Welcome to our panel discussion on the global regulatory landscape for tobacco harm reduction and novel nicotine products. Hosted by Barnaby Page from Tamarind Intelligence, publisher of E-cig Intelligence and Tobacco Intelligence, the panel features experts from around the world including Peter Beckett from the UK, Lindsey Stroud from the USA, Michael Landl from Austria, and David Yu from China.
In this session, we dive into the current state of tobacco harm reduction, discuss novel nicotine products, and explore the regulatory environments across different regions.
Topics covered include:
- Overview of global tobacco harm reduction strategies
- Regulatory challenges and opportunities in different countries
- Perspectives on novel nicotine products
- Future trends and predictions for tobacco harm reduction
GFN 2024 Workshop - hosted by Barnaby Page with panellists: Michael Landl, Peter Beckett, Lindsey Stroud and David Yu
Transcription:
00:00:05 --> 00:01:44
Barnaby Page: Right, well, good morning, everybody. I think we're about 15 seconds early, but I'm sure you won't hold me against that. Welcome to this panel today, which is about the global regulatory picture for tobacco harm reduction, novel nicotine products. I'm Barnaby Page from Tamarind Intelligence, the publisher of e-cig intelligence and tobacco intelligence. I have with me, going from I was going to say going from the right, going from your left. We have Peter Beckett from the UK, Lindsey Stroud from the United States, Michael Landl from Austria, and David Yu from China. Well, I should say from the USA and China in ways that will become clear. So that is a slight change from what you may have seen in the program. Stephanie, from Jewel, who was going to join us today, was unable to. So we do, in fact, end up with a larger and slightly different panel. So what I'd like to do to start with is just run through my four fellow panelists, just introduce yourselves quickly, who you are, what your organizations do, and so on. We'll start with Peter over there, because then when we get to David, he also has a video to share from one of his Chinese colleagues. David himself, though he, as will become clear, though he works for a Chinese company for 2Firsts, his focus is in fact very much on the United States, and that's what he'll be focusing on discussing today. But one of his Chinese colleagues will join us briefly by video, not live, but by pre-recorded video, just to give us an update on China. Anyway, enough of the introductions. Peter.
00:01:45 --> 00:02:11
Peter Beckett: Good morning, good afternoon, however you're best feeling at the moment. My name is Peter Beckett. For those of you in the room who have not yet met me, I am from an organization called Clearing the Air. We are part news service and part consumer advocacy organization. And our objective is to help nicotine consumers become effective advocates for the things that they believe in.
00:02:13 --> 00:02:33
Lindsey Stroud: Good morning, good afternoon, good evening. For my American friends, way good morning for you guys. My name is Lindsey Stroud. I'm a senior fellow at the Taxpayers Protection Alliance. I'm also the creator of Tobacco Harm Reduction 101, and I've been working on vaping issues since 2016. So I'm really excited to be here, and thank you for coming.
00:02:34 --> 00:03:00
Michael Landl: Hello, everyone. I'm Michael from the World Vapers Alliance. We are a consumer organization basically fighting around the world for sensible regulation of less harmful alternatives. And obviously, currently, we have a focus on the EU level as well, so also with international organizations and institutions. And we try everything we can to raise consumer voices and make sure that we are heard.
00:03:02 --> 00:03:27
David Yu: Hello. Hi, everyone. My name's David, and I'm working at 2Firsts. 2Firsts is a media channel with industry news, and we're also a think tank, and focusing on the vaping industry. And my boss called Alan, he has not come in here, I apologize, but he prepared a video about the regulations in China. So here is the video, I think.
00:03:27 --> 00:03:29
Barnaby Page: Yeah, we'll go over to that. Nadia Cook, please.
00:03:29 --> 00:08:30
Alan Zhao: Dear experts and guests, hello everyone. Today at GFN24, I am honored to share insights about China's regulatory framework for e-cigarettes and the importance of global regulatory collaborations. Let me introduce myself. I'm Alan, the co-founder and the CEO of 2Firsts, a global leading NGP industrial media and consultancy. Every day, more than 10,000 users worldwide visit our website, including regulators, entrepreneurs, media, and researchers. Returning to our topic today, why is China's e-cigarette regulatory policy so important? Because 90% of the world's e-cigarettes are manufactured in China. China's regulatory framework for e-cigarettes includes several key components, legal systems, administrative management, product standards, taxation, and enforcement actions. Legal system China has established a comprehensive three-tail legal system, ranging from national laws to State Council policies to STMA implementation methods, covering both existing and potential NJP under regulation. Administer to management, the production, distribution, and retailer of e-cigarettes are all included in the licensing system. All companies engaged in the production, export, and brand export of e-cigarettes must obtain a license, with strict requirements for obtaining a production license. Moreover, China places great emphasis on protecting young people and minors from the harm of e-cigarette, explicitly prohibiting sales to minors. Product standards, China adopts a white list system, allowing only 101 substances to be legally added to e-cigarettes, while prohibiting flavors such as fruit. These standards apply exclusively to products sold domestically. Taxation China leaves a tobacco consumption tax on domestic sales collected at two stages, production, import, and wholesale, with tax rates of 36% and 11%, respectively. enforcement actions. According to statistics from January to May 2024, China's STMA, Public Security Bureau and other departments have conducted no less than 13 large-scale enforcement actions. with the value of illegal e-cigarettes investigated reached US$145 million. China's regulatory policies for e-cigarettes have a profound impact globally and serve as a reference for many countries in formulating their own regulations. Now let's discuss global liberation for e-cigarettes. First, I would like to clarify that China is also a victim of the illegal e-cigarette trade. Those who sell counterfeit and substandard e-cigarettes globally often operate illegal factories without production license in China. China has consistently cracked down on such illegal production. When formulating China's e-cigarette regulation policies, policy makers have considered the international market's need, such as verifying product standards in different countries, and have established a robust mechanism for international regulation cooperation. Let me provide two examples. For example, China's nation standard for e-cigarettes stipulates products should comply with the standards of the destination country. If there are no standards in the destination country, products should comply with Chinese standards. While China can prohibit the sales of fruit-flavored e-cigarettes domestically, it cannot interfere with market sales in other countries. Therefore, if your country updates its product standards, it is advisable to share them with Chinese regulators to ensure that Chinese manufacturers adhere to these standards. Second example, if there are quality issues with products from China, manufacturers, reporting to them to the STMA properly as violations can affect the company's e-cigarette business license qualification. Sharing official enforcement actions with Chinese regulators will enhance deterrence against violators. Losing a production license means the company cannot continue production in China. Due to time constraints, I cannot share more examples. However, I want to emphasize one point. China is currently the supply chain center and may also become a global hub for BP industry regulations. Let's work together to build a safer and healthier tomorrow. Thank you.
00:08:38 --> 00:09:32
Barnaby Page: Right, so some insight there on China, a country which is obviously enormously important in the global e-cigarette industry, and one about which we don't actually hear a great deal at these events. Our focus today is global. I think inevitably we are going to be talking quite a bit about North America and about Europe, given the composition of our panel. but I hope we'll be able to reach farther afield in some of our discussions as well, and I'm sure some of you, when we have questions from the floor at the end, may be able to give some insight from other countries. But to start off with, what I'd like to do is go around the circle here again, I'll start with Peter again, and simply ask people, in your country or your region, which, you know, Peter, you might consider your region to be Europe, or you might want to look strictly at the UK, or what have you, What do you think of regulation at the moment? Is it getting better or is it getting worse? What's the temperature like?
00:09:34 --> 00:11:14
Peter Beckett: I mean, the temperature in the UK is slightly cold and generally raining, but I feel like that's not what you actually want me to talk about. We are, over the next five years, going to see the revision of the well-known tobacco products directive, a file from which many other countries take inspiration for their own regulations. And we've just had in the last couple of days the results of the European parliamentary elections. So perhaps I should start there. What we're seeing is a shift to the right in terms of the voting composition of the major legislative body that will determine things. There is a majority up the center, but there's also a majority up the right, which there hasn't been before. And that's gonna be crucial in terms of what the new regulation is gonna say. We know that the European Commission is gonna propose something that's gonna look awful. We're talking flavor bans, we're possibly talking about a reduction on the already too low 20 milligrams per milliliter limit on nicotine. And we as a sector and we in our case as consumers are relying on the European Parliament to bring a little bit of sense to this regulation. And anybody who follows European Affairs will realize that that's a very odd thing to say, but it does seem to compute in this sector. I'll talk a little bit more about the detail later, but in terms of what is the temperature, I guess the answer is we are about to find out.
