Tag: PMTA

Tariffs, Executive Orders and Cuts: The Trump Administration’s First Six Months

By Freddie Dawson, Senior editor, Tamarind Intelligence

The first six months of the second Trump administration can be defined by tariffs, executive orders and no further action on reforming the issues facing the American vaping market.

President Donald Trump embarked on his second term as president having promised to “save flavored vaping” in the U.S. in the lead up to the election. This has not yet happened despite a flurry of executive orders – at least 157 that have been published in the U.S. Federal Register as of May 23. (More have been announced but that was the date of the last one published at the time of writing.)

Many vaping advocates had hoped he might use an executive order to reset or reassess the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Pre-Market Tobacco Application (PMTA) process. Thus far this has not happened and, instead, there have been some comments that could be construed as concerning.

There was the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the long-running case with the vaping company Wages and White Lion Investments – doing business as Triton Distribution – and the vaping company Vapetasia. The Supreme Court unanimously decided to vacate and remand the appealed Fifth Circuit Court decision that had been in favor of the companies over whether the FDA had been right to issue market denial orders (MDOs) to the them.

This was a disappointment for vaping advocates. The companies had argued the FDA had been arbitrary and capricious in the changes it made to PMTA requirements while also being unclear about those changes and what minimum requisites would need to be included to successfully be granted a market authorization and be considered a legal product able to be sold in the American market. Advocates hoped a decision in favor of the vaping companies would confirm the FDA approach had been wrong and pave the way for the new administration to implement a new policy.

Instead, the Supreme Court mostly rejected the vaping companies’ arguments. It did not arbitrate on all issues presented and returned the case to the lower court for further work, making the decision not a total defeat. However, it was a pretty galling blow for those wanting to see a change. Many of them hoped the Department for Health and Human Services (HHS) – now under new management – would even decline to continue to argue the case following the change in leadership.

Instead, they appeared to fully embrace the prior approach. A HHS spokesperson welcomed the Supreme Court decision. They said it represented confirmation that the approach taken by the FDA – including under the administration of former Democratic president Joe Biden – was the correct one. “The recent Supreme Court ruling supports the FDA’s efforts to regulate e-cigarette products in line with the standards outlined in the Tobacco Control Act,” a spokesperson said.

Beyond this, comments by the new HHS secretary – Robert Kennedy Jr and head of the FDA – Marty Makary could also be construed to be viewed as negative takes on vaping from major administration figures.

Both have been questioned by Florida Republican Senator Ashley Moody on what they will do to combat Chinese vaping products illicitly on the U.S. market. Makary told Moody he agreed that vaping products were proliferating on the American market and that this was due to the Chinese flooding it with cheap supplies.

He said public health research would never be able to properly study them as the market moved faster than the science could but that the FDA could collaborate with other U.S. government departments to increase enforcement actions. “The Office of Inspections and Investigations has a lot of people with guns, and they do enforcement and raids,” he said.

Several vaping commentators did not react well to this – particularly on the semi-serious threat of armed enforcement raids. However, it could also be theoretically read that Makary was implying the enforcement action would be directed at imported Chinese vaping products and that emphasis was placed on revamping the FDA’s approach to PMTAs.

Kennedy Jr’s later comments in answer to questions from Senator Moody could potentially support such a reading. He told her that the FDA had created its own backlog and had deliberately dragged its feet on approvals for American vaping companies, which had been acting responsibly by putting age verification chips in vaping devices, providing information on addiction and were making labels not attractive to children.

Chinese products had flooded the opening in the market provided by them obeying the law and that these were the products that were responsible for youth attraction issues with flavors, colors and youth-aimed enticements such as cartoon like imagery as well as features such as gaming capabilities on devices. He told Senator Moody that he promised to “wipe them out”.

Despite being a complete misreading of the nicotine alternatives history – and almost certainly being a ‘barn door shut after the horse has already bolted’ sort of promise, it does at least show some favor for American vaping companies and a potential desire to address issues facing it in the future.

That marks something of a change from Kennedy Jr’s initial nomination hearings where vaping did not come directly come up. However, his potential use of an Alp nicotine pouch during the sessions did draw a few headlines and suggested the new secretary may have a sympathetic stance on nicotine alternatives.

But although the administration has not addressed the U.S. vaping regulatory situation through any means – such as the use of executive orders – it has taken other actions through those means that have had an impact on the industry.

This includes several orders trimming resources for government entities that have some impact on vaping and other nicotine alternatives – including the HHS, the Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) itself and aspects of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) such as the Office on Smoking and Health (OSH). This has resulted in redundancy or resignation for myriad groups of former federal employees in these organizations up to and including the former head of the CTP, Brian King and – allegedly – the entirety of the OSH.

The impact of these actions will likely take some time to properly be felt. In the short term it presumably has increased the disorder and delay already present in organizations such as CTP that would have had primary responsibility for PMTA assessment. Further in the future the decisions could potentially benefit vaping and other nicotine alternatives – depending how important intervening steps turn out.

For example, significantly more will be revealed on the future direction of PMTA assessment by who becomes the next head of CTP. A new head and new staff could perhaps be more efficient in assessing and processing PMTAs – though it is hard to see where new staff with the requisite expertise will suddenly materialize from. Similarly, much will be implied about the administration’s opinion of, and the potential future of, nicotine alternatives by what is done with the former activities of the OSH. For example, maintaining the collection and publication of smoking-related datasets but dropping things like preferential access to data or provision of OSH opinions on issues could create a more vaping-amenable atmosphere in the U.S..

Setting that aside, more immediately, the action taken through executive orders that has had the most impact on vaping and other nicotine alternatives has been the imposition of tariffs on goods imported into the U.S. from China. Primarily this has affected vaping hardware – though has also had an impact on other product which rely on specialist or mass-produced items that are hard to find from other sources at economically viable prices.

Theoretically this activity could be considered taking action against the proliferation of illicit Chinese vaping products on the market – as promised by Kennedy Jr and Makary. There is some evidence this is happening with reports of limits placed on maximum purchase numbers for disposable vaping products from wholesalers and decreases in registered imports of vaping products from China.

Data from the FDA showed only 71 shipments this May, compared to 996 in January 2025, before the additional new Trump tariffs started to be announced. It also compares to the 1158 shipments recorded last May.

But without a viable domestic vaping manufacturing sector in the U.S., the move risks worsening public health. There previously was little evidence of other nicotine alternatives leaching numbers away from vaping. There is perhaps a little more of that – primarily through dual use driven by situational advantages. This, for example, could be using pouches in scenarios where more discretion is required. But primarily the trend appears to still be for dual or poly use of products rather than switching entirely.

If vaping products continue to be limited by supply constraints brought about by tariffs, this trend may increase, or people may instead choose to move back to conventional cigarettes. There is little evidence domestic vaping will be able to spring up to fulfil the need. A couple of companies have announced they were transferring manufacturing capacity to the U.S. Many more are moving capacity out of China to third-party countries partly at least to get around U.S. tariffs.

But there will be no major transference of vaping capacity to the US simply because of the continuing PMTA situation. No company will take the time, effort, and capital it would require setting up manufacturing in the U.S. with no guarantee the product would ever be approved to be sold on the domestic market.

