Swisher and E-Alternative Solutions (EAS) have expanded their partnership to support the marketing, sales and distribution of EAS’s Leap and Leap Go vapor brands. Both companies will remain separate entities with EAS benefitting from the additional support and strength of Swisher’s world-class sales and marketing organization.
Jeffrey Brown, formerly vice president of sales for EAS, has been named general manager of EAS, and will take the lead in the evolution of the partnership.
“Jeff is a well-respected leader with more than three decades of industry experience, and as general manager, he is the natural choice to take the EAS business to the next level and drive our respective brand expansion goals,” said John Miller, president and chief executive officer of Swisher, in a statement. “In the short term, the expanded partnership between EAS and Swisher will remain transparent to our valued customer base, and we will be following up with additional details as they become available.”
I look forward to working with the Swisher sales and marketing teams and taking the Leap and Leap Go brands to the next level.
“I couldn’t be more excited about this arrangement and look forward to working with the Swisher sales and marketing teams and taking the Leap and Leap Go brands to the next level,” said Brown. “EAS was built from the ground up to prosper in the highly regulated tobacco environment, and with the bench strength of the Swisher sales and marketing teams, we have the power to broaden our reach and expand the distribution of these great brands,” he added.
Over the past several years, Swisher has continued to expand its offerings to include smokeless tobacco products, premium cigars, and modern oral nicotine products to appeal to diverse and changing consumer tastes. Broadening its strategic partnership with EAS is another step toward becoming a more consumer-centric company.
It seems the vapor industry has a future after all. Several large tobacco companies, such as Vuse, Blu, Logic and Juul, have already filed premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) for their vapor products with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
While several smaller companies have said they would file PMTAs, E-Alternative Solutions (EAS) is the only vapor manufacturer to announce that it has received both acceptance and filing letters from the FDA for its submitted vapor products.
EAS’ Leap and Leap Go brands will now move on to the substantive review stage of the PMTA process. During this phase, the FDA will decide whether the EAS products are “appropriate for the protection of public health.”
“This milestone represents an important step forward for EAS as we support our mission of producing high-quality vapor products that serve as an alternative to combustible cigarettes with our Leap and Leap Go vapor products,” said Jacopo D’Alessandris, president and CEO of EAS. “FDA acceptance and filing letters are a testament to the strength and thoroughness of our applications, which we believe will meet [the] FDA’s requirements.”
Leap Vapor is a closed pod system designed for adult smokers. Leap Go is a line of disposable e-cigarettes. The Leap and Leap Go products can now stay on the market past the FDA’s PMTA deadline of Sept. 9. The products will be allowed to remain on the market for one year or until the FDA decides whether the products are a benefit to public health compared to combustible cigarettes.
When asked why EAS publicly announced its accep-tance and filing letters unlike some other companies, Chris Howard, vice president, general counsel and chief compliance officer at EAS, said that many vapor wholesalers and retailers remain uninformed about the potential status for many of the vapor products they are selling. EAS wants to be “open and honest” about the process.
“We’ve taken a different approach by providing informa-tion regarding the PMTA process and what it’s like to work with [the] FDA. This gives retailers an idea of what to look for, especially after Sept. 9,” says Howard. “A lot of retailers want to do the right thing. So, after Sept. 9, they don’t want to be doing something illegal. They definitely don’t want to be confused and unsure. We’re providing retailers with a tool to be certain that they are selling legally compliant products after the deadline.”
Howard said that, unfortunately, he does not see a scenario where the FDA will allow a sell-through period for products already on store shelves. The FDA is most likely going to demand that all products that have not submitted a PMTA be removed. However, the FDA may face challenges in policing the more than 152,000 convenience stores operating in the United States, according to the 2020 NACS/Nielsen Convenience Industry Store Count.
“We know [the FDA is] not staffed adequately to do that, and that’s unreasonable. So, in large part, [the] FDA relies on the people who want to be the good actors, to adhere to the regulations,” said Howard. “I think that most will—75 percent if I had to guess. A lot of them will immediately try to be compliant.”
Many retailers wonder if they will be responsible for the products that can no longer be sold or if distributors will buy back the products. While many distributors will not buy product back, Howard says that EAS has always offered its products with a 100 percent guarantee for the retailers.
