Tag: flavor ban

  • Vaping in Ireland

    Vaping in Ireland

    Vaping is beginning to take hold in Ireland’s smaller cities, but combustibles are still king in Dublin.

    By Timothy S. Donahue

    Going on a trip to Ireland, I had expectations. I thought the vaping community would be small and just learning about new products coming to market. No. That wasn’t how it was at all. In Ireland, and I imagine it’s the exact same thing one could witness across the entire European Union, people understand that vaping is better than smoking combustibles. Many former cigarette smokers, an estimated 200,000, have already made the switch.

    According to a 2021 survey from Eurobarometer, Ireland has the highest rate of people who use e-cigarettes in the European Union at, 7 percent, while the EU average is 2 percent. There seemed to be a lot of vapers across Ireland. Media reports suggest that Ireland has a youth vaping problem. When a vape shop owner in Dublin was asked about this, he said that the people who vape are mostly former smokers, but there are youth who would have started smoking combustible cigarettes that instead started vaping.

    This was evident in Killarney, a town of 15,000 in southwest Ireland. It also has about 1.7 million tourists per year. College kids were vaping here. They were also smoking combustible marijuana. They were also drinking at noon on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and so on. It’s Ireland. Drinking is sort of a thing. I asked a few students if they would be smoking combustible cigarettes if vaping didn’t exist. The answer was an overwhelming yes. It’s university; nicotine use is a thing too. Just two years ago, everyone smoked combustibles. 

    Not anymore. Vaping is the way today. Many said they even have their parents, who were two-pack-a-day to three-pack-a-day smokers, vaping now. The older folks like the simplicity of the pods. The younger group likes the flavor varieties in disposables. Walking the streets of downtown, you could witness vapers from a variety of age groups and economic backgrounds. Flavors are also extremely popular.

    “The older folks want the tobacco taste first,” a college student said. “Now, they vape a while, and they don’t want that taste; my mom loves the watermelon now. She’s stopped smoking cigarettes completely and now just vapes. She used to smoke two packs a day.” Watermelon is the favorite flavor in Ireland, followed by Blue Ice, a straw poll of shops in Killarney and Dublin has confirmed.

    Ireland had no age restrictions on the purchase of vaping products until recently. In November of 2022, the country’s minister for health, Stephen Donnelly, and the minister for public health, Frank Feighan, received government approval to introduce additional restrictions on the sale and advertising of nicotine inhaling products, such as e-cigarettes.

    Under the new proposals, the sale of e-cigarettes and related vaping products became prohibited from self-service vending machines, from temporary or mobile premises and at places or events for children. In addition, advertisements for e-cigarettes are now prohibited on public transport, in cinemas and near schools.

    At the time the proposal was announced, Feighan said the legislation was necessary because tobacco smoking continues to kill approximately 4,500 people in the island country each year. “We recognize that nicotine inhaling products are used by some adult smokers to assist them to quit tobacco smoking,” he said. “However, we are clear that these products are of no benefit to our children and young people or to nonsmokers, and that is why we are taking this action.”

    All Irish and EU vaping devices and e-liquids are regulated by the Tobacco Products Directive 2. The Tobacco Products Directive regulates nicotine strengths, bottle sizes and ensures that communications about products are factual and clear. The ingredients that make up all Irish regulated vaping products must be provided to the Health Service Executive, with detailed information, including chemical studies and risk assessments.

    These regulations act as an important barrier to any products that do not adhere to EU standards entering the Irish market and can be contrasted sharply with the absence of similar regulations in the U.S. and elsewhere, according to Vape Business Ireland (VBI), the largest vapor industry trade association in Ireland.

    Credit: TS Donahue

    VBI is advocating the Irish government to consider more evidence-based policymaking decisions, which in turn will allow for more evidence-based regulation of vaping products in Ireland. The trade group wants the government to “deliver effective, evidence-based and balanced regulation of vaping products,” according to its leadership.

    There were at least four vape shops in Killarney. None of the owners would speak to me on the record because they said they aren’t “trying to call attention to themselves.” The truth is probably more along the lines of the massive distrust of the media that Ireland has. Owners probably believed I didn’t just want to know about vaping in Ireland and what types of products were popular and that I instead had more dubious plans for this article.

    One shop attendant, Karen, said that most of her customers are college-aged; however, many of them were buying combustibles from her store until vaping became more popular in the country around 2020. She thinks youth are going to experiment with things like drinking, drugs and nicotine and that if there are safer ways to consume these products, government regulations shouldn’t hinder their availability.

    According to the Global State of Tobacco Harm Reduction (GSTHR), the overall smoking prevalence in Ireland has decreased since 2006. More than 23 percent of the adult population in Ireland are current smokers, down from 29 percent in 2006. This means there are now approximately 893,778 smokers in the country. An estimated 26 percent of men still smoke combustibles, and for women, the figure is an estimated 21 percent.

    In Ireland, there are 265,500 vapers in the country, giving an adult vaping prevalence of 6.7 percent, according to the GSTHR. There is a requirement to ensure that vape packaging contains a health warning and vaping devices can be purchased without a prescription. There are no legal restrictions on their use in public places. Heated-tobacco products cannot be marketed, and the situation is “quite complicated” for snus. While it is illegal to import snus for trade or to buy the product online, it is possible to import it for personal use.

    In Dublin, it seemed that combustibles were still king. A short walk around the city, and there are cigarette smokers everywhere. There were also cigarette butts littering the streets everywhere we walked. Places like Temple Bar, an insanely popular tourist neighborhood littered with drinking establishments where few true Dubliners visit anymore, hundreds of people were smoking cigarettes and marijuana openly, and vapers could be seen mixed in the crowd but in much lower numbers.

    There are an estimated 50-plus vape shops in Dublin; however, it seemed like a lot more. Still, no vape shop owner or employee would speak with me on the record. Vaping products could also be found at many discount shops that sold everything from shampoo to clothing throughout Ireland.

    There was even a vape shop in the small fishing village of Howth, a suburb of Dublin. While we only went to see Dublin and various places around County Kerry where Killarney is situated, it wasn’t hard to find vaping products anywhere we visited. One cab driver told me that he was sure everyone in Killarney drank and used nicotine in some form or another and that vaping is definitely more popular than combustible cigarettes in the small town.