Meanwhile it is also unclear whether there has definitely been a reduction in Chinese vaping imports. Several manufacturers were already in the process of moving vaping manufacturing capacity out of the Shenzhen region in China due to rising costs driven by competition. Tariffs will have accelerated that trend – though President Trump’s “Liberation Day” spread of tariffs will have gone some way to reducing the advantage such a move would gain in terms of exports to the USA.

But it has been noted that imports of vaping products from countries such as Indonesia have already outstripped their totals for the entirety of last year (3,139 thus far this year compared to 3,102 for all of 2024). And there remains significant speculation that the vast majority of Chinese vaping imports – particularly for disposable vaping products – do not enter the U.S. under the proper registration. U.S. officials have alleged that they are often deliberately labelled as products such as shoes to get around restraints. Though this claim has been repeated many more times than evidence backing it has been produced.

One potential support of vaping products entering the U.S. market through some means aside from in registered shipments is the 90% discrepancy between the reported value of Chinese vaping exports to the U.S. ($3.6bn for 2024) and Chinese vaping imports registered with U.S. authorities ($333m for the same time period).

So thus far there has not been much help for vaping in the first six months of the second Trump administration. But there is the potential of future promise. Appointments and reassignments for the OSH and – primarily – the CTP could theoretically change the approach to vaping regulation in America. Further policing of illicit vaping products entering the market could lead to domestic uptake – if PMTA conditions were first sorted. So not much for vaping or wider nicotine alternatives in the first six months. But perhaps the groundwork for something more to be built later.

July 2, 2025
FDA Updates Tobacco Application Forms; Effective Immediately
Today (June 6), the FDA posted six updated or new forms that are required for submitting new tobacco product applications under the premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) and Substantial Equivalence (SE) pathways. Starting July 6, 2025, applicants must use these forms in their PMTA and SE Report submissions. If applicants do not use the latest version of the forms or do not complete them properly, FDA generally intends to refuse to accept the application.

The updated forms reflect public comments and are part of FDA’s work to promote efficiency, effectiveness, and transparency to improve its tobacco product application review process. The latest versions of the forms offer new instructions and additional details on the information applicants are required to include. Ultimately, these forms can help applicants submit higher-quality applications to facilitate FDA’s review.

A list of the updated forms is below. Use of old versions of the forms will no longer be accepted after the 30-day notice period.

Updated PMTA forms:
- Form FDA 4057 – Premarket Tobacco Product Application (PMTA) Submission
- Form FDA 4057a – Premarket Tobacco Product Application Amendment and General Correspondence Submission
- Form FDA 4057b – PMTA Unique Identifying Information for New Tobacco Products (formerly referred to as a grouping spreadsheet)
Updated or new SE forms:
- Form FDA 3965 – Tobacco Substantial Equivalence Report Submission
- Form FDA 3965a – Tobacco Substantial Equivalence Report Amendment and General Correspondence Submission (formerly Form FDA 3964)
- Form FDA 3965b (NEW) – SE Unique Identifying Information for New Tobacco Products
To assist applicants’ proper use of Form FDA 4057b and Form FDA 3965b, FDA is releasing version 2.0 of its Product Form Validator Tool. Applicants may use the tool for both forms to validate the data and confirm if a completed form is consistent with FDA ingestion requirements before submission.

If applicants have questions about the forms, they can email AskCTP@fda.hhs.gov or call 1-877-287-1373 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. EST. Additionally, applicants can explore FDA’s PMTA tips.
June 6, 2025
Don’t Gamble Your PMTA: Bet on Your Quality System

By: Gabriel Muñiz

The recent leadership changes and staffing reductions at the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) have created a moment of uncertainty, but also opportunity, for the tobacco and nicotine industry. With shifting priorities and new leadership on the horizon, some manufacturers see a chance to reset the regulatory conversation. While some companies are using this moment to tighten up operations and reinforce compliance in order to have a better chance at a favorable premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) outcome, others are taking a gamble, scaling back on quality systems and asking themselves, “Do we really have to keep doing all of this?”

The question often centers around the expectations outlined in 21 CFR Part 1114 and the commitments companies made in their PMTAs. In a push to save costs, some manufacturers are reportedly reducing quality oversight, cutting corners in documentation, and stepping away from key controls they originally described in their PMTAs. The rationale? If enforcement is slowing down, maybe the FDA won’t notice or maybe it won’t matter.

That’s a risky assumption.

A PMTA is more than a regulatory formality. It’s a company’s game plan. A commitment to how the product will be manufactured, tested, controlled, and distributed. If your application included a robust quality management system (QMS), specific product testing protocols, or detailed supplier qualification processes, you’re expected to follow through. Along with the science, those commitments were the basis on which the FDA evaluated whether your product was “appropriate for the protection of public health.”

Under Section 910 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), the FDA has the authority to withdraw or suspend a marketing granted order (MGO) if it determines that a tobacco product is no longer “appropriate for the protection of public health,” the standard upon which PMTAs are evaluated and approved. If an inspection or oversight activity reveals that a company has significantly deviated from the manufacturing methods, testing protocols, or quality systems described in its PMTA, the FDA may conclude that the product no longer meets the criteria for market authorization. While there hasn’t yet been a public case of an MGO being rescinded solely for failure to follow internal PMTA commitments, the legal basis for such action is clear. An MGO is conditional—it depends on a company continuing to manufacture its product as promised. Deviating from that blueprint introduces real regulatory risk.

While some in the industry viewed the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in Bidi Vapor v. FDA as a signal that the tide was turning in manufacturers’ favor, the outcome in FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments LLC made it clear: Companies are still expected to meet regulatory requirements and support their products with quality data and compliance. The courts may question FDA procedures, but they won’t eliminate the work required to maintain market authorization.

Even in a more industry-friendly political environment, the responsibility to protect public health isn’t going away. The current administration may support regulatory efficiency and streamlined processes, but not at the expense of consumer safety. Companies that ignore or scale back their quality systems risk finding themselves unprepared when FDA inspections or compliance reviews resume in full force.

Now is the time for manufacturers to take stock of their internal systems and ensure alignment with their PMTAs. This includes verifying that quality controls, personnel training, document management, complaint handling, and supplier oversight are functioning as described. A comprehensive, well-maintained QMS doesn’t just satisfy regulatory requirements; it builds trust and stability, especially in a time of change.

This transition at CTP represents a golden opportunity, but only if companies take the right approach. Cutting corners today to save money may end up costing you far more if it puts your MGO at risk. Regulatory clarity, product stability, and long-term market access depend on more than a favorable headline—they depend on daily operational integrity.

The FDA may be shifting, but its core mandate remains. This is the moment for responsible manufacturers to lead by example, double down on quality, and show that this industry can thrive without sacrificing quality or consumer trust. For those willing to roll the dice, just remember, being the first company to lose an MGO over PMTA noncompliance isn’t the kind of milestone you want your brand remembered for.