“At EAS, we make it clear that our products are 100 percent guaranteed, and we do take product back. We’ve taken back all of the flavored pods that we had on the market and provided people with full refunds or credit in the form of other product,” he explains. “I personally believe that is the right thing to do, especially in an industry where the channel was burned multiple times by various vapor companies, and retailers got stuck with inventory that they couldn’t move. I think that some companies are aligned with my view on that, and they will take it back—but I wouldn’t say it’s the majority.”
RAPID RESPONSE
The FDA does not necessarily have a reputation for moving quickly. However, EAS received its acceptance and filing let-ters just over a week after submitting the application. Howard says that there isn’t necessarily a rational reason for why it was so fast. However, the FDA is committed to its timelines and is trying to move in an expedited manner.
“When you have something that’s organized and it comes in and makes it easy for them, then yes, you’re likely going to get the benefit of a quicker review. Now, I don’t know if that translates into a quicker substance review, or scientific review,” Howard said. “I believe one of [the FDA’s] goals is to clean up this space and get their arms around the problem. One of the ways to do that is to make sure you get those acceptance and filing letters out quickly. And you reject the ones just as quickly that aren’t adequate to meet the standard.”
Howard said that the EAS PMTAs for the Leap and Leap Go products together comprised 109,000 pages. EAS essentially filed two “buckets” of PMTA data with one being the Leap Go (which contained three SKUs) and the other the Leap (which contained 26 SKUs) for a total of 29 SKUs. The data contained more than 25 individual studies. The applications also contained several digital links to data.
“The Leap application had about 45,000 links, and the Leap Go had about 46,000. We covered every discipline. We did behavioral testing. We did an assessment of popula-tion risk. We did clinical studies. You might have heard of PK [pharmacokinetic] studies to see how the body reacts to the products. We did those to show that the products have a lower abuse liability potential relative to cigarettes,” says Howard. “We did all of the required HPHC work to con-firm that our exposures are a lot lower than the combustible cigarette. We did toxicity testing. We did a comprehensive analysis of every ingredient that’s in the products. We did chemistry testing. We evaluated the products for stability and shelf life, and that’s still ongoing for the next two years. We did an environmental assessment.”
Flavors in vapor products have been a controversial subject recently. When asked if EAS had submitted any flavors other than tobacco flavors for its PMTAs, Howard said the company approached the subject carefully and with much consideration of how flavors have been shown to help smok-ers make the decision to seek an alternative to cigarettes. He also acknowledged the open question as to whether flavors may contribute to youth experimentation but noted that companies like EAS, which prioritize compliance and limit-ing access and exposure to adults, are positioned to market flavored products responsibly moving forward.
“For the Leap pods, we currently only sell tobacco and menthol, which were submitted. We also submitted all the flavors we had to remove from the market back in February. There were a handful,” said Howard. “For the Leap Go, which are disposables and flavors are permitted, we submit-ted a mango flavor as well as tobacco and mint. You have to make decisions when you’re spending millions of dollars trying to create some efficiencies, and this was one of the ways we tried to be prudent. It’s not to say that we wouldn’t file more Leap Go flavors later, but if you look at our rela-tive business model, the Leap is a more dominant product, so we had a heavy focus on its PMTA submission.”
Jacopo D’Alessandris
Howard said he could not share the total cost for the PMTA process; however, it was in the tens of millions of dollars for all 29 SKUs combined.
WAITING FOR ANSWERS
Howard says the letters are straightforward. They state that EAS’ application has been accepted and filed, respectively, and the applications are ready to move on to the next stage. This is the stage where the FDA may want a tour of the com-pany’s manufacturing facilities. “I could see this happening,” explains Howard.
The process is now completely in the hands of the FDA, according to Howard. There could also be several different types of situations that present themselves before the FDA issues either a marketing authorization or denies the applica-tion. Howard said the acceptance and filing letters do provide some clarification, but it is still a “wait and see” process.
“I think the next step should be that, if they’re going to do it, they’re going to ask for samples. I believe that is what really starts the 12-month timeline. We haven’t been asked for samples yet. We’ve immediately engaged to make sure we have the samples ready, even the flavored pods, which are not currently on the market,” said Howard. “Now, they’re going to have their hands full come Sept. 9; I’m sure they’re going to get a lot of applications, and that might slow things down.”
Chris Howard
The FDA may also need additional information, accord-ing to Howard. The agency may request additional details regarding studies EAS has already provided, for example. It’s also possible that EAS may have to complete additional stud-ies to be able to answer a specific question.
