The Ministry of Health and Welfare wants to ban 27 types of chemicals from being used in tobacco products, vapes and heat-not-burn devices, reports The Taipei Times.
The list includes vanillin, maltol and heliotropin among other chemical compounds commonly used as additives in flavored tobacco products. Without these substances, manufacturers would be unable to produce popular flavors such as caramel, butter, almond, rose, coconut, raspberry, vanilla and cheese,
The new proposal would enable the ministry to remove more than half of flavored tobacco products from the market, according to Lo Su-ying, who heads the Health Promotion Agency’s Tobacco Control Division.
Under the draft rule, manufacturers and importers of products containing the banned substances would risk fines of between NTD1 million ($30,846) and NTD5 million, while sellers would incur penalties of between NTD10,000 and NTD50,000.
The government will subject the proposal to a 60-day public consultation.
A legendary brand in the vaping industry announced its 9th anniversary, which will be celebrated with special events. Vaporesso invites its community to participate in “exciting activities that embody the spirit of competition and achievement.”
According to a press release, on Aug. 18, Vaporesso will hold a music party featuring extreme sports in Nice, France. Bringing together top athletes from the sea (surfing), land (BMX), and air (paragliding).
“Inspiring to ‘Push the Envelope,’ vapers are encouraged to share their personal ‘Championship Moments’ in the comments section of the Vaporesso website for our community to celebrate together,” a press release states. “Share the moments when our vapers took up the challenge to try to break through their upper limits. Let’s celebrate victories, big or small, and inspire one another to reach new heights. Anyone has the right to become their own champion through determination and resilience.”
For a chance to win prizes, including a grand prize of a round-trip flight ticket to Paris, visitors can participate in a trivia game to learn facts about the three showcased extreme sports: BMX, paragliding, and surfing.
“Our 9th anniversary is a testament to the passion and dedication of our team and the unwavering support of our fans. We hope that through the anniversary celebration, everyone can learn about meaning behind Vaporesso’s ‘Move Beyond Ordinary.’ Our spirit of continuous breakthroughs and challenging limits will continue to be reflected in Vaporesso’s business,” said Jimmy Hu, VP at Vaporesso. “We also hope to give back to our community with prizes that represent our spirit. A thank you for 9 years of companionship in the vaping journey.”
Ispire Technology received ISO9001: 2015 Quality Management System, ISO14001: 2015 Environmental Management System and ISO13485: 2016 Quality Management System Medical Device certifications for its 31,000-square-foot manufacturing facility in Malaysia.
Credit: Ispire
Ispire offers a complete line of vape cartridges, pod systems, disposables and batteries.
“Earning three ISO certifications at our Malaysian manufacturing facility is a testament to our team’s ability to quickly bring the facility up to some of the highest standards in the industry, allowing us to expand our gross margins, geopolitically de-risk our production and service other businesses who need manufacturing for their vape hardware,” said Ispire Technology Co-CEO Michael Wang in a statement.
“Currently, our Malaysian manufacturing facility has already received initial orders and is quickly moving into production readiness. As the facility ramps up production, our gross margin is expected to increase due to the lack of a tariff when assembling products in Malaysia and then shipping them to the U.S.
“This is in contrast to the 25 percent tariff incurred when shipping finished products from China. Additionally, by owning the factory, we also expect to be able to realize a profit on product assembly, which was formerly outsourced to a third party. We anticipate that these efficiency improvements will help drive gross-margin growth across the company’s full array of high-quality vaping products.”
Port of Manila, Philippines. Seaport loading cranes in sunset light. (Credit: Tupon Gato)
The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) in the Philippines said it will require importers of raw materials for vaping products to seek special clearances to release their shipments.
The agency cited the need to impose order on an industry with many emerging players, according to media reports.
“For vape products, we are going to require them to (apply for) the authority to release imported goods for raw materials,” BIR Commissioner Romeo Lumagui, Jr. said. “We are thinking of ways to regulate because there are so many vape products now. The production of vape products is a backyard industry, so we’re thinking of ways to regulate it.”
In its latest revenue memorandum circular, the BIR announced that it is now requiring importers or manufacturers of raw materials and equipment used to make heated tobacco products and vapor products to apply for an authority to release imported goods.
“The raw materials specially used for the manufacture of heated tobacco products and vapor products shall include but are not limited to: propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, organic sweetener, artificial flavoring, and nicotine,” according to the circular.