Gabriel Muñiz, an independent consultant with EAS Consulting Group, is a regulatory compliance expert with extensive experience in the tobacco industry. Muñiz’s tenure at the FDA, particularly as a director within the Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA), involved leading compliance and enforcement activities for the agency’s tobacco program. His work in building the tobacco operations program and shaping tobacco regulatory policy was instrumental in the development of key compliance strategies and regulatory frameworks, including the proposed tobacco product manufacturing practices. After his FDA career, Muñiz further honed his skills at Juul Labs, where he played a key role in developing premarket tobacco product applications and ensuring alignment with evolving federal regulations. His deep expertise in tobacco regulation will be invaluable to EAS’ clients seeking strategic compliance advice and navigating tobacco-related regulatory challenges.

About EAS Consulting Group

EAS Consulting Group, a member of the Certified family of companies, is a global leader in regulatory solutions for industries regulated by the FDA, USDA, and other federal and state agencies. As part of Certified Group, EAS Consulting Group delivers expert regulatory solutions our customers can feel confident in—so the world can trust in what it consumes. Our network of over 200 independent consultants enables EAS to provide comprehensive consulting, training, and auditing services, ensuring proactive regulatory compliance for food, dietary supplements, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, cosmetics, tobacco, hemp, and CBD.

May 8, 2025
Iowa Judge Halts Law that Would Pull Vapes from Shelves

A Federal District Court for the Southern District of Iowa sided with e-cigarette industry plaintiffs in a preliminary ruling against the state, temporarily halting the enforcement of the state’s PMTA registration law. On May 3, Chief Judge Stephanie Rose issued a temporary stay on HF 2677, which would have required vape products to have marketing authorization from the Food and Drug Administration between 2016 and 2020 in order to be sold in Iowa.

“As the plaintiff alleges, Congress intended to concentrate enforcement authority on the FDA in Section 337(a) of the FDCA, aiming to prevent states from adopting inconsistent enforcement methods that would undermine the federal regulatory system,” Rose said in the ruling. “Iowa acknowledges that the legislative motive is the ‘absence of federal enforcement,’ which reflects why Congress has granted such enforcement powers to the federal government.”

The bill was passed by the state legislature in April 2024 and signed by the governor in May, with an effective date set for February 2025. The Attorney General of Iowa agreed to temporarily pause enforcement of the law, awaiting the court’s decision on the preliminary injunction after the Iowa State E-cigarette Industry Association filed a lawsuit in December, which claimed the state’s policy would hurt local businesses and lead to vaping products being pulled from the shelves.

The court ruled that the Iowa law “impermissibly intrudes upon the federal government’s exclusive authority” to enforce the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which ensures that food, medicine, cosmetics, and medical devices are safe and properly labeled.

“It’s definitely a win in the right direction,” said Ashley Hartman, chief strategy officer for Central Iowa Vapors. “It essentially would have shut our stores down. There’s only 26 products that are currently approved on the registry federally and so that would have completely wiped away everything in our stores.”

The ruling holds extra significance in that the Vapor Technology Association plans to apply for a preliminary injunction next week in a similar registration bill in North Carolina. The Iowa ruling could provide a legal precedent for other states facing similar lawsuits regarding PMTA registration laws.

May 7, 2025
Charlie’s Holdings Receives PMTA Acceptance Filings for 11 Products

Charlie’s Holdings, Inc. announced today that it received acceptance filings for 11 of its best-selling flavored PACHA Disposables brands from the Center for Tobacco Products of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Charlie’s has received more than 700 acceptance filings for its PMTA submissions.

The FDA has received PMTAs for nearly 27 million electronic nicotine delivery system products and has made determinations on more than 99% of the applications. However, the FDA has authorized fewer than three dozen tobacco- and menthol-flavored e-cigarette products and devices. To date, no company in the world has received an FDA marketing order for a flavored (non-tobacco or non-menthol) disposable vape product.

March 4, 2025
Momentous Ruling

Credit: JHVE Photo

The end of Chevron deference could have ripple effects across the nicotine industry.

By Timothy S. Donahue

U.S. courts will no longer need to “humbly respect” how government agencies interpret the law. The end of Chevron deference means unelected officials will no longer have the leeway to subjectively decide what Congress intends when it passes regulatory legislation.

The court’s ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and the related case Relentless v. Department of Commerce will likely have far-reaching impacts on nearly every action government agencies take. For the nicotine industry, it could change how courts view the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) process. It could also impact the agency’s efforts to regulate menthol and lower the levels of allowable nicotine in combustible cigarettes.

“For far too long, unelected bureaucrats at the FDA have been making up the law to suit their ulterior agenda and … the Supreme Court has thankfully put a stop to it once and for all,” said Allison Boughner, vice president of the American Vapor Manufacturers Association, in a statement. “No longer will it be good enough for [prohibitionists] in Congress to write vague, Crayola language and then connive behind closed doors with FDA to impose arbitrary policies on the American public that could never withstand the light of day. [This] ruling is a stirring rebuke of FDA and, we hope, with more soon to follow in pending cases.”

In declaring the doctrine’s demise, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that agencies “have no special competence” in resolving statutory ambiguities—but courts do.

“Chevron is overruled,” wrote Justice Roberts in the Loper Bright decision. “Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the APA [Administrative Procedure Act] requires. Careful attention to the judgment of the Executive Branch may help inform that inquiry.

“And when a particular statute delegates authority to an agency consistent with constitutional limits, courts must respect the delegation while ensuring that the agency acts within it. But courts need not and under the APA may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.”

Agustin E. Rodriguez, a partner with Troutman Pepper, explained that “under the doctrine of Chevron deference, courts would defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute if the agency was charged with administering the statute in question and its interpretation was reasonable. However, the end of Chevron deference may alter that traditional thinking.”

Bryan Haynes, also a partner at Troutman Pepper, added, “The Supreme Court’s decision overruling Chevron in the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo case could affect federal courts’ overall outlook on agency interpretations, possibly making courts hesitant to defer to agencies as a general practice.”

The decision could potentially result in alterations to the FDA’s methods of regulating vaping products. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has agreed to hear its first-ever vaping case, Wages and White Lion Investments v. U.S. FDA, which is compelling because deferring to Chevron has been the standard for lower courts when deciding regulatory cases brought by manufacturers of nicotine products (the end of Chevron deference isn’t likely to directly impact the White Lion case, according to its attorneys).

Robert Burton, an expert with more than 11 years of experience in the U.S. vaping industry and current group scientific and regulatory director for the U.K.-based vaping company Plxsur, said another general concern is that now, federal agencies may have to put more resources into the additional legal challenges that they will likely face and divert staff away from review/approval processes.

“Agencies, such as FDA, may also have to look to improve their primary knowledge in those ‘gray areas’ to be able to demonstrate they actually have the knowledge and expertise rather than it being ‘assumed’ or deferred by judges based upon Chevron,” Burton explained. “I also can’t see anything changing soon; if anything, this will create a further backlog of court cases and delays in regulatory decisions based upon the potential for an agency to be challenged legally.”

How it started

The Chevron doctrine, based on the 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, held that courts should defer to the interpretations of “expert” federal agencies regarding ambiguous laws they are required to implement, as long as the agency interpretations are reasonable.

In many cases, what would be considered “reasonable” was also left to government agencies to decide because nonelected bureaucrats were often considered “experts” even though they had little to no experience in the industries they were regulating.

For 40 years, unelected officials were given latitude to decide on their own what Congress had intended when it wrote unclear laws—even if there were other sufficient interpretations that the courts could have considered. According to the New York Times, Chevron deference was applied in 70 Supreme Court decisions and 17,000 lower-court rulings during those years.