    Overall, the rising popularity of vaping in Ireland can’t be denied. The harm reduction benefits of vaping are widely known, and even many cigarette smokers told Vapor Voice they wanted to quit combustibles and have or would try vaping products to try to end their compulsion to smoke cigarettes. It’s quite the contrast to the United States, where many doctors still believe nicotine causes cancer and are skeptical of the harm reduction benefits of vaping.

  • Focus on Harm Reduction

    Focus on Harm Reduction

    Experts share their insights relating to tobacco harm reduction during the April 25 In Focus webinar

    In the run-up to the 10th Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in Panama (COP10) this November, public health professionals, industry representatives and policy experts on April 25 shared their insights into issues relating to tobacco harm reduction (THR) and sustainability as part of the GTNF’s IN FOCUS online series. Following is a summary of the presentations and panel discussions.

    Contributed

    Credit: Red Pixel
    James Murphy

    James Murphy, director of research and science at BAT, opened by saying that tobacco harm reduction is simple in concept: the switching of people who wish to use nicotine from risky forms of combustible tobacco products to lower risk tobacco and nicotine products. He noted that THR was the reason he joined the industry as a scientist almost 20 years ago, and that motivation remains today as the principal driver for coming to work each morning. His focus is making THR the centerpiece for all of BAT’s scientific research efforts.

    Murphy outlined that the challenges to THR are many, but they are outweighed by the opportunities for reducing the health impact of the industry across the globe if stakeholders get it right. He sets out four key topic areas for his remarks: 1) the benefits of THR for reducing the impact of the industry on global public health; 2) the key challenges facing THR; 3) the need for a common view on the race to zero combustion; and 4) the importance of science.

    Murphy stated that adult smokers who wish to continue to use nicotine now have access to a range of reduced-risk products that are better for them and for those around them. In countries that have embraced the concept of THR, including Sweden, the U.K., Japan and the U.S., there have been significant declines in smoking rates as smokers have migrated to noncombustible products, such as heated-tobacco products, vapor products and oral nicotine and tobacco products. Real-world evidence continues to be collected that indicates improvements in quality of life and lower instances of smoking-related morbidity when noncombustible products displace cigarettes.

    Murphy gave an overview of upcoming opportunities for THR to be discussed globally, including the U.K. government’s upcoming publication of a new tobacco control plan, the COP10 meeting in Panama, the recommendations from the Reagan-Udall Foundation’s evaluation of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Tobacco Products, and proposals in 2024 from the EU around the third Tobacco Products Directive (TPD).

    He set out four key challenges on THR: 1) objective science remaining at the core of the debate, with agreed frameworks for all stakeholders on assessing the risk profile of noncombustibles; 2) ensuring each country offers consumer access to regulated noncombustibles; 3) regulations must be enforced to prevent unregulated black market products being sold to consumers; and 4) preventing youth access to nicotine products and balancing the debate with the benefits of adult smokers switching to lower risk products.

    Murphy then turned to the importance of the race to zero combustion, setting out the relative harm reductions (90 percent to 95 percent less) from heated-tobacco, vapor and oral products as compared to combustibles. Consumers using lower risk noncombustible tobacco and nicotine products experience substantially lower levels of toxins, comparable to levels observed in those who quit using tobacco products altogether.

    He focused on the need for the industry to codify what is meant by THR: a race to zero combustion, not zero nicotine use, and reducing cigarette prevalence to below 5 percent, the accepted threshold for effectively zero in a country. He highlighted Sweden, which, through the use of snus and oral tobacco products, will achieve its smoking target 16 years ahead of the EU and has the lowest smoking-related disease outcomes anywhere in the EU.

    He then turned to the importance of world-class science in providing a robust evidence base to substantiate the role of reduced-risk products (RRPs) in global THR. Regulators need it to form the basis of regulation; politicians need it so they can cut through the rhetoric; and consumers need it so they can feel confident in switching to lower risk products. He remarked that industry science is necessary as regulators require specific data on the manufactured products, as seen in the U.S. with premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) regulations or in the EU with the TPD.

    Murphy closed by lamenting the polarization of the global debate on THR and the lack of scientific conferences where all stakeholders—industry included—can debate scientific studies and come to common conclusions on THR science to drive progress forward. His final remarks highlighted that the race to zero combustion has only really begun and that common science conclusions must form the basis of what the industry does.

    Riccardo Polosa

    Riccardo Polosa, professor of internal medicine at the University of Catania and founder of the Center of Excellence for the Acceleration of Harm Reduction, began his remarks by stating that there is no doubt that the evidence in favor of e-cigarettes being effective in terms of smoking substitution is quite strong. He highlighted the systematic reviews, randomized control trials and population studies that show evidence that e-cigarettes are important tools in helping smokers quit.

    Turning to heated-tobacco products (HTPs), Polosa explained that it is true that HTPs are similar to e-cigarettes in that they deliver nicotine in an equivalent range and mimic the ritualistic aspects of cigarettes, and both have a potential for smoking substitution. Although there is population evidence to suggest that HTPs are effective in this, to date, there have been no real randomized controlled trials that have proved these assumptions.

    He set out that researchers at the Center of Excellence for the Acceleration of Harm Reduction (CoEHAR) had designed and conducted a study to directly compare e-cigarettes with HTPs, involving the first randomized controlled trial of HTPs, in order to compare the effectiveness, tolerability and acceptability of both HTPs and refillable e-cigarettes for the purposes of cigarette substitution. The design of the study was standard: a switching trial, involving the randomization of 220 smokers not intending to quit but interested in trying new technologies and tar-free products. These 220 random subjects were split across two different products: IQOS 2.4 for HTPs and Justfog Q16 for e-cigarettes.

    Polosa highlighted that the results showed clearly that the efficacy in terms of smoking substitution for HTPs is impressive, demonstrating how HTPs can help smokers to quit, with a continuous abstinence rate of 39 percent for HTPs versus 30.8 percent for e-cigarettes. He also showed that the number of dual users reduced over time, with the number of quitters increasing over time, and commented that this is a trajectory not normally seen in conventional smoking cessation trials.

    Looking at risk perception, Polosa stated that there was no difference between the two groups: People using e-cigarettes perceive conventional tobacco as fairly high risk whereas they do not perceive their smoke-free product to be as risky as tobacco or conventional cigarettes. He also highlighted that both groups showed a clear improvement in terms of exercise tolerance over time, with results apparent even in week 4 of the trial, very early after switching.

    He concluded by answering the question of whether HTPs are successful: yes.

