Vaporesso, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Smoore, has obtained a production licence from China’s State Tobacco Monopoly Administration (STMA), the country’s top regulator of tobacco products.
The license gives Vaporesso products lawful status in the country, Hong Kong-listed Smoore said in a statement on Wednesday. The license will be valid through July 2023, according to the South China Morning Post.
Smoore, the largest e-cigarette manufacturer in the world, is among the first group of companies to comply with China’s tightened rules for the e-cigarette industry, which recently became regulated as a traditional tobacco product.
In March, STMA published final guidelines for the industry, which require that manufactures comply with certain technical standards, including permitted ingredients and additives.
Licensed manufacturers must also trade with downstream wholesalers on a transaction platform overseen by STMA, according to the rules.
Licensed manufacturers must also trade with downstream wholesalers on a transaction platform overseen by STMA, according to the rules.
Less than 50 e-cigarette related companies, including retailers and manufacturers, have met the new restrictions and received licences from the authority so far, STMA’s website shows.
There are an estimated 1,500 companies involved in the vaping industry, according to calculations by the Electronic Cigarette Professional Committee of China Electronics Chamber of Commerce (ECCC) last year.
However, more licenses are expected to be issued in coming months as regulators work through a backlog of applications, according to news reports.
E-cigarette maker NJOY Holdings Inc has hired bankers for a possible sale of the company, theWall Street Journal reported on Tuesday, citing people familiar with the matter.
The report added the privately held NJOY is likely to be valued at up to $5 billion, according to the sources who cautioned the process was still at an early stage and there was no guarantee a deal would materialize.
If NJOY does not receive a high enough valuation, the company could raise money and stay private, potentially paving the way for a future initial public offering, the Wall Street Journal said.
The e-cigarette maker is simultaneously exploring a new fundraising round and aims to raise between $300 million and $500 million, the report added.
NJOY has two devices that have received marketing approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, including its Ace device and Daily disposables.
Late June, Bernstein analyst Callum Elliott wrote in a note that Altria could try to buy privately owned NJOY, which “has already succeeded with its PMTA process applications.”
Rival Juul Labs Inc said on Friday it was in the early stages of exploring several options, including financing alternatives, as the company deals with lawsuits and a probable ban on sales of its e-cigarettes by U.S. health regulators.
NJOY and Mudrick Capital Management, a majority owner of the company, did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.
The head of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Tuesday said he has commissioned an independent review of the agency’s food and tobacco programs following months of criticism over its handling of the baby formula shortage and e-cigarette reviews, according to AP.
The announcement comes as FDA Commissioner Robert Califf attempts to push past several controversies that have dominated his second stint running the agency, including his issuing of a marketing denial order (MDO) to e-cigarette maker Juul Labs and later having to rescind that order.
“Fundamental questions about the structure, function, funding and leadership need to be addressed” in the agency’s programs, Califf said in a statement. The agency’s Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) is facing challenges navigating policy and enforcement issues from “an increasing number of novel products that could potentially have significant consequences for public health.”
Califf said the non-profit Reagan-Udall Foundation — a non-governmental research group created by Congress to support FDA’s work — would convene experts to deliver evaluations within 60 business days of both the food and tobacco operations.
Two e-liquid manufacturers may be forced to pull their products from store shelves after they lost their bid to force the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to allow them to market their vaping products.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied Wages and White Lion Investments LLC, doing business as Triton Distribution, and Vapetasia LLC’s requests Monday for review of the agency’s marketing denial orders (MDOs) in a 2-1 decision.
The manufacturers didn’t show that the FDA acted arbitrarily or capriciously when it rejected their premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs), the Fifth Circuit said.
“In a mockery of ‘reasoned’ administrative decision-making,” Judge Edith Jones, a former chief judge of the Fifth Circuit who has served since the Reagan administration, wrote in her dissent. “FDA (1) changed the rules for private entities in the middle of their marketing application process, (2) failed to notify the public of the changes in time for compliance, and then (3) rubber-stamped the denial of their marketing applications because of the hitherto unknown requirements.”
If the ruling holds, Triton and Vapetasia will not be able to sell their reduced-risk electronic nicotine-delivery system (ENDS) products.
The companies had applied to market products with flavors like sour grape, pink lemonade, crème brulee and milk and cookies and names such as “Jimmy The Juice Man Strawberry Astronaut” and “Suicide Bunny Bunny Season.”
Dozens of other smaller vape companies also have accused the regulatory agency of operating unfairly, and will likely be disheartened by this ruling, reports Alex Norcia for Filter.
Todd Wages, a partner at Triton Distribution, told Filter he was “very disappointed” in the court. “We’re exploring our next steps. I will not stop fighting until I can’t any longer, until every door is closed,” he said.
The FDA rejected applications to market 55,000 flavored e-cigarettes in August, 2021, including Triton’s, and said applicants would likely need to conduct long-term studies establishing their products’ benefits to win approval.
A Fifth Circuit panel in October then agreed with Triton’s claim that the new requirement for long-term studies differed from earlier FDA guidance and called the action a “surprise switcheroo” and the panel allowed Triton to keep selling its e-cigarettes until another panel could hear its appeal.
Eric Heyer, the lawyer representing Triton Distribution, told Filter that the company “intends to file a petition for rehearing en banc by the entirety of the Fifth Circuit.”
Most circuit court appeals are decided by a three-judge panel, however special circumstances could motivate the court to allow a majority of the active judges to vote to rehear the case “en banc.”
