Category: Industry insights

Outlook: Vapor’s Future in Mexico and Latin America

Credit : Omni Matryx
Misinformation continues to be the greatest challenge to normalizing vapor products in Latin America.
By VV staff
Vapor products didn’t begin to take hold in Latin America until 2009. They took the region by surprise. Everyone, including regulators and tobacco industry controllers, were “caught with their pants down,” according to Roberto Sussman, senior researcher and lecturer at the National University of Mexico and founder and director of Pro-Vapeo.
“The reaction was pure panic,” he says. “Tobacco controllers immediately wanted to prohibit the devices. The WHO [World Health Organization] was also afraid of them. In Mexico, tobacco controllers and a lot of physicians pressed a regulatory agency called COFEPRIS to ban them outright.”
In 2012, Mexican officials banned the marketing of e-cigarettes. However, Mexico’s tobacco laws were designed to ban candy cigarettes, not regulate a market disruptor, according to Sussman. In 2015, the Supreme Court in Mexico ruled that the ban on marketing was unconstitutional. Now, Mexico, along with many other Latin American countries, has what is referred to by Sussman as “a tolerated nonregulation,” where regulators, tobacco control and other public bodies have become the “visceral opposition and [purveyors of] nasty misinformation campaigns.” The regulators started to take the same approach as the WHO, explains Sussman.
“These are nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) sponsored by Bloomberg Philanthropies and associated charities like the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, acting in synergy with small but influential groups of health professionals clustered in the tobacco control sections of government public health institutions. But at the same time, despite all this, the usage of the devices became socially accepted,” he explains. “It was tolerated even in many indoor spaces. Vaping started to boom. In Mexico, we estimate that we have 1.5 million vapors.”
Speaking during the Global Tobacco & Nicotine Forum (GTNF), Sussman told attendees that Mexico also has its own small, self-regulating vapor industry that produces e-liquids. Like many other countries, Latin America gets its hardware from China. While rules are fluid from country to country, Sussman says vaping was still helping people quit combustible cigarettes. This meant vaping itself was not a big concern for most authorities.
In the last five years, the vapor industry in Latin America has changed, says Sussman. E-cigarettes are illegal in Brazil, Mexico, Argentina and Uruguay. These are the countries with the strictest rules against vaping. Vapor products are legal [with heavy restrictions] in Costa Rica, Guatemala, Columbia, Paraguay, Ecuador, Chile and Panama. Regulators, however, still did not see regulation as a priority in any of these countries. “The products were in a sort of nonregulation grey area,” Sussman says. “Regulators had better things to do and a lot of other things going on.”
Then, two events further changed the course of the vapor industry, especially in the region’s largest market, Mexico. First, says Sussman, the Mexican people elected Andrés Manuel López Obrador, and his MORENA party is now in control of both houses of congress. Mexico had not seen this degree of centralization of political powers since 1997.
“One of the most powerful officials in the government of López Obrador is Dr. Hugo López-Gatell. He’s an epidemiologist, and he has strong links with the Pan American Health Organization and with Bloomberg Philanthropies. He’s also the health minister. And at the same time, together with this appointment, was a massive increase of lobbing activity by Bloomberg Philanthropies in the whole region,” says Sussman. “This [is] how Bloomberg works in our countries. First, they set up NGOs that they use as lobbing machines. This lobbing is done through the WHO or the Pan American Health Organization. Now, health ministries and government, they get grants from Bloomberg, but they will never say [that].”
Second, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced they had reason to believe a dangerous, newly identified lung disease was linked to vaping. The acronym EVALI (e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury) was born.
“The use of EVALI to spread fear on nicotine vaping in Mexico and in Latin America was particularly crude, dishonest and more intense than in other places. Up to this day, all officials of the health ministry in Mexico are still blam[ing] nicotine vaping,” says Sussman. “And when you try to engage them, they say, ‘No, no, no. That’s it. Full stop. End of discussion.’ That’s it.” EVALI has since been found to be caused by illegal THC vape pens, not nicotine-based e-cigarettes. Sussman says no one has told Latin America.
The misinformation surrounding e-cigarettes and their role in EVALI persist. Earlier this year, Mexico’s president signed legislature prohibiting the importation, manufacture and distribution of all noncombustible products tobacco products, including heat-not-burn products. “Their justification was that we need to protect Mexican youth from EVALI. Given the proximity of the U.S., this epidemic can come to Mexico any time,” says Sussman. “Pure fear-mongering and they’ve refused all debate.”
Sussman says the true objective of prohibition is to prevent the tobacco industry from introducing noncombustible tobacco products. Regulators and anti-vaping groups also want to destroy the existing distribution network of vape shops and the emerging local e-cigarette industry. “Like all regulations surrounding vaping products, this is failing because vaping still operates in Latin America and in Mexico not exactly through black markets, but through the informal sector,” explains Sussman. “And it is very widespread. Nevertheless, the WHO will praise the Mexican government for implementing this ban.”
Then came the Covid-19 pandemic. Now these same groups have begun to blame the spread of Covid-19 on vaping products, even though there is no record of any vaper being hospitalized or progressing to severe stages of the disease or death. Even combustible smokers are underrepresented, according to several studies.
Now, according to Sussman, more regulations and more enforcement is on the horizon. This time, The Union, a global scientific organization that says it is working to improve “health for people in low- and middle-income countries” (LMICs) is stepping into the fray. Sussman says the group plan for vapor regulations is a “pernicious technocratic fantasy that is completely detached from the realities of smokers and health institutions” in Latin American countries. The Union’s plan is simple: total prohibition.
The Union justifies outright prohibition with arguments allegedly based on the need to comply with the tobacco control policy advice of the WHO’s Framework Convention for Tobacco Control (FCTC), an international treaty on tobacco regulation sponsored by the WHO, which has been signed by more than 180 countries, including most LMICs. At first glance, these arguments might look reasonable, but a closer look reveals that they are real recipes for disaster, says Sussman.