    Delon Human

    The next speaker, Delon Human, president of Health Diplomats, started by quoting the definition of Article 1d of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) and highlighted the phrase “harm reduction strategies” (HRS). He went on to set out that the overall goal of population health is to prevent disease and premature death, but it is important to remember that these are individuals with different needs and lifestyles. It is also important to include health professionals in any discussion on HRS to balance the needs of populations and individual health as well as the rights of individuals to access healthcare and to use nicotine products.

    He stated that he wanted to make three suggestions to accelerate THR.

    The No. 1 issue for Human is engagement. A whole-of-society and whole-of-government approach, involving multi-stakeholder action, is required, and more needs to be done with key stakeholders in the tobacco and nicotine industries, particularly regarding engagement with the WHO and governments. He continued by saying that Article 5.3 of the FCTC does not exclude engagement between industry and government; complex problems can only be solved with multi-stakeholder engagement, and engagement does not mean agreement. This engagement with industry is needed to facilitate the crucial exchange of knowledge and data.

    Turning to his second suggestion, Human made the point about the centrality of science in the debate. The “quit or die” approach is ineffective, irresponsible and disrespectful of patients and consumers. They need to hear the full story and have access to information and products that do not involve combustion, specifically reduced-risk alternatives if they cannot or will not quit.

    He highlighted that this transformation can be accelerated if global public health scientists were to embrace the opportunity to test the benefits of adult smokers switching to reduced-risk products. Human commented that, for too long, the argument has been that there is not enough evidence to validate THR in smoking cessation. HRS have been used successfully with HIV/AIDs, drug control and alcohol consumption, and they should be applied to tobacco control. He raised the speed of Covid vaccine testing, which gave a powerful validation of HRS.

    Human spoke to the opportunity presented by COP10 to prepare the ground for further research in HRS and the new evidence available from countries where governments have allowed properly regulated reduced-risk products. Where THR has been adopted, smoking rates have reduced.

    He gave examples: In Sweden, the smoking rate is the lowest in the EU at 5.6 percent whereas Germany has seen rates increase to up to 36 percent. He lamented that “smoke-free Sweden” should be a case study in successful THR, but little attention has been paid to the public health revolution there. In the U.K., the government’s “swap to stop” scheme has both incentivized and funded adult smokers to switch from combustibles to vaping, and more broadly, the country has seen a 4.3 percent decrease in smoking. In Japan, heat-not-burn (HnB) products launched in 2014 and have led to a significant decline in smoking rates: Between 2016 and 2019, the number of adult smokers fell by 10 percent. In the U.S., nicotine products go through a rigorous and scientific PMTA-testing process, which costs hundreds of millions of dollars to companies, and other countries could benefit from this knowledge to support their adult smokers to quit.

    He closed this section of his remarks by suggesting that each example merits a country case study to consider how each THR approach has reduced incidence of smoking-related diseases and premature deaths, and more engagement among the WHO, governments and the whole of industry would facilitate progress in THR.

    Lastly, Human turned to industry contributions to the debate, highlighting the critical role played by the GTNF in bringing stakeholders together. He highlighted several dimensions that merit industry having a seat at the table: 1) R&D capacity, with companies investing greatly in this, including specific knowledge on consumer behavior; 2) product innovation, with all stakeholders needing to incentivize innovation while ensuring consumer safety and high standards; and 3) responsible marketing practices, with the marketing to children of primary concern.

    In closing, Human stated that there are 100 million consumers worldwide who have switched from combustible cigarettes to noncombustible nicotine alternatives, and now is the time to accelerate, transform and modernize tobacco control by injecting HRS, ensuring that affordable, accessible and acceptable alternatives can make a contribution.

    Following his remarks, Human moderated a panel discussion titled “Using the FCTC to Accelerate Tobacco Harm Reduction” that included the following panelists: Grant Churchill, tutor in medicine at New College Oxford and associate professor in chemical pharmacology at the University of Oxford; Ehsan Latif, senior vice president of grants management and health and science strategy at the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World; Mihaela Raescu, professor in the faculty of dental medicine at Titu Maiorescu University in Bucharest; and Heino Stoever, social scientist and professor of social scientific addiction research at the Frankfurt University of Applied Sciences in Germany.

    Human referenced the positive work done around the work in the harm reduction space, specifically citing Sweden, the U.K. and Japan as world-leading in this field. He spoke of Sweden’s incredibly low smoking rates with only 5.6 percent of the population using combustible tobacco.

    He explained that the success seen in these countries needs to be examined in greater detail to highlight why vapes in the U.K., snus in Sweden and heated tobacco in Japan are increasing in popularity.

    Human then detailed how several of his patients have seen remarkable improvements in their taste, smell and respiration since switching from combustible tobacco to RRPs in only two weeks.

    Churchill tailored his contribution around the misconception of nicotine. He emphasized that tobacco, specifically combustible tobacco, needs to be separated from nicotine. He set out the molecular level of nicotine as a compound and explained that nicotine is not harmful in the concentration it exists within RRPs.

    Churchill outlined that tobacco is made up of 4,000 smaller compounds, many of which are harmful. Nicotine represents only one of those 4,000 compounds and is not nearly as damaging as most of the others found in tobacco. For that reason, the education and rebranding of nicotine is critical in establishing RRPs as safe alternatives to combustible tobacco.

    Latif spoke primarily from the regulatory perspective of the panel and led the conversation about the upcoming COP10 summit hosted in Panama later this year. He expressed his concern over a lack of action and not wanting legislators to make rash decisions. He called for all decisions to be led by facts and science, explaining that no RRP category should ever be prohibited as it will only lead to illicit trade and unregulated, untested products.

    Latif echoed the message from Churchill that combustible tobacco is causing the most harm within the industry and that legislators need to take action to reduce the number of smokers. He emphasized this by saying, “You can’t wait 10 [years] to 15 years and then count the bodies at the end … We need some action now.”

    Raescu explained the oral health benefits of switching from combustible tobacco to RRPs, describing how oral health improves drastically within nine months of making the switch. She mentioned that there is a decrease in bacterial plague concentration and quality, resulting in major oral health improvement.

    Raescu also called for improved education for doctors and other health practitioners regarding nicotine and tobacco. She set out her belief that, currently, a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding results in the wrong advice for patients, having a negative effect on their individual health. Nicotine as a compound must be better understood by medical practitioners in order for it to be correctly conveyed to legislators.