00:11:17 --> 00:12:50
Lindsey Stroud: In the United States, the regulatory field, it sucks right now. The FDA decided that they wanted to regulate e-cigarettes and they just seem to be unable to do so. To date, we only have 23 products that are officially authorized by the FDA, legal for sale, yet there's thousands of products and there's thousands, millions of adults who have quit smoking using these products. and the FDA doesn't seem to recognize it. But in the states we have a really weird thing with the federal regulator regulating it and the lack of enforcement. It's not like the FDA has a police force that they can just go in and tear down people's brick and mortar shops who are selling vapor products to people. So I think they're in a hard spot. I know that we've been working on and they're trying to work on the continuum of harm. informing adults who smoke about, you know, less harmful alternatives. They're doing a really poor job on that. It was Scott Gottlieb back in 2017 who said that the agency was working on, you know, we're going to inform these people who smoke of, you know, that there's a continuum of risk in tobacco products and If you look at all the surveys, there's more ignorance when it comes to nicotine and what is the most harmful thing. In America, I know a lot of the world looks at America for standards. Please don't do that when it comes to e-cigarette regulation. It sucks. It's one of the worst things in the world that I've seen. I think that it's just a hindrance to harm reduction for adults who smoke.
00:12:53 --> 00:14:14
Michael Landl: I mean for Austria it's quite easy to answer because there is no debate about harm reduction and we basically just follow whatever the EU says we have to do and that's why I would like to emphasize Peter's point a bit further because the upcoming tobacco products directive is not only a European thing it will affect basically all regions of the world because other legislators tend to copy-paste the EU legislation on those kind of things a lot of times And that's why we as an organization have such a big focus on the tobacco products directive as well. And yesterday already Politico reported that a flavor ban is already in the making even without the review of the tobacco products directive. So that already shows in what direction... Yeah, it was in Politico. Basically that the member states, some member states, especially Denmark, tries to push a flavor ban already next week. And so this is unfortunately the direction it will go and we will fight against. And hopefully the new parliament, obviously it's a bit Soon to tell, we'll be more leaning towards harm reduction, and we will find some more allies to fight back against those proposals from the Commission, which, yes, will definitely be bad.
00:14:16 --> 00:16:21
David Yu: Okay. So for China, I would say we're trying. And most people, several people met me, they said, oh, Chinese government, they don't even have a harm reduction, such action on any vape or tobacco stuff. But I would say we are doing it. because such vaping or alternative product is kind of a new, in the whole world, it's a new industry. And the government and regulators are actually trying to see where is the balance point. It's not highly regulated or banned or it's not, they don't even care. So from 2021, disposable is booming and the government see there's a consumer trend on the vaping industry. From 2022, the Chinese government has the method that Alan just introduced to you guys. So actually I would say Chinese government is trying to, following the trend and do the harm reduction stuff. But I was adding something to the FDA stuff. So my personal view is even if they're doing a conservative regulation, some people say it's not good. But for the whole industry, I would say US market give them a place to do the innovation. to do the new product. You cannot see any products in UK or in Europe. There is a screen on it, but we can see it in US. Any new innovations is happening in US. So I would say it's not only the best thing from FDA, it also helping the whole industry growing. But FDA also, because we talked to Brian King last year, he said he's also trying to see like what he should do. They're doing the tracing and the locating where the black market goes, but they are also finding a balance point. So I think as a media, we're trying to pass in the truth and providing accurate information to all the regulators and government to like helping the industry grows.
00:16:22 --> 00:16:33
Lindsey Stroud: Can I segue on that part? Brian King did not authorize a single e-cigarette last year. He did authorize 662 combustible cigarette products. Just saying.
00:16:33 --> 00:17:59
Peter Beckett: I mean, I've never heard the FDA held up as a beacon for good regulation. It's an interesting place to start. It's been 12 years, and they still haven't got to a place that they feel comfortable with. And it's emblematic of something that I think we need to be honest with ourselves about. I hear a lot of talk in this conference, and I understand why I hear it, about we need to build a bridge to what I call the other side and have a constructive dialogue with people who take a dimmer view of tobacco harm reduction, and perhaps we can get them to see the light. It's been 15 years, guys. It's not going to happen. They have all the same information we do. They're not idiots. They've made a decision. Let's stop pretending that there is a negotiation or a debate to be had here. This is pitch battle warfare. The sooner we accept that and the sooner we realize that, look, actually what we need to do is stand up for our rights and what we believe in and what was called yesterday, the fact that tobacco harm reduction is a civil liberties issue and a human rights issue. And if you can't see that, then screw you. We're kind of starting in the wrong place. That wasn't true 10 years ago, but it's true today. And I think we all need to wake up and see it.
00:18:02 --> 00:18:38
Barnaby Page: Thank you. I'll add my two cents worth on the FDA there. I'm sure we'll be coming back to it. Yeah, I mean, I think you're both right in a sense, and I'm not just trying to smooth the waters there. You know, I think the problem with the FDA situation is that On a very abstract and theoretical level, yes, the model makes sense, you know, pre-market review, scientific review, etc., etc. It makes sense if you have 15 products a year of a type that are already well understood. It doesn't make any sense at all if you have a sudden influx of 700,000 products that consumers are already using and they're out there.
00:18:38 --> 00:18:44
Peter Beckett: And to add, it doesn't make any sense when the alternative is the thing that kills half of its users when used as intended.
00:18:45 --> 00:20:07
Barnaby Page: Well, absolutely, yes. So it's not the model that's wrong. It's the fact that the model is completely inappropriate to this market, I would say. I also just wanted to add one quick thing on China to supplement what David said. Just if anybody wasn't in the last plenary session, the big one just before the coffee break, there was a really interesting fact brought out there toward the end. that China Tobacco, which is the state-owned tobacco corporation in China, has the world's largest collection of tobacco harm reduction patents. So even if we don't see THR happening on an obviously large scale in China at the moment, if China Tobacco and the government, same thing in a sense, did decide to introduce THR, then they are potentially very well positioned to do it on a very big scale, very, very quickly. But to come back to what we were talking about when we took the temperature and not the English weather in this case, let's go back to the TPD, if we can, because of the Tobacco Products Directive, the EU directive. Because as we said, there's a revision of that coming up. Actually, perhaps I'll turn to you first, Michael. Are there, we talked about flavors, are there other specific risks we should be looking out for? And are there specific wins we can be looking out for, things that might go well for the sector?
00:20:09 --> 00:21:46
Michael Landl: I'm always a bit skeptical with wins because I think it's already a win if we avoid the worst proposals, unfortunately. Obviously, it's also always a bit hard to admit the current regulation is kind of okay, but I think that's the case in the EU at the moment. As Peter already mentioned, the nicotine levels and volume limits, they make absolutely no sense, but as a consumer, you can deal with having a couple of more smaller bottles even though it doesn't make sense from an environmental perspective. So I think in an optimal scenario we could tweak those things and make it a bit better, but in a realistic scenario it's about fighting against further regulation. And I think the flavors will be the main battleground, but there is a separate legislation, the TED, I think, taxation directive so this will be the other battleground because the commission also wants to increase taxation so basically doing the opposite what works namely risk-based taxation and the Swedes are doing it but the rest of Europe is just ignoring the success there and they want to do the opposite so I think those two things flavors and taxation will be the main battlegrounds and obviously also from a consumer perspective the most important ones. I mean, a flavor ban would mean vaping is dead, at least on the legal market for most people. And obviously if they increase the prices, it's also a big issue. So I think those two.
00:21:48 --> 00:22:42
Barnaby Page: Sure, and a good point about the tax directive there. We tend to get so worried about the TPD or so excited about the TPD, depending on your perspective, that we forget about the tax directive. Also worth noting, there's quite a lot of EU environmental directives, sustainability and traceability and what have you, either in the works or being issued recently, which are not directed... specifically at this industry, but many of which will have some effect on them. Peter, I'm sure you have opinions here, so please weigh in with those. But could you also say a few words about the strange case of the United Kingdom, which, of course, has regulation that is very closely based on the TPD because the UK was an EU member at the time that it introduced that legislation. The UK has, of course, since left the EU, so it's under no obligation to follow the new TPD, will it?
