The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the stays to Diamond Vapor, Johnny Copper and Vapor Unlimited. The ruling was in conjunction with Bidi Vapor’s stay. The 11th Circuit handles petitions for review from vaping businesses based in Florida, Georgia and Alabama. All four companies are based in Florida.
The decision allows the companies to continue selling their tobacco harm reduction products while the lawsuits remain active. A three-judge panel heard motions from the businesses and granted the stays by a 2-1 vote. The stays don’t guarantee that the companies will succeed in their challenges to the FDA denials, but they are an encouraging sign, according to Azim Chowdhury, a partner with Keller & Heckman law firm. He said courts usually grant stays only if the plaintiff’s case has a good chance of “succeeding on its merits.”
More than 30 companies have now sued the FDA and many of those appeals will be heard in federal courts over the next few weeks. No decisions have yet to be handed down, and early decisions could affect later ones, according to several attorneys. If there are conflicting decisions in multiple courts, the FDA’s PMTA process could eventually wind up being sorted out by the Supreme Court, according to Chowdhury.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has stayed the marketing denial order (MDO) issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to Bidi Vapor in September 2021. The FDA had previously issued an administrative stay to Bidi Vapor, however, the agency rescinded that stay in December.
The Feb. 1, 2022, ruling allows Bidi Vapor and Kaival Brands to market and sell all of its Bidi Stick electronic nicotine-delivery systems (ENDS), including its tobacco, menthol and flavored products, while Bidi Vapor continues with its merits lawsuit compelling the FDA to place Bidi Vapor’s premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) for the flavored ENDS back under scientific review.
With the judicial stay decision going in favor of Bidi Vapor, the company expects many distribution partners to reestablish their previous sales volumes, with potentially new distribution chains added as well.
“We expect this judicial stay will result in a rebounding of Bidi Stick sales,” said Niraj Patel, president and CEO of both Kaival Brands and Bidi Vapor, in a statement. “Many wholesale and retail partners had discontinued or slowed purchases of the Bidi Stick until we heard back from the courts on the likelihood of our merits case succeeding. This is what our wholesale and retail partners have been waiting for.”
“We believe that Bidi Vapor has developed substantial, robust and reliable scientific evidence through, among other things, surveys, behavioral studies and clinical trials establishing support that the product is appropriate for the protection of the public health,” Patel said. “Following on FDA’s initial administrative stay of the MDO, we believe that this recent judicial stay is a good indication that the court finds some merit in Bidi Vapor’s arguments and puts Bidi Vapor’s PMTA one step closer to being properly and fully evaluated by FDA. We are extremely pleased with the court’s decision on this judicial stay order and continue to expect to be successful on the merits case as well.”
“The company believes that this decision signals a new milestone in the path toward providing adult smokers 21 and older with a viable alternative to combustible cigarettes. Distributors, wholesalers, retailers and adult consumers are all anxious to see positive outcomes not just for Bidi Vapor, but for the vaping industry as a whole. We believe in science-based regulation of ENDS and hope the courts will require FDA to adhere to the law as it reviews Bidi Vapor’s PMTAs,” Patel said.
In a highly anticipated case for the vapor industry, Triton Distribution made its opening arguments Monday in its battle with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration over how the regulatory agency conducted it premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) reviews. Triton’s lawyer urged a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Houston to conclude the FDA could not force manufacturers to provide studies that the agency had previously stated would not be required.
“The question before the court concerns how exactly the FDA ended up denying Triton’s PMTA—with potential implications for comparable applications by many other denied companies,” said Triton’s attorney Eric Heyer, a partner at Thompson Hine.
Credit: Sergign
In August, the FDA rejected applications to market 55,000 flavored e-cigarettes, including Triton’s, and said applicants would likely need to conduct long-term studies establishing their products’ benefits to win approval, according to Reuters. The new requirement for long-term studies differed from earlier FDA guidance and was a “surprise switcheroo,” a 5th Circuit panel concluded in October when it allowed Triton to keep selling e-cigarettes until another panel could hear its appeal.