    Stoever started by giving a summary of the focus of his career on harm reduction in Germany. Using his experiences from Covid-19 and other emergencies, Stoever emphasized the importance of education and the lack of this in Germany: 60 percent of Germans think the dangers of vaping equate to those of tobacco. Stoever went on to set out that public health agencies in Germany are not providing adequate information on the benefits of reduced-risk products, and this gap has had to be filled by academics.

    He spoke to the changes observed during the pandemic, where people’s lifestyle patterns changed radically to include working from home: There was an increased observance of people smoking during virtual meetings, which demonstrated the effectiveness of normal structural prevention strategies and social controls on preventing smoking besides behavioral prevention.

    Mary Glindon

    The panel discussion was followed by a keynote presentation by Mary Glindon, Member of Parliament for North Tyneside in the U.K. and vice chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Vaping.

    Glindon set out her role at the APPG and the reasons for her interest in the topic of tobacco harm reduction. She spoke about her late husband’s transformation from smoking to vaping—his “pipe”—and the impact more widely that smoking has on her constituents in the northeast of England. Not only does she hear from those who have switched that their health has improved but also their finances, given the lower costs of vaping.

    She spoke of her support for the U.K.’s ambition to be smoke-free by 2030 and the work undertaken by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (previously Public Health England) since 2015 to support vaping as a key harm reduction strategy, with it being proven to be at least 95 percent less harmful. Going further, Glindon praised the U.K.’s approach—one that she described as world leading and evidence led—with e-cigarettes at the heart of its strategy. She also highlighted the independent review last year by Javed Khan into “making smoking obsolete,” which included support for vaping as one of his key recommendations.

    However, Glindon then spoke of the concerns Khan had also raised in his report that the U.K. will miss its 2030 target if it does not accelerate the rate of smoking decline by at least 40 percent.

    She gave a series of recommendations on what action the government should take to remedy this while being clear that the preference is that people should neither smoke nor vape, nor should nonsmokers take up vaping. She spoke of tobacco harm reduction through vaping in the U.K. being consumer led but that it had left more than 6 million people who had not yet made the switch. Ensuring access to the right information and tackling misinformation and misperceptions of the relative harms of e-cigarettes versus combustible tobacco is key and must be embedded in all approaches on tobacco harm reduction.

    Glindon also stated the need for effective communication strategies from governments, approved and trusted independent health messaging and the inclusion of the benefits of switching on vape packaging and on cigarette packaging too. She raised the need to ensure that medical professionals at local stop smoking services are sufficiently supported to speak authoritatively on reduced-risk products, with clinicians signposted to the latest clinical guidance and evidence on e-cigarettes.

    Covering the recent announcements by Minister for Public Health Neil O’Brien, Glindon called for the U.K. government to finally release its new tobacco control plan and the new tobacco and related products regulations, both of which are two years overdue. She called for responsible companies like those represented at the GTNF to call out the bad actors who are undermining progress on tobacco harm reduction and for the industry as a whole to prevent youth access, tackle illegal products and promote sustainability.

    Turning to the world stage, Glindon highlighted pressures from outside the U.K., including alternative policy directions from the EU and World Customs Organization on tariffs and taxes. Going further, she spoke to the upcoming COP10 conference in Panama later this year, calling it “the biggest threat to the U.K.’s world-beating harm reduction strategy” with its “singular mission focused on actively encouraging countries to ban vaping as part of its tobacco control approach, purposefully flouting the evidence of vaping’s success.” She called on the U.K. government to show leadership, to send ministers as part of the delegation to COP10 and to “actively take part in leading the conversation instead of only being a passive observer and financial contributor.”

    Glindon then expanded on her concerns around preventing youth access, tackling illegal and noncompliant products and ensuring that the issue of sustainability, particularly with disposable devices, is addressed. She also called for an update on the vaping evidence set out by Public Health England back in 2015, asking how to get to a certainty greater than 95 percent less harmful.

    In her closing remarks, Glindon spoke of the need to expand beyond a focus in the U.K. solely on vaping as a tool for tobacco harm reduction and called for the government to consider HnB and oral nicotine products to help reach the remaining 6.6 million smokers in the U.K. She emphasized the need for more research to be done, independent of commercial interests.

    Finally, Glindon made clear that the industry has to address the key issues it faces—rogue players, youth access and environmental concerns—otherwise it faces being regulated out of existence. Her final words were “Be good: work hard, tackle the problems, seize the future.”

    Derek Yach

    Global health advocate Derek Yach opened by stating how the world’s health is in a much worse state since coming out of the Covid-19 pandemic, particularly regarding noncommunicable diseases (cancers, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes and chronic lung illnesses) as well as mental health.

    He used his own experience in the field of noncommunicable diseases to explain how different approaches must be taken, highlighting his concerns that what worked 20 years ago will no longer work in today’s climate and that modern science and health have to receive political and private sector support.

    He then introduced tobacco harm reduction as a critical category that can help to reduce the growing concerns in this area. Yach spoke to the point that governments around the world are being inactive to, or even dismissive of, the clear and obvious benefits of RRPs. This is risking the health and lives of many of its own citizens.

    Yach gave his own recommendations on how governments should address the 1.1 billion global combustible tobacco smokers still in existence today, referencing the positive work being conducted in the U.K., specifically mentioning the recent review by Javed Khan and the U.K. government’s recently introduced “swap to stop” scheme, which will offer 1 million vape starter kits to current smokers.

    He made a call for the WHO and other governing bodies to appoint a commission that could 1) further develop the science and evidence now available; 2) review the progress of the U.K. and FDA in authorizing this positive change; and 3) take stock of the current situation and set it out in front of COP10 in Panama in November.

    He then outlined the importance of the role of physicians and the need for them to be properly educated to understand the difference between tobacco and nicotine and between cigarettes and e-cigarettes. Without this education, medical professionals are unable to prescribe other, less harmful solutions to their patients.

    Next, Yach spoke of the importance of COP10, urging delegates to showcase positive examples of how RRPs are used around the world to radically reduce the number of combustible tobacco smokers. Sweden, the U.K., South Korea and Japan were all offered as examples of how RRPs have been deployed correctly to help users make the switch away from cigarettes.

    Finally, Yach held a mirror to the tobacco industry, commenting that it, too, was in need of further analysis of its own practices. He explained that in many low-income and middle-income nations, RRPs are legally available; however, the industry has not launched or given easy access to the range of harm reduction products available.

    To this point, the major focus on RRPs has been in high-income countries, and there needs to be an acceleration of getting these products to all countries around the world.

    Yach concluded his remarks by reflecting on his opening comments: Tobacco harm reduction is about stopping the growing trend of noncommunicable diseases and saving lives.