The presidential decree that bans imports in Mexico is a first step toward implementing The Union’s agenda. The informal “no-regulation” environment which has served vapers and the vaping industry in Latin America—and LMICs around the world—is very different from the environment in high income countries like the United States, Canada, and most European countries, according to The Union.
“Regulating a novel technology can be difficult and expensive for LMIC governments which are strained in resources. However, what The Union is not considering is that the cost of enforcing prohibitions and bans will far exceed the money that is saved by avoiding public regulation,” Sussman told GTNF attendees. “Besides the social cost, black market criminality, lack of consumer protection, but most importantly, given the opacity of government spending in our countries, it is extremely unlikely that the money that will be saved on not doing regulation will be redirected to tobacco control efforts. That’s a fantasy. It’s not going to happen.”
Sussman says officials at The Union are concerned that Latin America does not have the ability to regulate vapor products properly so they should be banned. “[They think] we are going to be so sloppy in regulating that we shouldn’t be regulating. That’s a colonialist argument. The natives need the white men to step in and run their lives,” says Sussman. “But most importantly, The Union is glossing over the loopholes of prohibition. The loopholes of prohibition can and will be exploited by black marketeers, [cigarette] smokers and criminals.”
Prohibition is much more costly than regulation in terms of public resources: it needs to be enforced and policed, and it deprives governments of much-needed tax revenues, says Sussman. “The cost balance in the regulation vs prohibition debate cannot be based only on tobacco control objectives as defined by the FCTC,” he says. “It must also factor in the whole range of adverse effects of prohibitions: black markets, criminality, lack of quality control, and increased underage usage.”
Currently, in Mexico, the health ministries, led by government officials, are continuing to try to implement The Union’s plan. However, there is some opposition beyond vapor industry businesses and vapor advocacy groups, according to Sussman. It’s from inside the Mexican government. “These officials want to regulate because regulation will bring tax revenues. And regulation, it’s better. It’s always better,” says Sussman. “Cigarettes are toxic. Misinformation about e-cigarettes is damaging to public health. Vaping bans belong in the trash can. Things need to change. Otherwise, people will just go back to smoking.”
December 26, 2020
Eyes on the Prize

Credit: Tumisu
While tobacco harm reduction products have an important role to play, quitting ‘cold turkey’ remains a legitimate strategy in pursuit of better health.
By George Gay
According to a joke included at the end of a London Review of Books piece by Jerry Fodor, a keynote speaker opens his remarks at a philosophical conference by saying that, in principle, there are 12 philosophical positions, only to be interrupted by a heckler shouting, “13!” The keynote speaker continues: “As I was saying, there are 12 philosophical positions …” but again the heckler shouts, “13!” The speaker then says that he will describe briefly the 12 philosophical positions. The first, he says, is Naive Realism, according to which things are more or less the way they seem to be. At that point, the heckler shouts, “Oh no, 14!”
You don’t have to be a philosopher to get the message that there is a danger that complexity can suffocate simplicity and the common-sense benefits that the latter has to offer. This isn’t to say there is no need for complexity—just that there is also a need, at times, for simplicity. As I believe Einstein once put it: Things should be made as simple as possible but no simpler.
Is there not a danger that in pursuing tobacco harm reduction (THR) we are losing sight of the simple? I know it’s unfashionable to ask, but what is wrong with smokers going cold turkey if they want to quit their habit? There was a time when all smokers who wanted to quit went cold turkey because that was the only route out of tobacco. And millions did it. I was one of them.
What a lot of readers will be thinking, however, is that there’s nothing stopping smokers from going cold turkey, so what’s the problem? Well it’s not quite true that there’s nothing stopping them doing so. I can think of at least two things that would be holding them back.
One is the fact that various people and organizations have taken a lot of trouble to convince smokers that quitting cold turkey is incredibly difficult, if not impossible. They have tried and largely succeeded in convincing many smokers that they are victims who cannot control their own destiny. Their ability to make decisions about smoking and health has been taken from them by tobacco manufacturers. This, of course, is nonsense, but it is a useful narrative for some people to spread and, regrettably, for others not to counter.
The other reason is that smokers are given too little help to quit cold turkey. Why couldn’t a large part of THR comprise tobacco tax-funded public announcements encouraging smokers to quit? Of course, there would be a need firstly to sound a very loud warning bell.
Such announcements should not descend into the type of propaganda beloved of certain governments and organizations where smokers are depicted as being victims of the tobacco industry, patients of the medical profession and the scourge of society. And such announcements should not feed smokers a bunch of lies and half-truths, try to frighten the pants off them and generally treat them as though they were children without the ability to make rational decisions.
Better still, smokers should be provided with positive rather than negative information. They should be told how quickly, post-quitting, their risk of contracting certain diseases and conditions falls to that of, or near to that of, nonsmokers. And they should be told how, in quitting smoking, and especially in quitting cold turkey, they will be saving money while making a positive contribution to helping prevent pollution and the further degradation of the environment.
One of the problems is that THR has become monetized—become part of the destructive system under which the worth of everything is judged by its performance on the “market.” We have been fooled into believing that what matters is that smoking is replaced by something that can be sold, preferably for the same sorts of profits that are currently enjoyed in selling cigarettes. That is, cigarettes have to be replaced by less risky tobacco and nicotine products, including nicotine-replacement therapy products manufactured by the pharmaceutical industry.
And it is true that there would be something to be said for such a way of looking at smoking cessation if it weren’t for the fact that less-risky products seem to be struggling—entangled in endless debates based on science and pseudo-science, conspiracy theories, political shenanigans and great dollops of bureaucracy.
These debates are all very interesting and take up hours of conference time, but they remain largely unresolved, like Fodor’s philosophical positions two through 12, and they simply leave smokers up a creek without a paddle. The interests of the smoker seem to have been pushed into the background as the various sides in the THR debate defend their own positions and brief against each other.