Moving forward, Triton had asked the court in briefs to allow the company to “enjoin FDA from taking further adverse action on the Petitioners’ PMTAs for 18 months to allow Petitioners to conduct the necessary studies to prove comparative efficacy” if the panel ruled against Triton. The court denied that request.
The head of the Vapour Products Association of South Africa (VPASA) says the booming sector is plagued by continual misinformation and disinformation despite scientific evidence demonstrating that vaping is less harmful than smoking.
Chief executive of VPASA, Asanda Gcoyi said vaping is the single, most effective tool which can move smokers away from the deadly addiction to cigarettes, according to a story on IOL.
“We accept that vaping is not without risk, but it is a potentially less harmful alternative to smoking. What we cannot afford to do is to unduly stymie this technological innovation that can be the single most effective tool to move smokers away from their deadly addiction to cigarettes,” she said. “We have a collective responsibility to share correct information about vaping and other less harmful alternatives to smoking so that smokers can make an informed decision for their health.”
In the ongoing efforts to shed light and demystify vaping in South Africa, VPASA is on a drive to ultimately debunk some of the most prominent vaping myths circulating, according to Gcoyi.
The first myth is that vaping is as harmful as smoking.
“Although not risk-free, vaping is a potentially less harmful alternative to combustible tobacco. There are significantly lower levels of exposure to harmful chemicals in people who switch from smoking to vaping compared with those who continue to smoke,” she says. “The science that dates back as far as 2015 says vaping is a less harmful alternative to smoking, and recent updates continue to support this.”
The second myth is that vaping causes popcorn lung.
“According to Cancer Research UK, popcorn lung (bronchiolitis obliterans) is an uncommon type of lung disease, but it is not cancer,” says Gcoyi. “It is caused by a build-up of scar tissue in the lungs, which blocks the flow of air. E-cigarettes don’t cause the lung condition known as popcorn lung.”
Gcoyi said there was also a myth that vaping causes lung cancer.
“The fact is that burning tobacco in all its forms means exposure to carcinogenic chemicals. If you are a smoker, switching to vaping will reduce your risk of cancer. Most toxins from smoking are absent in electronic nicotine and non-nicotine delivery systems aerosol, she said. “Electronic non-nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) are a tool for consuming nicotine that is less harmful than if consumed via the combustion of tobacco. Coffee is brewed for caffeine. Vaping atomizes e-liquid for nicotine. Both caffeine and nicotine would [be harmful] if burned.”
An FDA-funded study falsely claims that e-cigarette use negatively impacts health and increases utilization and cost.
By VV staff
Misinformation is incorrect or misleading information. It is different from disinformation, which is deliberately deceptive. Both are rampant in the vaping industry; however, it is difficult to distinguish between them.
Complicating the issue, it’s impossible to tell if researchers of disproven or flawed anti-vaping studies conducted defective studies intentionally or if they were just bad at their jobs. Many vapor industry advocates claim researchers are intentionally coming to conclusions that fit the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s “supposed goal” of eventually banning all nicotine products, especially when the studies are being funded by the FDA.
In one recent study, researchers found that the use of electronic cigarettes costs the United States $15 billion annually in healthcare expenditures—more than $2,000 per person a year. The study, published on May 23 in Tobacco Control, is the first to look at the healthcare costs of e-cigarette use among adults aged 18 and older, according to researchers at the University of California San Francisco School of Nursing.
“Our finding indicates that healthcare expenditures for a person who uses e-cigarettes are $2,024 more per year than for a person who doesn’t use any tobacco products,” said lead author Yingning Wang of the University of California San Francisco Institute for Health and Aging.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, combustible cigarette smoking-related illness in the United States costs more than $300 billion each year, including more than $225 billion for direct medical care for adults. With an estimated 30 million smokers, that is $10,000 a year more than for a person a who doesn’t use tobacco products.
The researchers based their estimates of healthcare costs and utilization on data from the 2015–2018 National Health Interview Survey. Healthcare utilization included nights in the hospital, emergency room visits, doctor visits and home visits. “Healthcare costs attributable to e-cigarette use are already greater than our estimates of healthcare costs attributable to cigar and smokeless tobacco use,” said Wang. “This is a concerning finding given that e-cigarettes are a relatively new product whose impact is likely to increase over time.”
The results of the study appear to be based on two key assumptions, according to Jamie Brown, professor of behavioral science and health and director of the Tobacco and Alcohol Research Group at University College London.
“First, that the identified associations between e-cigarette use and poor health status are caused by e-cigarettes. The majority of people who use e-cigarettes are also former or current cigarette smokers. Despite the attempts at adjustment, it is likely that at least some of the association is actually caused by cigarettes,” said Brown. “The second assumption appears to be that the alternative is simply that these people would not be using e-cigarettes. However, we know that e-cigarettes help people to quit smoking cigarettes and that cigarette smoking causes enormous healthcare expenditure. Therefore, the key question is: What is the net impact on healthcare utilization when trying to account for how e-cigarettes affect how many people smoke cigarettes? These types of models have tended to suggest net benefits are likely.”
Credit: Adrian_ilie825
Peter Hajek, director of the Tobacco Dependence Research Unit at Queen Mary University of London, called the study a “baffling” piece of work. “The authors report that people who use e-cigarettes have poorer health and incur higher health costs than nonsmokers, but it is not clear why they assume that the excess health expenditure incurred by smokers who are trying to limit their smoking by using e-cigarettes—often because of acute health problems—is caused by their recent vaping rather than by their lifetime smoking,” said Hajek. “This is like claiming that the extra health expenditure incurred by people with broken legs is caused by using crutches.”