    Yach then went on to lead a discussion panel titled “Drawing on Behavioral and Consumer Insights to Encourage Harm Reduction,” which included the following panelists: Jessica Zdinak, social and behavioral scientist and owner at Applied Research and Analysis Consulting; Mohamadi Sarkar, scientific strategy and analysis and regulatory affairs at Altria Client Services; and Cother Hajat, public health physician and epidemiologist at Independent Respondent.

    Yach identified several smokers across the world attempting to quit smoking and asked panelists to consider what approaches should be adopted to help them do so. In many of the deprived communities of the world, Yach mentioned that availability of tobacco harm reduction products is an issue in order to get people to quit and tasked the panel to come up with solutions to remedy that.

    Yach lamented the disinformation surrounding the e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury crisis that appeared in many academic research papers, which can still be found on the internet despite retractions being made by a research journal. He suggested that inspiration could be found from Twitter to ensure that such articles can be traced in order to issue a warning and correction relating to the disinformation.

    Sarkar focused on the personal dimension that needs to be adopted by each of the 1 billion smokers around the world who need to stop smoking and shared his memories of treating smokers with diseases, such as myocardial infarction, when he was a clinician, but who ultimately did not quit.

    Sarkar’s main concern is that disinformation has become a significant barrier to smokers quitting, with 80 percent of Americans in 2021 believing, wrongly, that e-cigarettes are as harmful as, if not more harmful than, combustible cigarettes. He also lamented that 80 percent of doctors surveyed believed that nicotine causes cancer.

    Zdinak criticized the public health profession generally for omitting the basics of psychology and physiology in their appraisal of harm reduction efforts. She asserted that smokers’ basic needs must be met to successfully get consumers to switch to alternative products that are less harmful.

    She went on to say that health communication messages should capture what people are thinking and feeling. In doing so, Zdinak referred to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and where smoking cessation sits within smokers’ priorities and said that community groups may be necessary to create a higher order for them to consider quitting.

    Hajat stated that the voices of smokers are often missing from research reports and reinforced the need to change that. She praised the U.K. Department of Health for embracing tobacco harm reduction products as vital weapons in its arsenal to improve the health of the nation and welcomed recent proposals to use pack inserts in combustible cigarettes.

    She also welcomed the incentives for pregnant women, who make up 10 percent of the smoking population, and for people on low incomes to receive starter kits to accelerate smoking cessation and meet the government’s 2030 target to become smoke-free.

    Jeremy Lim

    The panel discussion was followed by a keynote presentation from Jeremy Lim, CEO and co-founder of AMiLi. Lim opened by reflecting on the themes developed throughout today’s conference. He started by reaffirming the words of Yach, echoing his sentiment about the polarization of tobacco control and a lack of understanding of the differences between combustible tobacco and other nicotine products. He made clear that this is essential for countries in the developing world, which are chronically short of doctors, making misinformation even more problematic.

    He supported the concept of introducing a WHO commission that specifically analyzes the positive progress made in countries like Sweden, the U.K. and Japan, which could result in a homogenized view of tobacco harm reduction, eradicating the misunderstanding about tobacco and reduced-risk products.

    Lim then reemphasized what Sarkar had set out, explaining that much of the focus and attention is around theoretical concerns, such as youth access and environmental impact, but not enough spotlight is given to the individual smokers themselves who suffer the greatest impact from their addiction. He spoke of a systemic bias against smokers, citing the perception that smoking is a self-inflicted issue where subtle blame is given to the individuals who smoke. Smoking is not seen as a mental health or social health issue—it is seen as a choice.

    Offering his own thoughts on the role society plays in helping or hindering the progress of tobacco harm reduction, Lim used the analogy of a person pushing a large cylinder up a steep hill. The gradient of that hill is determined by society—the more society hampers harm reduction, the harder it will be for people to quit; vice versa, the more society embraces the concept, the more support each smoker is given to quit.

    Lim outlined his concern over the rising cases of youth access to vaping products, calling for a joint effort from everyone involved in the industry to remove these “bad players.”

    He concluded his remarks by urging the industry to put its ideological and political preferences aside and to focus on science and on individual smokers instead.

  • Mixed Messages

    Mixed Messages

    Credit: Onticello

    The head of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products sent mixed messages during a recent public event.

    By VV staff

    When the American Vapor Manufacturers (AVM) Association announced it had secured a Q&A session with the Brian King, the industry was taken by surprise. It was the first time King, the director of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Tobacco Products (CTP), would speak with vaping industry advocates publicly and answer questions from the audience. Surprisingly, King was quite candid. He did shy away from certain questions, however, and some of his responses were questionable.

    Brian King

    Youth e-cigarette use was first declared a national epidemic in December 2018 by then U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams. King said the “FDA has not used that terminology” (epidemic) in its “most recent estimates” of youth use. However, during a hearing of the House Oversight Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy in 2021, then acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock was asked if Juul Labs was “the e-cigarette company most responsible for creating this epidemic.”

    She answered that it does “appear” to be the case. The title of the FDA’s own press release was “An Epidemic Continues: Youth Vaping in America.” A 2018 FDA focus group study conducted by the agency reported that “‘epidemic’ ads [had a] perceived effectiveness score of 4.17 out 5.0.” King defended the agency’s youth-oriented anti-vaping ads, which he said were “rigorously evaluated” before and after they aired and were effective at reaching teenagers. King ignored that the ads continue to use the FDA’s approved youth vaping “epidemic” terminology.

    “So, I believe you’re thinking about the CDC [U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]. And FDA has not used that terminology to view the most recent estimates of youth use. I will say that I’m an epidemiologist by training, so I’m fully cognizant of the definition of an epidemic, which is unprecedented increases over what you’d expect at baseline,” said King. “That said, I think, no, that science has shown a decline in the number of youth users. And that’s a good thing. Over the past couple of years, we have seen [a] decline since the peak in 2019. It’s still too high.

    “Since I’ve started, I have not [used the term]. I’m not aware of any of my staff. But as far as I’m aware, we have not used the term. It’s ultimately up to respected individuals. There’s certainly disagreements among epidemiologists. Like there is in any discipline, you’re going to find people disagree.”

