China’s recently announced regulatory framework for e-cigarettes should secure the vapor industry’s future in that country, according to leading players in the business.
On Nov. 26, China’s state council amended the tobacco monopoly law to include vapor products, meaning that, going forward, e-cigarettes will be managed like combustible cigarettes.
With more than 300 million smokers—27 percent of adults—China is the world’s largest tobacco market. It also produces about 90 percent of the world’s e-cigarettes, primarily in the technology manufacturing hub Shenzhen.
The government and the tobacco industry are, essentially, one entity in China, with the State Tobacco Monopoly Administration regulating the industry and China National Tobacco manufacturing tobacco products.
To date, the vapor industry in China has operated in a legal grey area. Regulation had been widely anticipated, but many feared that it would wipe out the sector. The Nov. 26 announcement, however, was welcomed by leading players in the business. Industry representatives say it removes uncertainty and will weed out bad actors.
In background article on the recent news from China, Filter cited Smoore global PR manager Frankie Chen, who expects national mandatory standards to significantly improve product safety and provide global vapers with better products.
“Since the standards set higher requirements for vaping manufacturing, it is expected that only the responsible manufacturer with comprehensive safety management can be compliant,” Chen was quoted as saying.
RLX Technology, too, welcomed the new regulatory framework. “We believe the sector will enter a new era of development—an era marked by enhanced product safety and quality, augmented social responsibilities, and improved intellectual property protection,” said RLX Technology chairperson and CEO Ying Wang at the presentation of the company’s third quarter results.
RLX Technology Chief Financial Officer Chao Lu said the company is well prepared for the new operating environment. “The investments we made in products, talents, research, and compliance in the third quarter and beyond will place us in advantageous positions under the new regulatory paradigm,” he said.
Draft rules governing e-cigarettes were issued Thursday by China’s tobacco regulator. The move brings vaping products out of a regulatory grey area and under the oversight of the state. The State Tobacco Monopoly Administration’s draft rules follow China’s cabinet last week amending its tobacco monopoly law to include e-cigarettes.
Credit: Timothy S. Donahue
According to the draft rules, companies selling e-cigarettes in China must meet national standards in order to register with the tobacco authority and do business legally, according to Reuters. Companies engaged in the production of e-cigarettes must also receive a special license from the tobacco authority, provided they can prove that they have the funds for production and a facility with equipment that meets standards.
The tobacco authority said that it will establish a “unified national electronic cigarette transaction management platform” that all licensed e-cigarette wholesalers and retailers “must sell products through.” Tax collection and payment of e-cigarettes, meanwhile, “shall be implemented in accordance with national taxation laws and regulations,” the regulator wrote.
A bevy of Chinese companies manufacturing and selling nicotine salt-based e-cigarettes for the domestic market emerged in 2018 following the success of similar products overseas. The largest among them, RELX Technology Inc. went public in New York in January. China’s cigarette industry operates under a state-run monopoly directly controlled by the tobacco regulator, which dictates pricing and distribution for brands and generates tax income for the government.
The health groups that brought forward the submission deadline for U.S. premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) through litigation have asked the federal judge in that case to require the Food and Drug Administration to regularly report on its PMTA review process, reports Vaping360.
On Nov. 15, an attorney representing the plaintiffs sent a letter to U.S. District Court Judge Paul Grimm. The groups want Judge Grimm to force the FDA to explain its progress on PMTAs submitted by mass-market vaping brands.
“Plaintiffs will seek a modification that would require FDA to provide regular status reports to the Court giving FDA’s estimate of the date(s) by which it expects to complete its review of the Premarket Tobacco Product Applications (PMTAs) for all products for which PMTAs were filed by Juul, Vuse, NJOY, Blu, SMOK, Suorin, and any other brands that rank among the top 10 brands in market share, according to FDA,” wrote attorney Jeffrey Dubner on behalf of his clients.
Earlier in the review process, the FDA announced it would prioritize its resources to complete assessments of the most popular products first. But when the agency’s self-imposed one-year review deadline rolled around, the FDA had made no decisions on the products with the greatest market share.
To date, the FDA has ruled on only one mass-market vaping product—Vuse Solo, a dated product with limited market share.
In addition to asking Judge Grimm to monitor the FDA’s PMTA review progress on popular vape brands, the plaintiffs complain that the agency has not taken any enforcement actions against companies still waiting for a PMTA decision.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the FDA are the American Academy of Pediatrics and its Maryland chapter, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, and Truth Initiative.
Malaysia’s health ministry stated that a bill on the regulation of tobacco, e-cigarettes, vape and shisha will be tabled in the Dewan Rakyat, the lower house of the bicameral Parliament, the federal legislature of Malaysia, next year.