Devices used for the manufacture of these products will also include but are not limited to mechanical or electric heating elements/atomizers, circuits, cartridges, reservoirs, pods, tanks, mods, and mouthpieces.
Apart from the authority to release imported goods, importers and manufacturers must also apply for a permit to operate. Lumagui said that the BIR is working on addressing the shortfall from excise tax collections, which is mainly due to illicit tobacco.
“We’re targeting to minimize that 20 percent (shortfall). Within the year, we can cut that by more than half… ultimately, I want to make sure to fully resolve that shortfall,” he said.
China’s State Tobacco Monopoly Administration released the Guidelines for Promoting the Building of Quality Assurance Systems for Exported Electronic Cigarette Products on July 20, according to 2Firsts, which published a translated version of the release.
The guidelines consist of 18 articles covering the following:
clarifying that enterprises are the main responsible entities for the building of quality assurance management systems for exported electronic cigarette products;
specifying the main content for the building of quality assurance management systems for exported processes, allocation of production resources, the establishment of sound systems, standardization of product packaging, traceability of logistics and transportation, and export declaration and registration requirements; and
specifying the requirements for the building of quality assurance management systems for exported electronic cigarette products.
The guidelines are interpreted by the State Tobacco Monopoly Administration (STMA). The guidelines “shall be implemented” from the date of issuance, according to the STMA.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE), a UK health authority, has warned the public against the use of a number of e-cigarette products due to illegal levels of nicotine found in Ireland.
Irish retailers have been ordered to remove the two products from sale and to issue a recall to customers, reports the Irish Times.
The two products are both disposable MK Bar 7000s from the brand McKesse, with separate flavors, Blue & Razz Ice and Green Apple, subject to the warning.
The products contain more than the permitted amount of nicotine of two percent or 20mg/ml.
The HSE’s environmental health service, the national tobacco control office, has submitted an alert to the European Safety Gate, the EU rapid alert system for dangerous non-food products.
This is the second alert submitted by the environmental health service to the EU in recent weeks.
“I therefore must remind manufacturers and importers of electronic cigarettes and refill containers (e-liquids), it is their responsibility to ensure that they fully comply with all legislative requirements,” said Maurice Mulcahy, regional chief environmental health officer in the HSE.
Anyone who has purchased these products has been advised to avoid their use return them to the shop from which they were bought.
Retailers have been instructed to issue a recall notice on their premises and online, both on retail websites and social media. Shops have also been asked to supply the HSE with supplier traceability details of the relevant products.
The U.S. state of Virginia recently enacted a law to curb kid-friendly packaging in cannabis products. That law is having hard effects on some local businesses.
Lawmakers have witnessed Delta-8 products sold in packaging that mimic foods that are enticing to kids, but those in the hemp industry say this new crackdown goes too far.
“Were one of hundreds that’s made the hard decision to just shut it down,” Reed Anderson said.
Anderson says he’s shutting down his Goochland hemp business, Kame Naturals, in the wake of a new state law cracking down on THC products like Delta-8.
It limits all hemp products to only two milligrams of THC per package. That’s far lower than most products in many smoke and vape shops. Hemp products must now have at least a 25-to-1 ratio of CBD to THC, according to media reports.
“25-to-1 ratio doesn’t do what we do justice right,” Anderson said. “We started our business as a solventless extraction company, and that over time kind of had to go to the wayside because of the different regulations coming through.”
Breaking the rules could mean fines of up to $10,000.
Anderson said it’s all too much and says lawmakers paid too much attention to the intoxicating effects of THC and very little to the health benefits THC may provide.
“Once you start getting into remediated product and trying to remediate THC out of a product, you lose a lot of the natural quality CBD products offer,” Anderson said.
However, Governor Glenn Youngkin and the law’s supporters said something needed to be done to stop the sale of Delta-8 products. Too many kids were getting sick.
A statement from Gov. Youngkin’s office said in part:
“SB 903 and HB 2294 took critical steps to strengthen consumer safety and regulations around edible and inhaled hemp-derived products as well as delta-8 THC products. Specifically, the amendment continued its efforts to crack down on dangerous THC intoxicants, including synthetic THC products. In addition to the ban on synthetic THC, the limited percentage of total THC allowed in hemp products, the packaging and labeling restrictions, the testing requirements, and the total per package limit for THC, the substitute also requires retailers to register with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) to sell any edible or inhaled hemp-derived product. Additionally, the General Assembly established the registration requirement and fees as a necessary operating cost and to create a database of all regulated hemp product retail stores.”