Researchers for the study sought to put a price tag on the health costs of e-cigarette use, certainly a reasonable component in the policy trade-offs over the use of e-cigarettes, according to Chuck Dinerstein, director of medicine at the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), who has over 25 years of experience as a vascular surgeon.
He stated that in order to get their data, researchers developed a model using the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), a household survey of the general population in the U.S. that includes detailed questions on health and use of tobacco products. “The researchers point to a study using NHIS data that per smoker—meaning combustible—attributable healthcare expenditures are $5,602,” explained Dinerstein. “The finding of this study, for both those exclusively using e-cigarettes and the dual users, is roughly a third as much. E-cigarettes reduce healthcare utilization and costs.
“The researchers point out that exclusive e-cigarette users had ‘higher odds of reporting poor health status than never tobacco users.’ That would be no surprise; no one is claiming e-cigarettes do no harm; they are less harmful than the alternative. Just like the prescription of buprenorphine is less harmful than the free-market acquisition of fentanyl … E-cigarettes have been marketed for 15 years and have been the tobacco product of choice for young adults for eight years. I find the assumption that e-cigarettes alone have manifested increased health costs at this point debatable.”
Cameron English, director of bio-sciences at ACSH, believes that the study had several critical flaws, with the most serious being the assumption that e-cigarette use would negatively impact an individual’s health and that this negative impact would increase utilization and cost. “The authors assumed what they should have demonstrated,” stated English. “That’s especially troublesome because existing evidence suggests that vaping is far less harmful than smoking. Instead of boosting healthcare expenditures, e-cigarette use probably reduces the amount of money spent to treat sick smokers. In sum, the Tobacco Control paper is terrible.”
While the research itself is scientifically suspect, two other troubling details should also be highlighted, according to English. “First, FDA paid for this low-quality study—then publicly denied any involvement until the paper was published. Second, the agency’s actions appear to reflect a broader effort to shape the peer-reviewed vaping literature then use it to justify excessive e-cigarette regulations.”
It should also be noted that while the FDA’s primary concern is saving youth from the dangers of vaping, researchers in the FDA-funded study’s opening cite concerns about the increased use of e-cigarettes by youth, especially those aged 15 to 24. “The Truth Initiative, an anti-smoking group funded by money from the Tobacco Settlement, reports that those [aged] 15 to 17 are ‘16 times more likely to vape than people aged 25 to 34,’” explains English. “Among the limitations of the study, the researchers indicate that the young, those we should be most concerned about, were not included in the study. ‘We did not include youth in the analysis due to their low healthcare utilization,’ [the researchers said].”
EVALI caused chaos
Whether it’s misinformation or disinformation, it’s costing lives. It’s keeping combustible cigarette smokers from switching to less harmful products. Another recent study led by researchers at the American Cancer Society shows that perceptions of e-cigarettes as being “more harmful” than cigarettes by adults in the United States more than doubled between 2019 and 2020, and perceptions of e-cigarettes as “less harmful” declined between 2018 and 2020.
Credit: andriano_cz.
The study also found that an increase in cigarette smoking prevalence (2019–2020) was restricted to those who perceived e-cigarettes as “more harmful” than cigarettes while increases in prevalence of e-cigarette use were restricted to those who perceived e-cigarettes as “less harmful” than cigarettes, according to a press release.
Prevalence of dual use of both products increased only among those who perceived these products “as harmful.” The results coincide with the e-cigarette or vaping use-associated lung injury outbreak (EVALI) and the Covid-19 pandemic. The data was published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
“While all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, pose a risk to the health of the user, major health events, such as the EVALI epidemic in late 2019 and the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, paved the way to new smoking/e-cigarette health risks,” the release states. “During this time, the quality and type of information individuals were exposed to may have shaped how they compare the potential harms of tobacco products, which, in turn, may have altered tobacco use behaviors.”
How individuals perceive the harm of e-cigarettes versus traditional cigarettes can predict their individual decision to use tobacco products, but according to the study authors, this is the first study to provide evidence that this relationship translates to population-based prevalence changes.
“While this study showed sharp changes in public perceptions of e-cigarette versus cigarette harms during EVALI and Covid-19, the more relevant finding for public health is that increases in cigarette smoking and e-cigarette use prevalence occurred primarily in individuals who perceived their preferred product as relatively less harmful,” said Priti Bandi, principal scientist of risk factors and screening surveillance research at the American Cancer Society and lead author of the study. “This suggests that public perceptions of e-cigarette versus cigarette harms influence population tobacco use patterns.”
In this study, researchers analyzed data from the National Cancer Institute-sponsored Health Information National Trends Survey collected from more than 10,000 U.S. adults from 2018 to 2020. The results showed that perceptions of e-cigarettes as “more harmful” than cigarettes doubled each year, increasing most between 2019 and 2020 (2018: 6.8 percent; 2019: 12.8 percent; 2020: 28.3 percent) while uncertainty (responses of “don’t know”) in relative harm declined (2018: 38.2 percent; 2019: 34.2 percent; 2020: 24.7 percent).