That something is seriously wrong with efforts being made to promote smoking cessation is clear from Burning Issues: Global State of Tobacco Harm Reduction 2020, the second (the first appeared in 2018) such report written by Harry Shapiro and published by Knowledge-Action-Change. This 162-page report makes the point that after more than a decade of product availability, there are only nine users of “safer nicotine products” (SNP—vapor devices and heated-tobacco devices, Swedish style snus and some other safer forms of smokeless tobacco) for every 100 smokers.
This should sound alarm bells, and it does, but those bells are peeling out the wrong message as far as I can hear. They are calling for more of the same. How does it go? Having lost sight of our objectives, we redoubled our efforts.
I should add, however, that this is an excellent report with masses of information about where we are with THR and the SNPs that underpin it and how we got here. The way forward is less clear because it is difficult to navigate a path in the face of the guerrilla activities employed by those opposed to the THR approach—activities that have so far proved fatally successful in casting doubts in the minds of smokers and vapers. Nevertheless, the report contains 15 recommendations (as well as 20 conclusions) that map out a route to the future. Though, in the light of the short history of THR, some of those recommendations might better be described as wishful thinking.
One of the things that becomes clear in the report is how little success had been achieved in pushing the quit-smoking agenda before the incorporation of the sorts of harm reduction principles that had already been well established in respect of other health challenges. And little wonder given that pre-THR, the approach had been to bully smokers into quitting. THR takes an altogether more humane approach, as the report spells out:
“Harm reduction refers to a range of pragmatic policies, regulations and actions, which either reduce health risks by providing safer forms of products or substances, or encourage less risky behaviors. Harm reduction does not focus primarily on the eradication of products or behaviors.”
Contrast this with the methods employed before THR and that are still pushed by many governments, organizations and individuals—methods that are based on discouragement or punishment. Such methods include the degradation of the products that smokers enjoy through pointless controls on nicotine levels, the banning of harmless flavors and the despoiling of packaging. They include the inexcusable use of smoker “denormalization” or officially sanctioned discrimination. And they include the imposition of grossly unfair levels of taxation.
Credit : Omni Matryx
Meanwhile, there are issues brought up in the report that I believe could usefully be subjected to further analysis in any forthcoming edition of Burning Issues. The report mentions that the World Health Organization (WHO) has “not revised downwards its estimate that one billion lives could be lost to smoking-related disease by the end of the century.”
Despite the fact that many of us are highly critical of the WHO’s attempts at encouraging smoking cessation, we tend to accept its figures unquestioningly. But whereas, for instance, a figure of one billion is convenient to throw about, when you think about it, it is ludicrously rounded. And given that this is a worldwide figure, you have to ask yourself how the data are gathered in many countries, especially in those where, perhaps because of wars, there are no fully functioning administrations.
And it would be good to see some of the methodologies used in compiling such figures. Since, I guess, some people die of “tobacco-related diseases” that might also be seen as “pollution-related diseases,” how are these deaths divided up? I suspect that the default setting is to put such deaths into the tobacco-related deaths column, in which case the WHO’s tobacco-related deaths figures are likely to be inflated.
This is not an attempt to get tobacco partly off the hook but to make sure that we are taking action where action is required and not just where some people would like to see it applied. There is no point in developing vapor devices if the disease problem is down to the pollution caused by air travel, etc.
But what I would like to see, especially, is detailed information on how “tobacco-related” diseases and deaths have fallen with the reduction in smoking in those countries where such smoking reductions have occurred. In countries such as the U.K., smoking has been falling long enough for the related diseases to be also showing declines, and there should be a recognizable correspondence between the two.
Credit: Kjerstin Michaela Haraldsen
The problem with accepting blind what the WHO has to say is that one can end up being mesmerized by huge figures and drawing some questionable conclusions. The report states, for instance, that the one billion tobacco-related deaths “[are] equivalent to the combined populations of Indonesia, Brazil, Nigeria, Bangladesh and the Philippines dying from Covid-19.” I know that it is considered rather trite to say so, but shit happens, people die, and it is necessary to keep a sense of proportion.
If you look at a long enough time frame, you could probably say that the equivalent of the population of Belgium will die from having pieces of toffee stuck in their windpipes. And I think the reference to Covid-19 doesn’t stack up.
There is a world of difference between smoking and Covid-19. A lot of people won’t agree with me here, but people have a choice about whether or not they smoke. But the ordinary person in the street has next to no control over the rise and spread of viruses. That is why, to my way of thinking, viruses are a valid area of interest for the WHO whereas smoking is not.
I’m not saying that we should row back from THR products, but, at the same time as we are improving these products and making them available, we should be putting our foot down harder on the cold turkey pedal just in case those opposed to THR win the day. It’s not just me being pessimistic. This is from the report.
As the environment for THR has grown ever more toxic since our last report, we have turned our attention this time to the mechanisms of the well-orchestrated and well-funded global campaigning driving an increasingly prohibitionist response to SNP.
Despite the above, it is claimed in the report that SNPs have been “disruptive” and that they have provided one of the most startling public health success stories of modern times, claims that, given the slow conversion rate from smoking to using SNPs, seem not to be supported by the evidence. Or perhaps I’m looking at things from the wrong direction. This, too, is from the report:
“Globally, the value of the vaping market has continued to grow since our 2018 report and is projected to grow further. The chart from Statista43 shows the value of the e-cigarette market at around $19 billion and its steady projected growth from 2012 through to 2023.”
I see. So it is about monetization, is it? OK, we have to be practical. We have to allow companies to make money, but there’s clearly a problem here. Declines in smoking predated the arrival of SNPs in many of the countries where these sorts of products are affordable, basically the West, but smoking is still on the increase in many low-income and middle-income countries where they are less affordable. If we are not careful, THR will become a system that helps to underpin health inequalities. If you’re rich, you can afford the products to keep you healthy; if you are not … well, too bad.