Credit: Peter Nguyen
It could be tabled in the first term at the latest, according to Free Malaysia Today. The ministry confirmed this in a written reply to Shahrudidn Md Salleh (Pejuang-Sri Gading), who asked about the status of the bill that was supposed to be tabled last year.
In the reply yesterday, it said the bill, which was first drafted in 2016, had been sent to the Attorney-General’s Chambers in August 2019 to be enacted but was later returned to the ministry due to changes in the government. The ministry said the bill will pave the way for comprehensive regulation of conventional tobacco products and new e-cigarettes and other vaping products.
It also said it had applied for a date to the Legal Affairs Division of the Prime Minister’s Department to table the bill.
Court records show the FDA failed at reviewing submitted PMTA data as required and only looked for specific studies.
By Timothy S. Donahue
The term “fatal flaw” was used by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) submissions that didn’t have specific studies. The term has been at the center of nearly all lawsuits filed against the FDA for its handling of the PMTA process.
In court records reviewed by Voice Voice submitted in the Triton Distribution v. U.S. FDA case requesting a stay of the marketing denial order (MDO) the e-liquid manufacturer received from the FDA, the regulatory agency submitted an administrative record for the review of Triton’s PMTA that shows the agency did not fully review all PMTA data submitted, as required by law, but instead only looked for specific studies relating to flavors and youth use.
A memo dated July 9, 2021, written by Anne Radway, the associate director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products’ Office of Science, states that “based on the information available to date, FDA has determined this evaluation requires evidence that can demonstrate whether an applicant’s new non-tobacco flavored product(s) will provide an incremental benefit to adult smokers relative to the applicant’s tobacco-flavored product(s). In particular, the evidence necessary for this evaluation would be provided by either a randomized controlled trial (RCT) or a longitudinal cohort study. The absence of these types of studies is considered a fatal flaw, meaning any application lacking this evidence will likely receive a marketing denial order.”
Radway goes onto explain that due to the large number of PMTAs received, the agency would only conduct a Fatal Flaw review of PMTAs for non-tobacco flavored ENDS products.
“The Fatal Flaw review is a simple review in which the reviewer examines the submission to identify whether or not it contains the necessary type of studies. The Fatal Flaw review will be limited to determining presence or absence of such studies; it will not evaluate the merits of the studies,” Radway states. “To decrease the number of PMTAs without final action by September 9, 2021, [Office of Science] used a database query to identify the top twelve manufacturers with the largest number of pending PMTAs [in the substantive review stage of the process] … Following completion of filing those applications that are filed will immediately initiate Fatal Flaw review.”
Radway also states that for the remaining PMTAs not in [substantive review] for non-tobacco flavored e-liquid products, FDA will send a “General Correspondence letter requesting the applicant to confirm if their PMTA contains such evidence and, if so, to direct FDA to the location in the application where the studies can be found.”
During the first day of TMA’s “From Chance to Change” webinar on Nov. 17, panelists were disturbed by the findings that the agency, rather than reviewing a submission on its merits, simply searched for the presence or absence of certain studies.
Brittany Cushman
Brittani Cushman, senior vice president, general counsel and secretary at Turning Point Brands said that the “idea that so many of the applications were reviewed with an eye toward this so-called fatal flaw analysis” didn’t “feel like the right direction” for the PMTA review process.
The FDA admitted it made an error in TPB’s PMTA review and TPB did in fact submit studies that the agency decided during the PMTA process were needed, after saying for years the studies were not required. The FDA then rescinded TPB’s MDO and placed its applications back into substantive review. The agency has since rescinded or a court has stayed MDO’s for 10 companies and the agency is currently facing at least 45 lawsuits for it handling of the PMTA process. This is in addition to the dozens of requests for supervisory review.
“The way the review process has played out this far, really, feels like the incentive structure in the nicotine industry has been placed on its head,” explained Cushman. “It seems that the lower-risk products are receiving heightened scrutiny, kind of an opaque direction as to what’s sufficient. And it just doesn’t feel like these products are getting a kind of equitable treatment in the space.“
Triton Distribution had their MDO stayed by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals with the court holding that Triton is likely to succeed on the merits of its case because the FDA “changed its regulatory requirements” and that this “switcheroo” to now require a randomized controlled trial and/or a longitudinal cohort study – which the Agency previously stated on numerous occasions would not be required – was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The court stated that the FDA failed to “reasonably consider the relevant issues and reasonably explain” the MDO. The Court further noted that FDA failed to consider Triton’s marketing plan, surveys, and evidence of potential benefits of flavored e-cigarettes. FDA also “failed to consider the company’s legitimate reliance interests, as Triton relied on FDA’s statements made in numerous public meetings, guidance documents and rulemakings” that it did not expect applicants would need to conduct long-term studies to support their PMTAs.