In recently released internal FDA correspondence, the agency’s scientific staff conducted “fatal flaw” reviews that only looked for the presence of the newly required long-term studies, and if those studies were not present the agency issued a marketing denial order (MDO). During oral arguments, Heyer said the FDA’s new requirement was “arbitrary and capricious, a position conservative U.S. Circuit Judge Edith Jones appeared to agree with.
“It seems to me that’s the height of arbitrariness and capriciousness, to say we are the FDA, trust us, which I might say some of us are becoming skeptical about in light of recent vaccine experiences,” she said, alluding to COVID-19 vaccines.
Heyer argued that the process the FDA established set Triton up for failure because the new requirements were only conveyed after the deadline for when PMTAs needed to be submitted (Sept.9, 2020) had passed. It was only then that the FDA indicated that applicants would likely need randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and longitudinal cohort studies to demonstrate “comparative efficacy.”
The other two judges questioned Triton’s case. U.S. Circuit Judge Gregg Costa asked whether Triton’s products, such as one called Jimmy the Juiceman Strawberry Astronaut, were really targeted to adults. “That’s supposed to be appealing to a 40-year-old?” he asked.
U.S. Circuit Judge Catharina Haynes questioned why companies like Triton did not have enough time to develop such support for their products’ health benefits for adults given the years they have had to prepare for FDA regulation. The FDA in 2016 deemed e-cigarettes to be tobacco products like traditional cigarettes subject to agency review under the Tobacco Control Act. Manufacturers were ultimately given until 2020 to seek approval to market them.
If the court disagrees with Triton’s argument, Heyer has requested that the judges “enjoin FDA from taking further adverse action on the Petitioners’ PMTAs for 18 months to allow Petitioners to conduct the necessary studies to prove comparative efficacy,” according to legal documents.
There is no timeline for a decision in the Triton lawsuit. Judges are expected to take at a minimum weeks, if not months, to make a decision.
Several court cases challenging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s issuing of marketing denial orders (MDOs) in response to its review of premarket tobacco product applications are still pending. Last week, three high profile tobacco harm reduction advocates filed their fourth amicus brief in support of companies that are challenging the FDA.
Credit: Sang Hyun Cho
Clive Bates, director of Counterfactual Consulting, David Abrams, a professor of social and behavioral sciences at the NYU College of Global Public Health, and David Sweanor, adjunct professor of law at the University of Ottawa, filed the latest brief in support of Chicago-based Gripum LLC, which has had its MDO temporarily stayed by the court while the FDA’s actions are reviewed.
“The PMTA process and [appropriate for the protection of public health] APPH test do not apply to combustible cigarettes, which have a much less onerous path to market; accordingly, the most dangerous products are easily accessible throughout the United States, and their manufacturers do not face the threat of financial ruin from FDA’s regulatory burdens and determinations,” the brief states. “FDA’s regime for evaluating ENDS amounts to a major barrier to entry for less harmful products than cigarettes and unjustified regulatory protection of the incumbent combustible cigarette trade. The harms arising from adult and adolescent cigarette smoking far outweigh the harms arising from youth use of ENDS.”
The group also addressed the FDA’s having established an onerous new standard of evidence in PMTAs. The FDA has admitted to using a “fatal flaw” checklist to deny over one million PMTAs without further consideration because they do not provide randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, or other types of (unspecified) evidence that FDA had retrospectively deemed necessary. They also state that the APPH test doesn’t differentiate between adults and youth.
“The APPH test applies to the ‘population as a whole.’ There is no distinction drawn between adolescents and adults in the Act. In some circumstances, ENDS use can be beneficial to adolescents who would otherwise smoke,” the brief states. “As a matter of policy, FDA chooses to take no account of such benefits to youth, but that approach is incompatible with the APPH test in either the PMTA pre-market review process TCA §910(c)(4) or in rulemaking for setting product standards §907(a)(3).”