    It should be noted that King’s disdain for vaping is well-documented. King is credited with creating the term “e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury,” or EVALI. The term was used by the CDC for the lung injuries caused by the 2019 spread of illicit THC cartridges tainted with vitamin E acetate during King’s tenure at the CDC. The name suggested that nicotine vaping products (e-cigarettes) were responsible for at least 70 deaths attributed to black market THC products. No nicotine vaping device has ever been associated with an EVALI death or any death; however, King and the CDC have never tried to correct the misinformation.

    The event was moderated by AVM Vice President Allison Boughner and its director of legislative and external affairs, Gregory Conley. When the moderators asked King if the FDA had ever identified a single nicotine vaping product, not an illicit THC cartridge (referencing EVALI deaths), that could be more hazardous than combustible smoking, King dodged the question.

    “I would say that at present, we evaluate the merits of evidence that has been submitted to this agency. In terms of applications and science on their products, at present, we have authorized 23 e-cigarette products or devices that we have found and that benefits outweigh the risks,” he explained. “And we’ll continue to do that. The onus is on the applicants to submit that information. And we’re fully open to evaluating that information and then making an informed scientific decision.”

    Being more direct, moderators asked King if vaping products are far less hazardous than smoking cigarettes and if that is something consumers should know. “I would agree with the statement that if an adult smoker were to transition completely from a cigarette to an e-cigarette, that would be a benefit to their health, yes,” King responded. Moderators then questioned whether it was ethical to mislead the public, letting people believe that vaping isn’t safer than smoking cigarettes.

    “Although we know that in general, e-cigarettes have lower risks than a conventional cigarette, there’s a broad class, and there’s a lot of different factors that can influence the extent of risk. And so it’s not just a simple statement that every single e-cigarette is going to be lower risk,” King said. “There are different factors that we have to consider, particularly when it comes to risks to vulnerable populations like kids.”

    Fighting misinformation

    Credit: Vadim Pastuh

    King acknowledged that vaping has been effective at helping smokers quit smoking. He added that the FDA and CTP don’t want people using combustible cigarettes. Combustible products introduce 7,000 chemicals and 70 carcinogens into users. However, the misinformation surrounding vaping products is massive. King acknowledged that he is “fully cognizant” of the misperceptions.

    “I am wholly open to enhanced efforts by the Center for Tobacco Products to message not only on the continuum of risk but also misperceptions related to nicotine,” he said. “But again, the devil is going to be in the details there in terms of making sure that we have scientifically defensible messages and that we’re delivering it to the target population, which is adult smokers, and not inadvertently delivering it to the unintended populations where there’s consequences, including youth.”

    The FDA’s fight against misinformation is confusing at best. For the last several years, former CTP Director Mitch Zeller and several CTP employees have repeatedly stated in public that correcting misperceptions surrounding vaping and nicotine are part of the CTP’s agenda. King seemed to imply that little had been done so far in accomplishing that goal. He said that little had been done, and that was due to competing priorities at the CTP.

    “When you have a finite number of resources and people, you have to prioritize what you do to have the greatest impact. And so, I will say that for my part, coming into this position, there’s four key tenants that I am adhering to, and that’s strong science, stakeholder relations, communications and health equity,” King said. “And so, obviously, the stakeholder relations and communications are pivotal to this. In terms of my prioritization, I think it’s important that we engage with people, hear them out, but also use science to inform our communication strategies moving forward. It’s not that we haven’t done this work before but it’s just where prioritization is moving forward. And I can tell you that we’re working on it.”

    Concerning misperceptions and the FDA’s message in the public arena, moderators questioned King on the FDA’s advertising. FDA ads have portrayed vapers as being possessed by demons or shapeshifting metal dragons, and vaping will cause huge parasites to crawl through your skin. None of these things have ever been reported as being true. King said that the agency does a “rigorous evaluation” both before and after the implementation of any of its campaigns, and all of the FDA’s youth-centric campaigns have very targeted strategies to reach that target population.

    “We cognitively test them and do science in the beginning, and then we evaluate them on the back end. And that science has shown demonstrably that there is a beneficial impact. That said, I think that we’ve got opportunity for better public engagement on our campaigns,” he said, which didn’t really provide a clear answer to the question. “That is a critical component of our work. We don’t function in silos, and we want the opportunity to engage, but we’ve got to give people that opportunity. And if they’ve got data, if they’ve got evidence to demonstrate that a certain message or a certain target audience is going to be problematic in terms of the campaign, we welcome it.”

    Illicitly speaking

    confusedBans on consumer goods haven’t worked well historically. Prohibition of alcohol and marijuana led to massive black markets for those products. U.S. states that have enacted tobacco flavor bans, such as Massachusetts, have seen a huge increase in black markets. King said this depends on how an illicit source is defined. He added that any vaping or other tobacco product on the market that does not have FDA authorization is considered illegal, and anyone selling those products is operating in the black market.

    “In terms of our enforcement and compliance strategy, we’re committed to taking action to address those that are violating it. And that can take a broad spectrum of action, whether it’ll be warning letters all the way up to civil money penalties as well as injunctions,” he said. “But we have an obligation to enforce the law. And that’s what we will do. That is what Congress has told us to do. And so we’re committed to continuing to do that. But in addition, we’re also working to make sure we get efficiencies and ramp up our efforts around reviewing applications.”

    When questioned whether he had concerns about the black market continuing to grow, King said the CTP is committed to continuing to review premarket tobacco product applications as quickly as possible to guarantee a clear pathway to a marketing order. He’s also equally committed to making sure that the regulatory agency enforces the law. He says he’s committed to continue to implement the law.

    “This is what Congress has told us to do. We have specific authorities that we are responsible for, and in my job as the director [of the CTP], I have to make sure that we exercise those authorities, and toward that end, I don’t think we’re perfect,” said King. “I think we’ve got opportunity for improvement. I think that there’s always [an] opportunity for improvement. We acknowledge that. I think we can do some things better, and from our part, I’m happy to continue to move us into the next chapter of the center to make sure that we’re engaging people in a meaningful way.”

    On the enforcement front, King was asked why only small businesses bore the brunt of FDA action. King said that the CTP does not have a policy against small business and that its enforcement compliance actions have been taken against small and large businesses. However, one participant explained, many small businesses don’t have the finances to hire lawyers to petition the courts to fight the FDA. They also question whether the FDA would ever approve open-system products, which are mostly sold by independent vape shops.

    “We’re committed to enforcing the law. I will say that some of the recent actions in terms of the civil money penalties and also the injunctions were a result of companies that did not obey the law after repeated warnings. And there are many small businesses that are obeying the law and have submitted their applications and have gone through the process,” said King. And so it’s certainly possible. I will say that for our part, we’re committed to continuing to explore opportunities where we can better provide information to applicants to make sure that the process is as flexible and straightforward as possible.”

