Tag: regulation

  • Closing the Space

    Closing the Space

    Cape Town, South Africa (Credit: Deyan)

    At the current rate, tobacco harm reduction is likely to remain a fantasy in South Africa.

    By Asanda Gcoyi

    Like other countries around the world, South Africans have taken to vaping in great numbers over the past 10 years. What started as a small community of smokers seeking out less harmful alternatives to cigarettes has now morphed into a massive industry that is growing in leaps and bounds.

    Since 2013, vaping devices in South Africa have become a ubiquitous sight, with many a smoker giving up their deadly habit in favor of vaping. For the past decade, vaping has remained outside the regulatory net while tobacco has been regulated through the Tobacco Products Control Act, 83, 1993. While hailed in its initial days, the act has failed to reduce South Africa’s smoking rates successfully.

    This is reflected in recent statistics, which show that South Africa’s smoking rate has increased from about 18 percent in 2018 to over 25 percent in 2022. This is a result of lax law enforcement and the proliferation of cheap illicit tobacco products that are reported to account for over 60 percent of the South African smoked tobacco market.

    For a time, harm reduction advocates were hopeful that vaping would make a significant contribution toward reducing smoking in the country. There was even a faint hope that regulators would embrace the vaping industry in the spirit of reducing the harm that smokers are exposed to and hopefully also reduce the external costs of smoking, which are borne mainly by the poorly performing public health system.

    Not so. Over the past two years, the South African government has succumbed to pressure from the anti-smoking lobby, which relies on misinformation and disinformation to discredit tobacco harm reduction. In part, the antipathy toward vaping has arisen out of fears that young people were taking up vaping in droves.

    Except, there is minimal evidence for this contention. The research that has been done is limited in scope and reach, and its conclusions cannot be generalized to the rest of the South African youth. No doubt, young people are curious and are trying out vaping. However, there is no evidence that large numbers are regular vapers or that they are progressing to smoking cigarettes, as has been claimed by those in favor of strict regulations of vaping.

    Asanda Gcoyi

    What is beyond any doubt is that a significant number of young people are smokers due to the accessibility and low prices of illicit tobacco. In its rush to be seen to be doing something about the manufactured crisis of youth vaping, the government has embarked on two processes: the introduction of a vaping tax and the amendment of the country’s tobacco control laws to include vaping.

    After a two-year public consultation charade, the government started levying an excise duty on vaping liquids on June 1, 2023. This immediately made refillable vapes unaffordable for your average vaper, as the price of a 100 mL bottle more than doubled overnight. At ZAR2.90 ($0.16) per milliliter, South Africa’s rate is on the steep side and has made smoking more attractive from a price point of view.

    Perversely, the excise duty has made disposable vapes much cheaper than refillable vapes. Up to the introduction of the tax, refillable vapes had been the preferred choice for smokers who were using vaping as a harm-reduced alternative to smoking. Common wisdom has it that disposable vapes are the most preferred option for young adults and teenagers.

    In introducing the steep rate, the government has failed to deter the people who should not vape from doing so while forcing many former smokers and dual users to vape higher nicotine disposables and revert to smoking due to price.

    Parallel to the tax’s introduction, Parliament has been processing the Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Control Bill, which was introduced in December 2022. This anti-harm reduction draft law dismisses the possibility that vaping is less harmful than smoking and that there should be a differentiation in law between how the two are treated.

    It conflates vaping and smoking and extends draconian regulations to vaping, some of which will virtually wipe out any communication about vaping as a harm-reduced alternative to smoking. In the process, it will confirm smoking’s importance as the only viable form of nicotine delivery for the millions of nicotine addicts who do not know enough about vaping or believe the disinformation that vaping is as harmful, if not more so, than smoking.

    Supported by Bloomberg Foundation-funded organizations, the bill is a clear demonstration of the deep-seated disdain that the South African government has for the smoking public. In countless public hearings, the ruling party and its fellow travelers in the anti-tobacco campaign loudly proclaimed their contrived belief that harm reduction is a ruse.

    They have used every opportunity to talk up the dangers of youth vaping while completely ignoring the plight of the more than 10 million smokers in South Africa. In their telling, smokers should just quit because vaping is as bad, if not worse, than smoking. In one hearing, they were even proud to display a poster showing the diseased body of a vaper, science notwithstanding.