00:22:44 --> 00:25:02
Peter Beckett: We'll take the last bit first and go from there. No, the UK will not follow the next TPD. There is a revision going on in parallel in the UK of the tobacco and related products regulations, which is the UK analogue of the TPD that was passed prior to Brexit, which was, of course, a fabulous decision of my fellow countrymen to leave the world's largest trading bloc and pursue our own fun, independent future. The legislation essentially gives powers to the Secretary of State, so it doesn't actually do anything in and of itself. What it does is it gives the Department of Health the opportunity to make future regulations without putting them through Parliament. That legislation was halted by the genius decision of the UK Conservative Party to call a general election, which will happen in three weeks. The Conservatives will lose it, Labour will come into power, and my guess is they'll bring back more or less exactly the same bill, which also contains a generational ban on smoking. I still don't really know what I think about that, so I tend not to comment on it. The Labour Party manifesto has said they will ban the marketing of flavoured vaping products to kids, is one line, but no detail on it, so we can fairly safely assume that it's not a priority, might not be the first 100 days, but at some point the Department of Health will be given new powers to regulate, from there there'll be consultations and we'll see where it lands. There is other European legislation that relates particularly to disposables. Nobody seems to have noticed, but disposables are going to be banned in the EU from 2026, whether we like it or not, under the single-use products regulation. Still not sure what I think of that. Disposables are the gangrenous arm of this industry that gets us all sorts of nasty attention. But at the same time, they're quite important to some people because they don't require a huge investment, and they don't require a huge amount of technical knowledge to use, which makes them perfect for particular communities who struggle to give up smoking with the products that are currently available. So whatever we think of it, it's happened. They're gone, and we're going to have to think about those communities in a little bit more depth when the design restrictions come in.
00:25:06 --> 00:25:34
Michael Landl: Just one sentence about the UK, because I think it's a prime example that we shouldn't take anything for granted. I remember two or three years ago at the UK expos, consumers always told me, no, it's safe, we are safe, we don't need to do anything. And then within two weeks, probably, they changed the position on a couple of aspects, at least. which I think should be a reminder for everyone that nothing is for granted and it can get worse pretty fast as well.
00:25:34 --> 00:26:18
Peter Beckett: Let's dig into why that happened though. You have a desperate government that needed a headline and made up the policy without reference to its own health department. The establishment view in the UK remains what it was 12, 24, 36 months ago, which is harm reduction is good. But what I think we've seen is a slight aberration in Conservative Party policy. The key thing that we all need to watch now is how Wes Streetsing reacts and how the UK Health Department reacts. I think he's got good people advising him, and I think he'll have really good people advising him when he gets into the Department for Health. And I think he's the kind of guy that takes advice
00:26:22 --> 00:27:22
Barnaby Page: Great. Thank you, Peter. Let's actually go off, well, I say go off script. We didn't really have a script. But let's just actually follow up something Peter mentioned there, which is the generational age bands. You know, the saying that tobacco will never be sold to people born after a certain date. Now, we've, of course, had two high-profile examples of those proposed to be brought in in the United Kingdom and in New Zealand, both of which were very quickly abandoned, though they were abandoned essentially for political reasons, not because public health opinion changed. What do we think of them? Do we think... they will come to pass? If so, do we think they will work? Do we think they are valuable additions to the army of, if you like, positive and constructive tobacco control? Or are they simply sort of setting up an ideal that can never be achieved? I'll throw over to you, Michael. I know I haven't asked you to prepare this, but...
00:27:22 --> 00:28:29
Michael Landl: I mean, for me, prohibition is prohibition, no matter what the product is. And even though if you don't like the product, prohibition basically never works, and history has shown that. So I'm pretty sure that a generational ban also won't work. And I always imagine in, I don't know, 10, 15 years, how would that work in practice? 40 year old and a 39 year old and one can buy cigarettes and the others won't. That doesn't make any sense to me. So I think that's also more headline grabbing and election saving maneuver. And it definitely won't work and create a black market like every prohibition. does. But I think from our perspective, the more important point is to make sure that not other products are included in that. And in the UK, we have seen that Heat Not Burn is included. We'll see if that stays that way. And the problem is also that I think if the UK kind of falls, then other countries will follow. So I think that's more the danger than the actual practicalities of it, because I don't see a way how this will ever be enforced.
00:28:30 --> 00:29:26
Lindsey Stroud: Can I answer that? Because actually in Massachusetts, Brookline, Massachusetts, the city actually has done a generational ban on tobacco products. I'm reading it right now, the court did uphold it, because it's America, we like to sue on anything that happens, or any regulator comes down. At least what I can say from the states, and it's usually how everything does happen, they start at the local level, build their way up, get the state to do it, and then move it over to the whole federal ban. We were dealing with the menthol ban, which has been, again, political reasons. We cut it and everything. I don't know how they're going to enforce it. I do think you're going to have a lot of issues on it. But I also just think, too, you're going to take tobacco, a regulated product, and kind of really throw it into a major underground market at this point because now it's like an illegal drug. You know, oh, I can't do this, but my granddaddy could. It's just, I don't know. It's really weird.
00:29:28 --> 00:29:54
Barnaby Page: Just to follow up on that for a second there, Lindsay, what do you think about age limits generally in the United States? I mean, of course, the tobacco consumption age has gone up with T21, which is quite unusual. The alcohol, or the legal, I should say, alcohol consumption age, for example, is higher than in much of the world. So there certainly is acceptance for that model. Even if a generational age ban doesn't come in, could we see the minimum consumption age going up to 25, say?
00:29:56 --> 00:31:50
Lindsey Stroud: Probably, actually. I mean, personally, I don't think that T21 lessened youth vaping in America as much as a lot of people want to put it. I think that the 2019, you know, the 20% of kids who were vaping, I think it's literally an anomaly. If you look at the graphs, it just does not make sense on it. But I could see 25. I could see that increasingly happen. We are kind of turning into a nanny state where I guess we don't have parents anymore and our government as our parent now. So... I don't think it's really being enforced, too. I mean, again, we did T21, decrying, oh, these kids, you know, the 21-year-olds, they won't be able to go sell these to kids in high school, but kids are still vaping. So, again, like, you move this age, and you're still decrying a youth vaping epidemic. Thank you, U.S. Senator Durbin, on that. But I think it's a lot of just whack-a-moles and also a conflated problem that really wasn't a problem until they started screaming it. And then again, America, 7.7% of kids were vaping in 2023. That's less than one in 10. It's also a 61% decrease from 2019. And again, 2019 is when 20% were doing it. They declared a youth vaping epidemic in 2018, and that was the FDA and the CDC. And you look at the WHO, too. I mean, if you saw some of their graphics that they did for World No Tobacco Day, who exactly is marketing to whom? It seems like the WHO, they got this one that they just did on their tweet where they are showing kids, you know, a vaping device. And the kid's like, what is that, a lighter? And it's like, well, the WHO is the one who's now telling them that it's a vaping device. So, I mean, exactly. I don't know exactly what they're going off on, but... Back to the thing, I do not think that 25 will, I mean, it could happen. Massachusetts, if it's gonna happen, it'll happen in Massachusetts. Well, California, they shouldn't have a problem. They banned everything.
00:31:51 --> 00:32:00
Michael Landl: But wouldn't it be the most American thing to have that? And then you're allowed to vote for the most powerful man on earth. You're allowed to buy a gun, but not a vape.
00:32:01 --> 00:33:20
Peter Beckett: It never ceases to astonish me that we're still using the word epidemic after we had an actual global epidemic of a thing that killed millions and millions of people. But, you know, that's an aside. Um... What do I think about this whole generational ban thing? Well, I think it's probably unnecessary if you use harm reduction strategies because the market will do it anyway and people will stop selling cigarettes because people don't want to buy them. I don't see what... good and what end this serves other than to allow traditional tobacco control to take credit for a victory that people in this room and beyond it won with harm reduction. And it goes back to the point I was making about this being a culture war. Why is this a culture war? In theory, we all have the same objectives, which is to reduce the death and disease from smoking. But we're now arguing over who gets to take the credit for the actual reduction in death and disease from smoking. That doesn't make any sense to me. It only makes sense in some warped political reality where outcomes don't matter. And that's where these ideas come from.
00:33:21 --> 00:34:47
David Yu: Okay. The first thing I want to add is even if in America they do have the legislation, but I would say from the market side, I didn't see any enforcement. So I don't know if it makes sense we have to discuss about those, even if it's generation, age restriction, or flavor ban. Like, I'm in Massachusetts. I live in Philadelphia. New Jersey is a place where flavor banned. But in local level, there is a city council. I have a vape store smoke shop owner. He told me that you can buy a ticket from the city council and you can still legally selling the flavored disposable. And even in Massachusetts, even in Los Angeles, under the table, they're still selling it. So there's no enforcement. And also, I would say most of the wholesalers and the vape store, they don't even pay tax. But they really care about the teenagers. But this is the thing, I think, the marketing, WHO, CDC, they're informing people this thing is not good enough to our teenagers. So they're actually... accepting such concept, they are protecting the teenagers, but I would say such action is enough for people, but we also have to do more enforcement on taxation and age restrictions in the United States.
