US E-cigarette Summit 2018: Washington DC

Hey all Dawn here again and welcome back! It’s that time of year again. That time where we here at A Clean Cigarette travel to our Nations great Capitol and have an opportunity to hear what the scientific and regulatory communities are thinking when it comes to E-cigarettes and Vapor products.

Today we are going to get right to Part 2 of our coverage of this spectacular event. Keep in mind that unlike some of our opinion post this post is designed to report on the events that happened at this summit. Not to report our opinions or to make any claims. These experts and scientist are doing research to find the truth but until the FDA has decided on how things can be said we will not be making any claims we will only be reporting on the findings. A Clean Cigarette is not an FDA approved smoking cessation product and has not been evaluated by the FDA as such. E-cigarettes including A Clean Cigarette brand e-cigarettes contain nicotine. Nicotine IS addictive regardless of delivery method. If you are a never smoker, never start.

Now on to the Summit!

In our last blog, we talked about a few of the speakers that attended this yeas event. Today we will be talking about more of these speakers starting with Professor David Levy who comes to us out of Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center at Georgetown University. Both his name and the name of the university probably sound familiar to you since he was one of the main authors of the recent Georgetown University study regarding e-cigarettes that claims as many as 6.6 million lives could be saved if all smokers switched to electronic cigarettes for their nicotine delivery.  (Not our claim, his finding!)

During the Summit Prof. Levy spoke not only on the Georgetown study but also on subjects such as Juul’s attractiveness to minors and never smokers and how that impacts on those numbers. Plus his thoughts on Nicotine reduction in some of the most harmful nicotine delivery systems such as burning tobacco.

Speaking topic: Examining Competition in the E-Cigarette Market and its Potential Impact on the Cigarette Market

  • A framework will be provided for analyzing and maintaining competition in the e-cigarette market, focusing on industry concentration, entry barriers and market conduct. This session will explore the importance of competition in the e-cigarette market both toward discouraging cigarette manufacturers from marketing cigarettes (by reducing profit potential) and toward encouraging them to market heat-not-burn cigarettes as an alternative to cigarettes (as PMI has promised).

Our next Speaker was Lynn T. Kozlowski.  Dr. Kozlowski is considered an expert on addiction. He has authored the book “Cigarettes, Nicotine, and Health: A Biobehavioral Approach (Behavioral Medicine and Health Psychology)” as well as many evidence-based articles and research papers. In one article he wrote for the Huffington post he states I continue to think that there are ample good reasons to treat e-cigs as a class of products that are much less dangerous to health than are cigarettes and that smokers should be encouraged to use them instead of cigarettes as soon as possible. Cigarettes are by far the most dangerous nicotine delivery system, with smokers dying on average 10 years earlier than never smokers.” Which gives us some pretty good insight as to where he stands.

Speaking topic: Prevention and Protection Policies for Youth Use of E-Cigarettes and Tobacco Products

  • Everyone in public health tries to prevent any tobacco/nicotine use by youth, but it is shortsighted to also neglect the different policy needs for those youth who are already using such products. Moral psychology informs the powerful desire to prevent any contamination of youth as well as a sometimes-opposing desire to protect youth product users from doing greater harm to themselves. Dominant messages that ‘no product is harmless’ or ‘a safe alternative to cigarettes’ can be of low relevance to the many low-risk youths; while they can mislead the fewer young product users by providing no information on major differences in harms and by leaving many with the belief that the product harms are equal.

Mr. Lauren Huber is the current Executive Director for ASH, Action on Smoking and Health. His extensive background in tobacco-related regulatory issues and has garnered him places on advisory boards for a variety of different public health entities such as WHO, World Health Organisation. Here is a brief look at what he thinks based on an article he wrote.

In determining policy, governments and the public health community should consider the following:

  1. Policy should be based on science (both medical and epidemiological) in order to determine the safety of the product, its effectiveness as a cessation tool, and its impact on nicotine initiation.
  2. Including vaping restrictions in most smoke free policies makes sense.
  3. The marketing of vaping products to non-smokers is problematic and should be addressed. Children should not be targeted, including with candy flavors, and restrictions similar to those for combustible tobacco products should be put in place. Initiation to nicotine is not good for public health, and corporations’ intent to addict next generations to nicotine is unethical, even if the delivery mechanism is safer than combustibles.
  4. The burden of proof for health claims should be borne by manufacturers of vaping devices.

Speaking topic: A Crossroads for the Tobacco Control Movement

  • Claims by cigarette companies that they want to transform their business and move towards a smoke free future, has raised the question if this is a public relations stunt that should be ignored or a legitimate strategy warranting efforts to accelerate that transformation. There are good reasons to be skeptical. But if one takes the view that profiting from an addictive but nonlethal product might be an ethically questionable abuse of corporate power on citizens but profiting from addictive and lethal products like cigarettes amounts to a human rights’ violation, then what should the response from the public health community be?  Is there a way for the public health community to find common ground again and work towards a regulatory response that is proportional to the harm products cause?

