke-free alternatives to current consumers of cigarettes and tobacco products. The Chair’s report from a recent Senate Inquiry on Tobacco Harm Reduction agreed with their stance and set out a clear and rational case for making it easy for tobacco users to transition to less harmful smoke-free alternatives.
But Rogut says that the TGA’s ruling goes against this and will make it more difficult and more expensive for consumers to transition away from tobacco products and towards nicotine vape products, potentially leading to an increase in black market sales.
“As we have seen with tobacco, the harder you make it and the more expensive you make it, you drive the products underground,” he says. “The danger for the government is that consumers will move to buying these products from the criminal elements and the ‘black market’ importers, as we have seen happen with tobacco products, and they won’t know what the product is or what it contains. Yes, it might be cheaper and easier to get but from a health point of view it might do more harm than good, and that is the shortsighted thing that the government appears to have overlooked.”
Regulation, taxation and fighting bad science is all on the agenda for the tobacco and vapor industries over the next 12 months.
By VV staff
During the final session of the Global Tobacco & Nicotine Forum (GTNF), the future of the vapor industry was put on center stage. The panel of experts suggested that regulation, taxation and confronting misinformation are going to be the major challenges that the tobacco and vapor industries battle over the next 12 months.
In the U.S., the premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) process is going to be a major legal and regulatory focus, according to Stacy Ehrlich, partner at Kleinfeld Kaplan & Becker LLP. She said that while companies need to file PMTAs or standard equivalency (SE) reports, it is unknown how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will review these new products and enforce its rules.
“How wide will the FDA enforcement be over these products? Another regulatory key issue over the coming 12 months will be flavors in vapor and cigar products at all levels of government,” she said. “Flavors may increase initiation in youth … but they may also help move adults to lower risk products.”
So far, the only action toward flavors by the FDA has been to remove all flavors except tobacco flavors for closed pod systems. The absence of federal rulemaking has motivated some local and state entities to enact their own flavor bans.
“What are unintended consequences of flavor ban?” Ehrlich asked. “A push towards the black market—push people back to smoking? What are the long-term impacts on public health? These are significant regulatory issues to watch in the coming year.”
The fight against misinformation will also be a major issue. David O’Reilly, director of scientific research for British American Tobacco, told attendees that the industry is still suffering from the effects of the e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) that began in mid-2019. That crisis was later found to be caused by vitamin E acetate in black market THC products and not any nicotine-based vapor products.
“What the pandemic might do, and the jury is still out on this, but it has brought science and evidence into everyone’s lives,” said O’Reilly. “There is an opportunity for this industry to use that science to promote harm reduction and bring this information to consumers and make them more savvy, and maybe they will look at the different products and brands [and move to a less-harmful product].”
Another effect on the industry caused by the pandemic may be on packaging. Omar Rahmanadi, CEO of BMJ, said that before the pandemic, there was a pressure through social media and from political groups to lessen the use of single-use plastics. The pandemic, however, has caused a major increase in the use of such plastics because of the massive need for gloves and masks.
When the pandemic ends, there could be a major pushback toward removing single-use plastics from the market completely, Rahmanadi speculated. “It’s only a matter of time before the vapor and tobacco industries are pressured to use less single-use plastics,” he said.
Sally Satel, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and psychiatry lecturer at Yale University, said that for any innovation or regulation to be implemented properly, the industry needs “a massive public reckoning of the truth” about the advantages of switching to vaping from combustible cigarettes. For example, there has been a move toward negative science and studies in recent months, she says.
The World Health Organization (WHO) endorsed a vaping study centered on heart disease that was later retracted. The study, which appeared in the Journal of the American Heart Association (JAHA), was written by Dharma Bhatta and Stanton Glantz of the University of California, San Francisco, and concluded that “Someday and everyday e‐cigarette use are associated with increased risk of having had a myocardial infarction, adjusted for combustible cigarette smoking.”
Another study from Rutgers University found that 80 percent of doctors wrongly believe nicotine causes cancer. It also took the Centers for Disease Control months to clarify that EVALI was caused by black market THC vapor products. “This paints a fairly grim picture of what we are up against,” said Satel. “And all of this while allowing cigarette sales to go undisturbed while putting barriers on devices that are a great benefit to public health.”
Whatever the challenges facing the tobacco and vapor industries, answers are out there, according to David Sweanor, adjunct professor of law at the University of Ottawa. He said several countries have lessened restrictions on next-generation tobacco products in recent years, and that has had a ripple effect in the tobacco industry. Cigarette sales have slumped.
“We have seen what happens in other countries when we see a slight lessening of restrictions on these [next-generation] products like we have seen in Japan … Norway, Iceland, Sweden. These aren’t places that are actively trying to see how rapidly ending smoking is happening; it was just the effect of lessening restrictions,” explains Sweanor.