“What I like to think is going to happen in that stage is a give-and-take and sort of a collaboration about what’s reason-able because, at the end of the day, these products are clearly appropriate for the protection of public health as compared to cigarettes,” Howard said. “Then you have this engagement, and that’s consistent with what [the] FDA has said, and then you’re on your way. Additionally, if you do get a request for additional information, that technically stops the clock, so that could extend your 12-month window. After the FDA receives any additional information it may require, the next phase is receiving the marketing authorization.”
If EAS receives a PMTA, the next step for the company to consider is whether it wants to file for a modified-risk tobacco product (MRTP) application. The only products to have ever received an MRTP are snus products and Philip Morris’ IQOS heat-not-burn device. Howard says that EAS may consider going through the process, but he questions the value of an MRTP.
“We now know it isn’t just some black box that nobody gets. I mean, it’s clearly possible. But we have to wait and see how this vapor category shakes out and whether or not an MRTP claim—whether it’s reduced harm or exposure—does that really add value in the eyes of the consumer?” Howard asks. “I don’t know the answer; so it’s a wait-and-see kind of decision.”
To grant a PMTA, the FDA will have to determine a product is “appropriate for the protection of public health.” It can be interpreted that a tobacco product receiving a PMTA is less risky than a combustible cigarette. However, a company can make that claim only after receiving an MRTP. Even if granted, MRTP claims will still be limited. IQOS, for example, received an MRTP but can only make reduced expo-sure claims. The company cannot make a reduced-risk claim.
“The MRTP is also super expensive. That’s many more millions of dollars on top of what we’ve already spent for the PMTA. We’re looking into the opportunity, but we haven’t decided,” says Howard. As far as advice for companies still preparing their PMTAs, Howard says to remain diligent.
The Covid-19 pandemic has only made collecting the data more complicated. This may lead many companies to be nervous about submitting an incomplete application. Howard says he believes that companies must be open and honest with the regulatory agency.
“If you’re in a position where you can’t do it all, you focus on the statutory requirements and making sure that those are robust and complete. And then areas where you do have gaps, you very clearly explain why you have a gap and what you’re going to do to fix it and when you’re going to be done. Don’t try to do a shortcut version,” says Howard. “I think [the] FDA will be understanding and receptive and ultimately work with you to make sure that all the data is complete. I mean, they don’t want to kick you out for not having finished your human factors testing. However, if you submit without an environmental assessment, they’re going to kick it out.”
After the Sept. 9 deadline, Howard says he expects to see the industry become more streamlined. He says that there’s a strong possibility that numerous companies will go out of business. However, there will still be a sufficient amount of options at retail.
“I think that there’ll probably be multiple variations of e-liquid, so it won’t be as many selections as there are today, but there will be open system options. I think because the products contribute so much to harm reduction that it’s not in [the] FDA’s best interest, or anyone’s best interest, for the cat-egory to be gone,” he says. “So anytime I hear someone say, ‘Oh, the vapor category is going to be gone,’ I completely disagree.” V
The market for disposable vapor products is surprisingly diverse.
By Mike Huml
It’s one of the fastest-growing segments of the vapor industry. Disposable products that once collected dust on store shelves are now finding a growing fan base. With so many on the market, it’s easy for distributors and retailers alike to get caught up in the confusion. We decided to review some of the more popular brands to help our readers see some of the differences in a product segment where everything can seem the same. As it turns out, however, each product has its own personality. Almost every disposable device we tested had something that made it just a little different than its competition.
The Leap Go
“The Cigalike-alike”
The Leap Go disposable vapes closely to a traditional analog cigarette. The draw is tight but smooth, reminiscent more of a full-flavor than a light or ultra-light smoke. The size is more akin to a 100 mm cigarette with slightly more weight.
At 5 percent nicotine, the Leap Go should more than satisfy those switching from smoking or anybody who prefers high nicotine strengths or nicotine salts. The vapor is light but still flavorful and satisfying. Each Leap Go device can last for approximately 200 puffs, which is about the equivalent of one pack of traditional cigarettes, assuming ten puffs per cigarette and twenty cigarettes per pack.