    While there is always a chance that the new government to be elected on May 29 will revisit the draft Bill submitted to Parliament, there is little hope among tobacco harm reduction experts of any change in direction. It has become clear that the South African government has lost its ability to make public health policy guided by its unique circumstances. It is content to defer to the ideological prescripts of the World Health Organization and the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, even when it clearly goes against its own interests as a country.

    This is a disheartening and anti-democratic exercise in policy capture, which, left unchecked, will prejudice South African smokers by foreclosing the possibility of switching to less harmful alternatives. At the current rate, tobacco harm reduction is likely to remain a pipe dream rather than a reality.

    Asanda Gcoyi is CEO of the Vapour Products Association of South Africa.

  • Significant Shifts

    Significant Shifts

    Credit: Nightman

    The vaping industry continues to overcome regulatory challenges and false narratives.

    By Greg Conley

    Over the past decade, Vapor Voice has closely tracked the vaping industry’s turbulent evolution from niche interest to a subject of global attention. These years have been marked by significant shifts due to technological advancements, evolving regulatory landscapes and changing public health views. As a longtime advocate for safer nicotine alternatives, I’ve observed the industry’s struggle for legitimacy and its ongoing battle against misinformation.

    In the early days of the vapor industry, doubts and skepticism were rampant. I had a memorable encounter in 2011 at a conference filled with tobacco industry executives. There, an executive remarked to me, “Enjoy this while it lasts. You’ve got about a year left before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration crushes you.” There was no malice or ill will in his voice but rather a resigned acknowledgement of the regulatory hurdles that lay ahead, courtesy of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) and the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. This insight foretold the imminent regulatory challenges we were about to face.

    Greg Conley

    Initially, certain industry players were confident in their ability to satisfy CTP requirements. Despite the plain text of the Tobacco Control Act, some manufacturers still believed that the CTP would not outright reject flavored products. A stark reality check was dealt when the CTP’s original deeming proposal was leaked online in 2015. Had the Office of Management and Budget at former President Barack Obama’s White House not intervened to object to a provision that would have immediately pulled flavored products from the market, the industry could be radically different today.

    The appointment of Scott Gottlieb as FDA commissioner during former President Donald Trump’s administration was initially met with cheers. This ignited industry hopes for a science-based approach to the impending deadlines for submitting premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs). Yet, Juul’s skyrocketing popularity and the associated increase in youth vaping quickly became a major point of contention, halting any progress toward streamlining the PMTA process.

    A profound nadir of the last decade was undoubtedly the summer 2019 e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) crisis. Even as the evidence grew linking the illnesses and deaths to illicit THC products, the legal nicotine vaping industry was unjustly blamed and the subject of sensationalist media coverage. Worse still, several of the nation’s top health officials spearheaded efforts to cloud the true cause of EVALI.

    Notably, one health official who played a central role in the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s mishandling of the EVALI situation now holds a significant role in shaping the future of vaping—Brian King, who heads the CTP. It is deeply ironic that King, who helped add fuel to the fire that caused a remarkable decline in public perception of nicotine vaping, now oversees the CTP’s purported efforts to rectify misconceptions about smoke-free nicotine products.

    As the industry emerged from the doldrums of the EVALI crisis, it faced the longstanding regulatory challenges that advocates had been cautioning about for years. Following numerous delays, the submission deadline for PMTAs for tobacco-derived nicotine vaping products finally arrived in September 2020. Amid the global focus on Covid-19 and the impending presidential election, the media was uninterested in stories about small business concerns with the CTP’s flawed system.

    September 2020 was not an easy month for CTP employees. When it proposed the deeming regulation, the CTP predicted that it would receive fewer than 3,000 PMTAs. However, the vapor industry firmly stood its ground. Through an effort spearheaded by the founding members of the American Vapor Manufacturers Association, over 200 manufacturers inundated the CTP with several million PMTAs.

    As anticipated, chaos ensued. The FDA’s system was completely overwhelmed. The agency was at a loss on how to proceed with the PMTAs. The indecision ended after an April 2021 legislative hearing, during which FDA Acting Commissioner Janet Woodcock was harangued by House Democrats who wanted to see all PMTAs for flavored vaping products immediately denied. She returned to the FDA and mandated that the CTP create a new system to expedite the denial of the backlog of vapor product PMTAs.