By all means, let’s redouble our efforts, but let’s make sure we’re still focused on the goal of encouraging people to stop smoking. We might need to look for new ways of doing this or even old ways, such as cold turkey.
December 22, 2020
UKVIA Highlights Achievements in Review

John Dunne
The U.K. Vaping Industry Association (UKVIA) has published its latest annual review highlighting the progression and achievements of the association and the industry during the past 12 months. It also looks at the key priorities for the new year, particularly the opportunity to shape the Tobacco & Related Products Regulations following Britain’s exit from the EU.
The review covers the efforts by the UKVIA to address the misinformation that continues to mislead consumers about vaping, the success of VApril 2020 despite the coronavirus, the 76 percent increase year-on-year in membership, the work that the association is doing with its international counterparts to protect the interests of the sector and progress being by the different committees, including policy and regulatory, youth access prevention, standards and marketing
In his foreword, UKVIA Director General John Dunne applauds members and the wider industry for rising to the challenge of the pandemic. “The vaping industry is disruptive at its core, and it has an enormous capacity for adapting to that disruption,” he said in a statement. “The industry can be proud of what it’s achieved during the last year despite the disruption and challenges it has had to face up to.”
December 18, 2020
Eighth Annual ‘Expert Vape Predictions’ for 2021 Released
It’s been eight years since James Dunworth of the Ashtray Blog released his first “Vape Predictions.” The annual blog post started with just Dunworth making his own predictions but has grown into some of the leading players in the industry contributing.
This year, Dunworth asks 18 experts their views on the vaping industry outlook for 2021. The varied group of participants includes scientists, analysts, independent vaping media and business leaders. The outlook isn’t great. It’s also not the worst case scenario. AS could be expected, many of the experts see more regulation, taxation, flavor bans and bad science.
For the European Union, Clive Bates, who writes his own blog The Counterfactual and is the former director of Action on Smoking and Health said he believes the region will start to see more onerous regulations in 2021. “I’d be worried about broad flavours bans, ingredients regulation, plain packaging, restrictions on online sales and marketing,” he stated. “Also, possibly more onerous approval processes.”
In the U.S., the world’s largest vaping market, all eyes are on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) premarket tobacco product applications (PMTA) that were due to the regulatory agency on Sept. 9. Niki Zhang, marketing director, for Smoore Technology, parent to the Vaporesso brand, states that the PMTAs will impact local manufacturers in terms of their product range, sales, and marketing.
“The FDA requires vape manufacturers to implement thorough scientific studies to prove their products are appropriate for the protection of public health, bringing vapers safer products and a better vaping experience,” states Zhang. “In the short term, only a few vape manufacturers can meet the scientific requirements, complexities, and expenses of the PMTA, which means there will be fewer products available. But, in the long run, vape manufacturers will be able to bring more quality and effective products into the market.”
December 15, 2020
Gay: Shuttering Public Health England Bad for Public Health

Credit: Glassdoor
The axing of Public Health England could have a lasting negative impact on public health.
By George Gay
Reading through the U.K. Vaping Industry Association’s (UKVIA) Aug. 28 statement on “the transferal of responsibilities from Public Health England [PHE] and the future of harm reduction,” I was reminded why the UKVIA has been successful in advancing the interests of vaping and, in doing so, encouraging smokers to switch to a less risky form of nicotine consumption.
In the face of a move by the U.K. government that conceivably could cause a significant setback to vaping, the association refused to engage with the negative. It did what it had to do; it accentuated the positive by performing a well-choreographed verbal sword dance while mentioning only in passing that the blades on the floor could deprive it of a few toes and perhaps much else.
The UKVIA statement was in response to an announcement by the government that, at the end of March, it was to axe Public Health England, an executive agency of the Department of Health and Social Care, and transfer some of its responsibilities, but not its smoking prevention and some other obligations, to a new organization, the National Institute for Health Protection (NIHP). PHE has for a long time supported the use of vaping as a method of helping smokers quit their tobacco habit, and its declarations that vaping is at least 95 percent less risky than is smoking have been widely and confidently quoted in recent years; so the government’s announcement was a significant and potentially negative development.
The UKVIA acknowledged this risk in passing but concentrated on encouraging the government to ensure that the transition of responsibilities from the PHE to other agencies was as smooth as possible. It began its statement, issued under the name of its director, John Dunne, by saying it would like to place on record its thanks for PHE’s considerable contribution to harm reduction and smoking cessation in recent years.
“The independent and progressive stance taken by PHE has undoubtedly improved the health of the nation and saved lives,” it said. “In particular, PHE’s support of vaping as a vital harm reduction tool ensures an admirable legacy of falling smoking rates in the U.K., with all of the associated benefits to public health and the NHS [National Health Service]. PHE’s evidence-based approach provided many adult smokers with the reassurance they needed to explore the full range of smoking cessation options available to them.”
Deflecting attention
Let’s halt the statement there for a moment because I’m sure that a lot of readers will be wondering why PHE is being axed when it has done such a good job. Well, as is mentioned above, PHE’s responsibilities go beyond smoking prevention, and part of its remit has required it, along with other agencies, to engage in the fight against the coronavirus pandemic and the resulting Covid-19 disease outbreak. And since the U.K. government has proved to be scarily incompetent in the face of the coronavirus pandemic but a dab hand at shifting the blame for its incompetence onto others, PHE, one of the more publicly recognizable health agencies, was always going to be at risk.
On Aug. 28, The Guardian, in a leader column, described the decision to abolish PHE during a pandemic as reckless, adding that it was part of the government’s strategy of casting about for scapegoats for its failings during the pandemic. The leader was headed: “[Prime Minister Boris] Johnson’s donkeys have failed the frontline workers they lionized.”
