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.

Russia’s Vape Device Labeling Regime Enters Force: Registration Starts in September, Mandatory Coding in December
Russia’s Vape Device Labeling Regime Enters Force: Registration Starts in September, Mandatory Coding in December
Russia's digital labeling regime for reusable e-cigarettes and similar personal vaping devices entered its first mandatory phase in September 2026. From September 1, manufacturers, importers and other market participants must register with the national Chestny ZNAK tracking system. From December 1, newly manufactured and imported covered devices will be required to carry digital identification codes and be reported as entering circulation. Russia has also issued new operational guidance for imports, marking the transition from a voluntary pilot to phased mandatory implementation.
Sep.15
South Korea Imports 12,126 Kg of Nicotine Analogues From April to August After Bringing Synthetic Nicotine Under Tobacco Law
South Korea Imports 12,126 Kg of Nicotine Analogues From April to August After Bringing Synthetic Nicotine Under Tobacco Law
South Korea's liquid-vape market is showing changes across raw-material imports, product types and sales channels after synthetic nicotine came under the Tobacco Business Act on April 24. Customs data show nicotine-analogue imports totaled 12,126 kilograms from April through August, while synthetic-nicotine imports over the same five months totaled 231,663 kilograms, just 39.3% of the amount imported in March alone. Physical liquid-vape stores tracked in Seoul and Gyeonggi Province fell 9.9%, unmanned outlets edged higher and online sales listings increased from 27,774 to 42,437. Government testing of 105 liquid inhalation products promoted as nicotine-free separately found nicotine in 13 and 6-methylnicotine in 12.
Sep.22
Pennsylvania Vape Directory Law Survives Court Challenge From Nova Distro and Others Amid Similar Rulings Across States
Pennsylvania Vape Directory Law Survives Court Challenge From Nova Distro and Others Amid Similar Rulings Across States
A U.S. federal court upheld Pennsylvania's vape directory law on October 14, rejecting a challenge brought by Nova Distro, 101 Distributors and companies operating Tobacco Hut retail stores. Court records show that vaping accounts for about 60% of Tobacco Hut's profits and that the chain held approximately $2 million in inventory potentially subject to seizure under the law as of June 2. Pennsylvania began enforcement on October 19. The ruling follows similar appellate decisions in other states, even as new research shows that unlisted vaping products continue to account for substantial sales in states with established directories.
Regulations
Oct.22
Latest UK ONS Data: 54% of Vapers Are Former Cigarette Smokers, 26% Also Smoke and 20% Never Smoked Regularly
Latest UK ONS Data: 54% of Vapers Are Former Cigarette Smokers, 26% Also Smoke and 20% Never Smoked Regularly
Former cigarette smokers accounted for an estimated 54% of current e-cigarette users in Great Britain in 2025, while 26% also smoked cigarettes and 20% had never regularly smoked, according to a 2Firsts analysis of Office for National Statistics (ONS) data. Among former cigarette smokers who currently vape, approximately 81% used e-cigarettes daily, compared with about 50% of dual users. The ONS found that 33.8% of current cigarette smokers also vaped in 2025, up from 10.6% in 2014. Approximately 1.1 million adults who had never regularly smoked cigarettes used e-cigarettes, representing 2.9% of that population, compared with 0.2% in 2014. The figures highlight differences in the composition, frequency of use and long-term trends across Britain's vaping population.
DATA
Oct.14
Swedish-Founded Nicotine Pouch Retailer GotPouches Shifts to U.S.-Based Operations, Reaching Over 25 States
Swedish-Founded Nicotine Pouch Retailer GotPouches Shifts to U.S.-Based Operations, Reaching Over 25 States
Swedish-founded online nicotine pouch retailer GotPouches has completed the localization of its U.S. operations under UpNorth Retail LLC, with corporate operations in Franklin, Tennessee, domestic fulfillment from Nashville and U.S.-based customer support. The company says its catalog covers more than 20 nicotine pouch brands and it currently serves customers in more than 25 U.S. states.
Sep.18
Product | Four CrossBar 20K 13mL High-Puff Vapes Listed on Pennsylvania's ENDS Directory, Rated for Up to 20,000 Puffs
Product | Four CrossBar 20K 13mL High-Puff Vapes Listed on Pennsylvania's ENDS Directory, Rated for Up to 20,000 Puffs
Four CrossBar 20K disposable e-cigarettes appeared on Pennsylvania's 163-entry ENDS directory ahead of enforcement beginning October 19, 2026. The devices feature 13mL e-liquid reservoirs, 50mg/mL nicotine, 2,000mAh batteries and 0.9Ω mesh coils, with advertised puff counts of up to 20,000. CrossBar was the only modern high-puff disposable series among the directory's 15 disposable entries. Its packaging emphasizes New York design and Japanese-origin flavoring, while historical CrossBar records identify a registered U.S. tobacco manufacturing-related establishment. The link between the newer 13mL devices and earlier 1.3mL PMTA filings remains unconfirmed.
product
Oct.26