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.

Australian Coalition Unveils Illicit Tobacco Plan With 80% Excise Cut and Legal, Taxed Vapes and Nicotine Pouches
Australian Coalition Unveils Illicit Tobacco Plan With 80% Excise Cut and Legal, Taxed Vapes and Nicotine Pouches
Australia’s Coalition has unveiled a national illicit-tobacco policy that would cut tobacco excise by 80% and create legal, regulated and taxed adult markets for vaping products and nicotine pouches if it wins government. The plan proposes an excise of A$0.50 per millilitre of e-liquid and A$0.025 per milligram of nicotine in pouches, alongside A$200 million in additional enforcement and a A$60 million three-year public-awareness campaign. The Coalition says the package would narrow the price advantage of illicit products and undermine organised crime, while Labor and public-health groups warn that dramatically cheaper cigarettes could reverse long-term declines in smoking.
Sep.03
Science | International Experts Propose a New Smoking Cessation Pathway, Citing Higher Quit Rates With E-Cigarettes Than Nicotine Replacement Therapy
Science | International Experts Propose a New Smoking Cessation Pathway, Citing Higher Quit Rates With E-Cigarettes Than Nicotine Replacement Therapy
A new expert paper in JAMA urges U.S. clinicians to include nicotine e-cigarettes in smoking-cessation discussions, citing higher quit rates than nicotine replacement therapy. It also stresses that products must deliver enough nicotine to replace cigarettes, dual use should be brief, and complete switching is the goal. 2Firsts argues the recommendations matter beyond clinics: public-health professionals should reassess relative risk, regulators should preserve sufficient product appeal for adult smokers, and manufacturers should focus on helping users quit cigarettes more sustainably.
SCIENCE
Aug.03 by 2Firsts Perspectives
U.S. Customs Plan to Require Foreign Export Declarations Could Deal ‘Devastating’ Blow to China’s Vape Exports, Logistics gl Expert Says
U.S. Customs Plan to Require Foreign Export Declarations Could Deal ‘Devastating’ Blow to China’s Vape Exports, Logistics gl Expert Says
A U.S. Customs and Border Protection proposal to collect foreign export declarations and other overseas customs documents could expose discrepancies in the value, classification and description of China-made vape shipments entering the United States. A veteran Chinese logistics professional told 2Firsts that the measure, if implemented, could undermine the all-inclusive shipping model used by some unauthorized vape exporters and push parts of the trade toward costlier underground channels. The risk extends beyond higher duties: accurately declared products may also be more readily identified as unauthorized e-cigarettes subject to FDA enforcement.
Special Report
Sep.07
From a 2017 Launch to 48% of South Korea’s Heated Tobacco Market, KT&G Looks Back on a Decade of lil
From a 2017 Launch to 48% of South Korea’s Heated Tobacco Market, KT&G Looks Back on a Decade of lil
KT&G announced on Aug. 13, 2026, that it has opened “lil Archive,” a brand exhibition space in Seoul showcasing the evolution, technology platforms and future direction of its heated tobacco brand lil since its launch in 2017. KT&G said lil now spans three major platforms — lil SOLID, lil HYBRID and lil AIBLE — with more than 30 dedicated consumables, and held a 48% share of South Korea's heated tobacco market in the second quarter of 2026. The opening comes as lil enters its 10th year, with KT&G continuing to position the brand for expansion beyond its domestic market.
Aug.14
 PMI Opens Generative AI Center in Portugal to Support Global Operations
PMI Opens Generative AI Center in Portugal to Support Global Operations
According to information released by Portugal’s Trade & Investment Agency (AICEP) in July 2026, Philip Morris International (PMI) has established a global Generative Artificial Intelligence Factory (GenAI Factory) at its Portuguese subsidiary Tabaqueira. The center will support PMI’s global operations by developing and deploying AI solutions focused on industrial process optimization, data analytics, operational automation and AI application development. The initiative strengthens Portugal’s role in PMI’s global technology and innovation network.
Aug.27
F1 Faces Renewed Pressure Over Tobacco and Nicotine Sponsorships as 67 Groups Target ZYN and VELO Ahead of Madrid Race
F1 Faces Renewed Pressure Over Tobacco and Nicotine Sponsorships as 67 Groups Target ZYN and VELO Ahead of Madrid Race
Ahead of the Formula 1 race in Madrid, 67 Spanish and international public-health, medical and consumer organizations have sent an open letter to F1 President and CEO Stefano Domenicali calling for an end to sponsorships linked to the tobacco and nicotine industry, including nicotine pouches, vaping products and heated tobacco. The letter focuses on Philip Morris International’s ZYN partnership with Ferrari and British American Tobacco’s long-running partnership with McLaren and exposure for VELO. The campaign follows a March letter in which more than 160 organizations worldwide made a similar request to Formula 1.
Sep.10