The Guardian wasn’t alone in condemning the government’s action. On Sept. 2, a piece by the newspaper’s health policy editor, Denis Campbell, described how Britain’s doctors and public health experts had warned the prime minister that the abolition of PHE would damage the fight against obesity, smoking and alcohol misuse. “More than 70 health organizations have written to Boris Johnson outlining their fears about last month’s controversial decision to axe PHE, which prompted claims it was an attempt by ministers to deflect attention from their own failings over the coronavirus crisis,” Campbell wrote.
Rearranging the deck chairs
There was no way that the UKVIA was going to be drawn into this dispute and, in its statement, it merely noted that many of PHE’s responsibilities would be overseen by the newly formed NIHP, “which will take a lead role in safeguarding the U.K. from novel health risks.
“The UKVIA completely acknowledges the need for new ways of working in combatting modern challenges and supports the government’s prioritization of public health,” the association said.
“It is further reassuring that Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Matt Hancock confirmed his ongoing commitment to health improvement while announcing the NIHP’s formation. This is a commitment which the UKVIA shares and thoroughly supports.”
You can see the UKVIA’s point. I mean, we are where we are, and there is little point in trying to reason a government with an 80-seat majority out of a position into which it seems not to have reasoned itself. But there is no reason not to have a parting shot, and I think the Liberal Democrats’ health spokesperson, Munira Wilson, had the situation nailed when, according to Campbell’s piece, she said: “Now is not the time to rearrange the deck chairs.”
One of the dangers as I see it is that the government made its decision to axe PHE without having thought through what should happen to all of PHE’s responsibilities, including its role in preventing smoking. In other words, it was rearranging the deck chairs without any idea of where to put many of them; so the worry must be that some will wind up overboard as jetsam.
And it was clear that the UKVIA too was concerned about this aspect of the government-announced changes. “To protect the many successes of vaping in U.K. public health, as well as empowering further positive change in the future, it is vital that this progressive, evidence-based culture continues,” the association’s statement said. “Whenever responsibilities are transferred, there is a risk that invaluable institutional knowledge and memory is lost. This would be to the detriment of the U.K.’s millions of smokers and vapers and cannot be allowed to happen in this case.
“The UKVIA therefore calls upon the custodians of PHE’s former responsibilities, in the event that they are indeed reallocated, to continue their positive approach towards harm-reduction technologies. Independent reviews, studies and statements, all focused on facts rather than hearsay, have been a cornerstone of a successful British vaping industry which supports adult consumers to make a positive change for their health.
“The UKVIA will continue to do its utmost to ensure that adult smokers and vapers have access to the high-quality products they need as well as the reliable information and advice needed to empower their choices. Assistance in this regard from public health bodies is vital to ensuring that the positive potential of vaping is not squandered in the U.K. We look forward to engaging constructively with all public health partners.”
Hoping for the best
I have no idea how this will pan out because there is much going on in the U.K. at the moment that will impinge on health issues. The U.K. government is in the process of breaking—I use the word with care—its final bonds with the EU and trying to sell off the last of the family silver—the NHS—to the highest bidders as part of a trade deal with the U.S., though it remains to be seen whether any nation will want to sign a deal with a country that, as this piece was being written, was openly talking about breaking international law so as to renege on part of the Brexit withdrawal agreement signed by Johnson in January with the EU.
In part of his story, Campbell quoted Wilson as describing the axing of the PHE as “nonsensical.” She is right of course, but only if you assume that the aim of the government is to improve public health, and nothing I have observed in the actions of the government would lead me to believe that it is particularly interested in such munificence. I would guess that if the work of the PHE in supporting vaping and, therefore, smoking reduction, is continued, it will be down to luck, not to the deliberate actions of the government.
Whatever happens, all is not lost in the U.K. vaping sector. The UKVIA is used to navigating the choppy waters of vaping rules and regulations. In March, it wrote to the government asking that specialist vape shops be allowed to stay open during the coronavirus lockdown and requesting support for the industry during and after the crisis was over. It made the point that because such shops had bucked the trend of high-street attrition, and because they provided much-needed specialist advice, they were the source of economic and health benefits to the communities they served.
The UKVIA won the backing of Sir Kevin Barron, former MP and honorary fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, and further argued that closing vape stores would be a potentially counterproductive move that could place further strain on the already overstretched NHS. Due to the stress caused by the coronavirus pandemic, vapers who could not access their specialist stores and the advice available there were at risk of falling back onto cigarettes, which were more readily available.
On this occasion, the UKVIA was not successful, in part I would guess because the government would have taken the view that closing specialist shops would not have prevented vapers from obtaining their products, or at least substitutes for their usual products, in the food and corner shops that were allowed to stay open, and, for those with internet access, via online suppliers.
But though it was not successful, the UKVIA again chose not to embrace the negative. While continuing to lobby the government to review its decision on vape stores, it switched its focus to keeping its members informed about their obligations under government guidelines and the opportunities still open to them, such as online or home delivery services in the case of retail outlets. And following a report in a national newspaper that a vape shop owner had been arrested by police after keeping their retail outlet open despite the government directive, the association issued another note urging vape stores to adhere to government guidance to remain closed during the current lockdown.
“We understand that we are talking about people’s livelihoods here, but it is paramount that the industry follows the government guidance,” said Dunne. “We have to wait until we get the green light to reopen.”
And the green light was triggered on June 15, at which point the UKVIA praised the U.K.’s vaping businesses for the responsible approach they had taken during the 10-week lockdown. In a statement issued at the time, the association said it believed that the entrepreneurial spirit that had seen many vaping companies transform their business models overnight would mean they would be well placed to bounce back.
“The response from the industry to the challenging conditions has been both staggering and exemplary,” Dunne was quoted as saying. “I know that our members that make up a large share of the vaping market have been working around the clock to provide online and home delivery services to the 3.2 million vapers across the country.”