“Less harmful” relative perceptions declined (2018: 17.6 percent; 2019: 15.3 percent; 2020: 11.4 percent) while “as harmful” perceptions remained steady (2018: 37.4 percent; 2019: 37.7 percent; 2020: 35.6 percent). Exclusive cigarette smoking increased between 2019 and 2020 among those who perceived e-cigarettes as relatively “more harmful”(2018: 18.5 percent; 2019: 8.4 percent; 2020: 16.3 percent), exclusive e-cigarette use increased linearly among those who perceived them as relatively “less harmful” (2018: 7.9 percent; 2019: 15.3 percent; 2020: 26.7 percent), and dual use increased linearly in those who perceived them “as harmful”(2018: 0.1 percent; 2019: 1.4 percent; 2020: 2.9 percent).
“It is challenging for individuals to make conclusions about the short[-term] and long-term health effects of tobacco products without clear, effective and ongoing communication from public health authorities, especially when new contextual events that change health harms happen,” said Bandi in a statement. “There is a need for behavioral interventions to encourage individuals to be informed consumers of available scientific findings and appreciate that while no tobacco product is safe, there are inherent differences between relative and absolute harms between tobacco products that can influence behavior. In turn, public health education campaigns must facilitate informed decision-making by translating emerging scientific evidence accurately to appropriate audiences.”
Many people also mistakenly believe that the most dangerous thing about smoking is nicotine. Many falsely believe that nicotine causes cancer. “When people who smoke perceive nicotine-replacement therapy or nicotine vapor products to be as harmful or more harmful than smoking, they are less likely to use less harmful products when attempting to quit smoking,” says Kim Murray, a research fellow with the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.
Murray believes that the widespread misperception about nicotine is due to misinformation. The misinformation is rampant in media and government messaging. This can have damaging impacts on public health.
Credit: Wachiwit
“Unfortunately, the number of people believing the misinformation about nicotine vapor products is rising,” she wrote in an opinion piece. “One of the biggest sources of misinformation is fake news shared on social media. There is a real need for informative and accurate information about smoking and nicotine, but most people don’t know where to find the information,” states Murray. “A logical resource should be their healthcare provider. However, most of the time, that would be the wrong choice because 60 percent of nurses incorrectly perceive nicotine as carcinogenic, and 72 percent believe that nicotine patches could cause heart attacks.”
In April, researchers concluded that more than 60 percent of all doctors incorrectly believe all tobacco products are equally harmful, making them less likely to recommend e-cigarettes for people trying to quit smoking, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.
The authors of the study, led by Rutgers University, asked more than 2,000 doctors in the U.S. in 2018 and 2019 how they would advise patients on using e-cigarettes as a method of combustible smoking cessation. One in four physicians discouraged all use of e-cigarettes and were more likely to advise against e-cigarettes if the hypothetical smoker they were counseling were a younger, light smoker compared to an older, heavy smoker.
Although no associations were found between harm reduction beliefs and being asked about e-cigarettes by patients, the association between physicians’ harm reduction beliefs and their e-cigarette recommendation practices was significant.
“It will take a lot to change minds and dispel the now entrenched, and largely mistaken, mistrust of nicotine. As in many areas of public life, urban myths and half-truths, which are ingrained over time, are often easier to believe than the truth for many in society. It is difficult to persuade people that the beliefs that they hold are wrong,” states Murray. “Consumers deserve accurate information to enable them to make informed choices. The country won’t achieve health equity and social justice if we continue to misinform those who choose to use nicotine in a safe manner.”
This article first appeared in Vapor Voice 3, 2022.
In the recent past, three stories have come to my notice that have recorded how vaping products have been seized by various authorities: in Hong Kong, where such products are banned; in Australia, where they are prescription devices; and in the U.K., where they are freely available. In Western Australia (WA), the ABC reported, WA Health recently seized 950 e-cigarettes, bringing the total seized for three years to about 16,000 “nicotine vaping products.”
In Hong Kong, the HKFP reported, about 360,000 products had been seized since the implementation on April 30 of a ban on alternative smoking products including e-cigarettes. And in the City of Westminster (population an estimated 250,000), the U.K. Vaping Industry Association (UKVIA) reported, 4,500 disposable vapes were seized because they did not conform to local standards along with 420 counterfeit vapes and 2,366 snus products “with no English labeling.”
The three stories were different, but they had one thing in common: None of them indicated what became, or what was to become, of the seized products, and I find this extraordinary and worrying, especially given that the three stories cited are probably the tip of the worldwide seizure iceberg.
We are deeply into a global existential crisis caused by, among other things, climate change and pollution, so you might imagine that the first questions to come up would concern, among others, the carbon footprint of the manufacturing processes that produced the seized products, and how we can prevent these products, which will include batteries, from ending up in landfills.
It would be hugely damaging if the products seized in the U.K. were just disposed of, even if they were recycled, but in Australia and Hong Kong, where, respectively, a ridiculous restriction and a ludicrous ban are in operation, disposal would simply heap one act of stupidity on top of another.
If no such mechanism exists already, a way should be found to allow seized products to be diverted from markets where, for one reason or another, they have arrived but are unacceptable to other markets where they are acceptable. This, admittedly, would prove difficult, though not impossible, where counterfeit products were concerned, but otherwise should not be beyond the wit of those skilled in marketing and distribution.
For instance, products seized in Hong Kong could be sent to countries that don’t ban them and where they comply with domestic standards, keeping the carbon footprint of the shipping as low as possible and selling them at the cost of the shipping to local suppliers to compensate for any market displacements.
