2020: A Turning Point for the E-Cigarette Industry
The landscape in the US for e-cigarettes has gone through some seismic challenges in the past year, many of which have continued into 2020. This year should be a benchmark year for the industry with a lot of things taking place that would determine the future direction for e-cigarettes and vaping.
Staff Report
It probably would not be too far off the mark to say that 2019 was quite an annus horribilis for the e-cigarette and vaping industry as cases of illnesses allegedly related to vaping in the US were reported throughout the year.
By the time the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) determined that these illnesses were related to THC and vitamin E acetate that was found in some questionable e-cigarette or vaping products, all e-cigarettes and vaping products were already firmly ensconced in the crosshairs of lawmakers and anti-smoking advocates as the number one public health enemy, especially “evil” for “targeting youth.”
Nothing said by the manufacturers, who had invested in the r&d of their products adhering to strict quality standards and did not market their products to young people, seemed to be heard, or, if it was at all, not heard enough.
Shouting into the wind
A hearing, “Vaping in America,” by the House Oversight and Investigations Committee that took place on February 5, 2020, was yet another instance where there was the appearance of allowing the industry to share their side of the story, so to speak, but in actuality not listening to what they had to say, despite it all. Rather, it seemed that the main purpose of the hearing was simply to grill the presidents and c.e.o.s of JUUL Labs, Logic, Reynolds American Inc., NJoy LLC, and Fontem US and rake them over the coals.
One key point the committee focused on was the negative effects of nicotine. Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette, chair of the committee, asked the executives, “Do you agree with the medical studies that show that nicotine can have negative consequences for respiratory health and can cause an increase in blood pressure, heart rate and lead to heart disease and also could harm brain development in young people?” The executives’ answers acknowledged that, while they were unfamiliar with the studies or unable to either corroborate or refute them, it was possible that nicotine could have the health effects DeGette mentioned. That was taken almost as an admission of guilt rather than simply being the honest, truthful answer that it was.
Had the question also asked if nicotine could have health benefits, such as enhancing memory and improving other cognitive functions, based on medical studies, the executives’ answers would very likely be affirmative as well.
There actually was very little chance the company executives’ responses on other topics of questioning were really heard, either. Despite the executives essentially saying they did not deliberately market their products to young people, it seemed that Committee members had already decided not to hear any of it.
“I don’t believe for one minute that any of you did not purposely target young people,” said Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr., chairman of the full House Energy and Commerce Committee. “I heard all of you over and over again say you are responsible men, men of integrity. That is not true. If you wanted to be men of integrity and responsible men, you would not be selling this product, you’d be doing something else.”
During the hearing, the executives repeatedly said that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should have ultimate regulatory authority, not Congress. Not surprising, especially since companies that want to sell e-cigarettes in the US will have to submit an application to FDA by May 2020, proving their products benefit public health, for approval from FDA to determine whether they’re allowed to stay on the market.
A warning paradox
The latest ban on all flavors except for tobacco and menthol in e-cigarette cartridges was meant by lawmakers and health officials to prevent young people from using these products. Another method towards this goal is the use of health warnings. The challenge, however, is finding the right warnings that would discourage young people but not discourage adults who might want to switch to e-cigarettes as a safer alternative to conventional cigarettes.
A group of Cornell researchers, backed by a three-year, US$1.4 million grant from the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, and FDA, are currently studying ways to address this paradox. The same team’s recent study assessing the value of graphic warnings on ads for combustible cigarettes was cited by the FDA while proposing revisions to decades-old text warnings. The encouraging point here is that the organizations giving the grant, which are involved in public health and not politics, are looking for ways to prevent youth vaping, but not looking to get rid of e-cigarettes as a safer alternative for smokers. This, is actually what the industry also wants.
There still is a long, lengthy process ahead, but 2020 could very well develop into an annus mirabilis for the industry as clearer regulations and guidelines are established with public health, not politics, being the main objective, setting the course for the industry.