    The FDA’s infamous “fatal flaw” memo resulted in the banning of millions of nicotine vaping products. These bans were not based on any direct public health risk posed by the products. Rather, they were implemented because, well, after the PMTA submission deadline had passed, the FDA decided it would not review PMTAs for flavored vaping products without a specific clinical trial or longitudinal study. As a result of ongoing litigation, which could potentially reach the Supreme Court in the next year, many of the PMTAs submitted in 2020 are still pending resolution.

    As a testament to the industry’s dynamic nature, the products caught up in court fights have fallen out of favor with adult consumers. Since 2020, the explosion in popularity of flavored disposable vapes, fueled by ambiguous regulations and enforcement regarding synthetic nicotine, has significantly reshaped the industry. This shift has happened amid steep declines in youth usage and steady increases in adult usage.

    The ongoing legislative and legal battles surrounding disposable vaping products signal the onset of a struggle that will likely shape the next decade of vaping. Approximately 10 million adults in the U.S. use flavored disposables, with a significant portion turning to these products as a complete replacement for combustible tobacco products. In our interconnected society and in a country growing more skeptical about government interference with the private choices of adults, preventing adults from accessing flavored vaping products will prove to be no simple feat.

    Looking back at the evolution of the vaping industry over the last decade, the road has been both rocky and rewarding. From regulatory challenges to breakthroughs in harm reduction, the narrative is rich with lessons learned and battles fought. Amid these uncertainties, one thing is clear: Our journey is far from over.

    Greg Conley is the director of legislative and external affairs for the American Vapor Manufacturers Association.

  • Elfbar ‘Equipped to Pivot’ Around UK Disposable Ban

    Elfbar ‘Equipped to Pivot’ Around UK Disposable Ban

    Credit: Profit Image

    The company behind two of the UK’s most popular vape brands says new reusable versions leave it “well-equipped” to deal with the upcoming ban on disposables, despite concerns over producers exploiting “loopholes.”

    Elfbar and Lost Mary have already launched reusable versions of their popular disposable vapes.

    Elfbar said it was “addressing demand” for a tool to help smokers quit.

    But critics say the vapes will not achieve the ban’s environmental aims, reports the BBC.

    Councils have also warned that the UK government should not let producers exploit “loopholes” in the ban.

    Green Fun Alliance is one of the main distributors in the UK of Elfbar and Lost Mary, which account for nearly half of the British market.

    It is owned by low-profile Chinese entrepreneur Shengwei Zhang, 51, who also controls the companies that make Elfbar and Lost Mary vapes.

    The latest accounts for Green Fun Alliance show that its sales have skyrocketed as disposable vapes gained popularity—almost tripling to £117.3m for the year ending January 31, 2023.

    In a filing with Companies House, Green Fun Alliance noted the government’s plans to ban them from next April “will have a detrimental effect on sales and profitability.”

    “However, management have been preparing for this and are well equipped to pivot their business to the exclusive sale of non-disposable vapes and related products,” it said.

  • Vaping in Malaysia: Taxes Likely Coming Soon

    Vaping in Malaysia: Taxes Likely Coming Soon

    It remains to be seen whether Malaysia will remain as tolerant of vaping as it is today.

    By Norm Bour

    Over the past four months, I have been in four different Asian countries. Each has its own currency, language, food and culture. They also all have their own vape markets, which differ based on regulations, cost of purchase (compared to income) and, in many cases, religious restrictions.

    In Malaysia, my current homestay, the dominant religion is Islam, and I have seen more women wearing hajibs than in previously visited countries. What is fascinating is the exceptionally high number of young female vapers walking in the malls and on the streets. In a country so devout, I asked a vape shop clerks how religious leaders feel about vaping, especially among women.

    “Cigarette and tobacco usage is very high within the Muslim community,” said one of the counter girls from Vape VG, which is located in a mall. “And even though most of us realize it’s an unhealthy habit, there is no opinion on it from our religious leaders.” She did not address the female perspective.

    When I followed up and asked her which were the most popular products, she said (as many shopkeepers globally do), “flavors of all kinds, especially fruity [ones].”

    I asked a group of several female vapers if they felt out of place or self-conscious about vaping in public or even in private. They said they had no problem doing it on the streets, but some felt uncomfortable doing it in their parents’ presence—even if their parents smoked.