Credit: Earnest Tse
A similar scheme could be applied to the disposal of vapes seized in the U.K., which apparently had “excessive levels of nicotine.” They could be shipped to someplace where such restrictions are not in place, once again keeping the carbon footprint of the shipping as low as possible and selling the products at the cost of shipping to local suppliers to compensate for any market displacements. Otherwise, in this case, simply change the rules.
As far as I am aware, nicotine-level restrictions are usually based on arbitrary figures devised by bureaucrats who have never smoked or vaped and whose scientific advisers probably couldn’t justify such restrictions on a rational basis. I think I am right in saying that the EU imposes delivery limits on traditional cigarettes while, at the same time, denying that there are any health benefits in doing so. In fact, probably the only significant effect of imposing such delivery limits is to make it easier for young people to start smoking.
In the past, policies based on irrational ideas were frustrating; now, faced with a mounting existential crisis, we simply cannot afford to allow rank stupidity to prevail because, applied on a wider basis, as they are, such policies are driving the planet further and further down the tubes.
In my view, it is time to face the facts, but I’m not sure that everyone agrees. As part of the UKVIA story, Raj Mistry, executive director of environment and city management at Westminster City Council, was quoted as saying the raid that uncovered the illicit goods showed the local authority’s commitment to keeping Westminster clean and safe.
“We are putting these questionable traders on notice that they will not be tolerated in our city,” he said in part. “We’ll continue to take action against such unsafe trading activities in order to keep our residents and visitors safe.”
This emphasis on clean and safe makes nice newspaper copy, but it is a bit misleading. As far as I can see, none of the seized vaping products could be seen as being unclean, whatever that might mean, and there was no suggestion that either the off-standard or counterfeit products were unsafe, though that couldn’t be ruled out in the case of the latter.
Credit: Adobe Stock
On the other hand, London, of which the City of Westminster is a part, is certainly not clean or safe because air pollution throughout the capital is a huge public health issue, causing the premature deaths of thousands of people each year.
In fairness, I should point out that Mistry’s comments would have concerned all of the illicit products discovered in the raid that uncovered the tobacco and nicotine products, which included, as well as the tobacco and nicotine products already mentioned, counterfeit mobile phone covers, counterfeit Apple AirPods, counterfeit Sony PS4 consoles, USB chargers with no safety labeling and unlabeled packs of shisha tobacco. Even so, the potential safety problems raised by all of these products would be infinitesimal compared with those associated with pollution, which is where I would concentrate my efforts if I really wanted to keep things clean and safe.
I wrote the above just ahead of the arrival on May 31 of the World Health Organization’s World No Tobacco Day (WNTD). Normally, I pay no attention to this annual event, which I have always assumed is observed only by those who have no positive interaction with tobacco during the rest of the year as well. But this year, something has changed.
This year, it seems to have come to the WHO’s attention that it is supposed to be a body concerned with health issues that cannot, like smoking, be dealt with at a national level— issues, such as those to do with pandemics, that don’t observe borders. So, this year, the theme of its WNTD is “Tobacco: Threat to our environment.”
To my way of thinking, this represents a smart move and a good move. It is a good move, I believe, because it pushes at the door of reality. It doesn’t say so, but it offers the slightest of hints that the biggest threat to the health of the world isn’t tobacco or smoking but environmental collapse. At the same time, it is a smart move from the point of view of those implacably opposed to tobacco because it helps to underline the growing alignment between health and environmental activists.
The tobacco and nicotine industry needs to be aware of this alignment and to take action wherever it can to ameliorate the negative effects it is having on the environment, and, wherever possible, to publicize what it is doing. It needs to do this because of the historical problems it has created through its lack of significant action in respect of such issues as deforestation and the careless disposal of cigarette butts and in respect of the more contemporary problems associated with e-cigarettes and some other lower risk products. And there should be no greenwashing. The industry should address these matters because it is the right thing to do, and it possibly needs to address them if it wants to keep on operating.
Credit: Kulichok
Ahead of WNTD, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) in the U.S. issued a report titled “Tobacco and the environment: Case studies on policies to protect our environment and our health from tobacco.” As the title suggests, the report looks at how, in ASH’s view, the tobacco industry passes to society in general the health and environmental costs it creates. And it talks up possible remedies, such as that based on the “polluter pays” principle and the application of extended producer responsibility, and even the shuttering of the industry through policies such as those concerned with what is known as the tobacco endgame.
Much of the report is based on the problems caused by traditional tobacco production and consumption, but e-cigarettes are included. “From mining to manufacturing, using and disposing, each stage of the e-cigarette product lifecycle presents novel environmental harms compared with traditional cigarettes,” the report says in part, quoting the American Public Health Association. “Tobacco companies already recognize that e-cigarettes pose new environmental burdens, necessitating them to manage new areas of impact due to the increasing use of electronics and batteries in [their] products.”
I don’t agree with all aspects of the report, but it is impossible, in my view, to disagree with the underlying message that the industry has a duty to act decisively to greatly reduce the impact it has on the environment—a duty that, as far as I can see, supersedes any other duty that it might have.
But let’s return to the Australia story and what might turn out to be a more positive outcome than is suggested by the seizures in WA. The story gets off to a depressing start with a WA Health spokesperson, Michael Lindsay, saying e-cigarettes are a major concern for health officials.
“It’s very uncontrolled; the sorts of things that have been found in e-cigarettes include heavy metals and volatile organic compounds,” he was quoted as saying. “Several of these chemicals are known to cause damage to human cells and DNA and cause cancer. These are not chemicals that people should be breathing in or inhaling, and it’s really important that they are removed from the marketplace to protect public health.”