The plea to overturn the Chevron doctrine came to the court in two cases challenging a rule issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) that requires the herring industry to bear the costs of observers on fishing boats. Applying Chevron, both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit upheld the rule, finding it to be a reasonable interpretation of federal law.

The fishing companies brought their case to the Supreme Court, seeking the justices’ input on both the rule in question and the overruling of the Chevron doctrine. Roman Martinez, speaking on behalf of a group of fishing vessels, informed the justices that the Chevron doctrine undermines the courts’ responsibility to interpret the law and violates the federal law that governs administrative agencies, which calls for courts to independently review legal questions.

Under the Chevron doctrine, he observed, even if all nine Supreme Court justices agree that the fishing vessels’ interpretation of federal fishing law is better than the NMFS’ interpretation, they would still be required to defer to the agency’s interpretation as long as it was reasonable. Such a result, Martinez concluded, is “not consistent with the rule of law.”

Chris Howard, executive vice president of external affairs and new product compliance for Swisher, parent to the vaping company E-Alternative Solutions, welcomed the ruling, saying that federal agencies have had too much power for decades.

“That ended with the Supreme Court’s decision overturning the longstanding Chevron doctrine,” said Howard. “The decision marks a significant shift in the judicial landscape, correcting the balance of power between federal agencies and the judiciary. It fundamentally alters how courts rule on agency statutory interpretation. As the majority states, courts will no longer be restrained by the need to provide deference.

“Instead, ‘Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the APA requires.’ This transformation will likely lead to significantly less regulatory flexibility and increased judicial scrutiny. The implications of this decision will resonate across industries, including the tobacco industry, influencing regulatory practices and shaping the future of administrative law. Regulatory overreach will become the exception as opposed to the norm and enable courts to fulfill their duty to interpret the law.”

Credit: Sean Pavone Photo

Immediate uproar

The end of Chevron deference is extremely far-reaching, with other industries, such as healthcare, likely to review previous decisions that have gone against them. Justice Elena Kagan, in her dissent, asserted that government regulators are best positioned to tackle highly technical subjects.

“This court has long understood Chevron deference to reflect what Congress would want, and so to be rooted in a presumption of legislative intent,” Kagan wrote. “Congress knows that it does not—in fact cannot—write perfectly complete regulatory statutes. It knows that those statutes will inevitably contain ambiguities that some other actor will have to resolve and gaps that some other actor will have to fill.

“Today, the court flips the script: It is now ‘the courts (rather than the agency)’ that will wield power when Congress has left an area of interpretive discretion. A rule of judicial humility gives way to a rule of judicial hubris. In recent years, this court has too often taken for itself decision-making authority Congress assigned to agencies. The court has substituted its own judgment on workplace health for that of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, its own judgment on climate change for that of the Environmental Protection Agency and its own judgment on student loans for that of the Department of Education.

“In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden—involving the meaning of regulatory law. As if it did not have enough on its plate, the majority turns itself into the country’s administrative czar. It defends that move as one (suddenly) required by the (nearly 80-year-old) Administrative Procedure Act. But the act makes no such demand. Today’s decision is not one Congress directed. It is entirely the majority’s choice. And the majority cannot destroy one doctrine of judicial humility without making a laughingstock of a second.”

Several national healthcare groups made a joint statement expressing that Chevron deference protected the legal stability of public health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. The groups claim that Chevron ensured that laws passed by Congress were interpreted and implemented by expert federal agencies such as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

“As our amicus brief noted, large health programs such as Medicaid and Medicare, as well as issues related to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, are extremely complex, so it is key that decisions about how to interpret and implement relevant laws are made by experts at government agencies,” the statement reads. “Yet [this] majority opinion explicitly ends the use of this sensible doctrine.

“As leading organizations that work on behalf of people across the country who face serious, acute and chronic illnesses and many people who lack access to quality and affordable healthcare, we will continue to work to ensure that healthcare laws are implemented in ways that benefit public health.”

In its response to the Chevron ruling, the Public Health Law Center at the Mitchell Hamline School of Law stated that the Loper Bright ruling will “undoubtedly impact” the field of administrative law and implicate regulations that, in addition to promoting public health and safety, have served to protect consumers, workers, civil rights and the environment.

“Legal experts differ on the degree to which Loper Bright may wreak havoc on the federal administrative state; however, the forceful dissent written by Justice Kagan in this case and its companion case, Relentless v. Department of Commerce, should not be ignored. The dissent expressed grave concern that these decisions ‘will … cause a massive shock to the legal system, cast doubt on many settled constructions of statutes and threaten the interests of many parties who have relied on them for years.’

“In the absence of Chevron deference, the tobacco industry will doubtless feel emboldened to dispute any regulatory actions taken on its products. This includes e-cigarette manufacturers who will be eager for courts to undo FDA-issued premarket tobacco product application denial orders for many thousands of vape products.”

The Biden administration called the Chevron decision “yet another deeply troubling decision that takes our country backward,” adding that President Biden’s legal team would work with federal agencies to do “everything we can to continue to deploy the extraordinary expertise of the federal workforce.”

Reshma Ramachandran, a health policy expert and assistant professor at the Yale School of Medicine, said, “This term has been disastrous for public health in many ways.”

In the vaping industry, however, Tony Abboud, executive director of the Vapor Technology Association (VTA), said that the decision clearly bolsters what the VTA has been saying for years: the FDA and, specifically, the Center for Tobacco Products overstepped their authority when they chose to implement a de facto ban on flavored e-cigarettes in their deeply flawed implementation of the PMTA process.

“To be clear, it is [the] FDA’s responsibility under the law to create a regulation that clearly addresses the statutory standard of what is ‘appropriate for the protection of public health’ since the Tobacco Control Act is ambiguous on how that determination should be made. However, there is no question that the FDA violated the Administrative Procedure Act by implementing what the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals called ‘a de facto ban on flavored e-cigarettes’ through its shifty implementation of the PMTA regulation by imposing new requirements on products after applications were already filed, ultimately ensuring their application’s demise.

“The Supreme Court’s decision elevates the importance of the Reagan-Udall Foundation’s findings after being convened at the request of the FDA commissioner, which specifically and clearly criticized the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products for failing to inform companies what must be provided under the regulation to demonstrate APPH [appropriate for the protection of the public health] and, as importantly, for failing to inform the public on how FDA is applying this standard.”

Beyond nicotine

The cannabis industry also will likely be impacted by the Chevron ruling. Asheville, NC-based attorney Rod Kight, a global resource and expert in cannabis law, said that the recent ruling by the SCOTUS that Chevron deference is dead is welcome news to the cannabis industry. With respect to the hemp sector, the death of Chevron means that unofficial positions taken about various cannabinoids and processes to produce hemp products by both the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and the FDA on their respective websites and in letters to stakeholders do not hold any weight, at least not with the courts.

“In practical terms, this means that judges may not defer to federal agency positions and interpretations and, instead, must weigh their positions relative to the strength of the legal positions and interpretations put forth by the hemp industry,” explains Kight. “For instance, with respect to tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA), the DEA has stated in two letters during the past year that ‘cannabis-derived THCA does not meet the definition of hemp under the CSA because upon conversion for identification purposes as required by Congress, it is equivalent to delta-9 THC.’