The group filed similar briefs in three other cases: Triton v FDA – Fifth Circuit (17 Nov 2021), My Vape Order v FDA – Ninth Circuit (24 Nov) and Bidi Vapor v FDA – Eleventh Circuit (24 Nov).
E-liquid manufacturers and retailers are still figuring out how to survive the FDA’s erratic regulatory rules.
By Maria Verven
The vaping industry has been in a downward spiral ever since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration began issuing marketing denial orders (MDOs) for electronic nicotine-delivery system (ENDS) products. When a product with a premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) receives an MDO, it must immediately be pulled from store shelves and removed from the market.
The FDA has issued MDOs for nearly all the approximately 6.7 million PMTAs it received. At press time, the agency was still reviewing an estimated 80,000 products, according to Mitch Zeller, director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products (see “From Chance to Change,” page ?). To date, only Phillip Morris International’s IQOS device and Heatsticks and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.’s Vuse Solo, along with two tobacco-flavored pod cartridges, have received marketing granted orders.
The FDA also rescinded or was ordered by a court to stay at least 10 MDOs. This has caused a massive amount of confusion in the industry, especially for vape shop owners and vapor distributors who are struggling to keep only legal products on their store shelves.
Complicating matters, many manufacturers have started using synthetic nicotine in their flavored vaping products and products that had otherwise received an MDO. Synthetic nicotine is in a regulatory void as it isn’t yet being regulated at the federal level, although the FDA has stated it may be considered a component of an e-cigarette, which would put synthetic nicotine under its purview.
Many ENDS business owners say that the industry is also still suffering from the 2019 e-cigarette or vaping use-associated lung injury (EVALI) crisis that was wrongly blamed on nicotine vaping products by the FDA and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It took more than a year for both government entities to state publicly that the true culprits behind EVALI were illegal THC-based vaping products. Vapor business owners must also combat the never-ending amount of misinformation that is broadcast by anti-vaping groups and the mass media.
Business owners, additionally, have major concerns about the current nicotine tax in President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better Act (as of this writing, the bill was still in the Senate). The current version of the nicotine tax applies only to vaping products and nicotine pouches. The government would tax nicotine bought by manufacturers at the rate of $50.33 per 1,810 mg of nicotine—or 2.8 cents/mg if the bill passes with the tax included.
To get a better understanding of what is happening at the street level in the ENDS industry,Vapor Voice asked a group of manufacturers, retailers and industry leaders about their experience with the FDA and how the agency’s regulatory actions have impacted their businesses.
Vapor Voice: How have the FDA’s marketing denial orders affected your business?
Char Owen
Char Owen, vice president of American Vapor Manufacturer:I think the negative PR around vaping has caused sales to stagnate for most manufacturers and vapor shops. It has also increased the smoking rates for the first time in many years. It’s heartbreaking for us to watch people revert to smoking again.
Unfortunately, most of the industry has changed to synthetic. Over 95 percent of our sales are flavored e-liquid, and with others switching, there was no choice but to switch. We only manufacture open system e-liquids in many flavors, all created from nontobacco-derived nicotine. Our biggest selling products have always been fruit flavors.
We are trying to bring in new products, such as botanicals, that can help our customers with cravings but remove nicotine from the equation. For us, it has always been about harm reduction, nothing more.
Schell Hamel, president of The Vapor Bar:Sales were affected long before the MDO was received. This down spiral began with the media attacking all vapor products as killing people when they clearly knew it was illegal THC products and the entire vapor industry handcuffed to Juul’s reputation.
According to the MDO, all products made in our lab were denied. It seemed as if they used a rubber stamp to deny anything submitted, all without review. I heard them doing similarly across the industry, then approving Vuse.
Schell Hamel
Jay Oku, business development at Five Pawns:Hundreds if not thousands of customers have been adversely affected from these misguided PMTA, sale and shipping regulations.