    Regardless, there is still a strong motivation in the country to increase tobacco taxation. In its February 2024 budget meeting, the government proposed to impose an excise duty on liquids or gels containing nicotine used for e-cigarettes or vaping devices—but that is as far as it got.

    And Malaysia’s current excise duty on e-cigs and liquids with nicotine applies to just a few manufacturers. Meanwhile, the taxation on traditional cigarettes has not changed since 2017.

    So far, the vape market in Malaysia is prolific and in the open. You don’t need to go very far to find a vape shop. Ironically, we saw more vape shops than tobacco stores, as my wife had difficulty finding the clove cigarettes she enjoys sometimes. The vape stores range from tiny kiosks, like Action Vape, within the walkways connecting buildings to small units of just a few square feet to the larger outlets, like Brain Freeze Vape, which claims to be the largest in the country.

    With a population of just under 2 million, Malaysia’s capital, Kuala Lumpur, provides valuable insights into the country’s vaping market.

    Considering that vaping is banned in neighboring Thailand, Singapore and Brunei, plus nearby Cambodia and Laos, it’s refreshing to see an open market. One shop owner confirmed that his store gets a lot of tourists from abroad, especially from countries where vaping is outlawed.

    Malaysia, too, came close to banning vapes under its “Generational Endgame” bill. Proposed in 2022, this legislation would have prohibited anyone born in 2007 or later from buying and using cigarettes or vaping products in Malaysia, in effect gradually raising the legal age until it covered the entire population. The bill never passed, however; it was abandoned in November 2023, officially due to concerns about its constitutionality. Critics, however, blamed the U-turn on industry lobbying.

    With that said, Malaysia still restricts underage sales. The law prohibits sales to those under the age of 18, but loopholes make that restriction toothless, according to critics. Health advocates complain that leading tobacco companies such Philip Morris International, BAT and Japan Tobacco International wield considerable influence in Malaysia.

    Last year, the government exempted liquid nicotine and gels from its Poisons Act, effectively legalizing vaping as of last April. The move angered many people. Currently, the Control of Smoking Products for Public Health Bill 2023 prohibits the advertising and sponsorship of e-cigarettes or vape products.

    Many businesses see potential in the Malaysian vaping market. At the end of March, Airscream U.K. announced plans to invest myr100 million ($21.12 million) in its operations over the next five years and move its headquarters to Malaysia, according to media reports. The company has already established administrative, sales and marketing operations and a showroom in Shah Alam. It has close to 40 employees locally and 100 globally.

    Airscream founder and CEO Sam Ong cited a robust market and vaping industry ecosystem as reasons for the company’s decision. Over the past decade, Malaysia’s vaping industry has grown into a myr3 billion business, employing more than 30,000 Malaysians, according to the Malaysian Vape Chamber of Commerce.

    Ong believes the market is poised for further growth, potentially driving more foreign direct investments into the country and bolstering job creation. “We are also encouraged by the passing of the Control of Smoking Products for Public Health Bill 2023, which brings Malaysia on par with other countries around the world, including the U.K., Australia, Thailand and Singapore, which have standalone legislation on tobacco and vape,” Ong said.

    Additionally, China-based 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 earlier this year. Company leadership announced previously that Malaysia offers more business-friendly tariff rules than some other Asian countries.

    “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’s Co-CEO, Michael Wang. “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.”

    The vaping and smoking trends in Malaysia seem contrary to those in many other countries. E-cigarette use among Malaysian youths aged 13–17 rose from 9.8 percent in 2017 to 14.9 percent in 2022, according to the National Health and Morbidity Survey. During the same period, cigarette smoking rates dropped from 13.8 percent to 6.2 percent.

    With organizations such as the Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance pressuring countries in the region to crack down on vaping, it remains to be seen whether Malaysia will remain as tolerant of vaping as it is today.

    Norm Bour is the founder of VapeMentors and works with vape businesses worldwide. He can be reached at norm@VapeMentors.com.

  • County Judge Halts Ohio Ban on Local Tobacco Laws

    County Judge Halts Ohio Ban on Local Tobacco Laws

    Credit: Promesa Art Studio

    A county judge in Ohio issued a temporary restraining order late Friday afternoon, stopping a state law from taking effect next week that would prevent Columbus, several Franklin County suburbs, Cincinnati, and other Ohio cities from regulating tobacco products, including enacting flavor bans.