“As I have discussed in several blog posts and interviews, this is partially incorrect and is not exactly what ‘Congress required.’ Rather, Congress requires a post-decarboxylation test for hemp production (i.e., cultivation) but not for harvested hemp or hemp products.”

In the past, this type of unofficial guidance may have warranted a court’s deference to the DEA, even if an opposing position by a hemp industry participant was stronger and more well articulated. However, Kight said that, in the post-Chevron world, the DEA’s position will not hold any more weight with the court than a counter-position by an opposing litigant.

“The same thing applies to any number of other issues, from vapes to synthetic cannabinoids,” said Kight. “Hopefully, this exciting legal development will curb the appetite for DEA and FDA to take strong positions that are often unwarranted while helping the hemp industry to carve out favorable judicial rulings based on the best and most well-articulated positions.”

Abboud said the SCOTUS’ decision in Loper exposes the FDA’s improper regulation of flavored e-cigarettes. While the vaping cases that have gone before the SCOTUS were not explicitly decided on Chevron deference, it is hard to believe that the court will not look skeptically on the FDA’s prior “regulatory shenanigans and post-hoc justifications” laid bare by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in the White Lion case.

“However, unlike the complete overturning of Chevron, it is likely that the court would issue a more limited ruling in the vape cases before it. That said, the real power of Loper is that it provides a template for new litigation against the FDA that is not limited to individual application decisions,” said Abboud. “This new regulatory challenge would reveal the full story of FDA’s tortured and disingenuous implementation of the ambiguous PMTA statutory provisions to ban flavored vaping products and possibly, as a result, spell the demise of the PMTA regulation.

“VTA is once again calling for the FDA to immediately suspend any further denials based on its existing process and instead create a clear and streamlined tobacco product standard that will allow independent companies of all sizes to get less harmful nicotine alternatives on the market as it is required to do under the law.”

Timothy Donahue is the assistant editor of Tobacco Reporter. Since joining our team in January 2013, he has become not only an expert on the traditional tobacco business but also a well-respected voice in the rapidly developing vapor industry. Tim spends much of his time on the road, attending conferences and interviewing industry representatives. His networking skills, work ethic and quick mind are valuable assets to our diverse audience.

September 11, 2024
Mixed Feelings at PMTA Anniversary

Photo: stokkete

Representatives of the U.S. vapor industry expressed mixed feelings at the four-year anniversary of the filing of the first premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs).
Since the Sept. 9, 2020, deadline, the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) has received applications for 26 million novel tobacco products, mostly electronic cigarettes or e-cigarettes.
However, despite its acknowledgement that e-cigarettes overall are less harmful and less toxic than combustible cigarettes, the agency has rejected more than 99 percent of PMTAs for these products.
At the same time, the FDA has authorized 6,670 new combustible tobacco products to be sold in the U.S., including 3,232 new cigars, 1,291 new pipe tobacco products,1,073 new hookah tobacco products and 973 new cigarettes.
According to the Vapor Technology Association (VTA), current CTP Director Brian King has authorized only four vaping devices for as alternatives to cigarettes, compared with 1,270 combustible products.
Director King has justified his refusal to authorize flavored e-cigarettes that are widely used by American adults with the need to protect youth. Yet the most recent National Youth Tobacco Survey revealed that the youth vaping rate—the share of users who say they’ve used an e-cigarettes at least once in the past 30 days—has declined to 5.9 percent, the lowest level in more than a decade.
“Since Sep. 9, 2020, 1.93 million Americans have died from smoking cigarettes (480,000 each year), and approximately 64 million Americans suffered from smoking-related disease (16 million each year), according to the CDC, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars to the U.S. health care system and gross domestic product,” the VTA wrote in a statement.
“In this time, the FDA has only allowed the purveyors of these deadly combustible products to strengthen their grip on the market. Meanwhile, more and more Americans die from smoking, making this anything but a happy anniversary.”

September 10, 2024
Vape Industry Anxious for Triton Hearing

Credit: Flysnow

The U.S. vaping industry is anxiously awaiting a decision from the highest court in the land.

By Timothy S. Donahue

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is poised to address a crucial case for the vaping industry that challenges the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s decision to block the marketing of flavored e-cigarette products. The FDA is contesting a lower court ruling that favored two vaping companies, which argue that the FDA unjustly rejected over a million premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) to sell flavors other than tobacco or menthol.

Under the agency’s PMTA pathway, companies must demonstrate that the marketing of a product would be appropriate for the protection of public health (APPH). When the FDA makes decisions about vaping products, it must take into consideration the risks and benefits to the entire population, not just users of the products.

The case, Wages and White Lion Investments v. U.S. FDA, is compelling because a major factor in predicting how SCOTUS will rule in the first vaping case to be heard by the high court, and potentially at least three others, is that in the wake of another SCOTUS ruling, courts no longer need to defer to agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous (see “Principle Response,” page 22).

Gregory Conley, an experienced industry attorney and director of legislative and external affairs at the American Vapor Manufacturers Association, said that the overturning of the Chevron deference could have a profound impact on the vaping and broader nicotine industries by reducing the deference courts previously granted to regulatory agencies like the FDA.

“Judges will now critically evaluate the FDA’s regulatory processes and interpretations of ambiguous statutes rather than assuming the agency knows best,” Conley said. “In simpler terms, for the first time since its creation, the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products will have to follow the law as written.”

Vape companies secured a legal victory when the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Wages and White Lion (doing business as Triton Distribution) and Vapetasia when it overturned the orders denying the marketing of the companies’ flavored products. In its decision, the 5th Circuit condemned the FDA’s imposed requisites as “unfair,” noting that the agency “unexpectedly demanded” that the companies present studies demonstrating that flavored products would contribute to smoking cessation.

In January, the en banc panel of the 5th Circuit voted 9-5 to grant the petitions for review. The judges ruled that the FDA had been “arbitrary and capricious,” in violation of a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), by denying the applications without considering the companies’ plans to prevent underage access and use.

“Over several years, the [FDA] sent manufacturers of flavored e-cigarette products on a wild goose chase. First, the agency gave manufacturers detailed instructions for what information federal regulators needed to approve e-cigarette products. Just as importantly, FDA gave manufacturers specific instructions on what regulators did not need,” Circuit Judge Andrew S. Oldham wrote in the majority opinion. “The agency said manufacturers’ marketing plans would be ‘critical’ to the success of their applications.

“And the agency promulgated hundreds of pages of guidance documents, hosted public meetings and posted formal presentations to its website—all with the (false) promise that a flavored-product manufacturer could, at least in theory, satisfy FDA’s instructions. The regulated manufacturers dutifully spent untold millions conforming their behavior and their applications to FDA’s say-so.

“Then, months after receiving hundreds of thousands of applications predicated on its instructions, FDA turned around, pretended it never gave anyone any instructions about anything, imposed new testing requirements without any notice, and denied all 1 million flavored e-cigarette applications for failing to predict the agency’s volte-face. Worse, after telling manufacturers that their marketing plans were ‘critical’ to their applications, FDA candidly admitted that it did not read a single word of the 1 million plans.”