We had been developing products to maximize harm reduction for years and were always fascinated with the cleanliness (free of nitrosamines) and the molecular merits of synthetic nicotine. We switched all of our domestic products to synthetic nicotine mid-2020. We are grateful to have maintained our sales volume through 2021.
We saw an increase in overall sales since making the switch to nontobacco-derived nicotine, yet we’ve also seen a longer sales cycle with new accounts due to the number of MDO products that companies are selling through to make room on their shelves. Despite a slight increase in gross sales, net numbers are relatively flat due to the increase in manufacturing and shipping costs in 2021.
Trent Bohl, owner of EZJ Rolling Equipment and Smokey Joes West:It’s logistically added challenges, and the horizon looks like a tough road ahead. While many Juice manufacturers have shifted gears to get into compliance, the shift toward disposables and the future ban of them will be tough for Vape as a whole.
From recent headlines, it seems the FDA doesn’t seem to play well unless you are Big Tobacco.
Do you think there’s a growing black market of products that are no longer legal?
Owen: I absolutely know there is a growing black market. A quick Twitter or Instagram search proves that. So far, those black market dealers have not been targeted by the FDA. Only registered manufacturers have been on their radar.
We need to support and grow the harm reduction industry instead of growing a black market. For harm reduction to be successful, it must be regulated and supported by our federal bodies. Without their support, we risk creating a dangerous environment for consumers. I have a great amount of respect for the U.K. in recognizing this.
Oku: Every day the black market continues to grow. The attrition of retailers, manufacturers and distributors is being caused by excessive rogue state taxation, the PACT Act that complicates accounting and reporting, and misguided government overreach that results in flavor bans.
Jay Oku
Numerous disposable manufacturers are selling mass quantities of vapor products through back doors. Some of these black market brands push immature non-lab-produced concoctions with cartoons on their labels. These regulations push people who benefit from tobacco harm reduction technology to inferior products and even worse, back to cigarettes.
Bohl: I have stores in New Mexico, and in Mexico, which outright banned vapes. The black market is huge in Mexico; any low-dollar mercado or corner OXXO seems to have them. The USA will follow suit I suspect, given the demand for vape. When one reflects on how the black market vape cannabis carts disrupted the industry and damaged lives and harmed the reputation of the industry, it’s just going to be that times 10.
What has been your experience with FDA inspections?
Owen: Personally, I had a good inspector, but it truly is the luck of the draw, and it hasn’t been the case for everyone. In my case, he was only there to find proof of manufacturing of any MDO products, and his paperwork was written to support that. My batching logs were not reviewed nor my manufacturing practices.
One member had their inspector show up at 7 p.m. on Halloween. Another member had the FDA come to her home and photograph her home office instead of her manufacturing establishment. He then took photographs of her neighbor’s home. There were instances where the inspector pressured staff when owners or managers were not present to make MDO’d products and then sent warning letters.
The American Vapor Manufacturer is usually involved in a warning letter meeting every couple of weeks. We even help nonmembers with those. It’s a very tricky process, and it’s good to have someone there who can be objective and help both the FDA and the manufacturer resolve the matter.
Trent Bohl
Bohl: I haven’t seen them from this industry perspective, but from the agricultural side and medical marijuana side, one thought comes to mind: brutal for some, not bad for others.
What ultimately will result from these MDOs?
Owen: What the FDA did was extremely arbitrary and capricious. I feel that anyone who can afford to challenge them in court will be able to prove that. My concern is for all the small businesses that cannot afford to do that.
If something doesn’t change, you will see manufacturers close and smoking rates rise. In almost all industries except vaping, small business is celebrated. This is a shame because those small shops are the ones with the hearts for harm reduction.
To lose those small businesses would be a devastating blow to the effort in moving this country to becoming smoke-free.
Oku: I am optimistic that the FDA will reconsider or rescind MDOs and revise their outdated ambiguous and debilitatingly cost-prohibitive PMTA process.