And this strategy has apparently worked for both vapers and vaping businesses. Feedback from UKVIA members indicates that few stores closed permanently because of the lockdown. Overall, demand is said to have stabilized, though it is probably inevitable that some vapers will have returned to smoking, either temporarily or permanently. Part of that demand has almost certainly shifted permanently to different supply streams.
Many retailers saw big increases occur in their online sales, and it must be assumed that at least some vapers who discovered home delivery services during lockdown will stay with such services. It is difficult to know how this will pan out over the long term, but there are reasons to be positive. The sorts of services offered by high-street retailers have probably appealed mainly to novice vapers, and with about 3 million vapers and 7 million smokers in the U.K., the potential for recruiting more vapers to high-street shops must be high.
Having said that, the uptake of vaping in the U.K. has slowed in recent years and, for reasons that will be familiar to readers of this magazine, it is proving harder to persuade large numbers of smokers to move to vaping. Concerns around this situation can be discerned in at least two of the UKVIA’s four strategic objectives: to reassure smokers about vaping so they continue to see vaping as the best way to quit their smoking habit and to give confidence to existing vapers about vaping so that they don’t go back to smoking or other alternative ways to break their former smoking habit.
Another objective is to heighten the understanding among the political/public health community of the positive impact that vaping has had, and continues to have, and highlight the potential adverse impact of vapers returning to smoking and smokers not transitioning across. This brings us back to the beginning of the story by raising the question of whether the realization of this objective will be made more difficult if the UKVIA has to start afresh with a new public health body.
This story can be found in Issue 5, 2020 of Vapor Voice.
October 20, 2020
New Group to Advocate for Small-Sized Vapor Makers
A new advocacy group has form to small vapor industry manufacturers navigate the U.S. Food and Drug Administartion’s (FDA) premarket tobacco product appliucation (PMTA) process.
The American Vapor Manufacturers Association (AVM) was founded by two vapor business owners, Amanda Wheeler and Char Owen. Both have been longtime advocates for the vaping industry and have helped hundreds of other vapor business owners submit PMTAs. Wheeler will serve as president of the new organization, and Owen vice president.
Amanda Wheeler / Credit: RMSFA
“The founders of AVM have demonstrated a long standing commitment to our industry and have a proven track record of working hard for small business. Our President, Amanda Wheeler, has represented our industry at the federal regulatory level since June of 2019. At that time, Amanda began her journey by preparing a request to HHS and FDA to develop a small business PMTA pathway that was signed by 1,453 businesses,” the AVM website reads. “Amanda also collaborated with esteemed industry attorney Azim Chowdhury to develop a small business PMTA proposal. Since that time, Amanda has worked tirelessly to engage with HHS, FDA, the Trump Administration, and members of Congress to advocate for the small business proposal and the work that our co-founder, Char Owen has done to get over 200 businesses to the point they were able to submit pre-market tobacco applications for over 1.7 million products.”
Owen also began advocating for the vapor industry’s ability to participate in the PMTA process in June of 2019. “Char was motivated by the desire to honor her father’s memory, since he passed away from lung cancer due to a lifetime of smoking. Char had a conviction that there could be a viable path forward for small businesses to participate in the PMTA process,” the site states. “She set about her work to bring crowdsourced tools to small businesses that needed assistance preparing the documents necessary for successful PMTA submission. Over 200 businesses came together under Char’s leadership to successfully complete the requirements necessary to have PMTA’s successfully submitted and accepted.”
Other media outlets have reported that the AVM intends to create a vapor product testing lab specifically for small manufacturers. Labs have been overburdened since the PMTA guidelines were announced and a Maryland judge set Sept. 9 as the deadline to submit applications to the FDA.
October 14, 2020
Stier: E-cigarette Bans Would Harm Public Health
Public health policy should be guided by science, data and a large dose of common sense. The promised benefits of any policy should be weighed against the known risks and possibility of unintended consequences.
Last February, the House of Representatives passed legislation that would ban the sale of flavored e-cigarettes to adults. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J., did not advance in the Senate, but is sure to rear its draconian head in the next Congress, write public health experts Jeff Stier and Henry Miller.
Jeff Stier / senior fellow at the Taxpayers Protection Alliance

The prohibition of the legal sale of flavored e-cigarettes to adults is not supported by science, is undermined by an analysis of the available data, and lacks common sense.
Federal law already bans the sale of all e-cigarettes to anyone under 21, so the Pallone legislation would only change the legal status of the sale of flavored e-cigarettes to adults. That would harm public health, because the data tell us that adult smokers can significantly reduce their health risks if they switch from smoking to vaping. Vaping exposes users to fewer toxic chemicals than smoking cigarettes, and a British study found that long-term cigarette smokers who switched to vaping were halfway toward achieving the vascular health of a non-smoker within a month.
And because e-cigarettes are estimated to be 95 percent less harmful than cigarettes, according to Public Health England, they can be a boon to public health if adult smokers are able to completely and permanently make the switch. But achieving long-term benefits from the shift to vaping from cigarettes requires adherence, and survey after survey has found that adult smokers are better able to maintain the switch if they use flavored vaping products.
Flavors play a critical role in helping smokers quit. A 2018 study published in the Harm Reduction Journal found that, “Adult frequent e-cigarette users in the USA who have completely switched from smoking cigarettes to using e-cigarettes are increasingly likely to have initiated e-cigarette use with non-tobacco flavors and to have transitioned from tobacco to non-tobacco flavors over time.” The authors concluded that e-cigarette flavor bans “may discourage smokers from attempting to switch to e-cigarettes.”
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is aware of the potential life-saving nature of e-cigarette flavors, noting that “certain flavors may help currently addicted adult smokers switch to potentially less harmful forms of nicotine-containing tobacco products.”
But what about kids using flavored e-cigarettes?
