Tag: flavor ban

  • Ohio Senate Passes Ban on Cities Enacting Flavor Bans

    Ohio Senate Passes Ban on Cities Enacting Flavor Bans

    Credit: Lucitanija

    The Columbus City Council in the U.S. state of Ohio voted unanimously in favor of banning the sale of flavored tobacco and vaping products within city limits on Monday, Dec. 12. Then on Wednesday, the Ohio Senate approved a bill that would make what the Columbus City Council did illegal.

    The Ohio Senate passed H.B. 513 by a vote of 23-8. It includes an amendment that will prohibit local governments in Ohio from enacting any laws regarding tobacco or vaping products that are stricter than state law, a mechanism known as preemption, according to Halfwheel.

    Because of this amendment, the bill now heads back to the Ohio House of Representatives, where it must be approved before heading to the desk of Gov. Mike DeWine. Reports indicate the House vote is expected this week.

    If approved, the state law will effectively void the law passed by the Columbus City Council on Monday. The Columbus city law is set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2024.

    Preemption clauses have been a successful tool in blocking bans on the sales of flavored vaping and other tobacco products. To the east of Ohio, the City of Philadelphia lost a federal lawsuit that overturned its flavored tobacco ban due to Pennsylvania’s preemption clause.

  • Columbus, Ohio Bans Flavored Vaping Products

    Columbus, Ohio Bans Flavored Vaping Products

    Credit: Spirit of America

    The Columbus City Council in the U.S. state of Ohio on Monday unanimously approved the second reading of an ordinance that will ban the sale of flavored tobacco and vaping products in the state’s most populated city.

    The ban is scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2024, giving retailers just over a year to clear out existing inventory. The ban covers nearly all flavored tobacco and vaping products, including those with menthol, mint and wintergreen flavors. The ban does not apply to the sale of flavored shisha tobacco, however.

    While the ordinance makes it illegal to sell flavored tobacco products, it does not make it illegal to use such products. The legislation does not include criminal penalties on users, but does impose civil penalties on sellers.

    On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to stop California from enforcing its ban on the sale of most flavored tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes.

    Columbus is home to approximately 906,000 people.

  • Supreme Court Paves Path for California Flavor Ban

    Supreme Court Paves Path for California Flavor Ban

    Credit: Niro World

    The Supreme Court of the United States on Monday rejected a last-minute plea from the tobacco industry and cleared the way for California to enforce a statewide ban on the sale of most flavored tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes.

    The court’s action has the effect of upholding a measure passed by the Legislature in 2020, which in turn was approved by 63 percent of voters in November. It is due to take effect next week, according to the Los Angeles Times.

    Washington attorney Noel Francisco, who served as U.S. solicitor general under then-President Trump, filed an emergency appeal with Justice Elena Kagan on Nov. 29, asking her and the high court to stop California’s statewide ban from taking effect.

    Kagan referred the appeal led by R.J. Reynolds to the full court, which issued a brief order denying it without comment and with no dissents.

    The outcome is a victory for anti-tobacco advocates who called for cracking down on e-cigarettes and eliminating youth-friendly flavors such as bubble gum, cotton candy and cherry.

    California joins Massachusetts and New York in prohibiting the sale of flavored tobacco.

  • Juul Labs Settlement Reported to be $1.2-$1.7 Billion

    Juul Labs Settlement Reported to be $1.2-$1.7 Billion

    Credit: Zimmytws

    The media reports vary. What can be discerned is that Juul Labs has settled more than 5,000 lawsuits for the sum of between $1.2 billion and $1.7 billion.

    New York Times reports that Juul Labs Inc. has agreed to pay $1.7 billion to settle more than 5,000 lawsuits by school districts, local governments and individuals, which claimed that its e-cigarettes were more addictive than advertised, according to people with knowledge of the deal.

    Bloomberg reports Juul Labs has agreed to pay $1.2 billion to resolve about 10,000 lawsuits targeting the e-cigarette maker as a major cause of a U.S. youth-vaping epidemic, according to people with knowledge of the deal.

    The San Francisco Examiner reports that the e-cigarette maker faced more than 8,000 lawsuits suits brought by individuals and families of Juul users, school districts, city governments and Native American tribes. This week’s settlement resolves most of those cases, which had been consolidated in a California federal court pending several bellwether trials.

    The Wall Street Journal, which first reported the story, reported that Juul Labs settled more than 5,000 lawsuits covering more than 10,000 individual plaintiffs on Dec. 6. Financial terms of the deal were not disclosed.

    Juul Labs announced in a press release that it has reached settlements with plaintiffs in the federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) and related “Juul Labs Product Cases” (JCCP) that have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Juul Labs did not disclose any amounts.

