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.


This document has been generated through artificial intelligence translation and is provided solely for the purposes of industry discourse and learning. Please note that the intellectual property rights of the content belong to the original media source or author. Owing to certain limitations in the translation process, there may be discrepancies between the translated text and the original content. We recommend referring to the original source for complete accuracy. In case of any inaccuracies, we invite you to reach out to us with corrections. If you believe any content has infringed upon your rights, please contact us immediately for its removal.

Brazilian Research Institutions Prepare Joint Recommendations on Electronic Smoking Device Studies
Brazilian Research Institutions Prepare Joint Recommendations on Electronic Smoking Device Studies
Brazil’s National Cancer Institute, the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, and other research institutions are preparing a joint letter with recommendations and guidance for studies on electronic smoking devices, including e-cigarettes, vapes, and similar products. The guidelines were discussed on April 14 and 15 at the seminar “Building a Priority Research Agenda on Electronic Smoking Devices for Brazil” in Rio de Janeiro.
Apr.16 by 2FIRSTS.ai
Russian Vape GOST Revision Would Limit Capacity, Packaging Design and Warning Labels
Russian Vape GOST Revision Would Limit Capacity, Packaging Design and Warning Labels
Russia is preparing changes to its e-cigarette state standard GOST R 58109–2018. Under a draft order submitted to Rosstandart, the shelf life of vape devices and liquids would be limited to no more than two years, and capacity would be strictly capped at 2 mL for replaceable capsules, 10 mL for disposable systems and 30 mL for refill containers.
Apr.27 by 2FIRSTS.ai
Imperial Brands Explains What the UK Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 Means for Retailers
Imperial Brands Explains What the UK Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 Means for Retailers
Imperial Brands has outlined what the newly approved UK Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 means for retailers. The legislation received Royal Assent on April 29, 2026, and gives the Government powers to extend tobacco-style regulation to a wider range of products, including vaping products, heated tobacco, nicotine pouches and cigarette papers. Imperial Brands emphasized that most measures will be introduced in phases rather than taking effect immediately.
May.11 by 2FIRSTS.ai
Reuters: Big Tobacco Emerges as Winner After FDA Regulatory Shift
Reuters: Big Tobacco Emerges as Winner After FDA Regulatory Shift
According to Reuters, major tobacco companies may emerge as key beneficiaries after the U.S. FDA loosened regulations on vaping and nicotine pouch products, a shift that has sparked debate over public health risks.
Industry Insight
May.26
FDA Expands ENDS Market Access With First Authorization of Non-Tobacco and Non-Menthol Products
FDA Expands ENDS Market Access With First Authorization of Non-Tobacco and Non-Menthol Products
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced on May 5, 2026 that it authorized the marketing of four Glas electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) products through the premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) pathway. The authorized products are Classic Menthol, Fresh Menthol, Gold and Sapphire pods, each containing 50mg/ml, or 5%, tobacco-derived nicotine.
May.06 by 2FIRSTS.ai
Philip Morris Japan Unveils TEREA “Blossom Pearl” for IQOS ILUMA
Philip Morris Japan Unveils TEREA “Blossom Pearl” for IQOS ILUMA
Philip Morris Japan announced that it will launch “TEREA Blossom Pearl,” a new tobacco stick for IQOS ILUMA, on May 11. The new product will expand the TEREA lineup to 27 variants. It features a capsule menthol flavor with strawberry and subtle herbal notes and is priced at JPY 620, or about USD 4.14 based on an assumed rate of 1 JPY = 0.00668 USD. The exchange-rate source should be verified and added.
Apr.28 by 2FIRSTS.ai