Readers of this magazine will not be surprised that Lindsay did not mention that e-cigarettes were used largely by people as a low-risk substitute for high-risk traditional cigarettes or that he made no mention of pollution. But there is hope because a recent federal election in Australia saw a change of government. “Unfortunately, the outgoing Health Minister Greg Hunt was a fierce opponent of vaping, and let’s hope future health ministers are much more sensible and rational,” said a director of the Australian Tobacco Harm Reduction Association, Alex Wodak.
Earlier in the piece, Wodak was quoted as saying that in Australia, e-cigarettes were disproportionately regulated compared to traditional cigarettes. “We know that the overwhelming majority of people who vape in Australia are current smokers or, even more so, former smokers, and they’re doing it to reduce the harm from smoking,” he said.
“We’re trying to enforce laws which are really stupid.”
Amen to that.
This article first appeared in Vapor Voice 3, 2022.
Malaysia’s Cabinet has approved the Tobacco and Smoking Control Bill, reports The Star.
“I will be sending [the Bill] to Parliament for this session,” Health Minister Khairy Jamaluddin told reporters during the presentation of a new drug perception study report on July 14.
Among other provisions, the bill calls for a ban on sales of cigarettes, tobacco and vapor products to those born after 2005.
The proposed law is modeled on legislation in New Zealand, which in December 2021 revealed a plan to phase out smoking by gradually raising the smoking age until it covers the entire population.
Presently, some 40.5 percent of men and 20 percent of women smoke in Malaysia.
Disposables took center stage during the second annual vapor trade show in the Middle East.
VV Staff Report
It was a big show. Held June 16–18, 2022, at the Dubai World Trade Centre, the World Vape Show (WVS) Dubai 2022 brought together more than 250 exhibitors representing some of the leading suppliers and manufacturers in the vaping industry, showcasing thousands of global brands in the fast-growing Middle East market. Combined, exhibitors and visitors represented approximately 66 countries, according to WVS staff.
Numerous exhibitors said that sales exceeded expectations. Dimitrius Agrafiotis, executive director of the Tennessee Smoke Free Association and the owner of several vape shops in Greece, was at the show representing Innokin, a China-based hardware manufacturer. He told Vapor Voice that the Innokin show stand seemed to stay full of prospective buyers and that new products, like the company’s disposable Lola, a water-based vaping product (see “Trouble the Water,” page 24), were selling very well. The company’s Klypse system also won an award for the best new pod system.
“We haven’t had much time to stand around,” he said. “The Aquios system vapes are doing well and our new Klypse system is really turning heads. [The show] is definitely a lot bigger than last year in both terms of exhibitors and visitors.”
Phil Bruno, international sales manager for California-based Streamline Group, the manufacturer of the Juice Head brand, agreed that the show was a major success. “We are so thrilled to have exhibited at the World Vape Show in Dubai. The experience was outstanding, and we were able to connect with many potential customers,” said Bruno in an email. “It was an absolute pleasure meeting everyone and representing Juice Head in Dubai. We look forward to future events in the Middle East and other countries as well.”
By far the most popular products being hawked by vendors at WVS Dubai were disposables. During a seminar session on the impact of disposable products, Omar Fdawi, owner of Xtra Disposable Vape, said that disposals are great for a customer who’s looking to quit smoking because the transition from smoking is comparatively easy. However, he also noted that the long-term effects of disposables and their environmental impact should be considered.
“As a gateway, in order to quit smoking, it’s a fantastic method,” he said. Disposables have a shallower learning curve than larger, more complex devices. In an ideal situation, however, consumers would then quickly move on to nondisposable devices, such as closed pod systems, with a lower environmental footprint, according to Fdawi.
Todd Jiang, sales director for international business at Zinwi Biotech, a China-based e-liquid manufacturer, said the WVS Dubai brought a variety of visitors, and many were searching only for disposable products. He expects regulators to put into place rules for disposable products soon.
“For instance, the U.K.; I guess the regulators already put this through and they want to establish some new rules or standard regulations for disposable products,” he explained. “It will happen in maybe one or two years, even quicker. But [in Dubai], I think it depends on how this market will grow and how the regulators will step into this industry. The environmental impact of disposables is a serious concern.”
Coco Li, founder of Elf Bar, one of the largest disposable product manufacturers, said that her company, too, is really concerned about the environmental issues surrounding disposables. “We’re going to have a recycle plan in the U.K. maybe from the beginning of July,” she said. “We are going to have this marketing campaign in the U.K. and also in Russia, Malaysia [and other countries] where we will have recycling bins. There is another way too. We can find results from technical ways. Our research team and the technical team are doing a lot of research into finding different ways to solve this problem.”
In addition to worrying about the environmental impact of disposable products, many show attendees said they were concerned about the growing youth use of disposable products. Atif Amin, marketing manager for the My Vapery chain of vape shops, said his company has been training and educating its staff on the strict rules designed to prevent underage vaping.
“If you suspect that the individual that’s coming to purchase is underage, ensure that you check the required identification,” he said. “Beyond that, as a retailer, it’s pretty much as much [as] we can do. If someone else is purchasing the product on behalf of a minor … that’s out of our hands. We do our due diligence and do our best and train our staff to ensure that they’re following all the regulations. And if they’re seen not to be following the regulations, we obviously have to monitor that and deal with that situation accordingly.”