Anderson said while he’s no longer in the hemp business, he will become an advocate and plan to talk with politicians as often as he can to get these laws reformed.
The major complaint against the proposed U.S. rules for vape manufacturing is that they took too long.
By Maria Verven
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration published a new set of proposed requirements for tobacco and vape product manufacturers in March 2023 with the goal of ensuring product consistency and ostensibly protecting public health. But vape industry experts say the new rules should have come out years ago. And for most vape manufacturers, it’s simply too late.
The FDA held a public hearing on April 12, and stakeholders can still comment on the proposed rule until sometime this fall before the regulatory agency issues the final guidance. In the meantime, Vapor Voice spoke with several industry experts to gather their perspectives.
Minimizing the risks
The proposed requirements apply to all manufacturers of nicotine vaping products and tobacco products designed for consumer use, whether complete and sealed in packaging or simply their parts or components. Applied to the manufacture, design, packing and storage of these products, the rules are designed, among other things, to ensure product consistency and prevent contamination with foreign substances.
“While no tobacco product is safe, this proposed rule is intended to minimize or prevent additional risks associated with these products,” said Brian King, director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products. “Once finalized, it would establish requirements for tobacco product manufacturers that will help protect public health.”
Key aspects of the proposal affecting vape manufacturers cover product design and development controls, manufacturing specifications, potential contamination and the traceability of components, ingredients and materials. Any inconsistencies between e-liquid product labeling and the actual nicotine concentrations are also addressed in the proposed rule.
Finally, the rule includes what corrective actions the FDA will take for products that fail to meet these specifications, such as issuing a recall for incorrectly produced products that have already been distributed.
What took so long?
The FDA’s proposed rule was at least 10 years in the making. Sometime in 2012, a group of 13 tobacco manufacturers submitted to the FDA a list of recommendations for good manufacturing practices—a system for ensuring that products are consistently produced and controlled. The following year, the FDA created a public docket to obtain input on the recommended regulations for good manufacturing practices that had been submitted by the tobacco companies.
And in 2017, an expanded group of manufacturers submitted proposals following the FDA’s 2016 Deeming Rule, which brought vaping manufacturers and products under the FDA’s jurisdiction, according to Patricia Kovacevic, general counsel for Cryomass Technologies Inc. A nicotine/cannabis regulatory consultant, Kovacevic has over 20 years’ experience in legal and regulatory affairs.
“Tobacco product manufacturing practices (TPMPs) are not unexpected or new to the industry,” Kovacevic said. “Most reputable manufacturers already have a quality management system in place and design their manufacturing facilities to comply with the general principles of current good manufacturing practices (CGMPs).
“The 2023 proposed rule on TPMPs is consistent with the manner in which the FDA regulates the practices, design and construction of personal hygiene products,” she said. As early as 1969, the FDA established CGMPs for foods as well as dietary supplements, infant formula and the like, added Kovacevic.
This is a positive step in the right direction, both for the industry and the FDA, agreed Azim Chowdhury, a partner with Keller and Heckman LLP. Chowdhury advises domestic and international corporations on regulatory compliance with the FDA, focusing on vapor, nicotine, tobacco product and cannabis/CBD regulation.
“This proposed rule is long overdue,” Chowdhury said. “This proposed rule should have come out years ago following the industry-proposed TPMPs that were submitted back in 2012. The vapor industry in particular has been in dire need of this type of regulation, which can only benefit public health.”
In essence, the principles are not substantially different from other FDA-regulated industries, Kovacevic said, adding that some manufacturers also comply with ISO quality standards, the world’s best-known quality management standards for companies of all types and sizes.
“It’s important to understand that TPMPs do not impose a certain product or manufacturing facility design or even dynamic of reporting,” Kovacevic said. “TPMPs are not prescriptive. They allow great latitude to manufacturers; thus, they should not be a great burden to be implemented.”
As with all CGMPs, the common components are documenting procedures for business operations and outcomes, ensuring that personnel are appropriately trained, work procedures are followed and a document trail is created. This allows manufacturers to design the day-to-day practices for maintaining their equipment and facilities to maximize product quality, cleanliness, consistency and employee safety.
TPMPs and PMTAs
While the general reaction to the FDA’s proposed rule is positive, frustrations remain that the FDA has already banned most vaping manufacturers through the premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) process. Large manufacturers (with 350-plus employees) will be subject to the TPMP rule as soon as it is finalized, according to Chowdhury. Smaller companies have four years after the effective date to meet the requirements.
