During an interview with Politico on Sept. 6, Brian King, the director of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Tobacco Products (CTP), would not say whether the agency was willing to take unauthorized vaping products off the market.
In his first interview since taking the reins of CTP, King said that he was “committing to explore all viable pathways that are legally and scientifically defensible,” adding that “nothing is off the table.”
He did not acknowledge anything about the commission of external experts looking into CTP procedures, however, writes Alex Norcia of Filter, the agency is already in the process of seeking court orders, threatening lawsuits and demanding the destruction of unauthorized next generation nicotine products.
“Filter has confirmed that the FDA, by September 1, advised the Department of Justice (DOJ) that at least two open-system vape companies were in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) because the manufacturers did not file premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) and were continuing to sell their products,” Norcia writes. “According to a letter to one of the vape companies, viewed by Filter, the feds are seeking court orders, threatening lawsuits and demanding the destruction of unauthorized products.”
CTP has denied an estimated 99 percent of marketing applications and dozens of companies have sued over their denials, which they have largely argued were “arbitrary” and “capricious.”
“We plan to seek a court order to permanently enjoin you … from, among other things, directly or indirectly manufacturing, distributing, selling, and/or offering for sale any new tobacco product at or from any of your facilities, unless and until, among other things, the product receives, and has in effect, marketing authorization from FDA,” reads the letter, signed by DOJ Senior Litigation Counsel Christina Parascandola and dated September 1. “The enclosed proposed consent decree,” it continues, “states the terms upon which the government would be willing to settle the suit that we plan to file.”
Filter agreed not to disclose the names of the individuals and companies that received the letters (one of the companies has now ceased business operations) because of the possibility that litigation could unfold. The FDA did not respond to Filter’s request for comment by publication time.
“Defendants shall bear the costs of destruction and the costs of FDA’s supervision.”
One industry insider, who requested anonymity so as not to affect his company’s PMTA process, said that the letter was “a clear escalation”—the first time, to his knowledge, that the FDA had gone beyond warnings and explicitly threatened to sue over sales of unauthorized nicotine vapes.
“Their exercise of enforcement discretion to date has reached almost legendary proportions, so this would be at least a small deviation from that,” Cliff Douglas, the director of the University of Michigan Tobacco Research Network and the American Cancer Society’s former vice president for tobacco control, told Filter. “My sense is that there are many, many instances of such behavior across the country, which Mitch Zeller and others have referred to as requiring FDA to play whack-a-mole, so a big question would appear to be whether this signals a new direction or is a random example of enforcement action.”
The two companies known to have received letters, at least, have been ordered to physically destroy their own products, under FDA supervision, according to Norcia.
“Within thirty (30) days after entry of this Decree, Defendants shall, under FDA’s supervision and pursuant to a written destruction plan approved in writing by FDA prior to implementation, destroy all Defendants’ ENDS products in their custody, control, or possession as of the date this Decree is signed by the parties,” the letter reads. “Defendants shall bear the costs of destruction and the costs of FDA’s supervision incurred under this paragraph.”
How companies can make the most of a recent court ruling requiring the FDA to reassess thousands of PMTA rejection notices.
By Neil McKeganey
It would be hard to overstate the threat that youth vaping in the United States poses to the use of e-cigarettes as a means of tobacco harm reduction. Respected national surveys have shown a rising trend in youth vaping, with the threat to the vaping industry as predictable as night following day.
Former Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb could not have been clearer in signaling that threat when he said that the offramp to adult smoking could not be justifiably achieved at the cost of the on-ramp of teen vaping. If anybody was in any doubt about the risks that youth vaping poses to the entire e-cigarette industry, those doubts would have surely been extinguished in the recent ruling against Juul Labs, which required the company to pay in excess of $438 million to compensate states for the harms caused by past marketing practices increasing the likelihood of youth using their eponymously named vaping device.
For vaping companies, the threat of youth vaping may have lifted slightly in a recent U.S. court ruling requiring the FDA to pay attention to what vapor companies are doing in trying to restrict youth access to their products. Odd as it may sound, after having encouraged vapor companies to pay attention to their marketing and sales practices in light of the rising trend in youth vaping, the FDA’s position appears to have been that those efforts were almost certainly doomed to fail, with youth accessing what are often easy-to-conceal vaping products with relatively little difficulty through their social networks.