    A bad taste

    During the open question session, one participant questioned whether the FDA would ever approve a flavor other than tobacco. The business owner wanted to know if the FDA intended to have an outright ban on flavored products or any open system with potential for flavored e-juice options. King said the CTP does not have an outright ban on flavored products, but the onus is on the applicants to submit the evidence to demonstrate that the benefits among adult smokers outweigh the risks to youth.

    “So, there is no de facto policy within this center that would prevent the authorization of a flavored e-cigarette. But I will say that with continued high rates of youth use, the onus is high to make sure … to demonstrate that benefit to adult smokers,” King said. “But it’s not impossible. We’ve seen the authorization of several products already, all tobacco flavored, but we are certainly open to applications on flavored products.

    “And if the science demonstrated that there was a net benefit compared to the risk, we would authorize it. And so that’s my take-home here [that] there’s no blanket policy against flavored, but we’ve got to follow the science, and at present, we have not got sufficiently strong evidence that demonstrates that the flavors are needed for the adult smoker to quit.”

    King was also asked about memos submitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit but an attorney for Logic Technology showed that King reversed a recommended marketing approval of Logic Technology’s menthol vaping products, ignoring the advice of FDA scientists. King said that that was an “erroneous description” of what occurred. It was not an overrule.

    “In this case, there was [an] initial assessment of that science, and then there was further scientific discussion. And I am a scientist by training. I have been for many, many years. And we sat down and discussed the merits of the available science that was presented,” explained King. “And after the discussion of that science and those merits, the determination was made that the applicant did not meet the standard.”

    A recent report published in the journal Addiction examined e-cigarette use in England among young adults between 2007 and 2018. That study concluded that 18-year-olds to 24-year-olds who use e-cigarettes did not use vaping as a gateway to smoke combustible cigarettes. King was asked about the study and whether he believed a “gateway effect” existed despite evidence that one did not. King responded that there’s still a strong body of evidence that suggests that the gateway does exist, but it’s dependent on a variety of different factors.

    “[It’s] certainly not conclusive evidence, but there’s moderate evidence to demonstrate that [a gateway exists]. But you also have to look at the net impact of the science. And so I’ve said publicly many times that you do have some gateway effects. We’ve seen that through the past study and others, but that doesn’t mean that every single kid who’s using an e-cigarette is going to go on to smoke,” King explained. “There’s a variety of factors that impact that. So I caution folks against definitive statements like that, that every person is going to transition who uses the product. It’s certainly happening. But when you look at the net effect, we’ve definitely seen a decline in overall e-cigarette use.”

    In the end, King said that the one thing people should realize is that he’s the type of person who speaks plainly and honestly. He doesn’t have the stereotypical characteristics of a civil servant. “If there’s anything that folks know about me, it’s I aim to be the most nonbureaucratic bureaucrat that you’ve ever met, and that involves just straight-shooting. And so, if we can do better, I want to know about it, and we can definitely enhance the communication on that front,” explains King. “So, I would say more to come, but the science is going to drive it. And we’re at the initial stages in informing what effective messages are most critical to reach the target audience without unintended consequences.”

  • Vaping Group Blasts Quebec Flavor Ban Proposal

    Vaping Group Blasts Quebec Flavor Ban Proposal

    Photo: vmargineanu

    A proposal by the government of Quebec to ban nontobacco-flavored nicotine vaping products will have negative consequences for public health if enacted, according to the Canadian Vaping Association (CVA).

    In addition to the flavor restrictions, the recently released draft legislation proposes a volume limit of 2 mL on prefilled devices and a limit of 30 mL on refill containers. Additionally, the regulations would restrict nicotine concentrations to 20 mg/mL and prohibit the use of any form, appearance or function that may be attractive to minors, both of which have already been regulated by the federal government.

    If the draft rules are implemented, Quebec, with its population of 8.5 million, will become the largest Canadian province to prohibit flavors, according to media reports. Quebec is the country’s second-most populous province. According to the Alliance of Vape Shops in Quebec, there are over 400 independent vape shops in the province, employing over 2,200 people and generating more than $300 million in economic activity. The trade group predicts the shops will all close.

    Quebec’s decision to ban flavors is a major win for tobacco companies, out-of-province vendors and contraband sellers.

    Darryl Tempest, government relations counsel to the CVA board

    In 2021, federal health agency Health Canada proposed a flavor ban that was scheduled to take effect in early 2022, but that plan seems to have been abandoned or postponed indefinitely without explanation. Health Canada’s updated vaping products regulations page makes no mention of the flavor restrictions.

    The CVA says Quebec proposed its rules despite warnings by the industry about their negative impacts. Vaping is proven to be significantly less harmful than smoking, according to the CVA, which says there is substantial evidence from jurisdictions that have already implemented flavor bans that the public health outcome is negative, as many vapers will return to smoking and fewer smokers will switch to vaping.

    “Quebec’s decision to ban flavors is a major win for tobacco companies, out-of-province vendors and contraband sellers,” said Darryl Tempest, government relations counsel to the CVA board, in a statement. “What Quebec has done is shift demand to tobacco owned products, retailers outside of Quebec and criminals. Quebec’s small businesses and domestic industry will be irreparably harmed in favor of multinational corporations,” said Tempest.

  • Quebec Proposes Ban on Flavored Vape Products

    Quebec Proposes Ban on Flavored Vape Products

    Credit: Ronniechua

    Vaping products that contain flavors or aromas other than tobacco could soon be banned in Quebec under new rules proposed by the government Wednesday. 

    The Quebec government hopes the change to the provincial regulations will make vaping products less attractive to minors. 

    “We’re not eliminating vaping, but we’re eliminating flavors,” Health Minister Christian Dubé told Radio-Canada in an interview. “There will only be the taste of nicotine and all other flavors will be prohibited.”

    The minister responsible for sports, Isabelle Charest, said the changes are about keeping “extremely harmful” products out of the reach of minors, according to CBC. 

    “They start to vape because they find it fun or attractive to have a vape pen that tastes like strawberries,” she said, adding that sweet-flavored products make up 90 percent of what minors vape, with only the remaining 10 percent choosing tobacco-flavored products.

    The draft regulations also include proposals to limit the maximum nicotine concentration in vaping products to 20 milligrams per milliliter, restrict vape tank and capsule capacity to two milliliters, and limit the maximum volume refill capacity of liquid cartridges to 30 milliliters. 