“However, the question is will the small vape industry even be around in four years?” Chowdhury said. “The way things are going with the PMTA process and FDA enforcement, it seems that only the larger players will survive to see the implementation of this rule.”
“As it became evident from the vast number of PMTAs that were denied or refused to file, small manufacturers and even some of the large ones did not meet FDA’s expectations regarding premarket review of vaping products and are consequently out of business for now,” Kovacevic said.
“The vaping industry has tried in vain for more than a decade to work with the FDA on sensible manufacturing standards only to be ignored while the agency recklessly vilified nicotine vaping,” said Gregory Conley, president of the American Vaping Association. “While the FDA’s proposed requirements are a step in the right direction, the larger issue of the PMTA process disproportionately affecting smaller manufacturers and limiting market diversity must be addressed.”
“The FDA needs to strike a balance between ensuring public health and maintaining a diverse and competitive market,” he said. “Without PMTA reform, there won’t be many companies left to be impacted by this proposed rule. It’s highly likely that vaping product manufacturers that received marketing orders under the PMTA pathway already have rather robust quality systems. So, complying with TPMPs will not represent a meaningful burden to them.
“These regulations do not appear to differ a great deal from what would already be contemplated in a PMTA. But if the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products does not reform itself, the real-world impact of this rule will be small, as companies with PMTAs will have no issue meeting just about any standard the FDA issues,” he said, adding that he wouldn’t recommend any manufacturer put themselves on the FDA’s radar at this junction.
Kovacevic agreed. “Compliance with TPMPs, when effective, should not require a massive effort for responsible manufacturers, who by now should have a robust quality management system,” she said.
Monica Schick, CEO and regulatory consultant with North Guide Solutions, predicted that the new rules could impact the industry financially. Smaller companies that are holding onto their market share with the rise of illicit products might need to increase their price points to add quality processes and/or testing requirements, according to Schick.
“My concern is are we bringing out the cart when we are sending the horse to slaughter? With illicit products still being marketed and sold and open systems getting continuously MDOed [marketing denial orders from the FDA], what will be left to hitch this cart to?” she asked. “I would like to see this as FDA’s attempt to work with the industry and possibly see some increase in the number of legal products on the market.”
What about foreign manufacturing?
The FDA’s new regulations will also apply to Shenzhen and other foreign-based e-cigarette manufacturers, although just how they will exercise enforcement is in question as the FDA currently doesn’t conduct regular foreign tobacco product manufacturing site inspections.
“Unlike domestic manufacturers, this rule does not require foreign manufacturers to register their establishments, submit a product list or be subject to regular biennial inspections,” Chowdhury said. “However, FDA’s unified agenda of upcoming rulemakings indicates the agency may soon propose another rule that extends the Tobacco Control Act’s registration and product listing requirement to foreign establishments,” he said.
The TPMP rule also highlights the FDA’s existing authority under Section 801(a) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to refuse the importation of tobacco products that are manufactured, processed or packed under unsanitary conditions, are adulterated or misbranded and/or are forbidden or restricted in sale in the country where they were produced or exported, Chowdhury explained.
Chowdhury said he doesn’t believe the FDA has ever exercised its authority under this provision to deny entry of imported vapor products, such as open-system devices or nontobacco-flavored vapes that are prohibited from domestic sale in China, as this would require the agency to evaluate imported tobacco products not only with respect to the FDA’s own rules but also on the importing country’s applicable laws and regulations. That could prove to be highly inefficient and impractical.
“Furthermore, provisions concerning unsanitary conditions and adulteration/misbranding suggests that the FDA’s overall intent may be to control the quality of tobacco products rather than the specific legal status of tobacco products in their country of manufacture,” he said. “That said, members of Congress, public health groups and even Big Tobacco have been pressuring FDA to find a way to prevent illegal and counterfeit disposable vapor products from continuing to enter the country.
“The TPMP rule could be highlighting that FDA already has the ability to accomplish this.”
Final ruling could take years
A final rule could take at least a year or more. First, the FDA needs to address all the comments from industry stakeholders. And even after that, it’s likely the final rule will be similar if not outright identical to the proposed rule, predicted Kovacevic.
Chowdhury expects that thousands of comments will be submitted over the next six months, which the FDA will need to review carefully before finalizing the rule. “All in all, this rule will likely take at least one [year] to two years to become final. While it won’t directly impact pending PMTAs, companies should be reviewing this rule carefully and bolstering their existing practices to ensure compliance,” he said. “We now know what FDA expects.”