With vapor companies having invested heavily in age verification software, point-of-sale restrictions and in the removal of flavored e-liquids, it would have been a bitter pill to swallow to be told that the regulators had largely ignored those efforts to reduce youth access to their products.
The logic behind the FDA’s decision seems to have been that it would be easier to expedite the large number of premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) by adopting a “Fatal Flaw” approach—rejecting those applications that did not present data from either longitudinal customer studies or randomized trial evaluations and simply ignoring what the companies were doing to lessen the likelihood that their products would be found in the hands of youth.
By ruling against the FDA in legal action initiated by six vapor companies that had received marketing denial orders without the FDA even paying attention to their youth sales restriction efforts, the judges have effectively provided vapor companies with a second chance to have their PMTA applications reassessed.
So, what should vapor companies do given the legal victory that has been dropped in their lap? Clearly, it is going to be important for companies to do all they can to restrict youth access to their vapor products. But actions taken by these companies is not the same thing as being able to present evidence to the FDA that their products are not being used by youth.
To this end, research undertaken by the Centre for Substance Use Research (CSUR) in Scotland may help many of the companies concerned. For the last two years, the CSUR has been measuring the prevalence with which over 200 e-cigarette devices are being used by youth and adults within the United States. This ongoing research provides vapor companies with product-specific data showing the extent to which their products are being used, or more crucially, are not being used by youth.
Valuable as the data from this study undoubtedly are, vapor companies also have to be able to show the benefit of their products to adult smokers. The fastest route to obtaining this data is through an actual use study in which adult smokers using a company’s vapor products are monitored over a number of weeks to determine how many smokers are able to quit or reduce their cigarette smoking through using the company’s vapor products.
To obtain a marketing authorization, vapor companies have to be able to show two things—that their products are not being used by youth and that they can help adult smokers in quitting or reducing cigarette consumption. Succeed in these two things and vapor companies can have a bright future. Fail in either one and the future looks a lot bleaker.
Neil McKeganey is the director of the Center for Substance Use Research in Glasgow, Scotland.
Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy vetoed SB 45, a bill that would have raised the minimum age to purchase e-cigarettes and other tobacco products in the state from 19-years-old to 21-years-old. The move would have brought the state in line with federal minimum age requirements.
The bill sought to create parity in the excise tax rate on electronic smoking products, which are currently not subject to state-level taxes as they are not considered either cigarettes or other tobacco products (OTP).
The bill would have subjected electronic smoking products to a tax rate of 35 percent of the wholesale price, which would still be less than the state’s rate of 75 percent of the wholesale price on other tobacco products.
“Governor Dunleavy’s decision to veto this bill is a huge relief to Alaskans who rely on vaping products to stay away from deadly combustible cigarettes. Rejecting the tax hike will also make it easier for those who currently smoke to achieve cessation using vapor products, said Tim Andrews, director of Consumer Issues for Americans for Tax Reform. “Governor Dunleavy’s veto was necessary and highly appropriate. As a proud signer of the ATR Taxpayer Protection Pledge, Governor Dunleavy has made a commitment to his constituents to oppose all tax increases. This veto is proof of his dedication to the taxpayers of Alaska and we applaud this pro-science, pro-taxpayer decision.”
Dunleavy did not say whether or not he supported the age increase, but noted that it is not possible to separate out components of a bill once it has been passed by the legislature.
“There were many conversations about what an appropriate level to tax would be, but ultimately a tax increase on the people of Alaska is not something I can support,” Dunleavy wrote in his veto letter to Senate President Peter Micciche.
Since the governor vetoed the bill after the adjournment of the legislature’s second regular session, the veto will not be addressed unless a special session is called before the next legislative session convenes, according to Halfwheel.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is understating the number of non-tobacco nicotine (NTN)-related premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) it has accepted for review in order to avoid criticism from tobacco control groups that seek prohibition of all vaping products, reports Vaping360, citing American Vapor Manufacturers Association (AVM) President Amanda Wheeler.