The case began when the FDA rejected 55,000 applications to market flavored e-cigarettes in August 2021, including Triton’s, and said applicants would likely need to conduct long-term studies establishing their products’ benefits to win approval. The Office of the Solicitor General asked the Supreme Court to review whether the 5th Circuit’s decision relied upon “legal theories that have been rejected by other courts of appeals that have reviewed materially similar FDA denial orders.”

The regulatory agency’s “legal theories” in Triton are based on administrative fairness and regulatory consistency, not Chevron deference. In most vaping industry lawsuits, appeals courts have supported the FDA, and manufacturers have sought appeals. In the Triton Distribution case, however, the FDA had to petition the court to review the 5th Circuit’s decision, which was based more on APA violations. SCOTUS is scheduled to hear the case sometime during its new session, which begins in October.

Conley explained that, while the end of Chevron signals a new openness by the Supreme Court to scrutinize federal agencies, the 5th Circuit’s opinion focused on matters of statutory interpretation, including procedural conduct and the FDA’s sudden imposition of new standards without proper notification.

“With or without Chevron deference, we believe that the ‘switcheroo’ pulled by the FDA was arbitrary, capricious and not in line with the Administrative Procedures Act,” said Conley. “This stance aligns with the court’s broader view that agencies should not have unchecked power to interpret and enforce ambiguous statutes without clear congressional authorization.”

Much of the lower court’s opinion is based on APA violations. The APA process for creating federal regulations has (typically) three main phases: initiating rulemaking actions, developing proposed rules and developing final rules. In practice, however, this process is often complex, requiring regulatory analysis, internal and interagency reviews, and opportunities for public comments.

At its most basic level, the APA requires that an agency create a draft proposed rule, review/approve it, publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and open a public comment period of at least 30 days. In a footnote to the Triton decision, the court characterized the FDA’s denial of all PMTAs for nontobacco-flavored e-cigarettes as a “de facto flavor ban” that circumvented the APA’s required notice-and-comment rulemaking process:

“(5) FDA’s categorical ban has other statutory problems. For example, the TCA states that FDA must follow notice-and-comment procedures before adopting a ‘tobacco product standard.’ See 21 U.S.C. § 387g(c)–(d). And Congress specifically called a ban on tobacco flavors a ‘tobacco product standard.’

“See id. § 387g(a)(1)(A) (referring to tobacco flavors, ‘including strawberry, grape, orange, clove, cinnamon, pineapple, vanilla, coconut, licorice, cocoa, chocolate, cherry or coffee, that is a characterizing flavor of the tobacco product or tobacco smoke’); see also id. § 387g(a)(2) (cross-referencing notice-and-comment obligation to revise flavor standards). FDA unquestionably failed to follow § 387g’s notice-and-comment obligations before imposing its de facto ban on flavored e-cigarettes.”

Attorneys from the U.S. Department of Justice told the justices that the 5th Circuit’s ruling “has far-reaching consequences for public health and threatens to undermine the TCA’s central objective of ‘ensuring that another generation of Americans does not become addicted’” to nicotine products.

In court papers, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told SCOTUS justices that the FDA has never adopted a categorical ban on flavored e-cigarette products. “Rather, it has recognized that, because such products pose a ‘known and substantial risk to youth,’ applicants bear a particularly high burden of proving a potential for benefit to adult smokers that could justify the risk,” she wrote.

Robert Burton, a longtime player in the U.S. vaping industry and current group scientific and regulatory director for the U.K.-based vaping company Plxsur, said that concerning the Triton case, decisions will now need to carry a significant weight of evidence on both sides.

“Without the Chevron precedent, it may come down to a judgment based upon who knows the market and consumer best and who understands ‘best’ what is in the interest of public health, but based upon facts and data rather than a gray area deferral,” said Burton.

Attorney Eric Heyer, who is representing Triton, expressed intense anticipation for the Supreme Court’s hearing of the case. He strongly criticized the FDA for imposing “surprise, after-the-fact … study requirements” and failing to adhere to the guidelines the agency itself had developed.

It is unclear whether SCOTUS will hear the three other vaping-related cases, which are also before it (Magellan Technology Inc. v. Food and Drug Administration; Lotus Vaping Technologies LLC v. Food and Drug Administration; and Logic Technology Development LLC v. Food and Drug Administration). In these cases, vaping manufacturers seek a review of their losses in FDA-issued marketing denial order appeals handed down by various other circuit courts.

Yolonda Richardson, president and CEO of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, has urged the high court to overturn the appeals court order, emphasizing that if allowed to stand, it could significantly harm public health, particularly that of children. Vaping companies have asserted that their products can mitigate the harm caused by smoking combustible cigarettes.

When the Triton decision was announced, Tony Abboud, executive director of the Vapor Technology Association, welcomed the decision as a “blistering indictment” of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products for its “intentional misleading” of the U.S. e-cigarette industry.

“The court was so stupefied by the FDA’s bad-faith efforts to reject all flavored e-cigarette products [that] it cited Shakespeare to illustrate the full extent of the FDA’s disingenuity, particularly after the court explained that the plaintiffs in that case provided scientific evidence that e-cigarettes ‘save lives,’” Abboud said. “The court also emphasized the dramatic and abrupt ‘FDA flip-flop,’ which led to the implementation of what the court called a ‘de facto ban’ on flavored e-cigarette products in the U.S.

“This was in addition to the voluminous jurisprudence cited by the court laying bare just how egregious the behavior of the FDA administrative state has been toward e-cigarette products and the consumers that use them. As the court stated, ‘No principle is more important when considering how the unelected administrators of the fourth branch of government treat the American people.’”

