FDA Staff Criticizes Tobacco Product Application Review Process

Oct.31.2022
FDA Staff Criticizes Tobacco Product Application Review Process
FDA's Center for Tobacco Products is accused of lacking scientific independence in pre-market tobacco product applications review.

A commentary states that reviewers of Pre-Market Tobacco Product Applications (PMTA) at the CTP Office of Science lack the authority to exercise "best scientific practices" during their evaluation of PMTAs.


According to the commentary, disagreements in science are not fully suppressed, but are punished through various means of retaliation, such as lack of access to tasks, projects, and other opportunities needed for professional development and progression. In some departments, such as non-clinical science departments, employees are forced to adopt a "must accept" mentality by the leadership, which does not support reviewers in fulfilling their basic duty of providing impartial reviews using the best available science.


According to reports, many comments from staff members of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on the performance evaluation of the FDA Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) stated that the regulatory agency is in a state of confusion and is being influenced by external forces rather than scientific research.


In July, the FDA commissioned an independent review of its regulatory practices for food and tobacco, following several months of criticism over its handling of infant formula shortages and e-cigarette reviews. FDA Commissioner Robert Califf selected the non-profit Reagan-Udall Foundation, a non-governmental research group created by Congress to support the FDA's work.


This comment is anonymous and open to the public. Many of the comments depict an incompetent organization whose decisions are swayed by political agenda rather than based on science surrounding the next generation of nicotine products. According to reports, an FDA staff member claims that there is a toxic culture that permeates through the operating system, starting from the leadership team at the FDA.


The commentator wrote, "So-called leaders are not seeking feedback from actual reviewers, but only listening to a few of the loudest voices, who are not experts in any specific field." "Bias and nepotism, unconscious prejudices, racism and sexism, have permeated the entire office and department, and suggestions and feedback from minority groups and women have been ignored, even though they are the ones doing the most work.


Another critique suggests that arbitrary external pressures and politically-driven timelines (such as those imposed by judges) are driving the review process, rather than allowing for a thorough scientific examination. "When errors are found, CTP reviewers are blamed, when in fact there was not enough time allowed for a complete review. Staff are exhausted, constantly told to do more in less time, and blamed for not meeting crazy deadlines," the comment points out. "In cases where the review is completed and a scientific decision is made, they are also overruled by political agendas and forced to change their decision.


Another comment noted that the Tobacco Control Act (TCA) favors combustible tobacco products, allowing new combustible products to enter the market through easier pathways, such as being deemed substantially equivalent (SE) to existing tobacco products.


The CTP has stated that it supports the concept of risk continuum, where combustible products are the most harmful, while non-combustible products may appear safer in name only. However, the CTP has chosen to conduct individual pre-market reviews for new tobacco products," the commentary noted. "Therefore, any innovative products, such as e-cigarettes, will likely have to go through more robust and burdensome market pathways, such as e-cigarette PMTA.


However, it's not all doom and gloom, as some people claim that institution staff are simply overworked. A commentator stated that CTP has been working on impossible deadlines, dealing with a long queue of reviews, something that other FDA-regulated centers don't have to endure.


In comparison, the number of applications and products that it oversees is astronomical, yet we have received no protection, support, or leeway to deal with this burden," the comment stated. "Instead, it seems as though the CTP and OS are being blamed for queuing and not completing tasks on time, without anyone taking a look at how much work is being done to ensure completion as quickly as possible. As for queues and schedules, treating this center like any other is not helpful and only reinforces fatigue.


Another commentator pointed out that the FDA does not have the ability to conduct a "fair and equal" review of all PMTAs, a claim that the agency has denied in court cases surrounding its release of marketing refusals. "There are many layers to ensure that science is meaningful and communicated in a meaningful way. But there is no room for human error or breathing space to apply the system equitably to every application," the commentator noted. "Due to unreasonable deadlines, a lack of protection for personnel outside of CTP, and a shortage of personnel, we are all certainly overworked and stretched thin.


Statement:


This article is compiled from third-party information and is intended solely for industry exchange and learning purposes.


This article does not represent the views of 2FIRSTS, and 2FIRSTS cannot confirm the truthfulness or accuracy of the content. The translation of this article is solely intended for industry discussion and research purposes.


Due to limitations in the translator's proficiency, the translated article may not fully convey the original meaning. Please refer to the original text for accuracy.


2FIRSTS maintains complete alignment with the Chinese government regarding any domestic, cross-border with Hong Kong, Macao or Taiwan, or international statements and positions.


The copyright of compiled information belongs to the original media and author. If there is any infringement, please contact us for removal.



Disclaimer

This article is provided solely for professional research, industry discussion, and informational purposes. Any references to brands, companies, products, technologies, or policies are made for factual reporting and analytical purposes only, and do not constitute endorsement, recommendation, promotion, or advertising by 2Firsts.

Nicotine-containing products, including but not limited to cigarettes, e-cigarettes, heated tobacco products, and nicotine pouches, carry significant health risks. Readers are responsible for complying with all applicable laws and regulations in their respective jurisdictions, including age restrictions and access limitations.

The information contained in this article should not be regarded as investment, legal, medical, regulatory, or commercial advice. While 2Firsts strives to ensure the accuracy and reliability of its content, it does not assume liability for any direct or indirect loss arising from errors, omissions, inaccuracies, or reliance on the information contained herein.