On Sept. 8, the FDA announced it has accepted over 350 PMTAs (out of nearly 1 million applications) for NTN products. Wheeler insists that AVM member companies alone have received acceptance letters for 4,700 PMTA submissions.
“Once again the FDA and its Center for Tobacco Products are misleading the public and press on crucial data and methods in its approval process for vaping products,” Wheeler said in a statement. “The figures stated in its press release today on synthetic nicotine applications are demonstrably inconsistent with FDA letters to our own members indicating many thousands more applications successfully filed than FDA now claims.”
An acceptance letter indicates that the application has met the basic requirements to move forward in the review process. It does not authorize the applicant to market the product.
The AVM also says the FDA altered required PMTA forms close to the submission deadline to disqualify already-submitted applications. According to Wheeler, the application forms were “abruptly altered” without public notice, “apparently as a means to disqualify wide swaths of already-filed applications.”
In March, U.S. President Joe Biden signed legislation authorizing the FDA to regulate synthetic nicotine products. Manufacturers had until May 14 to submit PMTAs, and were given two additional months to continue selling products with pending PMTAs. When the grace period ended July 13, all synthetic nicotine-based products became subject to FDA enforcement.
Dan Bilzerian (right), owner of the cannabis company Ignite
A cannabis company led by social-media influencer Dan Bilzerian is under investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
The agency issued a litigation release earlier this week, noting that it “has filed an action against Ignite International Brands, Ltd., a publicly traded company based in Ontario, Canada, seeking an order directing it to comply with an investigative subpoena for documents.”
Among other things, the SEC is investigating whether the Markham, Ont.-headquartered company violated the federal securities laws by making false or misleading statements in reporting its 2020 financial results.
The company has failed to produce requested documents, despite multiple accommodations from SEC staff, according to the release.
“The SEC is continuing its fact-finding investigation and, to date, has not concluded that any individual or entity has violated the federal securities laws,” the release adds.
The company, which sells a line of cannabis and CBD products, such as CBD-infused toothpicks, reportedly lost $67 million in 2019 and stayed afloat by raising money via debt and selling shares of the company’s stock, according to The Growth Op.
The company recently went private but was previously traded on the Canadian Securities Exchange under the ticker “BILZ.” In 2020, the company was trading for around 94 cents a share, down from a high of more than $5.
Last year, the company announced it was pulling out of the Canadian marijuana market, citing “too many barriers” to build a successful cannabis business.
“The government’s excessive restrictions of the marketing, sales and distribution of products has diminished the business opportunity while simultaneously making the consumer experience less than optimal,” Bilzerian said at the time.
During a shareholders meeting held on Aug. 24, 2022, Ignite shareholders approved a resolution to go private that was announced on July 19, 2022, and that the going private transaction has been completed, according to a press release.
The Macau parliament approved an amendment to the law on smoking prevention and control that prohibits the manufacture, distribution, import, export and transport of vaping products in and out of the region.
The law provides for penalties of MOP4,000 ($500) for individuals, with a fine of between MOP20,000 and MOP200,000 for companies.
Although the proposal was unanimously approved, during the debate in the Legislative Assembly, several members said that the government should go further, and impose a total ban on e-cigarettes, reports Macau Business.
Leong Sun Lok expressed concern that the new legislation might increase the smuggling or sale of e-cigarettes through the Internet or lead to an increase in the number of conventional cigarette users.
The Macau Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China’s secretary for social affairs and culture confirmed that they are considering a later ban on e-cigarettes after giving “some time” to smokers who may “still have some in stock.”
Elsie Ao Ieong U also promised to review, within three years, the tax on all tobacco products, which in Macau is around 60 percent of the final price.
Ron Lam U Tou advocated increasing the tax, noting that the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends a value of 75 percent.
The only Portuguese member in the parliament, José Pereira Coutinho, warned that the legislative revision could harm tourists who are only “passing through,” namely to mainland China, where e-cigarettes are allowed.
The legislative amendment will come into force three months after it is published in the Official Bulletin of the Chinese special administrative region.
The sale, advertising and promotion of e-cigarettes have been prohibited in Macau since 2018.