Recent survey data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control CDC) reinforces what we’ve known for a long time: Kids are curious and experiment with risky products. But it’s not the flavors that induce teens to vape. According to the 2019 National Youth Tobacco Survey, fewer than a quarter of teens who ever used e-cigarettes cited the availability of flavors as a reason for using them.
Although adults and youth equally prefer flavored e-cigarettes to those with tobacco flavor, adults quit smoking in large part because of flavors. Kids vape for lots of reasons, but the availability of flavors isn’t high among them.
Therefore, banning the sale of flavored e-cigarettes to adults in order to prevent youth vaping would be detrimental to public health overall. It would do little, if anything, to curb youth vaping, while it would make it harder for adults to quit smoking.
As misguided as the legislation was when the House voted for it in February, it is even more inappropriate today, now that the Sept. 9 deadline for e-cigarette manufacturers to submit pre-market tobacco applications (PMTAs) to the Food and Drug Administration has passed. As of that date, it is illegal to sell e-cigarettes whose manufacturer has not submitted to the FDA a substantial (and costly) application for each individual product it wishes to sell.
E-cigarettes that are the subject of these applications must meet stringent conditions, including: (1) “[r]isks and benefits to the population as a whole, including people who would use the proposed new tobacco product as well as nonusers”; (2) “[w]hether people who currently use any tobacco product would be more or less likely to stop using such products if the proposed new tobacco product were available”; and (3) “[w]hether people who currently do not use any tobacco products would be more or less likely to begin using tobacco products if the new product were available.”
Because every vaping product, flavored or not, must already meet an extraordinarily high bar, there is no valid rationale for preempting the judgments of FDA scientists and, instead, letting politicians dictate them, as the Pallone bill would do.
If current regulation, supplemented by unprecedented taxpayer-funded education campaigns, doesn’t prevent kids from vaping, there’s no reason to believe they won’t turn to even riskier products in a flourishing black market spawned by a flavor ban.
Jeff Stier is a senior fellow at the Taxpayers Protection Alliance. Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute. He was a research fellow at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the founding director of the FDA’s Office of Biotechnology.
September 15, 2020
IECIE Shenzhen to Take Place Virtually Aug. 20-22
Informa Markets Creative has announced it will hold the IECIE Shenzhen e-cigarette expo on August 20-22. The event will also be held virtually, simultaneously as the live event. The cost is $10 before July 20 and $20 after that date.
“This virtual expo is estimated to attract 10,000 vape users across the world, bringing more than 2500 vape exhibitors to go virtually to engage business online through any devices,” a press release states. “It’s especially designed to allow private business video/text chatting, business arrangement with vape brands and new product live showcases and multiple features to audiences.”
Visitors can login to the virtual expo beginning July 20 until August 20 to review all the vape brands profiles and product catalogs, the release states. Meanwhile exhibiting products preview and business meeting arrangements between visitors and exhibitors are also available during this period. All the private business meetings can be directly carried out inside the virtual expo in 3 days during 20-22 August.
IECIE Shenzhen eCig Expo is the largest e-cigarette exhibition in Asia, bringing together upstream industries, battery and power management Chips and Solutions, Battery and Power Management, Heating System, E-juice Flavors and Related Products while mainly displaying some finished products : Disposable pods, atomizer, mods kits, e-liquid (letter nicotine salt e-liquid), heating non-combustion equipment, OEM / ODM / brand , etc, according to the release.
The 2020 IECIE Virtual Expo has several features, including:
An AI buyer recommendation system
Adopting AI EXPO artificial intelligence platform to collect key information from visitor registration form and clicks, recommend products of corresponding exhibitor company to visitors. Once attendees enter the virtual expo, they will be asked to choose from a range of interests from product like mods, pods system to fields like vape businesses and even vape magazines. With these tags, attendees can filter all the exhibitors in the hall to locate their most wanted targets by clicking recommend button on the upside of the floorplan and making their way to the targeted exhibitor.
A Show Room
Multi-platform live broadcasting ensuring smooth and clear video during the exhibition. With a cloud system support, IECIE virtual expo enables visitors to video chat, text chat, voice chat, and even watch the on-site broadcasting from IECIE physical event.
A business matching system
The business matching system will allow for making appointments for business negotiations in advance, multimedia communication with buyers (video, Voice chatting etc.) and efficiently arrange private product demonstration for visitors.
Push notifications for SMS and Email
SMS or email reminder outside the platform will allow attendees to never let go of any message. Once business meeting requirements have been approved, the notification will be sent to an attendee via email or SMS so that they won’t miss any requests, according to the release.
July 6, 2020
Experts: Possible Post-Covid Boom for Vapor Market

Credit: Timothy S. Donahue
The marijuana market took a big hit last year after consumers of black market THC vaping products started to become ill, often with fatal consequences. As a result, companies have been on high alert, making safety a priority when crafting both nicotine and cannabis vape products, according to an article on Forbes.com.
With Covid-19 still a reality, experts are foreseeing a boom in the vaping market this summer. So, what else do they see in their crystal ball post COVID-19? Find out below. Among those weighing in are Tom Brooksher, CEO of Clear Cannabis Inc; Cortney Smith, CEO and founder of DaVinci; Dan Gardenswartz, chief financial officer of Spherex; and Elizabeth Hogan, vice president of brands at GCH Inc (parent company of Willie’s Remedy and Willie’s Reserve).
The Forbes article expresses that the following Q&A has been edited for conciseness and clarity.
Iris Dorbian: Why do you think the vape market will see a boom in the summer?
Tom Brooksher: Traditionally, summer is a strong season for cannabis sales as people purchase our products to enhance their vacations and time spent outdoors. As restrictions are lifted, we expect a pent-up demand for cannabis products that can be conveniently used in conjunction with outdoor activities. We also expect the phased reopening of tourism in key tourist/cannabis markets, such as Nevada, California, Colorado and Florida, to positively impact vape product sales.