Since 2016, FDA action against the industry has resulted in warning letters and fines to those breaking the rules, yet there’s little to no enforcement. Many MDO products are being sold since there was an enormous glut of inventory in preparation for the September 2021 ruling.
There will invariably be an increase in synthetic nicotine products until those, too, are regulated out of the market.
Congress has been slipping anti-vaping bills into much larger spending packages, such as during the 2019 holiday break deep in the Omnibus Spending Bill. These bills implement devastating regulations that put our industry and the health of our customers in jeopardy.
Bohl: The goal stated by the FDA 15 years back was the end of combustibles. Vape could have helped that. I am buying a decent stock, fearing the day one more freedom is taken away in the name of safety.
The original “Vaping Vamp,” Maria Verven owns Verve Communications, a PR and marketing firm specializing in the vapor industry.
Avail Vapor has sold the majority of its retail locations and closed its remaining stores. The company has also sold or closed its ancillary businesses. James Xu, founder of Avail, said the decision was motivated by multiple factors over several years, including what he called unclear and convoluted federal regulatory processes.
Credit: Avail
At one time, Avail Vapor was the largest family-owned vapor retailer in the U.S. with more than 100 stores in a dozen states. In January of 2020, the company split into regulatory compliance and consulting business, and a major wholesale distribution company. Those businesses have also been sold or closed.
Xu said the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) pathway was a major factor in the decision after the agency arbitrarily changed the requirements to get a PMTA approved. “It’s completely just a mess with FDA policy making and policy strategy. It just did not make any sense from day one,” Xu said. “Everything is really in this gray area. It was totally different from what our mission was and COVID is not helping any retailer.”
Xu said Avail spent more than $10 million in its bid to get regulatory approval since 2016, when the FDA set forth new compliance standards for vaping products. But the FDA rejected Avail’s applications in September and the company sued the government agency in federal appeals court. However, the FDA then stayed enforcement of the MDO on Nov. 1, pending an administrative appeal.
The economic impacts of COVID-19 also created challenges for the company, which began downsizing in August when it sold an estimated 30 of its stores to North Carolina-based competitor AMV Holdings, parent to Kure and Madvapes. It then shuttered or sold its remaining 20 stores, including five in the same city as the company’s headquarters, Richmond, Virginia, Xu said in an interview with Richmond Biz Sense.
Avail was an early entry into the vapor market, opening its first stores in 2013. By 2015, the company was producing its own e-liquids in its 37,000-square-foot office and manufacturing facility. It soon began also producing e-liquids for several other major brands. Xu said that he is not leaving the vapor industry and an announcement concerning a new project would be announced soon.
Court records show the FDA failed at reviewing submitted PMTA data as required and only looked for specific studies.
By Timothy S. Donahue
The term “fatal flaw” was used by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) submissions that didn’t have specific studies. The term has been at the center of nearly all lawsuits filed against the FDA for its handling of the PMTA process.
In court records reviewed by Voice Voice submitted in the Triton Distribution v. U.S. FDA case requesting a stay of the marketing denial order (MDO) the e-liquid manufacturer received from the FDA, the regulatory agency submitted an administrative record for the review of Triton’s PMTA that shows the agency did not fully review all PMTA data submitted, as required by law, but instead only looked for specific studies relating to flavors and youth use.
A memo dated July 9, 2021, written by Anne Radway, the associate director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products’ Office of Science, states that “based on the information available to date, FDA has determined this evaluation requires evidence that can demonstrate whether an applicant’s new non-tobacco flavored product(s) will provide an incremental benefit to adult smokers relative to the applicant’s tobacco-flavored product(s). In particular, the evidence necessary for this evaluation would be provided by either a randomized controlled trial (RCT) or a longitudinal cohort study. The absence of these types of studies is considered a fatal flaw, meaning any application lacking this evidence will likely receive a marketing denial order.”
Radway goes onto explain that due to the large number of PMTAs received, the agency would only conduct a Fatal Flaw review of PMTAs for non-tobacco flavored ENDS products.