Cushman told webinar watchers that, at the end of the day, the FDA’s regulatory treatment of the various product categories is to the detriment of the adult smoker.
“We’re all down in the weeds of this. But it’s difficult to see how we ended up at this point. And it certainly can’t be where anyone wanted this process to play out,” she said. “I think this has led to a lot of detrimental outcomes. You have adults seeing a large number of vapor products being deemed as not appropriate for the protection of public health while seeing no change in [combustible] cigarette offerings in their local C-store … This is being celebrated not only by those who are ignorant to the science, but more perversely, those [who understand the science and should] know better.”
For more on this session from TMA 2021 read the next issue of Vapor Voice coming in mid-December.
Synthetic nicotine could be considered a component of e-cigarettes, which would allow for the product to be regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Mitch Zeller, director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, said the agency was concerned about the use of synthetic nicotine to avoid regulation and enforcement and is considering its options in dealing with its use.
Mitch Zeller, director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products
On Nov. 17, the first day of TMA’s “From Chance to Change” webinar, Zeller said that the agency is charged with regulating tobacco products, which according to the Tobacco Control Act is anything that’s “made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption, including any component, part or accessory of a tobacco product.” Zeller said that components and parts could include everything from coils and batteries to all the ingredients comprised in producing e-liquids (such as flavorings and vegetable glycerin) even if the product does not contain nicotine.
“That’s an assessment that we need to make on a case-by-case basis based upon the totality of all the information that we have,” said Zeller, adding that another challenge is that synthetic nicotine is now of such high quality and complexity that it has become difficult to differentiate it from nicotine derived from natural tobacco. “Historically, that hasn’t been a problem,” he said. “It’s not a problem now, but it could become a challenge for us going forward.”
Zeller explained that nicotine is comprised of two isomers: R and S. Tobacco-derived nicotine is 99 percent S, and early synthetic nicotine had a 50-50 split between R isomers and S isomers. However, newer versions of synthetic nicotine have much higher proportions of S isomers (as high as 99.9 percent pure), making it harder to tell synthetic apart from natural nicotine. Tobacco-derived nicotine is also becoming higher in quality.
“Tobacco-derived nicotine is now being made available at a higher quality … pharmaceutical grade from a purity standpoint. And with that, it may be harder for us to see that chemical fingerprint, if you will, whether it’s tobacco DNA or tobacco-specific nitrosamines,” he said. “We could see this as a problem going forward. Coupled with the clear intent of certain companies to do this to evade FDA regulation … We are concerned about what this means for product regulation, for the public health, and a product like Puff Bar proudly proclaiming its use of synthetic nicotine, [and] being the number-one brand used by youth.”
In the short term, Zeller said the FDA is talking internally about how to best address the growing number of products that are using synthetic nicotine to skirt FDA regulation. He said the agency is also responding to questions from Congress about synthetic nicotine and providing technical assistance to members when asked.
“There are a lot of companies out there that pride themselves on playing by the rules. They have every right to expect that the playing field is going to be level. That’s where we come in with our compliance and enforcement authorities,” Zeller said. “We agree that one of the most important things that we can do, using our compliance and enforcement tools, is to level the playing field and to have our actions [in the e-cigarette space], hopefully, serve as a deterrent. There’s nothing that I can say from a compliance enforcement standpoint on synthetic nicotine other than we have ongoing investigations.”
For more on Zeller’s speech at TMA read the next issue of Vapor Voice coming in mid-December.
A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected Breeze Smoke LLC’s application of a stay of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s order Friday, denying the company’s premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) for some of its vaping products.
In Breeze Smoke LLC v. FDA, the Sixth Circuit rejected the Fifth Circuit’s conclusion that the FDA had orchestrated a “surprise switcheroo” in the PMTA review process. This creates an interesting circuit split that might attract Supreme Court interest, according to Reason’s Jonathan Hadler.
The Sixth Circuit’s order, on behalf of Judges Moore and Gilman, concluded that the FDA had never committed itself to accepting PMTA applications for flavored vaping products that lacked long-term studies. Rather, the FDA had merely indicated that “it might accept evidence other than long-term studies, if that evidence had sufficient scientific underpinnings to meet the [Tobacco Control Act’s] statutory mandate of demonstrating that flavored ENDS devices are appropriate for the protection of public health” (emphasis in original).
Thus the court concluded that Breeze Smoke had failed to demonstrate the strong likelihood of success on the merits necessary to support a stay. Judge Kethledge dissented, noting his agreement with the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Wages and White Lion Investments LLC v USFDA.