Cortney Smith: Even as we enter an uncertain economy amid a recession, I still believe the vaporizer market has been growing steadily over the past few months and will continue to flourish. If anything, the pandemic has opened more people up to the possibilities of cannabis during a stressful time, and we’ve seen an uptick in new consumers
Elizabeth Hogan: We’re seeing people return to their favorites and stock up on proven winners—vape products included. With the fear of spreading germs, vapes sales will continue to grow as consumers move away from shared joints or bowls. Vapes are less harsh on your throat and lungs than smoking and take effect more immediately than edibles. This summer, it’s going to be a good idea to be prepared and bring your own. We’re sharing in spirit only these days.
Brooksher: We’ve done very well, all things considered. Our sales would have been even stronger in Colorado and Nevada had the pandemic not hit. In general, we’re seeing strong brands – high quality products with name recognition – holding their own or even growing during the pandemic, and weaker brands struggling or potentially failing.
Gardenswartz: We definitely felt some pressure during April and May. We also engaged in aggressive social media messaging to maintain communication with our consumers, as well as daily contact with our dispensary partners in all jurisdictions to mitigate any downward pressure. For vaping specifically, our customers reported a notable shift from typical joints to vape pens, which was largely driven by health and sanitary concerns. They are also cleaner and longer lasting. We don’t see this trend changing anytime soon.
Dorbian: How is your company positioning its vape line in response to the anticipated boom in the vape market?
Brooksher: Perception of value on the part of consumers is always important for cannabis brands and we don’t see that changing. That doesn’t mean cannabis consumers are focused on the cheapest product. They’re willing to pay for a quality product, but only if they perceive that it’s a good value – specifically that it’s safe, will provide a good experience, and matches their needs and preferences.
Smith: We recognize the need for personal vaporizers, especially in a time when cannabis consumers are shifting from a culture of sharing devices to more individual consumption. My team and I also continue to dream up new innovations, because I never want us to rest on our laurels. We’ve spent the past three years developing a new limited-edition iteration of the IQ2, that allows for cooler temperatures, and we’re finally launching it this summer. There’s no time like the present to be innovative and bring new solutions to the public.
Gardenswartz: During the lockdown, we worked aggressively to fine-tune quality control and production efficiency across the company, and those initiatives will benefit us not only this summer, but over the long-term. We view our products as “accessible luxury” – premium products priced at accessible levels. With Spherex, consumers can have the best of both world: the best products out there at very accessible prices.
Hogan: Willie’s Reserve vape line product offering has been expanding over the last year, adding CBD:THC ratio products, collaborations with musicians (Nathaniel Rateliff and Margo Price) and introducing 1-gram cartridges for consumers looking for more value. We have also seen a growing consumer demand for different forms of concentrate in vape cartridges. The combination of distillate and cannabis-derived terpenes is becoming very popular. In response, we launched our new line of live resin craft cartridges in Colorado. The live resin cartridges offer an even more flavorful draw than distillate.
Dorbian: What precautionary measures is your company enacting to ensure the safety of its vape lines?
Brooksher: We were fortunate in that our products were very safe to begin with. We’ve never used vitamin E acetate or any other toxic fillers, and we eliminated the use of MCT oil prior to it becoming an issue. In addition, we only use CCELL ceramic heating cartridges and hardware that are made with food and medical-grade material of the highest quality. As a result, we’ve had zero problems with product safety.
Smith: We’ve always built safety into the very DNA of our devices from the start. Beyond the specific safety measures we’ve taken to protect our employees and maintain best practices throughout the pandemic, we haven’t changed a thing about the device itself. DaVinci devices are created responsibly with clean hardware, with medical-grade components like a zirconia air path and feature an array of safety certifications such as Rohs, FCC and CE.
Gardenswartz: Fortunately, Spherex didn’t experience a notable negative impact from last year’s crisis. Spherex has and will continue to use only the best material, run through the cleanest process, put into the best hardware and packaging, resulting in clean, potent and superior end products. We plan to keep most, if not all, of the precautionary measures we enacted around COVID, even beyond the point that the virus is under control, which could be never.
Hogan: Transparency and cooperation in every direction are the two most important ingredients in safe cannabis. At Willie’s Reserve, we have alway been cognizant of how some negatively view the cannabis industry and our goal is to combat their doubt with clean products and safe procedures. Since this has always been a focus of ours, we have not had to change in wake of last summer’s illicit market issues. Our motive and the motive of some of these illicit market manufacturers are very different and our product quality is a testament to that.
June 16, 2020
Organizer Optimistic Intertabac Will Proceed

The Westfalenhallen group of companies is increasingly hopeful that, with appropriate measures in place, the Intertabac exhibition, scheduled for Sept. 18-20 in Dortmund, Germany, will take place. The event and trade fair industry worldwide has been affected by the coronavirus epidemic.
“Nevertheless, due to the latest signals from politics, we are a bit more positive about the organization of trade fairs in Dortmund, [Germany],” said Sabine Loos, managing director of the Westfalenhallen group of companies.
The authorities are currently determining under what conditions trade fairs could take place after May 31. Discussions focus on hygiene measures and limiting the number of participants. Specifics are expected to be announced soon.
“Afterwards, we will evaluate these measures and, on this basis, coordinate our further course of action—especially with regard to InterTabac and InterSupply,” said Loos. “We assume that voting on this should be completed in late May and early June.”
Messe Dortmund is working to create concepts for holding trade fairs. At the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, various measures were successfully introduced at the exhibition center in Dortmund, and an awareness campaign on various channels indicated the correct handling of the hygiene area.
With the upcoming loosening of Germany’s lockdown from June 2020, new conditions will be imposed on trade fair organizers. These will be incorporated into the overall concept of Messe Dortmund and included in the planning for InterTabac and InterSupply.
May 14, 2020