    “These settlements represent a major step toward strengthening Juul Labs’ operations and securing the company’s path forward to fulfill its mission to transition adult smokers away from combustible cigarettes while combating underage use,” the company wrote. 

    The global resolution covers more than 5,000 cases brought by approximately 10,000 plaintiffs against Juul Labs and its officers and directors, according to Juul Labs.

    Over the past year, Juul Labs also has settled with 37 states and territories and remains in ongoing discussions with other key stakeholders to resolve the remaining litigation, according to the release.

    The amount for the deal, which involves a consolidation of cases centered in Northern California, is more than three times the sum reported for other Juul Labs settlements in other state and local cases thus far, according to the New York Times.

    The deal resolves much of the legal uncertainty that had driven the company close to bankruptcy.

    Juul announced on Dec. 6 it has secured an investment to cover the cost of the settlement. The company has been in talks with two early investors to fund a bailout  that would cover legal liabilities.

    According to Juul CEO K.C. Crosthwaite, the settlement addresses the vast majority of outstanding litigation facing the company, including two pending bellwether trials that were set to go to court early next year, and four broad groups: personal-injury plaintiffs, Juul consumers, government entities such as school districts, and Native American tribes. Lawsuits brought by several attorneys general are pending. 

    A pioneer in the vaping business, Juul Labs has gone from dominating the U.S. e-cigarette market to fighting for its survival in a relatively short time.

  • South Portland, Maine to Consider Flavor Ban Today

    South Portland, Maine to Consider Flavor Ban Today

    Credit: ATDR

    South Portland may become the next Maine community to ban the sale of flavored vaping and other tobacco products.

    Under a proposed ordinance, violators would receive a $500 fine that could jump to $2,500 per subsequent violation.

    Included in the proposed ban are tobacco products with “any taste or smell relating to fruit, menthol, mint, wintergreen, chocolate, cocoa, vanilla, honey, or any candy, dessert, alcoholic beverage, herb, or spice.”

    The city council will hold a hearing Today, according to Spectrum News.

    The ordinance is being proposed as a way to prevent young people from becoming addicted to nicotine.

    South Portland attempted a ban in 2019 stalled, however, it stalled partly because no other Maine community had yet done so, according to media reports.

    Now, both Bangor and Portland have banned flavored tobacco earlier this year following a unanimous vote of its city council.

    A recent study showed that less than 5 percent of the 3,500 adult e-cigarette users surveyed quit using e-cigarettes in response to a U.S. flavor ban. 

  • Dutch Vape Flavor Ban to Begin on October 1, 2023

    Dutch Vape Flavor Ban to Begin on October 1, 2023

     

    The Netherlands will ban all e-cigarette flavors except tobacco effective Oct. 1, 2023, reports NL Times, citing a government amendment to the Staatscourant. The ban extends to pre-filled e-cigarettes and disposable vapes as well.

    The ban was announced in 2020, and will also include banning packaging that depicts anything other than tobacco and restricting rules for naming products.

    The RIVM, a public health institute, created a list of 16 ingredients that manufacturers can use to make tobacco flavors.

  • Flavor Ban has Little Impact on Consumer Vaping

    Flavor Ban has Little Impact on Consumer Vaping

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration ban on flavored tobacco products, except for menthol and tobacco flavors, did not stop consumers from vaping, reports EurekAlert!, citing a study published in Tobacco Control.

    The study showed that less than 5 percent of the 3,500 adult e-cigarette users surveyed quit using e-cigarettes in response to the ban. The remaining respondents switched to other forms of tobacco products or flavors of e-cigarettes that are not covered by the ban. 

    “An increasing body of literature shows that e-cig flavors themselves cause damage when inhaled, so it makes sense to ban flavors,” said Deborah J. Ossip, a tobacco research expert and professor in the Department of Public Health Sciences and Center for Community Health and Prevention at the University of Rochester Medical Center (URMC) who co-authored the study. “But the ban doesn’t appear to be working. People—including youth—can still get flavored products and are still using them.”

    Lead study author Dongmei Li, associate professor of clinical and translational research, obstetrics and gynecology and public health sciences at URMC, stated that a big issue is that the ban did not cover products such as disposable e-cigarettes and e-cigarettes that use tanks rather than cartridges or pods.

    “Other forms of flavored e-cigs, especially disposable e-cigs, have become very popular after the FDA policy,” Li said. “The FDA policy also did not ban menthol[-flavored] or tobacco-flavored products—and our study shows many people switched to menthol-flavored e-cigs after the ban. It seems many people find menthol to be a nice flavor.”