The government justified the changes to the law with “the strong evidence that this type of tobacco product is harmful to health, and can endanger the safety of people,” recalling that the consumption of e-cigarettes has increased, especially among young people.
The government stressed that e-cigarettes are banned in the neighboring region of Hong Kong and Singapore, and the Taiwanese parliament is also discussing a proposed ban.
Thailand’s health ministry remains opposed to vaping, saying e-cigarettes are affecting the health of consumers of whom more than half are considered youth, reports Bangkok Post.
Speaking at a national conference on cigarettes and public health in Bangkok on Aug. 29, Public Health Minister Anutin Charnvirakul stressed the need to continue banning e-cigarette imports to protect youth from the health risks associated with vaping.
More than half of the about 80,000 vapers in Thailand are aged 15–24, according to a survey conducted by the National Statistics Office last year.
“This clearly showed vaping has created new smokers, especially young people, while a growing number of international studies found smoking e-cigarettes has negative effects on young people’s brains,” said Charnvirakul.
Pointing to “the experiences of other countries,” Charnvirakul said banning e-cigarettes was the most effective measure to control vaping.
Concerns about illicit trade would be addressed by continued “crackdowns on e-cigarettes smuggled into the country,” he added.
Charnvirakul comments follow discussions about making vapor products legal in Thailand. Earlier this year, the Digital Economy and Society Ministry set up a working group to see if electronic cigarettes could be legalized as an alternative for smokers.
A Metro Council proposal in Nasheville, Tennessee that would ban vaping and smoking, even in 21-and-up bars, makes an exception for cigar bars. But hookah lounges and a new cannabis restaurant could be forced to change their businesses if the ordinance passes.
Anyone who works at or patronizes Alladin’s Hookah Lounge & Bar on Elliston Place in Nashville knows they will be surrounded by tobacco smoke. Bar manager Amy Abrecht says communal smoking is the whole point, according to WLPN.
Members of the Metro Council acknowledged in a hearing this month that hookah bars were an oversight. Sponsor Jeff Syracuse also said a new cannabis restaurant called Buds & Brews that offers vaping as part of the experience raised concerns.
“I don’t want to drive out of business new businesses that weren’t expecting this,” Councilmember Freddie O’Connell said at the meeting Aug. 16, when the ordinance was deferred to Sept. 20. “I don’t want to have this conflict emerge that we can’t work around.”
The problem is the Metro Council can’t simply amend the proposed ordinance. The city had to get legislation passed at the state level to be granted authority to ban smoking in 21-and-up bars. So adding an exception beyond cigar bars will take an act of the General Assembly too, which isn’t scheduled to meet again until next year.
Disposable vapes help smokers to quit combustibles but are deadly for the environment.
By Maria Verven
Cigarettes used to be the most littered things in the world.
Trillions of cigarette butts are thrown onto our streets, parks and beaches every year. The Ocean Conservancy estimates that cigarette butts account for 25 percent of the total number of garbage items collected—over twice as much as any other category. Worldwide, it’s estimated that 1.69 billion pounds of cigarette butts end up as waste each year.
While some smokers may think their butts will eventually decompose, it actually takes decades for them to degrade. Cigarette filters aren’t made of innocuous cotton; they’re made of cellulose acetate and about 12,000 nonbiodegradable plastic-based fibers.
The chemicals in a single cigarette butt can contaminate hundreds of gallons of water. They can also be dangerous, causing fatal fires that burn hundreds of acres every year.
Things have changed dramatically in the last several years as many smokers have switched to vaping, thanks in large part to the convenience of disposable e-cigarettes.
In fact, these handy-dandy devices appear to be taking over the industry since they’re the simplest and most accessible vaping devices on the market.
But in the process, we created a whole new environmental hazard that, as of yet, has no easy solution.
Popular among youth
Among all the vaping devices on the market, none are more popular than disposable electronic nicotine-delivery systems (ENDS), particularly among young people.
According to the 2021 National Youth Tobacco Survey, well over half (54 percent) of youth who reported using e-cigarettes had used disposables. The 2020 Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study corroborated this finding. It reported that 38 percent of young adults aged 18–24 versus 17 percent of older adults (over age 25) who had used any ENDS product in the past 30 days had used a disposable.