There are no unappealing surprises to speak of, such as leaking, gurgling or dry hits. Everything works as intended. The Leap Go is about as unassuming as it gets, replicating the look, feel and draw of an analog cigarette. For those looking to try out vaping with no baggage or hassle, the Leap Go is a great option. There’s no refilling or charging to worry about, no replacement pods or coils and no worries. Simply pull it out of the box, remove the silicone stoppers and it’s good to go.
The Leap Go is positioned to be an introductory device, making the transition from smoking to vaping as seamless as possible, and on that front it succeeds. While more advanced devices or even other disposables may boast slightly increased performance, few can capture the feel of smoking as accurately as the Leap Go. It may not appeal to many vapers, but as a tool to ease smokers into vaping it succeeds tremendously.
Cigalikes have fallen out of favor over the years due in large part to the popularity of pod systems. The Leap Go is a neat callback to the early days of vaping without the hassle of leaky cartridges and dead atomizers. It’s a cool nostalgia trip for vapers but still a very relevant step for many smokers in today’s vaping landscape. It’s interesting to think that lives may literally be saved due to just one disposable e-cigarette taking a step back and returning to roots of how vaping all started.
Cali Air
“Intensity Squared”
The Cali Air disposable deviates from the traditional cigarette shape significantly. It’s a flat e-cigarette that’s about one inch wide, two inches tall and less than a quarter-inch deep. It’s smaller than a business card but packs a punch.
A disposable product, there is no refilling or recharging necessary. A pair of silicone covers must be removed before use and then it’s all ready to vape. What would be considered the “mouthpiece” lies at the top corner of the Air, which makes it extremely comfortable to use especially for anyone who isn’t used to large mouthpieces or drip tips. Having the airflow hole at the corner rather than in the middle helps to make the Cali Air feel a bit more familiar and less like sucking on a credit card.
The flat shape not only makes the Cali Air easy to carry around but makes it comfortable to hold as well. It won’t convince anybody that it’s an actual cigarette, but it feels good in a different way. The majority of the Cali Air is made of anodized aluminum, so it’s slightly textured and light.
The draw is fairly tight, and the flavor is pretty intense making for a great vaping experience. There is no leaking or gurgling, and the draw is smooth. It has a familiar feel to many of the better pod systems on the market and may be better suited to current vapers rather than those making the switch from smoking.
The Cali Air contains 2.7 mL of e-liquid, but the puff count is what matters most with disposables given they can’t be charged or refilled. The Cali Air lasts for approximately 500 puffs, which equates to about 2 1/2 packs of analog cigarettes. At a nicotine strength of 5 percent, this should satisfy most anyone for at least two days.
With a larger capacity and battery, the larger size is necessary to accommodate the increased performance, but the nontraditional shape keeps the Cali Air from being bulky or unwieldy. If longevity and performance are more important than an accurate tactile representation of an analog cigarette, the Cali Air is a fantastic choice.
Bidi Stick
“I Only Smoke When I Drink”
The Bidi Stick is very similar to today’s popular pod systems. Its long, flat shape allows it to be used like an analog cigarette, but it looks nothing like one. It’s slimmer and longer than the Juul, with a similar light weight. Unlike modern pod systems, it’s one single piece that cannot be refilled or recharged, making it about as simple as a vape can get.
The body is a slightly rubberized texture with a soft plastic mouthpiece. It’s light, slim and perfect for taking on the go. A single LED on the end of the Bidi Stick lights up when activated to give a nice visual representation that the automatic switch is doing its job.
The draw is medium-tight and should appeal to most people, and it’s not too airy to diminish the flavor. It’s a good balance, being that the flavor is intentionally light and refreshing. That’s not to say that it doesn’t produce good vapor, because it does, but many liquids are loaded with too much flavor and sweetener, which can prematurely kill a coil and lead to poor flavor and vapor production. Subtle flavors are all-too-often underrated, and it’s surprising to find these flavors in a disposable e-cigarette.
Each Bidi Stick contains 1.4 mL of e-liquid at a strength of 6 percent, which is higher than average. Nonetheless, one would assume that the Bidi Stick is equivalent to a pack-and-a-half of cigarettes, which is about a day-and-a-half of normal use. However, the packaging suggests that each Bidi Stick should last one week.
Conclusion: This is a great disposable for light smokers or vapers. The high nicotine means that fewer puffs are required to reach nicotine satisfaction, and the light flavor speaks to the vaper who wants something nice and refreshing every now and again. That said, there’s nothing really keeping anyone from using several Bidi Sticks per week, but if 300 puffs per week is the recommendation, it’s clear that this is intended more for nonregular users.