00:34:49 --> 00:35:33
Barnaby Page: Yeah, great. Thank you, David. I think that leads on to a bigger point, which is apologies if you heard me making this before at other conferences or in other sessions. I believe that these days, perception is more important than reality in the regulation and in the formulation of policy around this sector. To exaggerate only slightly, I would say that if there was not a single child vaping in the entire world, we would still have a youth raping issue. You know, it would still be big in the minds of regulators. How do we get around that? You know, how do we overcome that? Lindsay, I'll ask you first, because you're American, where they're a little bit worried about kids vaping.
00:35:33 --> 00:37:19
Lindsey Stroud: Well, I don't know how to get around that. I mean, you know me, I do the numbers. I mean, 7.7% of kids are vaping in 2020. To put it that kind of in perspective, it's 2023. In 2022, 7.7% of adults were vaping in the States. I can't wait for the 2023 numbers to come out, because I'm just hoping that it's higher than the 7.7% of youth. The kid argument, but it goes back to, honestly, this messaging, this narrative on the kids, I mean, it does seem like it comes from the World Health Organization. And I go back to what they sat there and said at the end of Cobb, the Secretariat. Like, if one kid, you know, is addicted to nicotine, it doesn't matter of the 1.3 billion people who smoke. And Cliff Douglas said it last night, too, about it. And this is another thing that's kind of just getting lost. There's more people smoking around the globe now than there were 10 years ago just because of population increase. Yeah, the percentage of people who smoke is less, but the number of people who are smoking is still more. So when you're looking at the cost of that, it's still a greater cost. besides the percentage of it. I'm just done with the kid argument. I don't care anymore about the kids. To go also to the point of the kids too, why is nobody ever talking about you are going to have a generation of children who were never going to be smoking because they've been exposed to other alternatives and these are safer products. You were never going to have the disease that are associated with combustible cigarettes and this is an entire generation. I don't think that's emphasized enough when we are looking at the kids. And for the Americans, and Senator Durbin, if you're watching this, good job. I mean, youth vaping went down. You can quit wasting taxpayers' dollars on that and solve our debt crisis. If you do care about the future of children, you should care about the $32 trillion in debt that we're dealing with. Thank you for coming.
00:37:20 --> 00:38:01
Michael Landl: And I think one way forward with this is to be a bit bolder in calling it out. Because I'm convinced that the majority of the people who always bring forward, let's protect the kids, they don't really care about the kids. They want to ban products they personally don't like. Because otherwise, they would actually listen to the kids. And every survey says, for example, that the flavors are playing a minor role in the picking up process of kids. And it's still in every argument when it's about flavors, it's always kids, but they refuse to listen to them when it's clear that most of the times it's other issues why they start consuming nicotine. But the people who bring those arguments forward, they don't care apparently.
00:38:02 --> 00:39:11
Peter Beckett: Michael's absolutely spot on. If there wasn't a single child vaping in the world, the WHO would have to invent one. It speaks to the self-interest of that organization. What was it, two days ago they put out a tweet saying that vaping products were designed to kill. Those were their words. And I'm sorry, excuse my French, fuck off. Absolutely not. As a public health organization that is supposed to be involved in informing the public about what is real and what is not real, You need to have a level of credibility and this matters beyond vaping. At some point in the future, the WHO is going to have to tell us all to stay at home because there's another pandemic. How are they going to say that and expect to be believed after having obviously and publicly lied? about relative risk in the area that kills just as many people as the pandemic did. It's outrageous. We should all be outraged by it.
00:39:13 --> 00:39:23
Barnaby Page: I think you're quite right, David. Absolutely sort of ludicrous comment, isn't it? I mean, even combustible cigarettes are not designed to kill. That's not their purpose.
00:39:24 --> 00:40:18
Peter Beckett: Well, I mean... I don't know what to say. I don't understand it. I don't understand the motives behind it. And I don't believe that these are just evil people. But what they are doing is evil. Let's be honest about that. Let's not pretend it's well-intentioned. Let's not say, oh, look, what we really need to do is engage with them and put the arguments to them. That was true 12 years ago. The date of guilty knowledge passed a long time ago. We need to accept that we are in a pitch battle and a culture war, and we need to act appropriately. And if there's one piece of advice that I could give people who campaign on these issues, it is that. look at the fucking reality of the situation we are in and accept it. Because it's not going to change and we can't change it. We need to work with it.
00:40:20 --> 00:40:53
Michael Landl: And then another trick they always use or sometimes use and start using is the definition of youth. I can't remember who it was, but it was young people are picking up vaping and then I looked into it and it was people who are 30 and younger. And then, I mean, that's not a teenager if you're 30. So we also need to be careful with the nanny state and paternalism that they don't turn us all into kids at some point. And the generational smoking ban I think is the first sign of that. So that's always another way around the kids argument to make everyone a kid.
00:40:58 --> 00:41:47
David Yu: I have a little bit opposite view. I think flavor ban is actually helping people. Because from the supply chain side, I will see some data from export to different places. Two years ago, we don't have any generation ban in China. But still, we don't have Generation B. Right now, you can still buy cigarettes or vape, even if you're under 18. But two years ago, we have a flavor ban. And I think it's suddenly helping a lot. Who's going to refuse the grape or any fruit flavor that if you give a kid? I would say, yes, I want to try. Even if you don't tell me there is a nicotine, I would try this kind of taste for you. So I would say Flavor Bank can actually help a little bit.
00:41:50 --> 00:41:52
Peter Beckett: Am I going to address that or is somebody else going to?
00:41:53 --> 00:42:32
Michael Landl: I mean, if that were true, then we wouldn't see a single smoker because nobody could ever say, if it was a 15-year-old, that you like this taste, but people still started to smoke. So I think there are deeper underlying issues why people start consuming nicotine. And the other problem with the flavor ban, obviously, is that almost every adult is using some kind of flavor as well. I told the story earlier, we tried to showcase that in front of the Dutch parliament once, and we gave out flavorless ice creams to politicians to show them flavors matter, right? And what applies to ice cream applies to vapes as well.
00:42:33 --> 00:42:35
Barnaby Page: I think I'll just interject something.
00:42:36 --> 00:44:12
Lindsey Stroud: Well, I mean, I think also the bans, I mean, again, we are looking at children and not considering the adults who smoke. And I can tell you, too, the bans haven't worked out. When you looked at Massachusetts Flavor Ban, you saw an increase in kids smoking, actually, smoking combustible cigarettes. San Francisco, California, when they did a flavor ban, there was an increase in kids smoking. I was looking in Canada... at their analyses and you actually have an increase in the number of kids who think that smoking is harmless and vaping is harmful. So it's, I don't, yeah, the flavor bans. And again, if we're going to don't, if you're going to ban anything, ban cigarettes. I mean, that is the harm, but nobody's arguing that. And I always look at the Australian model on this one. Like you have to go get a prescription to get a vape, but you don't have to have a prescription to get a cigarette, which would be really stupid to imagine going to your doctor. Hey doc, Sign me up for cigarettes, but I mean, it also, if we're looking at the harm reduction potential too, banning, I don't get why the generational bans, why wasn't there a generational ban in the 1990s when 50% of kids were smoking regularly 25% of them were smoking daily. You're seeing this knee-jerk reaction and these restrictions that are put in place on a tobacco harm reduction product and that's really what's getting lost in the whole messaging is that these are safer products and most of the people around the globe do not know that they're safer while they're smoking a cigarette. And bans only reinforce that. When you start banning flavors on e-cigarettes, you're making e-cigarettes look bad and you're making them look more harmful than combustible cigarettes because those aren't banned but that e-cigarette is.
00:44:14 --> 00:44:19
Peter Beckett: You think a flavor band's a good idea and it benefits people. I want to ask the question, who?
00:44:20 --> 00:44:35
David Yu: Okay, I would say because it's a new stuff, vape is just a new industry. I would say they're safari and they're looking for what way we should regulate. So at this moment, I would say flavor band maybe is like a temporary solution for them, but we don't even know what's next generation product.
00:44:36 --> 00:45:28
Peter Beckett: Banning stuff is never a temporary solution. Okay. You never ban anything temporarily. That's not how bands work. So again, who does it help? I'll tell you who it doesn't help. It doesn't help people who have been inhaling essentially burning compost heat for 20 years and want an alternative that makes them inhale something different. That's who it doesn't help. But I don't know who it does help. Does it help kids somehow? Does it help businesses so they can reduce their SKU count and perhaps their inventory? I don't know. But it doesn't help the target population. And it doesn't appear to do a huge amount for the non-target population, because kids have smoked for hundreds of years. So I just don't see whose interest that is in, other than people who need to justify their existence with something.