    The ruling means the local cities’ bans on selling flavored vaping and other tobacco products will remain in effect for now, according to media reports. However, the move indicates that Franklin County Common Pleas Judge Mark Serrott believes the cities’ case will likely succeed.

    Serrott scheduled a preliminary injunction hearing in the case for May 17.

    Columbus, Cincinnati, and several other Ohio cities filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging the law created by the Republican-controlled Ohio General Assembly. The cities argue the legislature violated an Ohio constitutional amendment giving cities “home rule” to set their own laws for the good of their residents on certain matters, including on issues of public safety.

    The cities argue the new Ohio law allowing flavored tobacco sales negatively affects the health of Ohioans, particularly of teens increasingly turning to vaping.

    Serrott also noted that while one state law prohibits municipalities from regulating tobacco, another requires a plan to reduce tobacco use by Ohioans. That code emphasizes reducing the use of tobacco by “youth, minority and regional populations, pregnant women, Medicaid recipients, and others who may be disproportionately affected by the use of tobacco.”

    In granting the restraining order, Serrott concluded the cities’ challenge to the constitutionality of the state law is likely to succeed ultimately — although he also acknowledged the state is expected to appeal his final ruling.

  • Vape Shop Owners Vow to Challenge Utah Flavor Ban

    Vape Shop Owners Vow to Challenge Utah Flavor Ban

    Credit: Jovannig

    A new Utah law that will prohibit the sale of flavored e-cigarettes has supporters of the law arguing that flavored e-cigarettes are making children addicted to nicotine. However, implementing the law won’t only have a severe impact on Utah’s almost 200 vape shops; it will devastate them, according to an industry representative who has expressed their intention to challenge the law in court.

    The sponsor of that law, pediatrician and Salt Lake Democratic Sen. Jen Plumb, said she has seen kids in the emergency room going through withdrawal because they can’t vape in the hospital and friends whose children are anxious about going without their nicotine on long flights, according to media reports.

    Plumb’s bill, signed into law last month by Gov. Spencer Cox, goes further than just banning flavors — aside from tobacco or menthol. It also bans the sale of any vape product with a nicotine concentration above 4 percent. And it only allows the sale of products that have either been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or have submitted an application for approval prior to September 2020.

    Nobody knows how many products will have to be removed from shelves. To date, there are only 17 FDA-approved products from three manufacturers that meet the criteria, and an FDA spokeswoman said they don’t know how many pre-2020 applications are still pending.

    According to Beau Maxon, vice president of the Utah Vapor Business Association and owner of Park City Vapor Company, one thing is certain: It will be a death sentence for many vape shop owners.

    “There’s no question about it,” Maxon said in an interview, “it is going to put the retail tobacco specialty industry in jeopardy and you’re going to see a lot of them not able to stay open.”

    That’s because in a vape shop like his, Maxon said, 99.9 percent of the products they sell are flavored — not because they’re targeting kids, but because it’s what his adult customers want.

    Without other options, shop owners will challenge the law in court over the businesses that will be forced to close, the creation of a monopoly for convenience stores and Big Tobacco products, and potentially other grounds.

    “There’s no question about it,” Maxon said. “We will be litigating it.”

  • Vape Shop Owners Challenge Kentucky Registry Bill

    Vape Shop Owners Challenge Kentucky Registry Bill

    Credit: Adobe

    Several vape businesses, as well as the Kentucky Hemp Association and Kentucky Vaping Retailers Association, are suing the state government over House Bill 11, which will restrict vape sales starting in 2025.

    Among other policy changes, HB 11 will bar businesses from selling vapes that are either not authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or are not currently under review by the regulatory agency.

    During public debates, various arguments for and against HB 11 were made before the Legislature passed the law in late March.

    But the vape shops’ lawsuit, filed last week in Franklin Circuit Court, challenges the legislation on constitutional grounds, according to media reports.

    The lawsuit zeroes in on HB 11’s reliance on defining a “vapor product” in a way that includes devices that feature “vaporized nicotine or other substances.”

    The shops’ petition says this definition encompasses not only nicotine vapes but also hemp-derived vaping products they currently sell. And it says the definition is broad enough to apply to medical cannabis vaping products that will become legal in Kentucky next year.

    The lawsuit argues this makes the new law unconstitutional for two reasons.

    First, it claims HB 11 violates a provision in the Kentucky Constitution that says the Legislature can’t pass a law that relates to more than one subject, and that subject must be specified in its title.