“What would happen if any jurisdiction in the world wanted to see how rapidly they could get rid of cigarettes? … Good policy is contagious. It would be very hard to resist if we saw something like that happen on a major scale to end smoking. Any country that gets that right—backs new technology—could save hundreds of millions of lives and possibly even create a new technology sector for its economy.”
Director Aaron Biebert (left) talks with Paul Newhouse, director of the Center for Cognitive Medicine at Vanderbilt University. / Credit: Third Line Films
In the film “You Don’t Know Nicotine,” director Aaron Biebert sets out to expose the manipulation, confusion and misinformation in the nicotine industry.
By Timothy S. Donahue
The nicotine industry is a complicated one. Nicotine may be considered the vilest of industries on Earth. However, the global tobacco market size was estimated at $849.09 billion in 2019 and is expected to reach $878.35 billion in 2020. Around the world, combustible cigarettes are the leading cause of preventable death. Tobacco use causes more than 7 million deaths per year worldwide, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). If the pattern of smoking combustible cigarettes for nicotine doesn’t change, more than 8 million people a year will die from preventable diseases by 2030.
It doesn’t need to be that way, according to director Aaron Biebert, who is probably best known for his 2016 documentary A Billion Lives. The film earned several awards for its in-depth investigation into the history and corruption in the tobacco industry and how the vapor industry, a safer alternative to combustible cigarettes, was being attacked through a concerted effort of bad science, misinformation and outright lies. Picking up on where his first film left off, Biebert and the team behind Third Line Films’ latest documentary, You Don’t Know Nicotine, answered many questions that the team felt it had originally left untouched.
Several scientific studies support e-cigarettes as less harmful than cigarettes and a benefit to public health. Biebert, who also narrates both films, said that after finishing A Billion Lives, he began to be haunted by certain questions surrounding the nicotine industry. He had met with thousands of smokers and wanted to better understand why so many people used combustible cigarettes despite decades of anti-smoking shame campaigns.
“Is it a case of simple addiction? Why does nicotine primarily affect the oppressed or those with brain differences? I started reading more studies about the effects of nicotine outside of cigarettes and found some surprising information,” Biebert explained to Vapor Voice during an exclusive interview in early December. “I gathered the filmmakers I work with, and we began a new journey to know nicotine and share our findings with the world.”
To get funding for the new mission, Biebert and his wife, Jennifer, and the rest of the Third Line Films team launched a crowdfunding campaign, and 1,112 people pledged $108,598 to support the cause through Kickstarter. Third Line Films covered the equipment, staff and post-production costs. The group did not seek or take funding from any tobacco, pharmaceutical or anti-nicotine organizations. Biebert said that this allowed for the film to follow the science and remain neutral.
“We interviewed people on a variety of sides, and I think that really made a difference with the way the general public is responding to the film,” said Biebert. “While our production crew at Third Line Films did not regularly use nicotine, we do have countless friends, family members and neighbors that did. For millions of people who use nicotine around the world, the method by which they choose to use nicotine—largely impacted by their perception of what nicotine is and does to the body—may truly be a matter of life or death. With so much on the line, our society can’t afford any confusion, interference or misinformation when it comes to understanding nicotine.”
You Don’t Know Nicotine takes a more centralized focus on the overall nicotine industry. The movie takes an inside look at tobacco control/harm reduction advocates on both sides of the safer nicotine ingestion argument as well as the anti-tobacco/anti-vaping groups that have recently become more generalized as anti-nicotine groups.
Vapor industry experts say vapor products are a safer way for adults to consume nicotine and are an effective tool in helping cigarette smokers quit smoking. However, anti-tobacco activists view vapor products as just another tool for the large tobacco companies to keep people addicted to nicotine or to hook kids on nicotine. Along with the CDC, they also blame last year’s EVALI crisis wrongly on nicotine vapor products (it was THC). Biebert says his research found something even more sinister at play.
In the film, Biebert talks about how many anti-vaping groups are the same organizations as the anti-smoking groups, such as the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids’ Tobacco Action Fund. These are 501 c4 groups that can take in unlimited funds and are not required to report donors or amounts. These are often referred to as “dark money” organizations. The funding of these groups comes from a mix of tobacco money (from the Master Settlement Agreement) and private funds from large donors, such as Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg donated over $1 billion to anti-nicotine efforts and funds activities at the World Health Organization (WHO).
“Bloomberg also funds the CDC Foundation [an independent nonprofit and the sole entity created by the U.S. Congress to mobilize philanthropic and private-sector resources to support the CDC]. When people started getting sick and dying in 2019 [from EVALI], the CDC [placed the blame] on nicotine vapor products instead of identifying illegal [marijuana vapor] products as the real culprit,” says Biebert in the movie. “The mainstream media, which runs Bloomberg-funded ads against nicotine, parroted the CDC’s warning. Elected officials lobbied by Bloomberg-funded organizations used this confusion to push bans on safer nicotine products while leaving cigarettes on the market. People started to smoke cigarettes again.”