00:45:30 --> 00:45:56
Barnaby Page: I guess you could maybe say, and I'll just say, sorry Lindsay, I hadn't noticed you picked up the mic earlier. I guess you could maybe say, and I'm very aware there are flaws in this argument, that a flavor ban is a concession that could be made short of an outright ban. So if that's the choice of two evils you have, then you go with the flavor ban. One can certainly make a slippery slope argument there as well, which I'm sure you're about to do.
00:45:56 --> 00:47:00
Lindsey Stroud: Well, I mean, Prohibition in America was supposed to only be hard liquor, and then it turned into a full, you know, all alcohol ended up being banned. So I do not like the concession. And again, you're getting... I know in the States, too, they'll offer, you know, we're going to do age-restricted stores. So wait, so as a child, I can go walk into a store and there's cigarettes there, but there's not an alternative? Anywhere that a cigarette is sold... tobacco harm reduction products should be there. Again, starting to put bans and restrictions on them, it confuses the general public about these. I mean, it's getting worse. You walk around and you're vaping and people are looking at you like you're crazy and they're smoking and you have to be like, this is actually safer, but I know you got all your media from the WHO, so I'm sorry about that, but... It's just, yeah, the misinformation is really coming from public health. And I said it yesterday on the panel. We are living in this really weird time where it actually is the tobacco companies that are doing more positive towards helping people quit or switch to a less harmful product than the public health organizations and the WHO. I just don't get it.
00:47:04 --> 00:47:36
Michael Landl: And also I think we need to be a bit realistic because even if it were the case and we get a flavor ban and kids are not vaping or consuming nicotine anymore, is the alternative that they don't do anything instead of that? And I just don't think that's the case. We all know when we were young you're trying stuff and sometimes risky behavior and stupid behavior. And I think it's a fantasy world mainly politicians live in when they think, okay, we ban something, then it's gone and also they won't do anything else.
00:47:36 --> 00:50:03
Peter Beckett: Let's look at the mechanics of how you ban flavors for a second. And I'll throw this one out to the audience because we haven't done that yet. How do you define a flavor? Anyone? What's the definition of a flavor in a bill? Anybody at all? That's the problem, right? There's two ways of doing it. One, you convene a committee that determine what a flavor is and they examine every single product to determine what it tastes like and they artificially legislate for it. Or you have a white list of ingredients that can be included in products. Now that's been done in the Netherlands. And the guys in the Netherlands who make e-liquid tell me almost without exception, you cannot make a palatable e-liquid with that list of ingredients. And it's ban of... not only any flavor that might not taste like tobacco, but also pretty much all the tobacco flavors as well. So forget even the ideology of it, right? The mechanics don't work. A flavor ban is a product ban, essentially, because you can't really do it properly. So let's kind of move away from this discussion of flavor as something that we all instinctively know. If we have to take the lesser of two evils, and that's a crap political argument, by the way, but if we have to do it, let's talk about marketing practices that we don't like, because that's the thing that gets on people's nerves, is actually marketing practices. And there's a very, very simple solution for this, right? You let manufacturers make science-based claims about the things that they're selling. The only reason all of this terrible marketing exists, and it's just bad marketing, that's what it is, right? The only reason it exists is because in every market that I've ever worked in and all the ones I haven't worked in, people who make vapes cannot explain to the consumer what their actual value proposition is because we medicalized nicotine 30 years ago. It's really not particularly clever. And I tell you what, if you say to people, OK, prove that they're safer than cigarettes through this protocol or that protocol, through a biomarker study or through an aerosol toxicology study or whatever, and then you can put it on your packaging, you get rid of that problem overnight. It's a very simple solution. And yet what we're talking about is banning something that nobody in this room can even define.
00:50:07 --> 00:51:49
Barnaby Page: Right. So let's move on from flavors to something that is, in fact, very much related to what we've just been talking about. Because what we're essentially talking about was miscomprehension by politicians, by policymakers, by the health establishment. Just to give you a very, very brief comment about something we've done at ESIC Intelligence, which I think you might find is interesting. is for some years we have conducted an annual survey of MEPs, members of the European Parliament who are elected members of the Parliament, basically asking about their knowledge of novel nicotine products and also their views on them. and all sorts of data comes out of this on a year-on-year basis and so on. But there was a very interesting correlation. It may not be surprising, but it's a very, very strong correlation. The more they know, the more sympathetic they are. People who understand this area see what we're getting at, and they tend to support the products, not necessarily completely unequivocally. These are not by any means... necessarily THR fanatics, but they are people who at least have some sympathy and an open mind because they have been educated or educated themselves. How practically can we do that? And not just in Europe, but anywhere. How can we go to politicians or policymakers? Perhaps certain transnational organizations are beyond education, but let's not hope all of them are. And how can we change that? How can we win people over by educating them on the benefits of THR? Michael, do you want to?
00:51:51 --> 00:53:23
Michael Landl: First of all, may I say a wish to you, and please do that again for the new parliament. That's so helpful. And I can't even remember, but there was the highest amount of MEPs, they weren't even aware of a single product, right? So I think that is the main problem if you look at any parliament around the world. Most of the politicians, they just don't know what the products are, they don't understand it. It's not like that all of them hate it and want to ban it right away. They just don't understand it. They maybe see a cloud and think it's the same as a cigarette. And that's about the basic knowledge in most parliaments. How to change that? Obviously, that's the key question and the toughest one. But I think it's just persistence and especially consumers have one very powerful thing, and that's the personal story, because nobody can tell me that vaping didn't work for me. It did, and if we tell them, I think that's the best route to do as a consumer, but also to try to get the science in the parliaments, because for some reason only the scary and bad headlines are sticking in the heads of politicians, but the 500 positive Reviews, they tend to be ignored or not seen and I think that's also where academics can play an important role and just on an easy understandable level updating politicians about current scientific advances.
00:53:27 --> 00:54:44
David Yu: First, we have to let the government know there is already a consumer trend in the world that people are trying to vaping. Let them know the importance this product is. And as I said before, sending the choose more accurate information to all the stakeholders, all the regulators here. But some of them don't even understand what's the product. They don't even know the category. like the combustible or just like the disposable, they don't even know the categories that we have. So I think we have to find what's their interest, like taxation, anything to add as a start. But let them know what's exactly for this product. Like what's actually, is it hurting people or it's more harm reduction? Let them know. But it's definitely harm reduction. Let's say 100 years ago, take a look at the scale of 100 years ago, people are using the cigarettes. But I would say, at least maybe four of us believe like 100 years later, vape might be the new way to take nicotine. We have to let them know, actually, this is more harm reduction. So sending the truth, more accurate information to them.
00:54:45 --> 00:54:45
Peter Beckett: But ban flavors.
00:54:45 --> 00:56:30
Lindsey Stroud: Nice. Oh my God. Wow. You're the bully of the, okay? I'm going to call you "Trump" now. Oh, talking to lawmakers, okay. If you guys know me, you know I'm a former staffer. I was just in the consumer media engagement workshop. So if you've seen Shawshank Redemption, okay, I always bring it up because I love it. But when the guy, he wants his library to be made nicer in prison, and he starts writing a letter every week to the state lawmakers, and he wrote it for six years, and he finally gets a response and a check. And then his response is, I'm gonna write two letters a week. It's persistence, especially if you're a consumer going to the lawmakers, it is persistence. You're not gonna get a response back, and it's okay. But as you said earlier, I mean, yeah, a lot of these lawmakers don't know anything. I remember in 2018 on a tax bill in one of the states, And this person, they had props with them. They brought up like a big mod. They brought up a jewel. And I was watching these lawmakers' eyes bug out while they're sitting there debating on taxing this product. So, I mean, you have, they want to do something about these products, but they don't know it. So you have to inform them what it is. I don't think that every single lawmaker is completely anti-O against THR. And I don't think any single lawmaker will sit there and say that they don't want to help people quit smoking. But they are getting bombarded by a very effective campaign from the WHO and Bloomberg groups, and they are persistent. They also have the same messaging. So coordination and persistency is, you know, if you want to start changing the hearts and minds of lawmakers,
00:56:32 --> 00:57:24
Peter Beckett: I love that you brought up the Shawshank Redemption because it allows me to do my favorite Malcolm Tucker quote from the thick of it in history and then compare it to consumer advocacy. And I hope this works. So consumer advocacy is a little bit like Malcolm Tucker's description of the ending of the Shawshank Redemption. And apologies for those of you who haven't seen it. I'm about to give away the ending. There's just more tunneling through shit and less redemption. And that's kind of what it feels like sometimes. And it feels the same for all of us. And sometimes it feels hopeless. But the fact that vaping is still legal in Europe is because of all of that tunneling through shit. So don't for a moment think that you don't matter because you do.