At the May 2022 Vaper Expo U.K., nearly every vendor offered some variety of disposable device. Many were new to the market that were capitalizing on the trend—as well as renowned companies such as Innokin, which launched its new Aquios Bar disposable device in 10 different flavors.
“Disposable vapes are certainly the hottest-selling item among smoke-free nicotine-delivery devices,” said Dimitris Agrafiotis, owner of Global eVapor Consulting, executive director of the Tennessee Smoke Free Association and brand ambassador and designer at Innokin Technology.
Agrafiotis said disposable vapes attract individuals who make impulse buys at various points of sale as well as new users who enjoy the convenience of a product that doesn’t require any knowledge of coils or ohms. They can purchase disposables nearly anywhere where cigarettes are sold. They can simply tear open the package and start vaping, making disposables the perfect solution for beginners.
“In my experience, vapers who quit smoking use disposable vapes part time as secondary devices when they don’t want to take their usual rig with them, such as at a nice dinner or in situations requiring them to be more discrete,” he said.
The technology behind disposables has only continued to improve over the past several years. Most vape pens can now deliver around 400 puffs before they’re no longer viable—nearly twice as many puffs as a pack of cigarettes can deliver. Some vape pens with larger batteries can even deliver as much as 5,000 puffs.
Another significant advance is the use of auto-draw switches that activate the device and heat the coil when the vaper inhales, delivering a smooth and seamless experience.
And thanks to nicotine salts, disposables offer a smoother vaping experience. While the nicotine level in most disposables is limited to 5 mg, vapers can satisfy their nicotine cravings without a harsh throat hit or any interference in the flavor experience.
Speaking of flavor, that’s another advantage disposables have over refillable vape devices. Manufacturers often add sweeteners to disposables to make the flavors pop without having to worry that the sweeteners will gunk up and ruin the device. The disposable will be tossed long before that happens.
The range of flavors available from disposables is mind-blowing. As more and more manufacturers take advantage of the growth in this market, they entice vapers with interesting and often exotic flavor profiles, such as bergamot and carambola.
While battery technology hasn’t necessarily improved dramatically, some brands have created larger internal or rechargeable batteries in their efforts to increase puff count. This is a step in the right direction to reduce battery waste.
The environmental impact
Even refillable and replaceable vape pens typically contain several metal, plastic and cotton elements, making them difficult to separate and recycle. Thus, they tend to end up as general household waste. Even the smaller replaceable coils and pods don’t often get recycled.
But disposable e-cigarettes are way worse because the vaper disposes the entire device, which is composed of plastic and metal coils as well as a battery cell. While some brands and vape stores offer recycling programs for disposables, most vapers simply toss them into the trash.
Millions of lithium-ion batteries, hard plastic and nicotine-contaminated pods are being disposed of in our landfills, creating a significant waste problem. Nicotine, including nicotine salt, is listed by the Environmental Protection Agency as an acute hazardous waste. When disposables leak battery acid and/or nicotine into the environment, they harm fish and wildlife in the process.
The Food and Drug Administration is required under the National Environmental Policy Act to evaluate all major agency actions to determine if they will have a significant impact on the human environment. If the environmental assessment identifies significant environmental effects, the FDA will prepare an environmental impact statement to help make informed decisions on the relevant environmental consequences and alternatives available.
In addition to assessing potential environmental impacts of new tobacco products during premarket review, the FDA has also posted information for consumers on proper disposal of e-cigarettes and e-liquid waste.
“While we are excited that lots of people are not inhaling combustible tobacco, we should be concerned over the environmental sustainability and proper ethics in the sale of these products,” Agrafiotis said. “In its quest to market and sell millions of these products, the industry has failed to implement any type of consumer education or recycling initiative that would help alleviate the disaster,” he said.
“The irony is that in most countries in Europe, plastic straws are banned—and yet these products continue to be dumped by the boatloads. I simply cannot see how governments will allow this to continue, especially in Europe, where environmental waste is such a huge issue,” Agrafiotis said.
“With TPD 3 approaching and countries already discussing legislative measures, I believe the days are numbered for disposables—at least as we know them right now.”
What’s the solution?