    The plaintiffs say HB 11 is titled an “act relating to nicotine products” but actually affects non-nicotine products as well. They argue this effectively violates the constitutional rule.

    Second, the lawsuit says hemp-derived vapes generally aren’t regulated by the FDA, which makes it impossible for businesses to comply with HB 11’s requirement that they only sell vapes that have received or are seeking FDA approval.

    The suit argues this violates a due process clause in the U.S. Constitution and makes HB 11 an “arbitrary” law, which is prohibited by the Kentucky Constitution.

  • U.K. to Vote Tuesday on Tobacco Endgame Bill

    U.K. to Vote Tuesday on Tobacco Endgame Bill

    Vapor Voice archives

    On Tuesday, British lawmakers will vote on a generational smoking ban aimed at preventing young people from smoking.

    The bill, a key policy announced by Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak last year, will make it illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone born after 2009, according to media reports.

    The proposal has the support of the opposition Labour Party and is expected to pass. However, some libertarian-minded members of Sunak’s party criticized the proposals as “unconservative.”

    Authorities say that if passed, the bill will create modern Britain’s “first smoke-free generation”.

    Supporting the ban, England’s chief medical officer, Professor Sir Chris Whitty, said once people become addicted to smoking, “their choice is taken away.”

    Under the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, children turning 15 this year or younger will never be legally sold tobacco. The legal age of sale that people in England can buy cigarettes will be raised by one year, every year, until it is eventually illegal for the whole population.

    The bill also includes measures to crack down on youth vaping, such as banning the sale of disposable vapes and limiting their flavors to prevent children from becoming addicted to nicotine.

    Opponents, such as Conservative lawmaker Simon Clarke, have said it is better to focus on education and the tax system to deter young people from smoking rather than enforcing an outright ban.

    “I think that an outright ban risks being counterproductive; I think it actually risks making smoking cooler; it certainly risks creating a black market,” he told the BBC.

  • FDA Denies Marketing of MNGO Disposable Vapes

    FDA Denies Marketing of MNGO Disposable Vapes

    Credit: Chase4Concept

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on April 15 issued marketing denial orders (MDOs) to Shenzhen Yibo Technology Co. for 65 disposable e-cigarettes marketed as “MNGO Disposable Stick.”

    The products involved include flavors such as tobacco, menthol, pink lemonade, strawberry mango, watermelon freeze, iced banana, and others, with each flavor offered in a range of nicotine concentrations from 2 percent to 6 percent.

    According to the 2023 National Youth Tobacco Survey (NYTS), disposable e-cigarettes were the most commonly used device among current e-cigarette users, and almost 9 out of 10 current e-cigarette users reported using flavored e-cigarettes with fruit flavors being the most popular.

    The MDOs also include several “Clear” flavor products that were described by the applicant as flavorless or unflavored. However, data submitted in the company’s applications showed these products contained ingredients that are flavor enhancers or are known to impart a menthol or mint flavor, according to the FDA. Based on the entirety of evidence, the agency determined that the products have a characterizing flavor.

    “The onus is on tobacco companies to provide the evidence demonstrating that the necessary public health standard has been met, and when they fail to do so, FDA will appropriately deny the marketing authorization of new tobacco products,” said Brian King, director of FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, in a statement. “In this case, the applicant did not meet the necessary bar.”

  • Uzbekistan Plans to Ban Heated Tobacco, Vapes

    Uzbekistan Plans to Ban Heated Tobacco, Vapes

    Tashkent TV Tower Aerial Shot During Sunset in Uzbekistan (Credit: Lukas)

    The Ministry of Health in Uzbekistan has proposed a ban on the circulation of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) products, e-liquids and heated tobacco products, Trend reports.

    This is shown in the draft law published on Uzbekistan’s portal to discuss draft normative legal acts.

    According to the law, the circulation of ENDS products on the “territory of the country is prohibited.”

    The Ministry of Health also proposes to introduce administrative and criminal liability for violation of this ban—a fine in the amount of $1,000 to five years of imprisonment.

    According to data from Uzbekistan’s Statistics Agency, the production volume of tobacco products in the country reached 2.1 billion pieces from January through February 2024.

    From January through February 2024, the country’s exports of tobacco products reached $7.8 million, while imports amounted to $10.5 million during the same period.