    Of the survey respondents, nearly 30 percent switched to tank or disposable flavored e-cigarettes and another 30 percent switched to menthol-flavored or tobacco-flavored pods; 14 percent switched to combustible products, like cigarettes, and 5 percent switched to smokeless tobacco. Less than 5 percent quit using e-cigarettes following the ban.

  • RJ Reynolds Asks SCOTUS to Stop California Flavor Ban

    RJ Reynolds Asks SCOTUS to Stop California Flavor Ban

    Credit: Sean Pavone Photo

    R.J. Reynolds and other vaping and tobacco companies filed a request Tuesday asking the Supreme Court of the United States to impose an emergency order to stop California from enforcing a ban on flavored vaping and other tobacco products.

    The ban was overwhelmingly approved by voters earlier this month.

    First passed by the state legislature two years ago, the ban never took effect after tobacco companies gathered enough signatures to put it on the ballot, according to media reports.

    However, after nearly two-thirds of voters approved of banning the sale of everything from cotton-candy flavored e-liquid to menthol cigarettes. The law is set to go into effect by Dec. 21.

    Supporters of the ban say the law was necessary to put a stop to a staggering rise in teen smoking.

    Several companies filed suit over filed a lawsuit against California in federal court over the state’s ban on flavored products one day after voters backed the ban in a Nov. 8 referendum. However, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday denied the company’s emergency motion to block the law pending appeal.

    The companies suing California argue that the authority to ban flavored products rests in federal law. The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act gives the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco.

    In the filing, the companies said they would suffer “irreparable harm” from not being able to sell the products in one of the nation’s largest markets.

    The companies argued that small retailers will face laying off employees and possibly closing. Among those filing for the order is the Neighborhood Market Association, a group of San Diego retailers that include vape shops.

  • Vape Group Files Amicus Brief Over Flavor Ban

    Vape Group Files Amicus Brief Over Flavor Ban

    Photo: David

    The Vapor Technology Association (VTA) has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a petition for writ of certiorari in a case against L.A. County’s ordinance banning flavored tobacco products.

    Citing the substantial impact on America’s economy created by the sale of tobacco products, the trade group says Supreme Court review of the flavor ban is critical.

    According to an economic impact report prepared by John Dunham and Associates, the independent vapor industry comprises more than 10,000 companies across the United States and is responsible for generating more than 130,000 jobs and more than $22 billion in economic activity for the U.S. economy.

    In its amicus brief, the VTA argues that this industry would be devastated by unrestricted flavor bans given its unique and substantial reliance on the sale of flavored vapor products to adult consumers.

    The trade group also notes that since the passage of the L.A. County Ordinance, leading tobacco control scientists have challenged the notion of banning e-cigarette flavors and have warned that decreasing availability of flavored vaping products harms the ability of adult smokers to quit smoking cigarettes.

    Instead of blanket bans, these tobacco control scientists endorse alternative time, place and manner restrictions for the sale of flavored vaping products, the VTA notes in its amicus brief.

    Permitting local and state governments to implement unscientific bans that directly interfere with the fundamental purpose of the Tobacco Control Act and would overrule the Food and Drug Administration’s decision-making for products deemed appropriate for the protection of public health is not only unlawful but is dangerous from a public health perspective, the VTA wrote.

    Tobacco and vape flavor bans have gained momentum in the U.S. On Nov. 8, Californians voted to uphold a state law ending the sale of most flavored tobacco products.

  • Companies File Suit Against California Flavor Ban

    Companies File Suit Against California Flavor Ban

    Credit: Niro World

    Vapor and other tobacco companies filed a lawsuit against California in federal court over the state’s ban on flavored products one day after voters backed the ban in a Nov. 8 referendum, reports the Courthouse News Service.  

    Though more than half the state’s ballots have yet to be counted, media outlets have declared that the referendum will pass. Unless a judge agrees to intervene, the ban is set to go into effect no later than Dec. 21, 2022.

    In their suit, the companies argue that the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA) of 2009 allows states and municipalities to regulate tobacco products, but not to ban their use or sale.

    “The ban falls under the TCA’s express preemption clause, ‘which preempts ‘any [state] requirement’ that is ‘different from, or in addition to,’  a federal requirement about a tobacco product standard,” the suit reads. “A flavor ban is a paradigmatic tobacco product standard.”

    In 2020, California lawmakers passed a ban on all flavored nicotine products except hookah, loose leaf tobacco (for pipes) and premium cigars. Menthol products are also covered by the legislation.

    Opponents of the ban collected more than 1 million signatures and forced the state to hold a referendum on the ban. Originally scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, 2021, the legislation was then suspended until the Nov. 8 vote.

    Vapor and tobacco companies already sued California over the flavor ban in 2021. But a federal judge dismissed the case, telling the plaintiffs to wait for the voters to weigh in before suing.