In the end, most manufacturers at WVS Dubai said it all comes down to the design of the product itself. John Dunne, director general of the U.K. Vaping Industry Association (UKVIA) who moderated the disposables seminar, said that using technology like biometrics could help curb youth use, and technology could also help find a solution to the environmental impact of disposables.
Dunne stressed the importance of involving all manufacturers in the discussion on how to dispose of products. The UKVIA, he said, had been talking to Elf Bar and other manufacturers about the possibility of dismantling products at the end of their lifecycle and shipping them back to China for reuse in new vaping products.
“We need to be looking at all of these different options and how we can, as an industry, work together to do it,” said Dunne. “Because it can’t be done by a single retailer. It can’t be done by a single brand on their own. Because even if you have a national recycling program, who’s going to pay for that? Is it the government? Probably not. If it’s the manufacturers? Well, how do you proportion that? Some manufacturers are very big. Some manufacturers are very small. These are all of the challenges that we’ve faced in the U.K. when we’ve looked at the problem. And I’m sure the UAE is no different. But I think what’s important is [that] we have to start talking about it. Because if we don’t, the regulators certainly will.”
The next WVS event will be held in the U.K. at the ExCeL exhibition center in London from Dec. 1–2, 2022.
This article first appeared in Vapor Voice 3, 2022.
Aquios Labs introduces the industry’s first e-liquids with a water concentration of more than 3 percent.
By Timothy S. Donahue
Jack Sanders has been in the vapor industry for only six years. He has been in China for the last nine years, and for the last year, he’s been researching a revolutionary idea. When the pandemic forced him to stay in Shenzhen, the capital of e-cigarette production that accounts for about 90 percent of the global vaping market’s manufacturing output, it turned out to be a life-changing happenstance. The situation gave Sanders the motivation he needed to potentially disrupt an already disruptive industry.
The vaping industry has always embraced innovation. From its beginning, it set out to take customers away from the combustible cigarette sector by offering less risky alternatives for consuming nicotine. Except for maybe synthetic nicotine and nicotine salts, the major innovations in e-cigarettes have been in hardware. Now, Sanders and his new company are introducing a new e-liquid system that its founder says is going to transform the industry.
It all started with a conversation, almost a joke, among close friends that set Sanders on a journey to take water-based vaping seriously. “We can do this,” he said at the time. Aquios Labs in April launched its new AQ30 disposable vaping system in the United Kingdom. The water-based e-liquids could be troubling for the competition. Sanders, co-founder and CEO of Aquios Labs, says the first generation of this new technology, which requires a specialized atomizer, can support e-liquids with up to a 30 percent water concentration. Water allows for the usage of less PG and/or VG as a base for the nicotine and flavoring.
“We noticed that there was really nothing new in terms of e-liquids and technology breakthroughs. There’s not been much in terms of e-liquid innovation since nicotine salts came out, so we thought we’d give this idea we had a go,” explains Sanders. “The technology just basically evolved through numerous tests and numerous hours spent in R&D. We managed to make a [coil] technology that matched the liquid with a higher water content. It was never just the e-liquid itself that we were developing.”
Sanders and his team began to delve deeper into research on water-based liquids, and they found that no one had gotten above 3 percent. As the team got closer to its objectives, through researching and testing, they began to discover that water-based e-liquids brought ancillary benefits as well. Nicotine, for example, can be delivered into the body faster with the addition of water into the liquid. The system can also be used with nicotine salts and synthetic nicotine.
“You can reduce the temperature of the boiling point. So, PG and VG, their boiling point is about 188 degrees Celsius [370 degrees Fahrenheit] and 290 degrees Celsius [540 degrees Fahrenheit], respectively,” explains Sanders. “So obviously, being able to bring the temperatures down makes the liquid’s chemical stability better. Lower temps also enhance flavor profiles in the e-liquids.”
Aquios Labs is positioning itself as a technology company rather than a consumer-facing brand, hoping to integrate water-based vaping into existing product portfolios. The first generation of its technology, dubbed AQ30, can support up to 30 percent water content using a combination of specially formulated e-liquid and hardware design. The first commercially available water-based vaping devices came to market in mid-May. Aquios says it is already developing the capability to support even higher levels of water content.
“We’re aiming to get the majority of the liquid to be water. It’s in the R&D process. I can’t put out a date on when that would be released, but it’s definitely in the process, and we are more than capable of reaching these points,” explains Sanders. “Currently, the [Aquios] technology is only available in disposable devices because it’s the most stable. But we are working on refillable tanks and to be able to sell separate juices and separate coils for refillable or open systems.”
Sanders says it’s all very intricate research. One change in the water content and the coil technology needs to change as well. “The technology and the core elements of the devices that we’re producing, they have to be matched. It must be the AQ30 liquids matched with the AQ30 coil. Any kind of deviation, like any less water, we need to change the tech. Any more water, we need to change the tech,” says Sanders.
The tricky part of the equation in water-based vaping has always been getting enough vapor production because the addition of water reduces vapor production significantly. It is also challenging to ensure the liquid has the proper flavor and doesn’t leak or create dry hits. Everything has to be just right. Sanders says that it entailed a lot of R&D, but with the help of Innokin’s engineers, the problem was solved. However, he can’t give that secret away yet. How the nicotine remains soluble in water is proprietary.
Sanders says that several devices have been stored for months, and there has been no detectable drop in performance. He just can’t discuss the technology behind the Aquios system because the products are just starting to enter the global market, and no secret is safe in the competitive vaping industry.