The first and most obvious answer is to encourage consumers to use rechargeable devices.
Consumers could also be encouraged to purchase refillable pod devices, vape pens with replaceable coils or even rebuildable tank atomizers, all of which are far more cost effective in the long run, not to mention more eco-friendly.
The industry has yet to find ways to encourage and/or incentivize consumers to dispose of these devices in the right manner. When Agrafiotis tried offering a financial incentive for every disposable brought back to his store, there were very few takers.
“The younger demographic that predominantly uses these products simply doesn’t seem to care,” he said. “At least the older demographic tends to quickly transition from disposables to open systems when they realize the daily costs and environmental impact.”
Agrafiotis said he’s unaware of any other outlets for collecting and recycling disposable vapes. “At this point, there’s no budget or avenue for us to try and change the existing system. Incentives and/or drop-off points for hazardous waste should have started with the construction and sale of the first disposable vaping device ever made.”
“The only thing I could do is break the plastic and remove the battery and bring it to a battery recycler, but I would still have to dispose the plastic and nicotine pod in the trash,” he said. “All brands would have to work together to start a viable recycling program, but unfortunately, I simply do not see this is possible.”
Nevertheless, Agrafiotis said Innokin is striving to reduce environmental waste in its products. Innokin was the first company to start using fully recyclable packaging for its open vapor systems, made entirely of paper with absolutely no plastic, he said.
The first disposable vaping device that can be disassembled and recycled, the Innokin Enviro uses materials with a lower carbon footprint—a reinforced paper shell—to replace the plastic shell found in most disposable vaping devices.
“We believe disposable vapes should have less impact on the environment,” Agrafiotis said. “With more efficient manufacturing processes and recyclable designs, our goal is to continually optimize Enviro and make disposable vaping greener. We can only hope demand grows for this approach and more companies follow in the same green footsteps.”
Clearly, the industry must act quickly to devise solutions before the products that help millions of smokers are carbon taxed or—even worse—removed completely from the market.
“Most of all, I hope we see more people quit smoking and transition to vaping, regardless of the device they choose to help them. Any vaping devices that can help smokers around the world make the switch is worth pursuing,” Agrafiotis said.
“Plastic casings and batteries simply should not go into our landfills after just one use,” he said. “More companies should be actively looking at sustainable solutions and proactively working with existing recycling companies to implement programs to keep these products out of our already overflowing landfills.”
The original “Vaping Vamp,” Maria Verven owns Verve Communications, a PR and marketing firm specializing in the vapor industry.
MORE ON VAPING WASTE
Garbage facts
There is an estimated 44.7 million tons of e-waste generated around the world every year. That waste contains up to $65 billion worth of raw materials like gold, silver and platinum sent to a landfill. The amount of global e-waste is expected to increase by almost 17 percent to 52.2 million tons in 2021, or about 8 percent every year, according to Cleanaway Waste Management, an Australian waste management, industrial and environmental services company.
Vaping products contain lithium-ion batteries, a heating element and a circuit board. These components—which may include plastic and heavy metals—make disposing of e-cigarettes a considerable challenge because of the various types of chemicals and materials involved in their manufacturing.
The global disposable e-cigarettes market size is expected to be valued at $6.34 billion in 2022, according to Future Market Insights (FMI). The overall demand for disposable e-cigarettes is projected to grow at a CAGR of 11.2 percent between 2022 and 2032, totaling around $18.32 billion by 2032.
“Demand for non-tobacco products is expected to augment the growth of the disposable e-cigarettes market in the near future. It has been observed that older people prefer this product as it does not have any negative effect on health,” stated an FMI analyst.
There are no direct regulations for recycling or use of e-cigarettes, heated-tobacco products (HTPs) or the cellulose acetate filters in combustible cigarettes in the EU, U.S., China and Japan. There is some legislation that regulates the management of e-waste; however, these guidelines typically apply only to cell phones, computers and other large electronic products.
According to the Global Overview of Recycling Programs for E-Cigarettes, Heated-Tobacco Products and Vaporizers Business for 2022 and Future Prospects of Electronic Devices and Consumables Development report by Research and Markets, large vaping industry players have several recycling programs and recycling targets for the near future:
Philip Morris International established two hubs in Europe and Asia that inspect, process and separate materials from electronic devices for recycling. The effective recycling rate of IQOS devices increased from 30 percent in 2018 to 40 percent in 2020. The target recycling rate is 80 percent by 2025.