    Vaping products will be prohibited from resembling toys, food or taking other forms that might be attractive to minors.

    The ministry also acknowledges the new rules will likely mean job losses and a drop in sales for companies primarily selling vaping products.

    As part of the new regulations, there will be a 45-day public consultation period.

  • California Lawmakers Shelve Tobacco ‘Endgame’ Bill

    California Lawmakers Shelve Tobacco ‘Endgame’ Bill

    Credit: Peter Gonzalez

    Three years ago, advocates for reducing smoking and vaping in California won a major victory when they persuaded the state Legislature to adopt a ban on the sale of flavored tobacco products despite an intense industry lobbying campaign.

    But in recent months, those same groups have been largely silent as a first-term lawmaker sought to phase out tobacco sales in the state altogether. His proposal was shelved this week without even receiving a hearing, and he will instead pursue a bill this session to strengthen enforcement of the flavored tobacco ban, according to Jefferson Public Radio.

    The decision by major anti-tobacco organizations to sit out another legislative fight reflects a broader disagreement among advocates about the best way to reach what they call the “endgame” of a tobacco-free future — and whether that should be their primary goal. Concerns over public backlash, political feasibility and potential cuts to programs funded by tobacco taxes are all factors.

    “All these groups have the same goal,” to eliminate the deaths and disease caused by tobacco, said Chris Bostic, policy director for Action on Smoking and Health, one of only a handful of anti-tobacco groups to endorse the sales phaseout bill. “But people have varying opinions of how to get from here to there.”

    Assembly Bill 935, introduced in February by Assemblymember Damon Connolly of San Rafael, would have taken the bold step of banning the sale of tobacco products, including cigarettes, cigars and vaping e-liquid, to anyone born on or after Jan. 1, 2007.

    The legal smoking age in California is 21, so those who would have been affected by the measure aren’t able to buy tobacco from retailers for at least five more years anyway. But the proposal would have had the effect of creating a whole generation of Californians prohibited from ever legally purchasing tobacco products, with the goal of making it more difficult for them to start smoking or vaping.

    It’s an idea that remains on the cutting edge globally. New Zealand became the first country to adopt the approach in December, banning the sale of smoked tobacco products such as cigarettes for anyone born after 2008. The Massachusetts town of Brookline passed a more expansive ban on tobacco products, including vapes, in 2020, which faced a legal challenge from retailers and was upheld in court last year.

    Lawmakers in Hawaii and Nevada also introduced sales phaseout proposals this year, but neither measure has received a hearing yet either.

  • Palau Makes Sale, Use of Vaping Products Illegal

    Palau Makes Sale, Use of Vaping Products Illegal

    The small island nation of Palau has outlawed e-cigarettes and other vaping products after President Surangel Whipps signed a law for “a total ban on the import, advertising, sale, and use of e-cigarettes” on March 29.

    The law – RPPL 11-27 – has expanded the country’s Tobacco Control Act to include e-cigarettes and will come into effect 60 days after being enacted, according to the NZ Herald.

    Beginning May 29, businesses and individuals can be prosecuted if found with e-cigarette products.

    Individuals who are caught violating the law could face a US$1000 (NZ$1588) fine and businesses or persons importing, distributing, and/or selling the product could face a US$20,000 (NZ$31,753) fine.

    The initial bill was introduced in the Palau National Congress in July last year.

  • UK to Consider Banning Flavors Other Than Tobacco

    UK to Consider Banning Flavors Other Than Tobacco

    Credit: Mary

    The UK government will consider banning fruit-flavored vapes in order to combat youth, ITV News reports.

    Public Health Minister Neil O’Brien is expected to make a speech next month calling for an investigation into the issue, with the possibility of banning the addictive fruity flavors that have exploded in popularity in recent years.

    In the UK it is illegal to sell vapes to those under 18, there are also strict limits on nicotine content, refill bottle and tank sizes, as well as restrictions on advertising and labeling.

    On Thursday, Justice Secretary Dominic Raab said the Department of Health and Social Care is exploring ways to tackle youth vaping in response to a question in the Commons.

    The government is still keen to promote vaping among adults as an alternative to smoking.

  • Vermont Senate Gives Nod to Preliminary Flavor Ban

    Vermont Senate Gives Nod to Preliminary Flavor Ban

    Vermont lawmakers have taken a big first step toward banning flavored tobacco products and e-liquids.

    The Senate gave preliminary approval to S.18.

    The bill would ban the retail sale of flavored cigarettes, e-cigarettes, and e-liquids, according to WCSX.

    It would also get the Attorney General’s Office to report on the extent to which Vermont may legally restrict advertising and regulate labels for the products.

    Several states in the Northeast have or are considering flavor bans. Connecticut also introduced a bill that would ban flavored e-cigarettes. New York, New Jersey and Rhode Island have barred the sale of flavored vaping products. Massachusetts banned all flavored tobacco items, including flavored cigars, cigarettes and vaping goods.

    Vermont’s ban was originally proposed in early 2020 as a way to prevent youth use, but was sidelined after the Covid-19 pandemic began to impact the country.

  • Flavored Vaping Ban Bill Fails in Hawaii’s Senate

    Flavored Vaping Ban Bill Fails in Hawaii’s Senate

    Credit: Aleksandr Kondratov

    By not scheduling a hearing, lawmakers in Hawaii have killed a bill proposing to ban flavored vaping and other tobacco products in the state.

    Legislators had until Thursday to schedule the hearing for H.B. 551, however, the legislation failed to get voted out of a Hawaii Senate committee, meaning the bill will not move forward, according to KITV.

    The bill passed the House earlier this month.

    If passed, H.B. 551 would have banned the sales of flavored tobacco and vaping products effective Jan. 1, 2024.

    Retailers caught violating the standard would have been fined at least $100 for a first offense and up to $1,000 for subsequent violations.

    This is the latest attempt at banning flavored tobacco sales in Hawaii. Last year, the Hawaii Legislature passed a bill, but it was vetoed by the governor.

    While H.B. 551 will not move forward, there’s another bill, S.B. 1447, that would remove Hawaii’s existing preemption clause regarding tobacco regulations.

    This would allow counties to enact stricter laws than the state law, a way for bans on the sale of flavored tobacco and vaping products to begin.

    S.B. 1447 has already passed the Hawaii Senate and is continuing to move forward in the Hawaii House of Representatives.