Our next speaker was Mr. David Graham, who is the Chief Impact Officer at NJOY. His time speaking to us included topics like how to reach smokers about the benefits of e-cigarettes without making claims and how not adding the word Addiction to the context of “less harmful” may, in fact, have a few loophole opportunities for marketing. Although he was very clear to include the suggestion of checking with one’s own lawyer before trying his ideas.

Mr. Graham also spoke about the bridging option for science and current PMTA requirements as well as the prospect that these requirements may be changing soon.  According to Mr. Graham the science is pretty clear as far as the benfits of E-cigarette to smokers and we need to find a way to get that information out.

Speaking topic: Regulation and the Realization of a Positive Impact Potential of ENDS.

  • The National Academies of Science recent report on the Public Health Consequences of E-Cigarettes concluded that, under likely modeled scenarios, the use of e-cigarettes in the population will result in a net public health benefit. Also that, while the absolute numbers are important the overall health consequences of e-cigarettes, positive or negative, are likely to be very small compared to the overall toll of tobacco smoking. This is consistent with other reports & projections. FDA has indicated its intent to strike the right balance between fulfilling its vital consumer protection role while also fostering innovation when it comes to potentially less harmful forms of nicotine delivery. How might this positive impact potential be realized (and not undermined) both by balanced regulation of ENDS as “tobacco products” and by the modernization of the FDA’s approach to the development and regulation of nicotine replacement therapy products (potentially also including ENDS).

The young man above is Mr. Eric Feldman who is an expert in Japanese law. Mr. Feldman’s lecture mainly revolved around the new heat not burn technology, iQOS and how it has impacted Japan. While he did talk about the massive success of this product he also mentioned that E-cigarettes are actually required to be nicotine free in Japan, iQOS is not. So is it that the heat not burn tech was really a stellar hit OR was it that the Japanese market was asking for ANY option to the burning tobacco nicotine delivery.

Speaking topic: iQOS, E-Cigarettes and Tobacco Control: Harm Reduction the Japanese Way

  • Japan presents a unique case study for scientists and regulators interested in reducing the health harms caused by combustible tobacco products. From 1904 to 1985 the Ministry of Finance in Japan presided over a tobacco monopoly, and government continued to be a major shareholder of tobacco stock after the privatization of the tobacco industry. The government’s financial stake in the tobacco, which helps to explain Japan’s historically high rates of tobacco consumption and its lax tobacco control regulations, serves as the backdrop to the regulation of e-cigarettes and heat-not-burn products. This presentation will explain the Japanese government’s regulatory approach to e-cigarettes and heat-not-burn products, describe the reception of iQOS in Japan, and assess the relationship between the increase in iQOS use and the decline of smoking rates.

 

our las speaker for today’s blog is Dr. Eric C. Donny is the next speaker we will talk about today. He comes to us out of Wake Forest School of Medicine. He has used his experience as a Professor of Phycology and Pharmacology to work closely with NIDA and the FDA regarding the way addiction is affected by the dose level of nicotine in burning tobacco cigarettes. According to Dr. Donny ENDS (electronic nicotine delivery systems) should really be ANDS (alternative nicotine delivery systems).

Speaking topic: Nicotine Reduction: Harm Reduction not Prohibition

  • Reducing nicotine in cigarettes reduces smoking because it renders cigarettes less satisfying and less addictive.  However, the impact and viability of such a policy will depend on the availability of appealing, satisfying and safer alternatives. A low nicotine product standard combined with policies that enable the use of less harmful alternatives, and proper messaging about nicotine and harm, has the potential to facilitate rapid changes in the products people prefer and the health consequences they will likely incur as a consequence of nicotine use.

Well, that was a lot of great information that I hope you find useful. There are still a handful of amazing speakers for us to talk about in our 3rd and final part of “US E-cigarette Summit 2018: Washington DC” I hope you will stop back for that post. The week after that we will go back to our normal blog post topics. If you have a thought or question you would like us to cover on a blog post please feel free to reach out on our FB page or comment below. Also if you would like information on making the switch to A Clean Cigarette Brand e-cigarette please visit www.acleancigarette.com

Thank you so much for stopping in!

Bye,

Dawn

5 thoughts on “US E-cigarette Summit 2018: Washington DC”

  1. Thanks for sharing the information from the Summit. So many different opinions on how to move forward.

  2. Dawn , Your insight is most important ,to use who are trying to put all the pieces together on what the experts are thinking and saying on the future of the electronic cigarette as a harm reduction alternative to burning tobacco here in America . We Trust Your Views , and look forward to them ,Super Thanks Cary

Have questions or thoughts? We want too hear from you! Let's chat.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.