With that in mind, the Bidi Stick may be the best option for occasional nicotine users for all the reasons above. It requires fewer puffs to get the same amount of nicotine, and the flavor is light as to not be offensive or overwhelming. The throat hit is also smooth and not boosted with the addition of menthol.
The Bidi Stick appeals to possibly the most overlooked nicotine user—the social smoker. They exist, and the Bidi Stick proves that they are not forgotten.
Hyde
“The Caricature”
The Hyde is very similar to a standard pod system with one exception: It’s a one-piece disposable. No refilling and no charging are necessary, but the shape and size could pass for a standard pod system aside from the color. The Hyde has a black, plastic mouthpiece and white body that fades into red with a faux spray paint look. Its appearance is a little edgier and bolder compared to some of the more subdued aesthetics of its counterparts, but it could appeal to some. If the look doesn’t, the performance surely will.
The Hyde’s draw is fairly tight, which contributes to the fantastic flavor and dense vapor production. It feels much like a full-flavor analog cigarette. It’s extremely lightweight and somewhat shorter than expected for a device of this nature. It lends itself well to hands-free vaping.
The Hyde includes a white LED at the tip that shines through the red coloring to give a certain red glow that imitates a lit cigarette. The white and red colors of the body combined with the illumination make the Hyde appear almost as a caricature of an analog cigarette in a way that might make the foreign concept of vaping a little more familiar for smokers.
There is no estimated puff limit on the packaging, but the mouthpiece is translucent so that the user can actually see how much liquid is remaining. The Hyde holds 1.5–2 mL of e-liquid, which would put it somewhere in the 300–400 puff range. With a nicotine strength of 5 percent, each Hyde unit is equivalent to a pack or pack-and-a-half of analog cigarettes, which is pretty standard.
What really sets the Hyde apart is the performance. While it’s aesthetic could arguably be the gaudiest of the bunch, looks can be deceiving. Vaping the Hyde is an absolute joy with its smooth draw, clean flavor and impressive vapor production. While the draw isn’t turbulent in the least, the heating element does give off a slight crackle as the e-liquid is heated. While a matter of personal preference, this generally adds to the satisfaction of vaping, and smoking for that matter.
Overall, the Hyde might be the most divisive-looking disposable, but it more than makes up for that in pure vape quality.
Hyppe Bar/Puff Bar
“The Twins”
The Hyppe Bar and Puff Bar are very straightforward even as far as disposables go. The “Bar” part of their names is accurate—they simply look like bars. They are relatively small but angular and polygonal. There is no separate look for the mouthpiece, and an arrow is printed on each device (as well as the flavor, nicotine strength, etc.) to indicate which side is the mouthpiece. The coating is matte and slightly rubberized in a single color that really does bring one word to mind: bar.
Performance-wise, the Hyppe Bar and Puff Bar are suited for those who prefer lighter flavor without sacrificing vapor production. It’s a medium-airy draw that works best with faster drags, which is perfect for smokers. It’s a welcome change for vapers as well, who have largely been conditioned over the years to adopt a slow-and-steady drag.
A blue LED on the tip lights up when a drag is taken, but it’s not visible to the vaper when in use, acting only as a cosmetic feature to observers. It’s not exactly necessary, but nothing is lost with this addition either.
The Hyppe Bar has the most information packaging, which shouldn’t go unnoticed. There are product specifications so there’s no guessing—it holds 1.3 mL of 5 percent e-liquid with a 280 mAh battery that’s good for up to 300 puffs.
It also features a scratch-and-scan sticker to verify authenticity and an enclosed underage vaping warning card. The Puff Bar is very similar, lacking only the battery capacity rating and the included warning card.
Both the Hyppe Bar and the Puff Bar vape very well, with voluminous vapor and light, refreshing flavors. So why are these two products so eerily similar? It’s unclear, but it’s likely the case that these are both produced by the same manufacturer and have been customized and branded by different wholesalers or retailers. This is common practice in many industries, including vaping, and shouldn’t dissuade a purchase. Both brands of the “bar-style” disposable work well and identically. They’re simple, colorful, lightweight and refreshing. The Hyppe and Puff Bars are both solid options in terms of disposable e-cigarettes, regarding both performance and aesthetic.