As the film was wrapping up, Biebert’s team discovered a company tied to Michael Bloomberg that had invested in a new nicotine vapor device called Hale. A product of Hava Health, Hale is an electronic nicotine-delivery system (ENDS) product that aims to promote smoking cessation by gradually lowering nicotine levels.
“As of 2020, they’re working toward [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] FDA approval. It looks like a flash drive, sleek, modern and uses flavors. It contains nicotine. This sounds very familiar. The harsh legislation pushed by the Bloomberg-funded lobbyists and their fear campaigns will put all the small shops out of business that helped more than 50 million people stop smoking worldwide,” said Biebert. “It has created a regulatory environment where only the wealthiest people will be able to play. The wealthy people can own nicotine businesses and fund [501 c4] organizations that change public opinion to match their own world view.”
David Goerlitz, the actor who portrayed the “Winston Man” for eight years in the 1980s for Winston cigarettes, is used as a source in You Don’t Know Nicotine. He says the anti-tobacco groups didn’t always have bad intentions. Initially, they set out to do good work. “I’m just saying their intentions were good, like mine were, but sometimes greed outweighs fear, so therefore you take shortcuts and you start doing things that you shouldn’t do,” he explains. “And I’m saying that’s what they did. Now we know what we know, and we have the facts. We have the data … we have liars.”
Vapor Voice took the opportunity to ask Biebert seven questions concerning his thoughts on You Don’t Know Nicotine and what he learned during the making of the film without giving away too many (more) spoilers. Access to the film can be found by visiting KnowNicotine.com.
Vapor Voice:What are you most proud of, concerning this film?
Aaron Biebert: I’m most proud of the impact it’s had for those harboring great burdens regarding nicotine. So much shame, fear and even hatred has been reduced by a new understanding of what nicotine is, what it does and why people use it.
Why is it important for the nicotine industry to be exposed for what goes on with both major tobacco companies and anti-tobacco advocates?
I wouldn’t say that we put effort into exposing the nicotine industry or anti-tobacco advocates, we simply aimed to expose the truth and established scientific evidence. My passion doesn’t lie in fighting against people but rather for them. Sometimes anti-science groups and leaders are in the way of helping people, but it wasn’t our intention to expose them.
Do you support vaping and why/why not?
I believe it is a human right to have the accurate information needed to make personal health decisions about nicotine use as well as access to the safest nicotine-delivery system a person chooses without facing shame, stigma or “sin taxes.” There is a scientific consensus that nicotine vapor products are safer than cigarettes, so I believe they should be available and encouraged. I also believe nicotine-delivery systems will continue to improve, and innovation should be encouraged.
What has been your biggest “surprise reaction” that you have had from viewers?
One person who works for more than one anti-nicotine organization wrote a long Twitter thread about her difficult life, why she hated nicotine and how our documentary gave her peace. She then declared that she would resign from her work fighting nicotine use. That was a massive surprise and gave us a lot of hope that thoughtful people everywhere will take a look at the issue and reconsider their positions in light of the scientific information we shared.
What was the most interesting thing you learned from making the film?
It was extremely interesting to learn that there are around 13 possible types of nicotine receptor genes, and each of us has a combination of only six or seven. That means that the effects of nicotine vary widely and that one person’s experience with nicotine could be wildly different than their neighbor’s. It’s important that people have the humility to truly understand they don’t know the effect of nicotine for someone else.
What do you hope this film accomplishes?
I hope this film opens up a new era of discourse about nicotine, the effects of nicotine, the people who use nicotine and the anti-science efforts against the use of nicotine. I hope policymakers, mental health professionals, public health leaders and others view our film as a discussion starter as they reset their understandings of nicotine. It’s too serious of a topic to be operating under 70-year-old, outdated information.
What are your thoughts on the media being slow to report positive studies about vaping because of where they get some funding, which someone mentions in the film?
As a cine-journalist myself, I don’t believe the “media” is slow to report positive studies because of funding conflicts. Rather, it is the nature of media that is the problem. Bad things attract views and clicks. Helpful science is often not sexy enough. Add in 70 years of unscientific reporting on nicotine and you have a general public unwilling to believe what the few excellent journalists do report.
If anything, a lack of funding is the issue. Most high-quality journalism is dead, and this topic is much too complex for most underpaid journalists to cover. With nonstop, biased anti-nicotine press releases from “credible” organizations coming to the desks of overworked reporters, it makes sense that they would publish the clickbait headlines provided to them.
It will take a massive effort to fix this systemic problem.