BAT replaces plastic elements of vapor products with pulp-based alternatives. The share of recycled waste was 79–80 percent in 2019–2021. The target recycling rate is 95 percent by 2025.
Japan Tobacco International launched a return scheme of used devices through the recycling boxes at shops. In 2020, 67 percent of produced waste was recycled. The target for waste reduction is 20 percent by 2030.
Imperial Brands launched takeback recycling schemes for used vaping devices and pods. The recycling rate decreased from 69 percent in 2017 to 61 percent in 2021. The target recycling rate is 75 percent by 2030.
Other vape companies (Dotmod, Shanlaan, Dovpo and Vinn) launch their own recycling programs by return schemes. Innokin works on battery utilization programs.
FEELM, an atomization brand and an independent business unit of Smoore Technology Ltd., won the IF Design Award 2020 for its eco-friendly Disposable Paper E-cigarette. CCELL launched a new line of disposable vaporizers in 2021.
Recycling companies Gaiaca and TerraCycle cooperate with vape manufacturers to provide services for collecting and recycling e-waste. Some vape producers cooperate directly with recycling companies; for example, RELX cooperates with China Siyan Foundation for Poverty Alleviation.
The Bowman Company offers refill stations to fill empty vapor bottles/pods. It will help to reduce plastic usage for vapor bottle production in the future.
It is expected that the future of e-cigarette, HTP and vaporizer recycling will depend on producers’ product life cycle programs. Recycling decisions from large vaping companies to combat waste include using a combination of polylactic acid (PLA) and plastic or starch blend and plastic for the device body; using paper packaging; and making inner packaging consist of paper or paper and PLA.
A survey by Opinium on behalf of Material Focus, a not-for-profit established to help the U.K. meet its electrical reuse and recycling targets, found that 18 percent of 4,000 people surveyed in the U.K. had bought a vape device in the previous year, with 7 percent buying a single-use device.
The Opinium figures would suggest that about 168 million disposable vapes are being bought every year in the U.K. Two of the biggest brands in the country are Elf Bar and Geek Bar, which between them make up about 60 percent of the market.
More than half of people that buy single-use e-cigarettes dispose of them in a general trash bin compared to 33 percent on average for all types of vape, according to the research. While each vape contains just 0.15 g of lithium, the scale of the waste means that about 10 tons of metal is ending up in landfills. – VV staff
A recently accepted manuscript of an article set for publication in Nicotine & Tobacco Research found that flavored vaping and other tobacco sales restrictions in California did not affect youth e-cigarette use.
Karl Abramson, writing for American for Tax Reform (ATR), says that the findings are prominent because proponents of flavor bans claim that flavored vaping products are the cause of youth vaping, and therefore must be banned.
Researchers analyzed data from the California Healthy Kids Survey to look at e-cigarette use among high-school students in the California Bay Area.
They compared changes in e-cigarette use between 2018 and 2019 among students attending school in a city with a flavored e-cigarette ban and student attending school in a city without a flavor ban.
The researchers concluded that flavored vape bans “did not significantly change” the odds of current and ever e-cigarette use among students.
Local flavor bans in California “were not associated with a change” in e-cigarette use, meaning that the policies that were intended to decrease youth vaping did not accomplish that goal.
“Flavored vape bans are proven to have drastically negative consequences for public health, state finances, and national security,” writes Abramson. According to a study from Yale University researcher Abigail Friedman, a flavor ban in San Francisco led to chances of youth smoking more than doubling.
“Because flavors are essential for adults trying to quit smoking, flavor bans prevent adults from making the lifesaving switch,” he stated. “State finances are impacted by flavor bans as well, like in Massachusetts where a ban on flavored vaping and tobacco products is costing the state an estimated $10 million each month.
“Flavor bans prevent these lives from being saved and are shown to have no impact on youth use. Flavor prohibition is entirely the wrong approach for lawmakers to take with novel reduced-risk nicotine products.”