September 9, 2024
The Takeaways

Image: Parin April

What can we learn from the first FDA marketing order for menthol ENDS?
By Chris Allen
In good news for the next-generation nicotine industry, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently granted marketing orders (MOs) for four menthol-flavored e-cigarette products. This marks the first time that the FDA has granted MOs for nontobacco-flavored products via the premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) pathway. In this article, Chris Allen, CEO of PMTA specialist Broughton, summarizes the documentation and shares some pertinent learning points from the decision summaries of the applications from the technical project lead (TPL) review.
The new products that were granted MOs are Altria’s Njoy Ace Pod Menthol 2.4 percent, Njoy Ace Pod Menthol 5 percent, Njoy Daily Menthol 4.5 percent and Njoy Daily Extra Menthol 6 percent. The Ace products are sealed pod-based systems whereas the Daily products are disposable e-cigarettes with a prefilled, nonrefillable e-liquid reservoir. At the time of writing, Njoy Ace is the only pod-based e-cigarette product with an MO.
A Big Step for Tobacco Harm Reduction
Granting an MO for a menthol e-cigarette is a huge step in the right direction for the FDA, opening up a new avenue for tobacco harm reduction to millions of adult smokers across the U.S.
It is crucial that we have a diverse portfolio of convenient, satisfying and appealing smoke-free products to meet adult smokers’ preferences and needs as they transition away from combustible cigarettes (CC). We hope the fact that the FDA has granted MOs for menthol products will encourage adult smokers to opt for regulated alternatives to smoking rather than illicit products. However, we must bear in mind that these products are now eight years old, so it’s imperative that the FDA streamlines the PMTA process to reduce the time to market for products that are aligned with changing consumer behaviors.
The PMTA Process
Compiling a PMTA is a rigorous and lengthy task, with manufacturers required to provide data and evidence to demonstrate that the product is “appropriate for the protection of public health” (APPH) as required under the Tobacco Control Act. Manufacturers must consider the risks and benefits of the product, both to users and nonusers. To date, 27 products and devices have been granted marketing orders, and a full list is kept here.
The FDA’s approval of menthol products demonstrates that it is possible to achieve the requirements of PMTA approval with a high-quality menthol product and compelling data. Shannon Leistra, president and CEO of Njoy, said, “We believe these marketing orders are a testament to the quality of the Njoy products and the strength of evidence supporting the authorizations of the Njoy menthol e-vapor products.”
It will be interesting to see the FDA’s next move regarding flavored electronic nicotine-delivery systems (ENDS) and whether granting MOs for menthol opens up the door to other flavors. Njoy has resubmitted PMTAs for blueberry-flavored and watermelon-flavored pod products that work exclusively with the new Njoy Ace 2.0 age-gated device and is awaiting the outcomes.
What Can We Learn from These Products?
PMTAs are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and the MO is specific to these products only. Understandably, many in the industry are looking to learn from this industry first to apply it to their own products and PMTAs.
The most interesting outcome, naturally, is that the FDA determined there was robust and reliable evidence of an added benefit from the menthol flavor relative to that of tobacco-flavored products in facilitating adult smokers switching from CCs. This was deemed to outweigh the increased risk of youth use.
About the approval, Brian King, director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, said, “It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide the necessary evidence to obtain marketing authorization, and the FDA has made clear what’s needed to successfully achieve that outcome. This action is further reinforcement that authorization of an e-cigarette product is possible when sufficient scientific evidence has been submitted to the agency to justify it.”
Reducing the Risk of Youth Use
A shared concern of the general public, manufacturers and regulators is the youth appeal of nontobacco-flavored products. The FDA has placed stringent marketing restrictions to prevent youth access and exposure, and for flavored products, there is a higher burden of proof on the manufacturer that the benefit to adults who use CCs outweighs the increased risk of youth use.
While the application did include studies of youth use with low prevalence estimates for the new products, the FDA deemed the sample size insufficient. It noted the recent National Youth Tobacco Survey on popular flavors and devices, referencing the increased risk of youth appeal of menthol-flavored ENDS compared with tobacco-flavored ones, but adding the risk is lower than some other flavors (e.g., fruit).
The TPL noted, “FDA’s experience shows that advertising and promotion restrictions and sales access restrictions cannot mitigate the substantial risk to youth from flavored ENDS sufficiently to reduce the magnitude of adult benefit required to demonstrate APPH. Rather, for flavored ENDS, only the most stringent mitigation measures have such potential; to date, the only such measures identified with the potential for that kind of impact have been device access restrictions.”
The FDA’s ruling highlights that “stringent mitigation measures” such as device access restrictions have the mitigation potential to demonstrate APPH. However, the Njoy menthol-flavored PMTAs did not propose such mitigation restrictions and therefore required reliable and robust evidence of a potential benefit to adults who smoke, i.e., cessation of combustibles with continued ENDS use or cessation of combustibles leading to cessation of ENDS use.
The application also proposed limiting youth exposure by not engaging in social media promotions, limiting human portrayals to those over 45 and prohibiting these products from being sold on third-party websites.
Comparisons from Adult Smokers
In this case, the FDA found “acceptably strong evidence” from submitted data from an online, observational longitudinal cohort study comparing its menthol Njoy Daily product with its tobacco-flavored Njoy Daily device. The study suggested a 21 percent to 31 percent rate of switching over a period of six months (three months primary outcome cohort), higher than the rate of ENDS in the literature.
The comparison analyses showed the menthol Daily products were associated with statistically significant and higher rates (32 percent to 43 percent) of complete switching than the rate of tobacco-flavored Njoy Daily ENDS (21 percent to 37 percent) at three months or six months.
Additionally, the comparison analyses demonstrated a 24 percent to 45 percent substantial added benefit from the menthol-flavored Njoy Daily ENDS in switching away from CCs among smoking adults compared with their tobacco-flavored equivalent. The submitted clinical studies demonstrated a similar abuse liability to CCs, suggesting they are a suitable substitute.
For Njoy Ace menthol products, the longitudinal cohort study found behavioral benefits compared with tobacco-flavored Njoy Ace products in robust and reliable rates of switching from CCs, though the exact figures were redacted.
Overall, the studies showed that the products have the potential to promote CC cessation, or significantly reduced use, compared with tobacco-flavored comparator products. The review concluded that there was a benefit to public health in the significantly higher smoking cessation rates achieved as compared with equivalent tobacco-flavored products.
Biomarker data showed fewer and lower levels of harmful and potentially harmful constituent exposure compared with CCs, and toxicological evaluation of the aerosol suggested a lower excess lifetime cancer risk using Njoy Daily than using CCs. Ultimately, the FDA ruled that this data “demonstrated the potential for these new products to benefit adults who smoke combustible cigarettes as compared to adults who continue to use combustible cigarettes exclusively.”
All of these points contributed to the FDA’s decision to designate the products as APPH. This monumental ruling has excited many in the next-generation nicotine industry, as it helps us achieve our shared goal of tobacco harm reduction for millions of adult smokers across the U.S. We are likely to see manufacturers working closely with regulatory consultants like Broughton to ensure their PMTAs contain robust and rigorous data and that their regulatory dossier is presented to support the best chance of success.

Chris Allen is the CEO of Broughton.

August 5, 2024
A Drop in the Ocean

Photo: digieye

The FDA’s first premarket approval of a mentholated vape product reflects poorly on the agency’s authorization process.

By Stefanie Rossel

Lindsay Stroud
On June 21, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the first time authorized nontobacco-flavored vape products through its premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) pathway. The agency issued marketing granted orders (MGO) for two Njoy Ace menthol flavor pods and two disposable e-cigarettes, Njoy Daily Menthol 4.5 percent and Njoy Daily Extra Menthol 2.4 percent. The news was hailed as a “significant decision” and a “watershed moment for the sector” that will have a “huge and significant impact” on the global reduced-risk products market.
Upon closer inspection, however, the authorization is less of a breakthrough than these superlatives suggest. Instead, it again highlights the many problems with the agency’s authorization process for electronic nicotine-delivery systems (ENDS) and novel nicotine products.
Lindsey Stroud, senior fellow with the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, describes the recent FDA authorization as a small step in the right direction in what has otherwise been a regulatory nightmare. “While allowing the sale of a nontobacco-flavored ENDS, FDA seems to understand that adults who use menthol-flavored combustible cigarettes should have access to products which are significantly less harmful,” she says. “Unfortunately, the FDA still continues to deny the sale of all other flavored ENDS, despite their effectiveness in helping adults quit smoking and remain smoke-free.”
Stroud is also concerned about the informal market. “Despite FDA not having issued authorization orders for flavored ENDS, a large, unregulated marketplace exists in the United States—99.9 percent of which are nontobacco flavored,” she says. “FDA must recognize the role that other flavors play in tobacco harm reduction because denialism isn’t stopping the flourishing non-FDA-authorized ENDS marketplace.”
Jeffrey Smith
Jeffrey Smith, a senior fellow in harm reduction at the R Street Institute, says he welcomes any action by the FDA Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) that supports reduced-risk options for those who smoke. “Unfortunately, in the grand scheme of things, the awarding of an MGO to the four Njoy menthol variants is unlikely to be a sign of a significant shift in the decision-making process at the CTP,” he says. “If the regulatory environment does not change through external pressures, it is unlikely that the actions of the CTP will evolve in a swift and effective manner.”