00:57:27 --> 00:58:33
Barnaby Page: Well, very overrated movie, in my opinion, but let's get back to the topic. Yeah, I mean, this is something that I think Pete, and carrying on on the theme of politicians, something I think Peter mentioned very near the beginning. As I'm sure everybody knows, we had a strong showing from the populist right in the recent EU elections, perhaps not completely sweeping the board the way some people have predicted, but certainly a very notable upsurge. We obviously have a very distinct possibility of a Trump win in the United States in November as well. Well, let's say for the sake of argument, we do. Anyway, we see similar patterns in the rest of the world as well. Not uniformly, not without exceptions at all. Let's not get melodramatically carried away by it, but there does seem to be some shift toward the right. Is this good news? Is it bad news? Does it depend on the country? I'll let you...
00:58:33 --> 00:59:23
Lindsey Stroud: I'll start first, actually. I mean, I can tell you in the states right now, it really doesn't matter whether they have an R or a D behind their name. I watched the Senate hearing two days ago, and you had Republicans that were pretty much doing the rhetoric that you heard from campaign for tobacco-free kids a few years ago. And Trump banned flavored pods. I mean, that's why we have the disposable problem. So I don't think it's a left or right thing. I do think at least in the states, I think it's more of a person thing now at this point, and that's the only way that we're gonna be able to get effectively through. And at the state level, actually, some of the Democrats have been some of our biggest allies, actually. It's not, and yeah, I'll be the first person, don't give any money to your politician thinking that they're gonna save vaping for you. Sorry, I went on the record saying that.
00:59:24 --> 01:00:08
Michael Landl: I mean, in Europe, and I'm not sure if Peter will agree with me, there tends to be at least more openness towards new or against new regulation on the right. But I don't really trust this optimism because it's not that they understand harm reduction and the products. It's just they are, in general, a bit more skeptical towards EU regulations. So it's not a sound, ideological, science-based point they want to make. They just not want to have more EU regulation. And in some of those countries, they actually have very harsh local regulations. So I think on a surface level, it might look more positive, but that is definitely not guaranteed.
01:00:10 --> 01:00:21
Peter Beckett: The Shawshank Redemption is not overrated. The Shawshank Redemption is one of the most beautiful pieces of cinema I have ever seen, and wash your mouth outside.
01:00:21 --> 01:00:26
Lindsey Stroud: Sam Robinson won an Academy Award on it.
01:00:26 --> 01:01:17
Peter Beckett: When I look at the numbers in the Parliament, I look back to the 2013 majority that we had that was primarily made up of the European People's Party, which is the center-right, the European Conservatives and Reformists, which is the slightly less center-right, the Identity and Democracy Group, which is the... how do I put this politely, far right group, and the odd sort of bits and pieces from either way, that majority has increased numbers. And there are party structures that will have institutional memory of the last time. So while I may have personal views on what this means for politics more broadly, in our tiny little corner of the world, it's probably a good thing numerically.
01:01:24 --> 01:03:04
Barnaby Page: Right. I wanted to turn now, we're kind of running out of time, it's already half past 12, and our so-called agenda we've done less than half of, but we did say this would be free form, so let's keep it so. I wanted to switch to something completely different, which is to talk about product formats and their impact on regulation, and equally their impact on the perceptions of politicians that we've been talking about, perceptions of politicians and policy makers. So, you know, this... This whole area of THR, and indeed this GFN event, for years and years was effectively dominated by e-cigarettes, by vaping. Heated tobacco was big in some countries, but really pretty much below the horizon in others. But we now have pouch that has really just become very, very prominent on the scene outside the Nordic countries in the last few years. We have heated tobacco very, very likely to launch in a big way in the United States soon and getting good traction in other countries. We have new innovations like herbal heated sticks and so on. And doubtless, we have other innovations that we've not yet seen and we'll be talking about here at GFN 2026. From a regulatory point of view, or rather from the point of view of THR's relationship to regulation, are these a good thing or a bad thing? It's easier to just ban them when something new comes along and to say, well, we won't have those, rather than go through the whole process of trying to understand them again. Is that a risk we run, or is the risk of that outweighed by simply offering that greater choice to consumers?
01:03:04 --> 01:03:51
Peter Beckett: I mean, something that may help people give up a habit that is very likely to kill them, potentially getting banned at some point in the future is not an argument not to launch that product. Let's start there. There is always that risk. it comes back to what Lindsay and Michael both said about education. Um, it's critical, but it's also very difficult to portion out and give to people when they need it. Um, and that comes back to how much time are you willing to devote to it? Um, and I think we've got a pretty dedicated group here. Um, and you all understand the new formats. So perhaps, um, it's kind of down to us.
01:03:54 --> 01:05:59
Lindsey Stroud: I mean, personally, yeah, I think all the products, the better. But in the United States, we are restricted because of the draconian pre-market tobacco product application process. If heated tobacco finally comes back, because it was supposed to come in May, and I'm still trying to figure out where it's going to be at, there's only going to be one brand that's on the market. And it's a very dated product as well, because the company would be required to undergo a another PMT application unless they can do an SC pathway. But there's a lot of barriers in America to bringing a safer product to market versus bringing the 662 cigarettes that we got authorized last year. I think the better. My dad is a smoker, and he's had lung issues, and he's tried vaping. He doesn't like it, and there's a large contingent, especially of older Americans, that they're just never going to like the vape, okay? It's just not going to work for them. I do think HTP has a huge potential impact in America, but it can't just be one brand, and it can't just be a handful of brands. It needs to be Well, I mean, I think it will only be a couple of brands that does HTP. It's not as easy to actually make as making your own e-liquid. But I do think that you need to have the variety and the options. But again, there needs to be. inform policymakers who understand the potential of this and instead of hiding behind the one kid using this, I think that there needs to, when doing any regulations on this, what is the acceptable number of youth using this product? In the states, I know if you look at the MSA and the compliance checks, so they go around and they have little kids who go and try to buy tobacco products. the standard that that is for the states to not lose their funding is 20%. So 20% of kids could go in and try to go buy a product and they can get it and that's okay. So, and we are now at 7.7% of kids who vape and that's still too high for them to authorize flavored vapes, so yeah.
01:06:02 --> 01:06:28
Michael Landl: That's also the reason why I don't buy this argument at all that some people say a certain product puts a target on us and if we ban that and give it up then we will be left alone. I don't believe that for a second because then the ants will find the next thing they want to ban and move forward. So I think every new product is good news and we should fight for it and not give in an inch on all those kind of things because otherwise they will have the next target there.
01:06:29 --> 01:07:31
David Yu: Yeah. OK. So we already have the conclusion that banning something easily is just not true. And let's say nicotine pouch and everything, it's definitely harm reduction. But I think we need more efforts other than from the company or from the policy maker From market side in United States from the nicotine pouch or even views or anything. They're only selling at Convenience store, but actually most disposal were selling a vape vape shop smoke shop. They're using different channels So I would say if we are actually inviting a new Generation product that's actually harm reduction maybe trying to not sticking to the same channel and let more people know this product gonna help more maybe put it in a smoke shop but most of the big company they only holding still in the same channel like most teenagers didn't even see most the views and the heated tobacco in the smoke shop
01:07:34 --> 01:08:13
Barnaby Page: Sure, and I think this discussion about HDP and about Pachenstein, it also goes back to that thing we were talking about earlier about educating politicians and policymakers. Most people in this room will be very familiar with the whole concept of the continuum of risk. basically with combustibles at the bad end and nearly everything else bunched down toward the good end. That's a pretty difficult concept to get over to people who find it difficult to distinguish between an e-cigarette and a combustible in the first place. How do we do that? Should we even bother doing that? Do you have a view, Lindsay, on that?
01:08:15 --> 01:09:37
Lindsey Stroud: Well, I mean, I kind of actually have been now starting liking it to the electric vehicle push. You know, I mean, you've got, so should I go back to California? You know, they banned menthol cigarettes and they banned flavored vapes, but they're also now requiring like car manufacturers to only introduce electric vehicles. So you get that. Combustion is bad for the environment. Well, what do you think combustion does to lungs? This is your electric vehicle, the device that delivers nicotine. The big thing I'm emphasizing is that it's not nicotine that causes the harm. It's getting increasingly difficult to do when you're looking at you know, Bloomberg, NGOs, the World Health Organization, this demonization of nicotine, I've been watching it now for like six years, I think we're on like full-blown peak alarmism, and it's so unfortunate, because again, we're almost like stupid, making people more stupid with the science, Nicotine isn't what causes the harm in cigarettes. It's because you smoke it is what causes all the harm, the combustion and everything. So I guess, you know, just emphasizing that and also emphasizing, hey, you know, they do approve nicotine replacement therapy. So, I mean, and who do you want in charge of helping people quit smoking? Pharma or, you know, consumers who created their own products to help them quit smoking?