While rejecting Breeze Smoke’s stay request, the Sixth Circuit panel did note some concern with the FDA’s handling of the company’s application, particularly its “formulaic consideration” of Breeze Smoke’s plans to prevent marketing to youth. This failing, and the impact of a PMTA denial on Breeze Smoke’s business were still not enough to convince a majority of the panel to enter a stay however.
The president of Navajo Nation has confirmed that vaping e-cigarettes and the use combustible tobacco products will be banned in enclosed public locations within the reservation, including at the tribe’s four casinos. Jonathan Nez, president of the largest Native American Reservation in the United States, signed the legislation on Saturday.
Jonathan Nez, Credit: Navajo Nation
The permanent enactment yesterday “is a fundamental right to protect our Navajo people’s right to breathe clean air,” Nez said in a statement. Tobacco use in the tribe’s private homes or for ceremonial purposes will still be allowed, as long as they don’t function as childcare centers, adult care centers, or as business offices, ABC News reported.
Tribal lawmakers approved the bill in October that prohibits the use of cigarettes, chewing tobacco, electronic cigarettes and other commercial products in public buildings and workspaces, including a 25-foot (7.6-meter) buffer outdoors. Comments submitted to the Navajo Nation Council on the measure overwhelmingly supported it. A few cited the potential of lost revenue for the tribal gambling enterprise that unsuccessfully sought to carve out an exemption from the ban.
Smoking had been prohibited at the tribe’s four casinos — three in New Mexico and one east of Flagstaff — under COVID-19 safety measures, but it wasn’t permanent until Nez signed the legislation Saturday. The Tribal Council approved a ban on smoking and chewing tobacco in public places in 2008, but then-President Joe Shirley Jr. vetoed it, partially because he was concerned about gambling revenue. An override effort fell short of the votes it needed.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has rescinded the marketing denial order (MDO) issued Sept. 15, 2021, for Humble Juice Co.’s flavored e-liquid products, the company announced on Nov. 5.
Humble had filed a petition in October with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, challenging the FDA’s decision and seeking to have the MDO vacated. Following the receipt of the rescission letter, Humble withdrew its petition as FDA’s rescission of Humble’s MDO places the brand’s flavored e-liquids back into the PMTA review process and provides Humble with a pathway to market its products while its PMTAs are pending.
FDA’s rescission letter states that upon further review it identified information contained in Humble’s PMTA that requires additional evaluation such as “randomized controlled trials comparing tobacco-flavored ENDS to flavored ENDS as well as several cross-sectional surveys evaluating intentions to use or likelihood of use in current smokers, current ENDS users, former tobacco users, and never users.”
The agency also stated that due to the unusual circumstances, it “has no intention of initiating an enforcement action” against any of Humble’s flavored e-liquid products with pending PMTAs. Humble will continue to market its products while its application remains in the review process.
“FDA’s decision to rescind the MDO re-instills our faith in this challenging but science-based regulatory process,” said Humble CEO Daniel Clark. “We remain confident in and proud of our extensive PMTA submission. We are committed to working with the FDA to obtain marketing orders for the products submitted in our initial PMTAs in order to provide Humble’s adult consumers with flavor-filled and affordable e-juice long into the future.”
Confronted with an unexpected large volume of premarket tobacco applications, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration subjected some premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) to only a superficial review, according to documents obtained by Filter.
The PMTA review process comprises three phases: Phase I (Acceptance), which essentially means an application has been received; Phase II (Notification or Filing), which entails acknowledging a company had enough information for its applications to be formally filed; and Phase III (Review), which involves a substantive scientific evaluation, followed by a marketing granted order or marketing denial order (MDOs).
Overwhelmed by the large number of PMTAs and facing a court-ordered deadline of Sept. 9, 2021, the FDA in effect opted for a shortcut, according to Filter.
The publication cites a memorandum signed on July 9 by Matthew Holman, the director of FDA Center for Tobacco Products Office of Science (OS). “Considering the large number of applications that remain to be reviewed by the September 9, 2021, deadline, OS will conduct a Fatal Flaw review of PMTAs not in Phase III for non-tobacco-flavored ENDS products,” it reads.
The Fatal Flaw review is a simple review in which the reviewer examines the submission to identify whether or not it contains the necessary type of studies. “The Fatal Flaw review will be limited to determining presence or absence of such studies; it will not evaluate the merits of the studies,” the memorandum states.
Filter suggests that CTP reviewers created what’s probably a new method to get through a backlog of millions of PMTAs, searched those applications for longitudinal cohort studies and randomized clinical trials without evaluating any other evidence, and for applications lacking them, did not advance them beyond Phase II and just sent out templated MDOs.