Gray Market to Persist

While optimists may detect a new willingness to approve reduced-risk products (RRPs) in the CTP’s recent product authorizations, few expect the regulatory floodgates to open to an avalanche of product approvals.
“Since the awarding of the Njoy menthol products, there haven’t been any additional actions or signals that more may be coming,” says Smith. “The only additional communications I have seen from the CTP since the Njoy announcement was a letter from the FDA to the clerk of the Supreme Court informing the court that the CTP had granted a marketing order to four menthol-flavored e-cigarette products. The case is the Logic v. FDA, where Logic is arguing that the CTP had adopted a blanket policy of rejecting menthol-flavored products.”
Stroud says the menthol announcement is a positive development but notes that the FDA remains opposed to any flavors that don’t exist in traditional tobacco products. “Dr. Brian King, director for the Center for Tobacco Products, is very anti-flavor, if not anti-vape,” she says. “Going back to at least 2015 and his time at the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], King has been first to tout the Bloomberg party line that ‘flavors hook kids.’ This is in direct contrast to U.S. youth survey data, which finds flavors as one of the least-cited reasons why youth vape. FDA must recognize the role of flavors, their appeal to adults who smoke and how flavors help to reinforce a negative taste—literally—associated with combustible cigarette smoke. Until FDA recognizes this, the U.S. ENDS market will remain a large gray market.”
Unlike most other vape products that have received FDA authorization to date, the Njoy menthol variants are technologically up to date and relatively popular with consumers. “According to Altria’s first-quarter 2024 report, Njoy made up 4.3 percent of the U.S. retail market, but this will likely grow as Njoy is now the only menthol-flavored—and nontobacco-flavored—ENDS product legally permitted to be for sale in the U.S.,” says Stroud.
She is undecided about the FDA decision’s potential impact on the global RRP landscape. “I would imagine that with FDA recognizing the importance of menthol, most countries would follow the agency’s findings,” she says. “Unfortunately, due to a de facto flavor ban in the U.S., there is precedent for countries to restrict flavors, despite them not experiencing a huge surge in youth vaping as the U.S. did in 2019.”

“The awarding of a marketing granted order to the four Njoy menthol variants is unlikely to be a sign of a significant shift in the decision-making process at the CTP.”

Depressing Number

Nicotine companies have long lamented the FDA’s product authorization process, which they say is needlessly time-consuming and costly and favors deep-pocketed players over less generously resourced applicants. Stroud and Smith believe the process can be streamlined only through external interventions.
To illustrate the challenge, Stroud recalls the tremendous technological progress in ENDS products, which went from cigalikes to larger open systems, back to pods and then on to disposables. “The FDA’s draconian regulations don’t account for the technological improvement that has been applied to ENDS,” she says. “FDA and Congress could reform the Tobacco Control Act [TCA] in a huge way if they pushed the predicate date further ahead than February 2007. Requiring ENDS to undergo extensive testing and a massive bureaucratic application process is not only a farce to public health, but it restricts innovation and competition, which is very un-American.”
With Congressional assistance and a reworking of the TCA, the FDA could establish a notification process for new products and then focus on post-market surveillance to monitor the public health effects of the new products, according to Shroud.
“The FDA must also recognize what percentage of youth is permittable,” she says. “No other consumer good in America has been forced to deal with so much scrutiny that even one kid using the product is one kid too many. While youth vaping was a problem in 2019, it declined by more than 60 percent in the years since—all while the non-FDA-authorized ENDS market grew exponentially. FDA must recognize that adults are using these products and that their use is associated with a 10 percent decrease in cigarette units sold in America in 2023. That’s a win for public health. FDA must reform the process so we can accelerate even further declines in smoking.”
As of June 21, the FDA had authorized more than 16,000 tobacco products—mostly cigarettes and cigars, according to Stroud. “Twenty-seven MGOs for ENDS is a depressing number and makes up less than 1 percent of authorized products,” she says. “Worse, only 49 products have been authorized by FDA using the PMTA pathway. FDA’s own budget is problematic; it’s entirely funded by user fees paid for by only six classes of tobacco products and not from e-cigarettes. There is more of an incentive to authorize the products that are paying for a $275,000 annual salary, as made by the CTP director in 2023, than authorizing products that pay nothing. While FDA has been asking Congress for years to be able to collect user fees on products including e-cigarettes, they refuse to issue orders—and instead denied tens of millions of products. That could have been a lot of fees and would have funded a significant amount of surveillance while also recognizing tobacco harm reduction. It is something the agency must recognize if the mission is to reduce smoking.”

While optimists may detect a new willingness to approve reduced-risk products in the CTP’s recent product authorizations, few expect the regulatory floodgates to open to an avalanche of product approvals. | Photo: Tada Images

Significant Ruling

Smith says it is important to educate those affected by the failing 99.999 percent of all PMTA applications about the recent changes in the regulatory landscape and how those changes may lay a foundation for the significant changes necessary at the CTP.
“The first is the recent announcement by the Supreme Court where the Chevron Deference has been overturned,” he says. “This action by the court will now require that regulatory agencies follow the letter of the law and that the regulators would now have little leeway in the interpretation of how to apply regulatory law.
“The Chevron Deference has allowed the CTP to define the meaning of ‘appropriate for the protection of public health’ when conducting a review of the PMTAs and MRTPAs [modified-risk tobacco product applications]. Now, post-Chevron, if the Tobacco Control Act does not clearly outline the actions and process of enforcement of regulatory oversight in a manner that allows for the regulatory agency to action the law, the law will have to be amended to clarify the process, so legislators will have to work to make the law actionable … not the regulators that monitor the marketplace.”
Second, according to Smith, the Supreme Court may review four relevant lawsuits—Triton, Magellan, Lotus and Logic. Such a review may trigger action to change the TCA. “If the court decides to hear at least one of these cases, then the likely outcome is a requirement that the TCA be clarified so that the CTP will only enforce actions defined in the TCA,” says Smith. “If the TCA isn’t clear as to how to enforce it, then the law should be amended. Depending on how the policies are modified by the legislative branch, we may see shifts in the way that CTP reviews all tobacco and nicotine products, leading to a more effective regulatory environment. However, how the legislators refine the TCA will determine if the regulatory environment improves in a manner that supports the reduced-risk product marketplace.”

Stefanie Rossel is Tobacco Reporter’s editorial contributor. An experienced trade journalist, she combines sharp reporting skills with in-depth knowledge of the tobacco and vapor industries. Prior to joining Tobacco Reporter, Stefanie was editor-in-chief at Tobacco Journal International, where she worked for a decade. Fluent in English, German and French, Stefanie covers tobacco news around the world. She is based in Germany.

August 1, 2024