“It is disappointing, but not at all surprising, that the FDA would wait to propose these regulations until it had already committed itself to banning 99.99 percent of the vaping market,” Conley said. “Our recommendations for the FDA include reconsidering the PMTA process, as its current review standards will shutter most legally operating manufacturers.
“We also want the FDA to focus on how to support smaller manufacturers that are committed to producing high-quality, compliant products. The millions of Americans who rely on vaping to stay off cigarettes could benefit from the FDA’s proposal but only if the agency stops thumbing its nose at its critics and starts to regulate the category in good faith.”
The original “Vaping Vamp,” Maria Verven owns Verve Communications Inc., a public relations and marketing firm specializing in the vapor industry.
The Smoke-Free Alternatives Trade Association continues to help business owners navigate regulation.
By Timothy S. Donahue
In 2012, the Smoke-Free Alternatives Trade Association (SFATA), a trade association representing small and large vaping businesses, began when the industry was still in its infancy. The trade group has been a staple in the tobacco harm reduction circle for more than a decade fighting for balanced regulations in the United States. It hasn’t been easy. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has nearly decimated the numerous small business owners who once made up most of the vaping industry.
While the industry has had to evolve, so have the trade industry groups that support it. The SFATA began as an advocacy group for states in its early stages. As federal regulation began to come into reality in 2016, the SFATA altered course and focused on getting balanced regulations on the federal level. In 2021, however, after the FDA either denied or failed to review over 8 million premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs), it sent the industry scrambling, explains SFATA Board President and CEO April L. Meyers.
“In the winter of that year, it also sent the states scrambling, so we had to shift our focus from federal to state so that we could save as many small businesses as we could,” she says. “There were several battlefronts and issues, most notably, flavor bans.” The organization had success at the state level. The SFATA had stopped several flavor bans. It was around this time that the organization also introduced its Responsible Industry Network (RIN) program.
The RIN program helps retailers combat the problem of youth use. It’s a program that provides a postmarket surveillance pathway through data, training, accountability and corrective measures for vapor manufacturers, distributors and retailers as well as a method for law enforcement and regulatory authorities to ensure that significantly fewer vapor products end up in the hands of youth. The RIN program serves the interest of business owners navigating the complexity of a highly regulated market while also assisting enforcement agencies.
Additionally, authorities can confiscate products that do find their way into the hands of youth and conduct enforcement actions against the parties who are responsible, whether they are manufacturers, distributors, retailers or straw buyers, such as family members or friends. An added value for the industry is that curtailing youth access will lower the biased media attacks that the vapor industry targets children, creating a more stable regulatory environment that allows businesses to grow.
April Meyers, SFATA
“If you’re a small [-sized] to mid-sized manufacturer and you received a marketing order, you’d have to either hire somebody full-time to collect the data for postmarket surveillance or spend a lot of valuable time trying to do it yourself,” said Meyers. “That’s where we came up with a program that streamlines the process. Everybody’s got the same due dates and the same forms. And then the agency is looking at the same form coming in at the same time.”
To receive a marketing order, the FDA states that it “intends to consider how an applicant will target the marketing of its new tobacco product to reach its intended consumers of legal age and to assess the potential effect on nonusers.” The FDA will also consider how the applicant intends to minimize the extent to which youth can access the product and are exposed to its marketing.
“If the PMTA does not address youth access to the product, youth exposure to the product’s labeling, advertising, marketing and promotion, and youth initiation, such as describing how it proposes to restrict the sale or distribution of its product to limit potential youth access to the product, it’s going to be impossible to get a marketing order,” said Meyers. “[The] FDA may be unable to determine that the applicant has made a showing that permitting the marketing of the new tobacco product would be appropriate for the protection of public health. RIN can help provide that data. And that data can be useful in several meaningful ways.”
The RIN program will create a rich database that will expose useful sales and marketing insights for participants, according to Meyers. She said that the data can show aggregate buying and selling behaviors of vapor products, data that can also be useful when faced with federal and state flavor bans and taxation bills.
In order to further help its members, Meyers said the SFATA recently entered a “strategic alignment” with the United States Vaping Association (USVA). She said that teamwork is an important aspect of vapor advocacy and that businesses need to support each other. The partnership creates a more unified voice and prevents wasting valuable industry resources by multiple organizations doing the same work.
“You’d have to be a dual member to realize the full benefits of advocacy. We’re also trying to make it reasonably priced where a store that’s on its feet and planning to move forward can participate,” she explains. “And we wanted to keep it even across the board because we don’t want to tell a big company that you must pay more just because you’re bigger. Nor a small company [that] you have to pay so much, and then they get costed out.”