01:09:38 --> 01:09:52
Peter Beckett: Apologies to everybody in the audience, but this is just a mental note to my team who are watching. The argument that combustion is bad for the environment, so imagine what it must do to your lungs is awesome. Please start writing an infographic about it.
01:09:56 --> 01:10:32
Michael Landl: i mean another thing is we need to accept and that we can't convince everyone and we don't have to so especially with limited resources especially time i think it's important and that's what consumer organizations try to do guide consumers to the right points of entry when it comes to policy debates because obviously we will never convince everyone but we also don't need to waste our time on certain politicians and people because we don't need to convince everyone but a critical minority at least and then it will spread out.
01:10:36 --> 01:11:04
David Yu: I would say we need more effort on academic side, because it's always a conference or a panel that we're discussing here. But actually, we didn't see very official academic paper that's saying, actually, the vaping is better than nicotine on combustible cigarettes. We don't have very official states on this. So I would say maybe more efforts on this.
01:11:07 --> 01:12:18
Barnaby Page: Great, thank you. We're kind of running short on time now. There's a couple of things I'd like to cover quickly before we go over to questions and comments. We've only got 20 minutes left before lunch, which obviously is the big highlight everybody's looking forward to. One is the whole issue in the United States, and so I guess this is pretty much a question for David and Lindsay, particularly though Michael and Peter do feel free to weigh in. I mean, as everybody knows, we have this slightly absurd situation at the moment where virtually every product on the market is technically illegal, but is nonetheless being sold openly, widely tolerated, etc. What's going to happen? How does this resolve itself? It clearly can't carry on indefinitely for years and years. Is there going to be? Or maybe it can. Maybe that's the answer. Is there going to be the great crackdown that everybody talks about where we end up with 23 very boring products? let's be generous and say, not so interesting and varied products. Or is that actually, is that talking about the sky falling in and is the reality, the real outlook a bit more positive? I don't know what you think.
01:12:20 --> 01:14:30
Lindsey Stroud: Well, yeah, in the States, I mean, you know, first of all, in the States, vaping, when people who use vapor products, we don't really care about FDA authorization. I mean, it came out before the FDA even was regulating it. And when we did PMTAs, we kind of knew that they were going to say, no, we don't like you. I did not imagine the explosion in disposables, though. The sky is falling. I do, yeah, the FDA is... been probably more aggressive than I've seen them in the past eight years. They've issued hundreds of civil monetary penalties towards not just manufacturers, but also retailers for selling unauthorized products. And they're getting like the biggest fine, I guess, you know, on these It's all done by law and everything, so they can only hit them. You get a warning letter, then you get your CMP, then they can come back and hit you for a larger one. I know the FDA has been trying to actually increase what those fines are. I guess I was reading it. I guess they've issued $1.2 million in civil monetary penalties for retailers and manufacturers selling unauthorized illegal vapes. But it has been always working. I mean, and I don't see them cracking down. When you even look at a lot of the sales data that's coming out of the states, it's only coming out of the major convenience stores. It's not coming out of any of the mom and pop shops. It's not coming from any of the vape retailers. There's a huge market. I don't even think the FDA knows exactly how many products that are on the market. But in America, it's all political. Our FDA is, you know, their commissioner changes when the administration, the president changes. So it's not... agency that is regulating e-cigarettes isn't really backed by science, it's backed by politics. I mean, that's why you've seen Gottlieb refer harm reduction to Califf, we don't like you, deny, deny, deny. I know that they are, I guess the DOJ is looking at criminal penalties. We've got a couple, there's a distributor out of New York who is now facing a lawsuit from the state of New York. That's gonna be interesting to watch to see what happens there. But I think, yeah, it's gonna be a waiting game, but I don't think the disposables are going anywhere, okay, at all.
01:14:32 --> 01:15:25
Peter Beckett: It is just such nonsense, isn't it? We have limited police bandwidth, and you want them to go after disposable vapes that haven't got an FDA approval? No, they're not gonna do that. They have actual crime to deal with. They are in a mess of their own making. That's been the case ever since the 2016 deeming regulation. They've been desperately trying to avoid the inevitable day when they either have to admit to themselves that they were wrong in 2016 or take everything off the market. And they will do everything they can to delay that day for as long as possible. And for as long as they keep doing that, the status quo will endure. It's ridiculous, but that's American law for you.
01:15:28 --> 01:16:03
Barnaby Page: Just to add very quickly what Lindsay said, as well, I think it's worth noting the FDA has just very recently, it was in the last week or so, they've announced a new partnership with, I think, the DOJ, I think, ATF, Customs, et cetera, a whole bunch of federal agencies, yeah. Yeah, so they'll no doubt be going around in sort of, you know, big sort of mechanized robots soon. They also seem to be cracking down quite a bit on imports of e-cigarettes. There have been, you know, quite a lot of things coming out about the, I think, if I'm right, they call it the Red List, is that right?
01:16:06 --> 01:16:13
Lindsey Stroud: One shipment, it was back in November. I mean, they're so proud of that one. It's like, well, what about the hundreds ones that you didn't block?
01:16:14 --> 01:16:30
Barnaby Page: Well, there is that, too. But there's certainly noise about increased enforcement. How much that translates to actual increased percentage in control of products is a different question. David, do you have any views on how the US situation will resolve itself?
01:16:35 --> 01:17:06
David Yu: The U.S. situation right now, the FDA, it seems that no enforcement in the future is going to be a huge problem. But I would say because it's a federal, then go to the state, then go to the city. So it's hard for FDA to do the enforcement directly to local. So I would say they have to do more cooperation kind of to the local site and have the same rules and same laws to do the enforcement. Thank you.
01:17:06 --> 01:17:56
Barnaby Page: Right. I'm just going to have one more quick question going around the panel. Actually, I'll start with you, David, this time. Quickly, looking forward 10 years, looking to the year 2034, how do you think regulation of THR will look in your country? And note that I'm not all your part of the world. Feel free to talk about other countries. Note that I'm not asking here how you want it to look. I'm asking how you think it will look. So are we eventually looking at a bright future where combustible cigarettes have pretty much disappeared, but sale of THR products is widely encouraged, et cetera, et cetera? Or are we looking at draconian bands where small groups of renegade vapers huddle in secret locations? Or are we looking at something a little bit more realistic in between?
01:17:58 --> 01:19:02
David Yu: So first I will say regulation is not a mean, it's a mean, not an end. And in China, in my country, I will say, I will put it in two parts. First there's a young generation and another one is over 30 who use the combustible cigarettes. And I would say 10 years later, I would say vape and heated tobacco will lead the future. And the regulations may be more strict on the combustible like cigarettes but we don't even have any sign on this but I would say they are preparing it and I would say that's the trend and we will see more open like policy to all this next generation products like nicotine pouch or the disposable vape. But right now we're like looking what's the future, what's the right way to treat them. But in the future, in 10 years, I would say we can find a balance point.
01:19:05 --> 01:19:43
Michael Landl: I mean, when it comes to Europe and regulation, that sounds pessimistic, but that's already the optimistic version. I would say I think the regulation won't look too different. We might have some worse expect, but what makes me very positive is just the innovative power of the whole sphere we are in. And I'm pretty sure no matter what the regulation will be, there will be better products, new products, maybe different products who circumvent the worst aspects of new regulation and in a worst case scenario the black market will take over.
01:19:49 --> 01:21:08
Lindsey Stroud: And the future in America, I mean, I think it's going to be the same way as right now over the next couple of years. And so unless the FDA finally allows it to be a notification process and bringing, you know, new products to market in an easier way for them to be FDA authorized, I think you're going to still see that there's innovation. There's people getting access to, you know, and they're being able to go in brick and mortar shops. If the FDA decides that they're going to really crack down, then we're going to look like Panama. We were in Panama for COP this year, the good COP that TPA hosted. Panama has a ban on e-cigarettes. When you go into the shops, the cigarettes are hidden. If you were a smoker, you wouldn't even recognize if you could buy it there. When you walk out of the store, there were people with card tables. They had cigars, cigarettes, e-cigarettes everywhere. You know me, I was asking, I'm like, what's that flavor? So you're not going to get rid of it. But in futures, the one positive thing is I look at the 50 state analyses, and I started looking at that because I really wanted to see the smoking rates on 18 to 24-year-olds. Because the WHO and the powers that be, oh, vaping leads to smoking. It's not true. And I think about 20 years from now, you're going to literally have a whole generation that never did smoke. And it's because they were exposed to these other products.