Pop
“Vapeable Sunshine”
The Pop disposable e-cigarette is another bar-style vape but with some differences that make it clear that its different from both the Hyppe Bar and the Puff Bar. Aside from more colorful packaging, there are a few visual differences that set it apart. The blue LED on the tip still illuminates when a drag is taken, but the airflow hole in the mouthpiece is slightly larger making for an airier draw. In lieu of a rubberized matte coating, the Pop is shrouded in a colorful wrap that matches the packaging and corresponds to the flavor. It’s reminiscent of wallpaper, in a comforting country-home type of way.
According to the packaging, the Pop holds 1.2 mL of 5 percent-strength e-liquid and is usable up to 400 puffs. Compared to the size and puff count of similar disposables, this likely means a higher coil resistance. As such, the Pop is gaining a bit of longevity but losing a bit in terms of performance. That’s not to say that performance is poor but simply that the design is different. The Pop produces equal vapor compared to similar disposable devices, but this is due to slightly increased airflow. A higher coil resistance results in less liquid and battery power being used with each puff, as well as lighter flavor, but it has the potential to last longer.
The Pop definitely takes a different approach when it comes to how an e-cigarette should look. While many shoot for sleek and unassuming, the Pop has opted for bold, colorful and fun, and not in a way that could be construed as marketing to children. Many would shy away from overly colorful packaging, but the Pop does it tastefully and doesn’t rely solely on looks. The performance is still there, and users can feel justified in their purchase.
Overall, the performance of the Pop is surprisingly good. Like some others, it’s light, refreshing, easy to use and extremely portable—everything a disposable e-cigarette should be. This type of disposable is great for light users, new vapers or social nicotine users. It works well, there’s no hassle, it is widely available and tends toward the lighter, airier, more refreshing end of the spectrum rather than the more intense side. The Pop is colorful and fun, exemplifying a no-worries mindset that its performance reinforces.
Finally, some positive news for the vapor industry. The much anticipated premarket tobacco product applications (PMTA) for the Leap pod system and Leap Go disposable were delivered to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Tuesday. E-Alternative Solutions (EAS), an independent, family-owned innovator of consumer-centric brands, is seeking authorization for the marketing and sale of its wide-ranging portfolio of Leap and Leap Go vapor products.
“We are pleased to take this important step in demonstrating our commitment to the vapor industry, retailers and adult smokers seeking an alternative to combustible cigarette smoking with our Leap and Leap Go vapor products,” said Jacopo D’Alessandris, president and CEO of EAS.
Jacopo D’Alessandris
“At EAS, we have always held ourselves to high standards, from supplying adult consumers with products they can trust to consistently following ethical marketing practices. We are confident in the strong merits of our PMTAs and want to thank our compliance and research teams for developing and delivering thorough submissions.”
The submission of PMTAs by EAS plays an integral role in supporting the proposition that Leap and Leap Go vapor products are appropriate for the protection of public health, according to a press release. The collective 75,000+ page PMTA submissions for Leap and Leap Go are the result of months of hard work and investigation that included an assessment of the stability of the products over time, toxicological formula reviews, toxicology testing, an assessment of abuse liability, label comprehension studies and behavioral studies.
In addition, EAS undertook an extensive review of available literature on vapor products related to health effects, behavioral factors and toxicological end points. Further, an exacting risk assessment was conducted across many areas of potential risk for Leap and Leap Go products, according to the release.
“Our PMTA submissions provide a robust analysis of the Leap and Leap Go products that will enable FDA to conclude these products are appropriate for the protection of public health,” said Chris Howard, vice president, general counsel and Chief Compliance Officer at EAS.
Chris Howard
“From an industry perspective, the PMTA process sets a high bar and holds companies accountable, ensuring vapor product manufacturers follow the rules and act in good faith. Looking ahead, a robust collaboration with FDA will help build a strong future for both the vapor industry and adult consumers.”
EAS continues to establish a leadership role in the creation of sensible industry standards and regulations as member of the Board of Directors of both the National Association of Tobacco Outlets (NATO) and the Vapor Technology Association (VTA), where EAS led the initiative to formulate the VTA marketing standards for membership, according to the release. The company continues to advance the interests of the industry’s consumers, manufacturers, wholesalers, small business owners, and entrepreneurs.
