Why are teens smoking and vaping?

Everyone agrees how important it is that youths should not be smoking or vaping. 

Even tobacco companies have said so publicly for decades, although internal tobacco company documents clearly show that they:

- targeted teenagers with flavors,[1] 

- referred to 14-to-18-year-olds as “young adult smokers,” studied teen smoking patterns (differentiating between “presmokers”, “learners” and “confirmed smokers”), admitted that “the base of our business is the high school student,”[2] 

- recognized that “the renewal of the market stems almost entirely from 18-year-old smokers”[3] and that “today’s teenager is tomorrow’s potential regular customer,”[4] and 

- concluded that “the ability to attract new smokers and develop them into a young adult franchise is key to brand development.”[5] 

In order to survive and prosper over the long term, tobacco companies have seen the need to capture the youth market, developing new products and brands that appeal to youths, because “younger adult smokers are the only source of replacement smokers... If younger adults turn away from smoking, the industry must decline, just as a population which does not give birth will eventually dwindle."[6] 

References:

(1) Marketing Innovations. (1972). Youth cigarette - New concepts [memo to Brown & Williamson]. Bates No. 170042014 

(2) Achey TL. (1978). Memo from Lorillard sales manager Achey to CEO Curtis Judge about the "fantastic success" of Newport, August 30, 1978. Bates No. TINY0003062 

(3) R.J. Reynolds. (1984). Young adult smokers: Strategies and opportunities [report]. Bates No. 501928462-8550 

(4) Johnston ME. (1981). Young smokers prevalence, trends, implications, and related demographic trends [Philip Morris market research report, 31 March 1981]. Bates No. 1000390803 

(5) Philip Morris International. (1999). Worldwide Marlboro monitor: Five year trends, 1988-1992. Bates No. 2044895379- 484 

(6) R.J. Reynolds. (1984). Young adult smokers: Strategies and opportunities [report]. Bates No. 501928462-8550

WHO's statement on heated tobacco products and the US FDA decision regarding IQOS is spot on

The full statement is reproduced below and also available on the WHO website: https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/27-07-2020-who-statement-on-heated-tobacco-products-and-the-us-fda-decision-regarding-iqos

WHO statement on heated tobacco products and the US FDA decision regarding IQOS

27 July 2020

WHO takes this opportunity to remind Member States that are Parties to the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (FCTC) of their obligations under the Convention. Heated tobacco products are tobacco products, meaning that the WHO FCTC fully applies to these products. (Decision FCTC/COP8(22)) Specifically, Article 13.4(a) obliges Parties, to prohibit "all forms of tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship that promote a tobacco product by any means that are false, misleading or deceptive or likely to create an erroneous impression about its characteristics, health effects, hazards or emissions."

WHO reiterates that reducing exposure to harmful chemicals in Heated Tobacco Products (HTPs) does not render them harmless, nor does it translate to reduced risk to human health. Indeed, some toxins are present at higher levels in HTP aerosols than in conventional cigarette smoke, and there are some additional toxins present in HTP aerosols that are not present in conventional cigarette smoke. The health implications of exposure to these are unknown.

On 7 July 2020, the US FDA authorized the marketing of a heated tobacco product, the IQOS Tobacco Heating System, under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. This Act requires pre-market authorization of new tobacco products before they can be placed on the US market.

The US FDA statement noted that, “Even with this action, these products are not safe nor “FDA approved“. The exposure modification orders also do not permit the company to make any other modified risk claims or any express or implied statements that convey or could mislead consumers into believing that the products are endorsed or approved by the FDA, or that the FDA deems the products to be safe for use by consumers.”

The US FDA authorization rejected claims that the use of the product is less harmful than another tobacco product or reduces risks to health. The FDA orders also require the company to monitor youth awareness and use of the products to help ensure that the marketing of the MRTPs does not have unintended consequences for youth use. The company must also keep the FDA apprised of efforts to prevent youth access and exposure.

Given that health may be affected by exposure to additional toxins when using HTPs, claims that HTPS reduce exposure to harmful chemicals relative to conventional cigarettes may be misleading.

Moreover, the relevant orders grant a temporary market authorization within the US and are based on factors specific to the US, which is not a Party to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC).

All tobacco products pose risks to health and WHO urges full implementation of the WHO FCTC. Rigorous implementation will support quit attempts and reduce initiation by non-users of tobacco products, especially the young. WHO recommends cessation of all tobacco use with interventions, such as brief advice from health professionals, national toll-free quit lines, nicotine replacement therapies and cessation interventions delivered via mobile text messaging.

Heated Tobacco Products (HTPs) are not safer alternatives to smoking

What utter rubbish!

