The FDA Perversely Seeks To Make Both Cigarettes and Harm-Reducing Alternatives Less Appealing
The agency’s policies would boost the black market and smoking-related deaths.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) wants to prevent smoking-related deaths by making cigarettes less appealing. Toward that end, the FDA plans to ban menthol cigarettes and limit nicotine content to "reduce the addictiveness of cigarettes."
Meanwhile, the FDA seems determined to make vaping products, the most promising harm-reducing alternative to cigarettes, less appealing to smokers. The perverse combination of these two regulatory strategies would undermine public health in the name of promoting it.
The ban on menthol cigarettes, which the FDA proposed in April, is not based on evidence that they are uniquely dangerous. Instead the agency argues that menthol cigarettes are more addictive, especially for black smokers, who overwhelmingly prefer them.
The evidence on that score is shaky, and so is the condescending assumption that African Americans are helpless to resist menthol's minty coolness or the marketing that touts it. Worse, the proposed ban would promote illegal production and distribution, inviting a law enforcement response that would disproportionately hurt the people the agency claims it is trying to help—a point the FDA implicitly concedes by alluding to the policy's "racial and social justice implications."
Mandating a reduction in nicotine content to "minimally" addictive or "non-addictive" levels, which the FDA says it will propose, likewise raises obvious problems. That policy also would spur black-market activity, and it would encourage current consumers to smoke more, which hardly seems consistent with the agency's avowed goals.
The same could be said of the FDA's refusal to approve vaping products in flavors other than tobacco. Although the agency views nontobacco flavors as dangerously enticing to teenagers, surveys indicate that the vast majority of former smokers who vape favor them.
A 2019 analysis of data from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study found that three-quarters of past-month adult vapers, 93 percent of whom were current or former smokers, preferred flavors other than tobacco. Furthermore, "former smokers who [had] completely switched to an e-cigarette" were especially likely to have "transitioned from a tobacco flavored product to a non-tobacco flavored product."
So far the FDA has issued "marketing approval orders" for just four brands of vaping products, all of them in tobacco flavors. Last month, the agency issued "marketing denial orders" to Juul, a major vaping company that had sought approval for menthol as well as tobacco pods.
The FDA said the rejection of Juul's applications was based on inadequate toxicological data, a claim the company disputes. Juul obtained a temporary court order that bars the FDA from stopping the sale of its products while the case is pending.
Beyond that specific controversy, the FDA has rejected millions of applications for vaping products in nontobacco flavors, including menthol. Yet its cost-benefit analysis of the proposed ban on menthol cigarettes assumes the availability of e-cigarette alternatives.
As Competitive Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Michelle Minton points out, the FDA relies on a study in which "the substitution of high-risk combustible menthol cigarettes for lower-risk menthol-flavored nicotine vapor products…accounts for approximately half of the benefits." How are menthol smokers supposed to make that switch if the FDA refuses to allow the sale of menthol-flavored e-cigarettes?
More generally, the FDA's bias against flavor variety is hard to reconcile with its concession that vaping has great potential to reduce smoking-related disease and death. An arbitrary ban on the flavors that adult consumers demonstrably prefer will drive some people back to smoking and discourage current smokers from switching.
Like a menthol-cigarette ban and a nicotine limit, such flavor restrictions also would push consumers toward black-market suppliers, who are completely unconstrained by the FDA's supposedly enlightened regulations. The FDA apparently has learned nothing from the country's unhappy experience with the war on drugs.
As with other drugs, the most sensible approach to nicotine is harm reduction, which seeks to minimize both the harm caused by psychoactive substances and the harm caused by misguided government responses to them. The FDA seems oblivious to the latter.
© Copyright 2022 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The FDA's bias against flavor varieties is very easy to understand. It's regulatory capture. You have to make it prohibitively expensive to get vape juice approved so only existing cigarette companies can afford to sell them, then you close down the flavors so there's not a different market not already captured where a competitor can get a foothold.
I actually have made $18k within a calendar month via working easy jobs from a laptop. As I had lost my last business, I was so upset and thank God I searched this simple job achieving this I'm ready to achieve thousand of dollars just from my home. All of you can certainly join this best job and could collect extra money
on-line visiting this site.> http://oldprofits.blogspot.com/
I actually have made $18k within a calendar month via working easy jobs from a laptop. As I had lost my last business, I was so upset and thank God I searched this simple job (wby-19) achieving this I'm ready to achieve thousand of dollars just from my home. All of you can certainly join this best job and could collect extra money on-line visiting this site.
>>>>>>>>>> http://payout11.tk
It's not even particularly regulatory capture. What the FDA views as the "sensible" approach is whatever maximizes the FDA's power and control over the tobacco/nicotine market.
