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.

Australia Brings in Deloitte to Support Illicit Tobacco and Vape Enforcement Across Data, Processes and Project Delivery
Australia Brings in Deloitte to Support Illicit Tobacco and Vape Enforcement Across Data, Processes and Project Delivery
Australia’s Department of Home Affairs has hired Deloitte to provide data analytics, business-process, communications and project-delivery support to the Office of the Illicit Tobacco and E-Cigarette Commissioner. The government says Deloitte personnel do not provide policy advice to the Commissioner or the Australian government, with policy development and decision-making remaining with public officials. The arrangement has nevertheless drawn scrutiny because Deloitte has previously provided professional services to several tobacco and vaping companies.
Sep.03
Inside Nicotine-Pouch M&A Through Imperial's Yoik Deal: Latham, KPMG, PwC, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley Form the Adviser Lineup
Inside Nicotine-Pouch M&A Through Imperial's Yoik Deal: Latham, KPMG, PwC, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley Form the Adviser Lineup
Imperial Brands' acquisition of Swedish Helwit owner Yoik Group AB has highlighted the professional-services firms supporting cross-border oral nicotine M&A. Latham & Watkins and KPMG advised Imperial, while PwC and TM & Partners advised Yoik. KPMG also appeared on Imperial's acquisition of Black Buffalo earlier in 2026, while PwC played an extensive role in KT&G's acquisition of Swedish nicotine-pouch company Another Snus Factory. Imperial's public disclosures put the global modern oral nicotine delivery market at approximately £8.8 billion in retail sales and 23.5 billion pouches in 2024
Sep.20
Gallery | InterTabac 2026 Opens as VAPORESSO, SKE, GREENTANK, GEEK BAR and Other Brands Take the Floor
Gallery | InterTabac 2026 Opens as VAPORESSO, SKE, GREENTANK, GEEK BAR and Other Brands Take the Floor
InterTabac 2026 opened in Dortmund, Germany, on September 15 alongside NUBIZ and InterSupply. According to the latest figures released by the organizer, the three trade shows bring together around 750 exhibitors from 64 countries. On site, 2Firsts observed vaping and related brands including VAPORESSO, DOJO, SKE, GREENTANK, GEEK BAR, HQD and ELUX.
Special Report
Sep.15
From Product Innovation to Integrated Solutions: NEXTECH Expands Its Global Heated Tobacco Solutions
From Product Innovation to Integrated Solutions: NEXTECH Expands Its Global Heated Tobacco Solutions
NEXTECH launched its NEXE Pro circumferential-heating tobacco stick globally at InterTabac 2026, as the company expands from product innovation into broader heated tobacco solutions. Amid intensifying competition across global HTP markets, NEXTECH is strengthening its R&D, manufacturing and pre-launch support capabilities to serve different types of business customers.
Industry Insight
Sep.15
Why AIRSCREAM Built its European Production Hub for Regulated Market Growth
Why AIRSCREAM Built its European Production Hub for Regulated Market Growth
AIRSCREAM’s production hub in the Czech Republic brings nicotine pouch manufacturing, e-liquid bottling, product documentation, warehousing and international logistics into one operation, giving brands and commercial partners a practical platform from which to launch, expand and enter new markets.
Market
Sep.16 by 2Firsts Perspectives
U.S. Judge Stays Helix, NJOY Challenge to FDA PMTA Rule Pending New Rulemaking Court Stays Altria's Helix, NJOY Challenge to PMTA Rule as FDA Prepares New Rulemaking
U.S. Judge Stays Helix, NJOY Challenge to FDA PMTA Rule Pending New Rulemaking Court Stays Altria's Helix, NJOY Challenge to PMTA Rule as FDA Prepares New Rulemaking
A federal judge in Texas on Oct. 8 granted a joint request by the FDA and plaintiffs including Altria subsidiaries Helix Innovations and NJOY to stay litigation challenging the agency's 2021 PMTA rule. The court cited FDA's anticipated rulemaking concerning the regulation at issue. FDA announced on Sept. 28 that it intends to reassess the PMTA framework and could initiate new rulemaking to replace it. The parties must file a joint status report within 45 days and every 45 days thereafter. A motion by three Reynolds American companies to intervene remains pending.
Regulations
Oct.10