Modified Risk Tobacco Products

Can we stop with the argument that e-cigs are not a tobacco product already, it is not only misleading but it is flat out wrong.

Now before you get your knickers in a twist hear me out, we all know nicotine comes from tobacco.

So, to say that it is not a tobacco product would be like saying cheese isn’t a dairy product. Yes, there is 0 nic liquid out, just as there is dairy free cheese out.

Do we change how cheese is classified due to the dairy free cheese?  No, cheese is still counted as a dairy product. So why all the push to say e-liquid isn’t a tobacco product?

We invalidate everything else we might say the minute we say “but it’s not a tobacco product”.

Does this mean we should just accept the fate of being taxed and regulated the same way as cigarettes? Not only no, but HELL NO!

This does mean we need to support good manufacturers/vendors in going through the steps for “Modified Risk Tobacco Products” Or MRTP’s.

This won’t be cheap or easy for manufacturers to do, however, in the long run it may very well make a difference in who can and should stay in business. The longer they wait to start, the harder it will be for them to get all the necessary information and testing done in any sort of timely manner.

Modified risk is not a new category, but it does seem to be misunderstood. So far only one company has applied for and had the application accepted by the FDA for MRTP status, and that is Swedish Match, a manufacturer of Swedish Snus.

It is time we start including lobbying for easier access for manufacturers to obtain MRTP status, as well as push for financial assistance for smaller companies who would otherwise be able to meet the requirements.

If we don’t start taking the initiative, the FDA will. Who do you want making the choices for you?


One thought on “Modified Risk Tobacco Products

  1. I agree completely that for tobacco-related research and publications “the terminology used should be clear, unambiguous, and scientifically appropriate.” But another criteria should also be added: “appropriate for public health regulation.” Although some might pursue and publish research into cigarettes, other combustible tobacco products, ENDS, non-nicotine e-cigarettes, NRTs, and the like purely for the pursuit of knowledge, the only practical reason to do so is to try to provide guidance for related cessation assistance and other medical care and to help guide and support efforts to prevent and reduce public health harms linked to those products.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s