01:21:11 --> 01:21:37
Peter Beckett: What is regulation gonna be like in 2034? Well, in order to continue the obscure 90s movies references, I will move from the Shawshank Redemption to Groundhog Day. Nothing's changed, guys. The other side are gonna continue to try and put a sticking plaster on top of a cut that doesn't exist, and it's gonna look messy. It's the best we can hope for, and we need to keep fighting for it.
01:21:40 --> 01:21:53
Barnaby Page: Great, well, thank you, Peter. I could continue the comparison, but I'm not going to, because we could go down. We could carry on with this all afternoon. We have just a few minutes left for any questions or comments from the floor, Bengt.
01:21:57 --> 01:23:36
Bengt Wiberg: I'm Bengt Wiberg from Sweden, inventor and co-founder of EUforSnus movement. Going back to flavors, everybody realized that it's equally important for any safer nicotine products. We have flavors in nicotine pouches, flavors in E6, flavors in heats, flavors in snooze. But I have started to come to realize that the decision makers, when they want a flavor ban, they are actually talking about their impression on the packaging. This is a can of nicotine pouches. Can you tell me what flavor it is? I can't see it. No, you can't see a flavor. You have to open the package scent it and taste it in order to find out what kind of flavor it might be. But when you see nicotine pouches with colorful cartoon chickens on it and names like fresh lollipop smack nicotine pouches, that's what politicians are reacting to. We have to separate packaging and naming of products from actually flavors. Can I have your comments?
01:23:37 --> 01:24:22
Peter Beckett: Well, I think I addressed that one earlier. The thing that politicians, politicians is a very broad brush term, but where there is criticism of flavors, what it actually is, is criticism of packaging and product presentation. And there's a very simple solve for it. which is let vaping manufacturers tell smokers the truth about what the product is there for. You let them do that, you get rid of all the marketing problems, because you'll actually, as a manufacturer, be able to explain to your consumer what your value proposition is. Until you do that, people are going to come up with crap marketing schemes like the one that you just laid out, and other people will look at them and say they don't like them.
01:24:24 --> 01:25:22
Lindsey Stroud: Ben, I'm an American. No, you don't tell me what I can and cannot say. First Amendment rights there. But I get your point on that. It looks like you're targeting children or whatnot. But they're just going to go move to something else. They don't say unicorn poop anymore. Now they just keep saying cotton candy when they're talking about, oh, you're marketing it towards children. again, and also why is other, you know, industries, the age restricted industries can do have any flavor that they want. I mean, I, and if you guys haven't seen it yet, go Google, go on YouTube, put flavor town, Bud Light Seltzer. It's a 2022 Superbowl ad and it looks like a cartoon. And I was shocked when I saw it and I was like, wait, alcohol can literally put this commercial up and tobacco can't even sit there and say that, Oh, this is a safer product. So, um, Yeah, I mean, I'm not going to be for telling people what they can and cannot name their flavors.
01:25:25 --> 01:25:51
Michael Landl: Yeah, I fully agree personally. I don't really care how the package looks like, but I also believe that that is not the real issue for most people who want to ban flavors. As I said before, they just want to ban the product, but they missed the point where it was feasible for them to ban vaping in general, and they realized that they can't do it anymore, so they just go for the next best option, and they know that a flavor ban is a de facto ban on vaping.
01:25:53 --> 01:26:09
David Yu: I basically agree with Lindsay what she said. But we have a fact in Texas. We actually have a law before. It's the packaging. You cannot have an animal on it. But it actually, from the sales, it actually is still growing. So yeah.
01:26:14 --> 01:26:17
Barnaby Page: Thanks. Gentleman in the back center there.
01:26:20 --> 01:26:42
Attendee: Thank you. My name is
01:26:42 --> 01:26:47
Barnaby Page: Yeah, do you want to go ahead? We've only got about four minutes.
01:26:49 --> 01:27:35
Lindsey Stroud: The American youth vaping epidemic is what drove all the bans. I mean, that's the question, right? Yeah. They were right to call it an epidemic, okay? It was like a 70% increase from kids vaping from 2018 to 2019, but then it went back down. And now, if you notice what they're doing now, they're not talking about American vaping anymore. Now it's the UK. It's New Zealand. I mean, the NGOs have turned their things, but yeah. They took the kid argument, they had a huge increase of the American youth to do it, that and coupled with Evali. The vaping lung injuries back in 2019, I think really is where you got the, you know, put it in people's head, we gotta do something about this and ban them for the children or for, you know, don't die.
01:27:38 --> 01:28:46
Peter Beckett: Yeah, I mean, more broadly, the fish rots from the head, and at this point, the head is the WHO's tobacco division. I don't think we can even call it misinformation anymore, because misinformation is defined as unintentional fake news. I think we're now talking about disinformation, and it emanates from there and spreads. We can talk about... the American billionaire that finances them, and whether or not he does or doesn't have any particular influence over the policy direction, it's all frankly irrelevant in terms of outcomes. The outcome is, as the We Are Innovation guys did an interesting survey with Ipsos, there isn't a single country that they surveyed, and that includes the UK and it includes New Zealand, where a plurality of people believe that vaping is safer than smoking. And when you have a plurality that's fed nonsense from a so-called authority figure, and they believe it, you end up with crap policy outcomes, and that's where we are.
01:28:48 --> 01:29:09
Michael Landl: And actually, with this survey, you can exactly see that, because the top three countries were Brazil, Netherlands, and Slovenia, one with a full vaping ban and the other two with flavor bans. So it's kind of a vicious cycle, I think, of misinformation, bad regulations, causing more misinformation, and back and forth. And that's when you end up with those terrible regulations, I think.
01:29:14 --> 01:29:17
Barnaby Page: Sure, go ahead. We've got like 90 seconds, so yeah.
01:29:21 --> 01:29:33
Attendee: Well, what was the reasons in China? You said there is a flavor ban and kind of it's good, the flavor ban. What do you think drove China to make the flavor ban? I know you have, they're allowed just close spots with tobacco flavors.
01:29:41 --> 01:29:51
David Yu: How to answer for the flavor ban, but... I cannot, because it's live stream, I cannot do the comment.
01:29:51 --> 01:29:54
Peter Beckett: I can answer this because the government owns the national tobacco monopoly.
01:29:57 --> 01:30:00
David Yu: I can privately tell because it's a live stream. I cannot comment on those.
01:30:02 --> 01:30:06
Barnaby Page: Yeah, we'll just fit in one quick last question here, I think. Thank you.
01:30:08 --> 01:31:46
Tomás O'Gorman: I just want to point out that regarding what David, you, and Peter have said, we should question We are talking about cigarette regulations almost as if they were as bad as tobacco. The intensity of the restrictions and of the limitations of a product should be proportional to the risks and the hazards it makes. So almost every policy regarding the cigarettes is quite unproportionate because it is not taking into account the low risks these products represent. And in a continuation, and answering your question, flavor is such a personal and subjective experience that it's even uncommunicable. I cannot let you experience what I am experiencing. I can try to define what something tastes to me, but it is just going to be a very low explanation of a very intimate experience. So we should question, and this is why this ban is so essentially wrong, David. the state lacks or should lack the ability to interfere in such an intense way in the way we live and experience our lives. Yes, you can regulate flavorants because of the objective outcome in your health after using it, but you cannot, and the state should not, regulate something to limit your personal and ultra-subjective experiences.
01:31:47 --> 01:31:54
Barnaby Page: That's a great soundbite to end on. Lindsay, I know we're after time, but I know you want to have one quick final comment here.
01:31:55 --> 01:32:03
Lindsey Stroud: They did ban flavors in cigarettes back in 2009 in the United States. So a flavor ban on e-cigarettes would be proportionate to what they do on cigarettes.
01:32:03 --> 01:32:08
Peter Beckett: Much easier to do in cigarettes because you know that the substance is called menthol and it's a cast number.
01:32:08 --> 01:32:18
Tomás O'Gorman: Yeah, but if you take into account that cigarettes are really risky and hazardous, you might consider that the ban is proportionate. But regarding e-cigarettes, it is not.
01:32:20 --> 01:32:33
Barnaby Page: Well, thank you. We do need to wrap up now because I know they're on a tight schedule for arranging the rooms here. Thank you to all the panelists. Thank you, everybody, for coming. I'm sure we're all around in the afternoon if you want to catch anybody. Enjoy your lunch.