“The Fatal Flaw review is a simple review in which the reviewer examines the submission to identify whether or not it contains the necessary type of studies. The Fatal Flaw review will be limited to determining presence or absence of such studies; it will not evaluate the merits of the studies,” Radway states. “To decrease the number of PMTAs without final action by September 9, 2021, [Office of Science] used a database query to identify the top twelve manufacturers with the largest number of pending PMTAs [in the substantive review stage of the process] … Following completion of filing those applications that are filed will immediately initiate Fatal Flaw review.”
Radway also states that for the remaining PMTAs not in [substantive review] for non-tobacco flavored e-liquid products, FDA will send a “General Correspondence letter requesting the applicant to confirm if their PMTA contains such evidence and, if so, to direct FDA to the location in the application where the studies can be found.”
During the first day of TMA’s “From Chance to Change” webinar on Nov. 17, panelists were disturbed by the findings that the agency, rather than reviewing a submission on its merits, simply searched for the presence or absence of certain studies.
Brittany Cushman
Brittani Cushman, senior vice president, general counsel and secretary at Turning Point Brands said that the “idea that so many of the applications were reviewed with an eye toward this so-called fatal flaw analysis” didn’t “feel like the right direction” for the PMTA review process.
The FDA admitted it made an error in TPB’s PMTA review and TPB did in fact submit studies that the agency decided during the PMTA process were needed, after saying for years the studies were not required. The FDA then rescinded TPB’s MDO and placed its applications back into substantive review. The agency has since rescinded or a court has stayed MDO’s for 10 companies and the agency is currently facing at least 45 lawsuits for it handling of the PMTA process. This is in addition to the dozens of requests for supervisory review.
“The way the review process has played out this far, really, feels like the incentive structure in the nicotine industry has been placed on its head,” explained Cushman. “It seems that the lower-risk products are receiving heightened scrutiny, kind of an opaque direction as to what’s sufficient. And it just doesn’t feel like these products are getting a kind of equitable treatment in the space.“
Triton Distribution had their MDO stayed by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals with the court holding that Triton is likely to succeed on the merits of its case because the FDA “changed its regulatory requirements” and that this “switcheroo” to now require a randomized controlled trial and/or a longitudinal cohort study – which the Agency previously stated on numerous occasions would not be required – was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The court stated that the FDA failed to “reasonably consider the relevant issues and reasonably explain” the MDO. The Court further noted that FDA failed to consider Triton’s marketing plan, surveys, and evidence of potential benefits of flavored e-cigarettes. FDA also “failed to consider the company’s legitimate reliance interests, as Triton relied on FDA’s statements made in numerous public meetings, guidance documents and rulemakings” that it did not expect applicants would need to conduct long-term studies to support their PMTAs.
Cushman told webinar watchers that, at the end of the day, the FDA’s regulatory treatment of the various product categories is to the detriment of the adult smoker.
“We’re all down in the weeds of this. But it’s difficult to see how we ended up at this point. And it certainly can’t be where anyone wanted this process to play out,” she said. “I think this has led to a lot of detrimental outcomes. You have adults seeing a large number of vapor products being deemed as not appropriate for the protection of public health while seeing no change in [combustible] cigarette offerings in their local C-store … This is being celebrated not only by those who are ignorant to the science, but more perversely, those [who understand the science and should] know better.”
For more on this session from TMA 2021 read the next issue of Vapor Voice coming in mid-December.
A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected Breeze Smoke LLC’s application of a stay of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s order Friday, denying the company’s premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) for some of its vaping products.
In Breeze Smoke LLC v. FDA, the Sixth Circuit rejected the Fifth Circuit’s conclusion that the FDA had orchestrated a “surprise switcheroo” in the PMTA review process. This creates an interesting circuit split that might attract Supreme Court interest, according to Reason’s Jonathan Hadler.