No, in this case it is very specifically regulatory capture.
The market was wide open and vapes were getting popular. There are no reports of problems or issues. Then a legacy tobacco company decided to enter the market, they put on a heavy "vapes are dangerous" advertising campaign and at the same time convinced the FDA to do heavy handed regulation, and now there are only a small handful of tobacco flavored approved vape juices.
It's the TEXTBOOK version of regulatory capture.
Start now earning every week more than $7,000 to 8,000 by doing very simple and easy home based job online. Last month i have made $32,735 by doing this online job just in my part time for only 2 hrs. a day using my laptop. This job is just awesome and easy to do in part time. Everybody can now get this and start earning more dollars online just by follow:-
.
instructions here:☛☛☛ https://extradollars3.blogspot.com/
I disagree, if it was just or even mostly regulatory capture by big tobacco, the FDA wouldn't be moving to ban flavored cigarettes at the same time it's cracking down of vaping. Flavored cigarettes are a big chunk of the traditional cigarette market.
Give an example of "flavored cigarettes" (other than menthol) produced by "big tobacco". I don't think there are any. They certainly are not "a big chunk of the traditional cigarette market".
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) wants to prevent smoking-related deaths by making cigarettes less appealing. Toward that end, the FDA plans to ban menthol cigarettes and limit nicotine content to "reduce the addictiveness of cigarettes."
Omar not gon' be happy.
This is pure misdirection here. Reducing the nicotine in cigarettes doesn't make them less addictive. As the smoker's addicition increases, they'll simply smoke more cigarettes to get their fix, which means more cigarettes taxes.
That's the other side of this coin. Regulatory market capture for Big Tobacco is to make sure they keep those cigarette taxes flowing, which the state governments must have to payback the reverse mortgages they took out on those tobacco settlement payments.
Apparently, whoever was in charge of these structured settlement payments was watching cable TV at 3am, and realized J.G. Wentworth would give them cash now.
"Regulatory market capture for Big Tobacco is to make sure they keep those cigarette taxes flowing,"
That's not regulatory capture. That's just the regulator protecting it's own cut of the pie/self interest.
The control freaks might pay lip service to harm reduction, but at the end of the day it is all about control. Better to lock up the nicotine junkies along with the meth heads and heroine addicts to prove you’re right, than to offer an alternative.
Drinking is next.
And we all know how badly the last trial of that went.
It should be easy, just use Biden's approach to the covid vaccines and mandate their use.
Yes, the only reason people didn’t want poison in their arms because Biden.
Good and hard.
Jacob, you seem to be under the illusion that the FDA exists to protect the public.
The purpose of the FDA is to get people used to accepting outrageous lies as truth, to pave the way for the fascists.
This is just what is needed to breath some life into our endless drug war. Ban a product primarily used by black people. Harry Anslinger is looking down (up?) with delight.
More generally, the FDA's bias against flavor variety is
hard to reconcile with its concession that vaping has great potential to reduce smoking-related disease and deathis proof positive that government hates markets, completely distrusts their efficacy, and disdains personal choice.FIFY.
Just why didn't mint-flavored marijuana catch on?
Inquiring minds want to know.
I'm still trying to figure out why menthol cigarettes caught on.
I honestly think they should! Nicotine is a poison, and there is nothing substantial that can disprove that fact. In fact, if you drop just three cigarette butts in coffee and drink it on an empty stomach, it will kill you. Something I learned when researching poisons in my teen years, but it is a fact.
Did you know that swallowing three gallons of water will kill you? Should we ban water? "Dose makes the poison", dumbass - you would have learned that if you did more research on poisons.
Or how about a really simple - and Libertarian - "Just leave my fucking cigarettes alone!" Is that too much to ask in a free society?
BS!
Where is our precious FDA for Marijuana regulation? AWOL. Can't touch that political rail but it's ok to demonize big tobacco. Meanwhile the pot addicition rates are north of 50% where approved. Several mass shooters have been daily smokers while mass psychosis has skyrocketed in Emergency Rooms in same states. Where is the FDA? Chasing its tail, protecting big pharma from responsibility from the scientifically documented side effects.
I've read of many studies but have not seen one that proves any causation. It's far more likely that crazy people just like cannabis. I've known several schizophrenics who had a taste for it.
FDA is a joke! Clearly the end goal is to ban all nicotine products or make them prescription drugs which I’m sure will help you know who. They have no problems letting other companies poison us against our will but do have issue with people making the choice all on their own? Unbelievable. As usual these clueless asshats haven’t actually thought any of this through.
Prohibitionists (and nearly everyone else in government) want power. Harm reduction reduces their power.