This article is not intended for individuals below the legal age for accessing tobacco or nicotine-related information in their jurisdiction.

 

Copyright Notice

This article is either original content produced by 2Firsts or content reproduced, translated, summarized, or adapted from third-party sources with attribution where applicable. The intellectual property rights of the original content remain with 2Firsts or the respective original rights holders.

No individual or organization may copy, reproduce, distribute, republish, modify, translate, or otherwise use this content without prior authorization. Any unauthorized use may result in legal action.

For copyright-related inquiries, corrections, or removal requests, please contact: info@2firsts.com.

 

AI-Assisted Translation and Editing Notice

Portions of this article may have been translated, edited, or reviewed with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools to improve efficiency and readability. Due to the limitations of AI-assisted translation and editing, discrepancies, omissions, or inaccuracies may exist when compared with the original source.

Where applicable, readers are advised to refer to the original source for the most complete and accurate information. If you identify any errors or believe that any content infringes upon your rights, please contact us at info@2firsts.com, and we will review and address the matter promptly.

EU Trade Department Faces Scrutiny Over Contacts With Tobacco Industry
EU Trade Department Faces Scrutiny Over Contacts With Tobacco Industry
European Ombudswoman Teresa Anjinho has opened an inquiry into how the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Trade handles interactions with the tobacco industry. The case follows a complaint from a civil society organisation that alleges regular, unnecessary and non-transparent contacts between DG TRADE and tobacco industry representatives, raising questions over compliance with the EU’s obligations under the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The inquiry remains ongoing, and the Ombudswoman has not reached any finding of maladministration.
Aug.24
JUUL2 Sued Within a Week of FDA Authorization as AJ Marketing Alleges Infringement of Programmable Vape Patent
JUUL2 Sued Within a Week of FDA Authorization as AJ Marketing Alleges Infringement of Programmable Vape Patent
Less than a week after JUUL2 received U.S. FDA marketing authorization on August 28, 2026, JUUL Labs was sued for patent infringement in federal court in Delaware. AJ Marketing LLC filed the complaint on September 3, alleging that both JUUL 1 and JUUL2 infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,851,068 B2. The patent covers aspects of programmable electronic vaporization devices, including controls over dose delivery, usage frequency and operating parameters. The plaintiff is seeking reasonable royalties and ongoing royalties tied to the remaining life of the patent. JUUL has not yet publicly responded to the case.
Sep.10
UK Directors Banned After 352,688 Vapes Imported From China Were Misdeclared as Medical Nebulizers in £15 Million Tax Case
UK Directors Banned After 352,688 Vapes Imported From China Were Misdeclared as Medical Nebulizers in £15 Million Tax Case
The UK Insolvency Service said YSK Enterprises imported large quantities of vapes from China in 2023, with a shipment addressed to the company declared as medical nebulizers before Border Force found 352,688 vaping products. HMRC calculated nearly £15 million ($20.3 million) in unpaid VAT and customs duty, alongside about £437,000 in corporation tax. Two directors were disqualified for nine years. The case predates the UK's Vaping Products Duty, which will introduce vape-specific excise and duty-stamp requirements from October 2026.
Regulations
Sep.11
Product | JTI Launches Ploom AURA Teal Electric Pop in South Korea, Its First Dual-Color Edition
Product | JTI Launches Ploom AURA Teal Electric Pop in South Korea, Its First Dual-Color Edition
JTI Korea launched the Ploom AURA Teal Electric Pop limited edition in South Korea on September 1, 2026, marking the first dual-color design in the Ploom AURA range. The device combines a dark green body with teal accents and is accompanied by matching Front Panel, Back Cover and Pocket Bag accessories. The standalone device is priced at KRW 29,000, with three additional device-and-accessory bundles available. The release continues JTI Korea's use of limited colorways and interchangeable accessories to expand the Ploom AURA portfolio without introducing a new hardware platform.
Sep.03
Australian Coalition Taskforce Calls for 80% Tobacco Tax Cut to Combat Illicit Market
Australian Coalition Taskforce Calls for 80% Tobacco Tax Cut to Combat Illicit Market
According to SGST on August 26, 2026, Australia’s Coalition Illegal Tobacco Taskforce released a report recommending an up to 80% cut in tobacco excise to reduce the appeal of the illicit tobacco market. The report claimed organised crime groups now control about 80% of Australia’s tobacco market and argued that high excise rates have widened the price gap between legal and illegal products. The recommendation remains a policy proposal and has not been adopted by the Australian government, which said its focus remains on enforcement, compliance and additional resources.
Aug.27
Product | PMI Japan Expands ZYN by IQOS Strength Portfolio With Strong Series, Increasing Lineup to 12 Products
Product | PMI Japan Expands ZYN by IQOS Strength Portfolio With Strong Series, Increasing Lineup to 12 Products
Philip Morris Japan (PMJ) has expanded the ZYN by IQOS oral tobacco pouch portfolio in Japan with four new ZYN Strong products, adding a third intensity level alongside the existing Low and Medium ranges. The Strong series first entered selected duty-free channels in Japan on July 1, 2026, before expanding to IQOS stores, the ZYN Online Store and selected tobacco retailers from August 18. The expansion increases the Japanese ZYN by IQOS lineup from eight to 12 products.
Aug.20