According to a South China Morning Post article on 28 October 2019, Philip Morris’s president for East Asia and Australia, Paul Riley "pointed out that heated tobacco products were not the same as e-cigarettes, which have been linked to more than one thousand cases of illnesses and 34 deaths in the US. While in e-cigarettes, a cartridge of solution that usually contains nicotine, propylene glycol, glycerine, flavourings and other chemicals are heated up, in heated tobacco products, only a tobacco stick is involved."

Riley is trying to emphasize the distinction between heated tobacco products (HTP) and liquid-based e-cigarettes in order to distance HTPs from the "more than one thousand cases of illnesses and 34 deaths in the US linked to e-cigarettes," but:

1. Aerosols (not vapor) emitted by HTPs also contain nicotine, propylene glycol, glycerine, flavorings, and various other toxicants and chemicals.

2. He fails to mention that Altria (Philip Morris in the US) owns 35% of Juul, which is an e-cigarette company that uses nicotine salts in its e-cigarettes and holds over 70% of the US e-cigarette market. 

3. He also fails to mention that Philip Morris also makes its own e-cigarettes branded as IQOS MESH, and aside from Juul, Philip Morris has another nicotine salt e-cigarette called STEEM.

4. Some HTPs heat up a cartridge of liquid, whose aerosol is then passed through a tobacco plug/capsule.


5. There is no evidence that proves that HTPs are less harmful than cigarettes. Even if some toxicants appear to be less than those in cigarettes, there are more of some other toxicants.

6. The US FDA's tobacco advisory panel rejected PMI's claim that IQOS is safer than conventional cigarettes. Even if allowed for sale in the US, the FDA prohibits Philip Morris form making any claims of reduced harm or modified risk.

PMFTC claims losses after tax increase; PMI expects 10% growth in 2013

According to PMI's recent press release on Q2 earnings (http://www.pmi.com/eng/media_center/press_releases/pages/201307180700.aspx):

Despite a decline in volumes in the first half of 2013, PMI's net profits (for Q1+Q2) of $7.9 billion were down by only 2.5%. The company's CEO also predicts that PMI will meet its growth rate target of 10-12% this year: “For the second half of the year, we expect volume/mix to improve, pricing to remain strong and our total cost variance, excluding currency, to be flat. While industry volume remains a challenge, our underlying business performance is such that we continue to expect to meet our mid to long-term currency neutral adjusted diluted EPS growth rate target of 10-12% in 2013.”

"In the Philippines, PMI’s shipment volume of 19.1 billion units decreased by 16.5%, primarily reflecting the unfavorable impact of the disruptive excise tax increase in January 2013, which resulted in a recommended retail selling price increase for premium Marlboro and low-price Fortune of approximately 60% and 70%, respectively. Industry cigarette volume of 23.1 billion units was estimated to have decreased by 7.0%, reflecting a partial, but insufficient, improvement in declared tax-paid volume by local manufacturers and government tax enforcement. PMI’s market share in the quarter decreased by 9.5 points to 82.9%, primarily due to down-trading to competitive brands. Marlboro’s market share decreased by 5.9 points to 14.7%. Share of low-price Fortune decreased by 18.0 points to 32.8%, partly offset by gains from PMI’s other local low-price brands. PMI’s cigarette shipments are estimated to decline by 20-25% for the full-year 2013, as the availability of non-tax paid domestic volume remains a critical issue."

Apparently, PMI is continuing to blame the January excise increase and illicit trade/smuggling ("non-tax paid domestic volume") for its declining market volumes, and denying the fact that smokers are smoking less and/or quitting (in addition to smokers down-trading to cheaper brands).  

The PH Department of Health should try to get new prevalence data as soon as possible to clearly illustrate the positive (dampening) effect of the sin tax increase on consumption.

Given that PMI made huge profits last year (2012) and is expecting further growth this year (2013), let's look at how much money PMI made in 2012 and relate this to how many deaths its products caused in the same year.

In 2012:
- PMI's share of the global market = 16.3%
- Global number of deaths from tobacco in 2012 = 6 million
- PMI's 2012 death toll = 978,000
- PMI's 2012 earnings = $14.2 billion
- PMI's earnings per death = $14,519.00

If at least 87,600 Filipinos are killed by tobacco every year, and PMFTC holds 94% of the market (as of 2012), then PMFTC is accountable for at least 82,344 Filipino deaths.

If we multiply this number by PMI's reported global earnings per death, this means that PMFTC earned $1,195,552,536 or PHP 50.2 billion (USD=PHP42) from tobacco-caused deaths in the PH in 2012.

Now compare this to what the entire tobacco industry in the PH (including PMFTC) paid to the government as excise in 2012: PHP 28.16 billion.

The tobacco industry has no shame.