Currently, the USVA is focused on winning its lawsuit against the FDA. The USVA believes the regulatory agency didn’t consider the economic impact on small businesses that the PMTA process and subsequent denial orders would have. The USVA suit claims that the FDA acted as if vapor applicants would be able to substantially rely on public data or on 70 studies that the FDA itself was conducting at that time. However, the FDA instead wrote an impossibly burdensome PMTA rule that began putting people out of business.
The suit is hoping the courts declare the PMTA final rule in violation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, an effort by the U.S. federal government to balance the social goals of federal regulations with the needs and capabilities of small businesses and other small entities. The USVA also hopes the judges remand the PMTA final rule to the FDA and enjoin the agency from enforcing the final rule against any members of the USVA. This would also include joint SFATA members.
The suit also criticizes the FDA for prioritizing manufacturers with the greatest market share, companies that were more well funded to tackle the PMTA process. Some of the larger companies were also allowed to make changes to issues with their PMTA submissions whereas smaller companies with the same issues received marketing denial orders for those issues.
Credit: Rafel
“If the courts hand down an emergency injunction for relief, it would mean that every member of the USVA, SFATA joint members and the named plaintiffs on the case go back into review. Where we found synergy between the organizations is if you go back into review, what happens? Are you better off? No. Do you have more time? Yes. Can you make more money in the extra time you’ve been given? Yes. But then what? If you don’t address the broken process, that is the PMTA, you have nothing,” said Meyers. “It affects every state, every business, every vapor product retailer.”
Meyers explained that joining the SFATA helps to safeguard that manufacturers are able to produce products and businesses are able to sell lifesaving vapor devices. The organization is currently laser-focused on the U.S. House of Representatives and is dedicated to trying to do its part to stamp out overzealous and overreaching legislation.
“We focus on the House because that’s where the oversight is of FDA, and that’s where most bills also get introduced. So that’s where we’ve put our focus and where most of our meetings will be concentrated on at the federal level for this year’s session,” she said. “The FDA’s rules are the problem. The members of the House we have spoken to understand that the process is broken. We are presenting science-based solutions and innovation to show that it can be fixed.” While legal action safeguards against the lack of guidance and transparency from the FDA, the SFATA is working with lawmakers to ensure that its “commonsense solutions for American smokers” are understood and communicated to the FDA and Congress, which oversees the agency, according to Meyers.
“The recent report from the Reagan-Udall Foundation found numerous wide-ranging problems at CTP,” she said. “Now Congress is asking the FDA to answer those same questions the Reagan-Udall report asked … SFATA is asking those questions too. What is your strategy? What is your plan? What are you going to do? There’s a lot of pressure on FDA to do something and be clear about it. [The] FDA can’t come up with that plan by themselves. They need industry insight and support. Our goal is to come up with that input. That’s why you would support SFATA. You want to be a part of that conversation and get that information. We are here to help.”
The world’s largest open-system vaping manufacturer, Vaporesso, brought to the forefront its latest lineup of products during Vapexpo France 2023, held from April 16-17 at the Lyon Convention Centre.
The company highlighted its XROS series, the Luxe X series and the ECO series. Vaporesso also had the official release of its latest 80W pod mod the Luxe XR Max, which joins the other high-quality products in the Luxe X family.
With the goal of enhancing efficiency, the new Luxe XR Max adopts a super high-density battery and comes in a smaller size compared to other 80W pod devices. Despite its smaller size, the XR Max carries a 40 percent larger battery capacity, resulting in a longer battery life and successfully addressing the issue of imbalance between size and battery life.
“Powered by Vaporesso’s exclusive Corx Heating Tech, the Luxe XR Max offers a smooth and flavorful user experience with its long-lasting taste restoration rate,” according to a release. “The new device also comes with a higher vaporization efficiency ratio to provide consistently sheer flavor accuracy and extends the coil lifespan by 50 percent.”
Vaporesso also unveiled the ECO series, a new range of devices for disposable vaping users seeking a more eco-friendly and economic option. Available in June, the ECO series features refillable pods, long-lasting battery life, and eco-friendly packaging.
“They are also safer and cleaner than disposables as they do not produce any substances from long-term liquid immersion or leakage during transport,” the release states. “With the ECO series, Vaporesso aims to make it easy for more disposable vaping users to ‘GO ECO, GO GREEN.’”