“I just can’t talk about it,” Sanders says. “How the technology must change for varying amounts of water … the technology changes. How that works exactly, I just can’t say. This is as far as I can delve into this right now. I don’t expect it will be long, however, before someone tries to figure out exactly what we are doing. And if they do that, then fantastic. It means that I know that there’s a lot of interest in the product. But we’re working on the next stage of development already, so it would just become a game of catch-up for other companies. We also have the best manufacturing partner that is highly skilled.”
What sets Aquios Labs apart from other device manufacturers, beyond its high amount of water usage in its liquids, is the dedication and expertise of the company’s manufacturing partner, China-based hardware manufacturer Innokin, says Sanders. Innokin has been in the vaping industry for more than a decade and has a market presence in more than 80 countries. Innokin’s long history includes pioneering variable wattage capability and, more recently, the success of its Zenith tank, which has won numerous awards for being one of the best mouth-to-lung tanks on the market due to its exceptional flavor delivery.
“We utilized Innokin’s innovation expertise on our hardware. Without the partnership, we would not be able to release a water-based disposable right now,” Sanders says. “Hardware innovation is not as simple as it looks. We needed to balance power, airflow, wicking, the heating element, internal structure, etc. If someone opens it and sees what we are doing, that’s not enough for reverse-engineering. Just think about Zenith tanks; any factory can get the samples, but no one had made something on the same level yet.”
Several brands are already using the Aquios system. In the U.S., it’s used in Esco Bars. Additionally, Innokin says that it was “already placing a significant bet” on the future of water-based vaping. The company went beyond just manufacturing the hardware and also partnered with Aquios in launching Innokin’s own lineup of vaporizers using the Aquios system in April under the Lota brand.
“Innokin has always believed that new technology has the power to eliminate the need for combustible tobacco. When we were introduced to Aquios, our product development team was immediately sold on the unique advantages of water-based vaping,” George Xia, a co-founder of Innokin, said. “Water-based technology and e-liquids result in a vaping experience that no other device can replicate, with no leakage, enhanced flavor clarity and faster nicotine satisfaction.”
Lota’s initial launch included a portfolio of three water-based devices, each with their own position for specific global markets and consumer needs. The Lota Enviro is a disposable device with a clear mission to reduce the carbon footprint of typical disposable vapes. Enviro achieves this with a unique paper shell design using recyclable materials and user-recyclable components. After the Enviro has been fully depleted, the device can be disassembled by the end user, and every component aside from the e-liquid reservoir can be fully recycled. The Enviro launched with 10 flavors and provides a 600-puff lifespan with 2 mL e-liquid capacity for TPD-regulated markets.
The Lota F600 is the brand’s flagship disposable vaporizer, which is also targeted toward TPD markets. The F600 features a 600-puff lifespan and delivers a constant 3.6 V output, which means consistent performance from the first puff to the last, according to Innokin.
The third product in the launch is the Lota Prefilled Pod. The Lota Prefilled Pod Kit integrates revolutionary Aquios water-based vaping technology into a closed pod system with a rechargeable battery. Each 2 mL pod is designed to last for 600 puffs, and the battery provides constant 3.6 V output for a consistent vaping experience throughout each charge cycle.
The Aquios devices are also more environmentally friendly than most current vaping products. Sanders says that the disposable products that use the Aquios system can be easily broken down by the consumer and recycled through traditional means. “The outer shell, which makes up most of the device, is made from reinforced cardboard. This can be recycled in any standard recycling bin,” he says. “The lithium-ion battery has been designed to easily detach from the atomizer and can be recycled at any battery disposal point.”
Aquios products have been well received by consumers. Sanders says reviews online have shown that people were skeptical at first because the technology is new. However, after vaping Aquios and comparing it to their old device, consumers realize there is a big difference between the two systems.
“The Aquios vape is a lot smoother. Lowering the PG and VG allows for a lot of advantages, especially in reducing irritation. I know that I’m personally a little bit allergic to PG, so any high-PG ratio liquids for me are not good. It just doesn’t agree with me,” he explains. “Also, with the reduction of the VG, liquids aren’t oversweetened by the VG. The flavoring is amplified. By reducing the amount of VG, you get a much cleaner, natural taste as well.”
Moving forward, Sanders says he hopes Aquios can collaborate with multiple different companies in producing a range of coils for multiple different tanks. Those coils would be paired with Aquios liquids with varying water amounts, such as 30 percent, 40 percent or even as high as 50 percent water. Currently, the company is based in the U.K. and is developing its European market. It’s a natural place to start because it’s the largest market that has fully embraced vaping as a harm reduction tool. Aquios has its sights set on the global market, however.
“Moving into additional markets is something that I do think is in the pipeline right now,” says Sanders. “We’re focusing on getting through the intial launch, but there are numerous markets we are looking at in terms of growth and opportunity. The general feeling of this liquid and the tech behind it is that together the system produces a much smoother and more pleasurable vape. I think it’s a product that can be successful in every market.”
“That’s the end result,” he says. “You don’t have as much of the dry mouth. You don’t have as much irritation in your throat from continuous vaping or higher nicotine levels. It’s going to be something cool. And I think it’s going to be something that—once it has a larger market presence and more people have the opportunity to test it out—consumers are going to realize that it’s something worth having. This is the product they will want to vape. It’s a game changer.”
If NJOY does not receive a high enough valuation, the company could raise money and stay private, potentially paving the way for a future initial public offering, the Wall Street Journal said.