The Sixth Circuit’s order, on behalf of Judges Moore and Gilman, concluded that the FDA had never committed itself to accepting PMTA applications for flavored vaping products that lacked long-term studies. Rather, the FDA had merely indicated that “it might accept evidence other than long-term studies, if that evidence had sufficient scientific underpinnings to meet the [Tobacco Control Act’s] statutory mandate of demonstrating that flavored ENDS devices are appropriate for the protection of public health” (emphasis in original).
Thus the court concluded that Breeze Smoke had failed to demonstrate the strong likelihood of success on the merits necessary to support a stay. Judge Kethledge dissented, noting his agreement with the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Wages and White Lion Investments LLC v USFDA.
While rejecting Breeze Smoke’s stay request, the Sixth Circuit panel did note some concern with the FDA’s handling of the company’s application, particularly its “formulaic consideration” of Breeze Smoke’s plans to prevent marketing to youth. This failing, and the impact of a PMTA denial on Breeze Smoke’s business were still not enough to convince a majority of the panel to enter a stay however.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has rescinded the marketing denial order (MDO) issued Sept. 15, 2021, for Humble Juice Co.’s flavored e-liquid products, the company announced on Nov. 5.
Humble had filed a petition in October with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, challenging the FDA’s decision and seeking to have the MDO vacated. Following the receipt of the rescission letter, Humble withdrew its petition as FDA’s rescission of Humble’s MDO places the brand’s flavored e-liquids back into the PMTA review process and provides Humble with a pathway to market its products while its PMTAs are pending.
FDA’s rescission letter states that upon further review it identified information contained in Humble’s PMTA that requires additional evaluation such as “randomized controlled trials comparing tobacco-flavored ENDS to flavored ENDS as well as several cross-sectional surveys evaluating intentions to use or likelihood of use in current smokers, current ENDS users, former tobacco users, and never users.”
The agency also stated that due to the unusual circumstances, it “has no intention of initiating an enforcement action” against any of Humble’s flavored e-liquid products with pending PMTAs. Humble will continue to market its products while its application remains in the review process.
“FDA’s decision to rescind the MDO re-instills our faith in this challenging but science-based regulatory process,” said Humble CEO Daniel Clark. “We remain confident in and proud of our extensive PMTA submission. We are committed to working with the FDA to obtain marketing orders for the products submitted in our initial PMTAs in order to provide Humble’s adult consumers with flavor-filled and affordable e-juice long into the future.”
Confronted with an unexpected large volume of premarket tobacco applications, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration subjected some premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) to only a superficial review, according to documents obtained by Filter.
The PMTA review process comprises three phases: Phase I (Acceptance), which essentially means an application has been received; Phase II (Notification or Filing), which entails acknowledging a company had enough information for its applications to be formally filed; and Phase III (Review), which involves a substantive scientific evaluation, followed by a marketing granted order or marketing denial order (MDOs).
Overwhelmed by the large number of PMTAs and facing a court-ordered deadline of Sept. 9, 2021, the FDA in effect opted for a shortcut, according to Filter.
The publication cites a memorandum signed on July 9 by Matthew Holman, the director of FDA Center for Tobacco Products Office of Science (OS). “Considering the large number of applications that remain to be reviewed by the September 9, 2021, deadline, OS will conduct a Fatal Flaw review of PMTAs not in Phase III for non-tobacco-flavored ENDS products,” it reads.
The Fatal Flaw review is a simple review in which the reviewer examines the submission to identify whether or not it contains the necessary type of studies. “The Fatal Flaw review will be limited to determining presence or absence of such studies; it will not evaluate the merits of the studies,” the memorandum states.
Filter suggests that CTP reviewers created what’s probably a new method to get through a backlog of millions of PMTAs, searched those applications for longitudinal cohort studies and randomized clinical trials without evaluating any other evidence, and for applications lacking them, did not advance them beyond Phase II and just sent out templated MDOs.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has stayed the marketing denial order (MDO) issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to Bidi Vapor in September 2021. The FDA had 
