Latest news with #TobaccoControlAct
UPI
17-07-2025
- Health
- UPI
FDA approves Juul e-cigarette and cartridge sales
The Food and Drug Administration has approved the continued sale and marketing of Juul Labs' vaping products that contain nicotine, the company announced on Thursday. File Photo by Erik S. Lesser/EPA July 17 (UPI) -- Officials with the Food and Drug Administration have approved the continued sales of tobacco-flavored e-cigarettes and refill cartridges by Juul Labs. The FDA approved the sale and marketing of the Juul System, Juul Labs announced on Thursday. The FDA in 2022 banned Juul from selling its products due to a lack of scientific evidence regarding their potential health effects. "As part of our 2020 applications, we submitted over 110 scientific studies to the FDA covering non-clinical, clinical and behavioral science," Juul Labs said in a news release. "Following rigorous evaluation of the data, [the] FDA decided that a [marketing granted order] for the Juul System was 'appropriate for the protection of public health' -- the standard required by statute for authorization," the online announcement says. Juul's e-cigarettes and pods contain nicotine but meet the standard required to legally market tobacco products in the United States, NBC News reported. The marketing authorization does not indicate the products are safe for use, but it does enable Juul to market its vaping products to adult smokers, many of whom switch to Juul's products. Juul markets its products as an alternative to cigarettes and other smoking products that contain tobacco, but Juul products contain potentially harmful nicotine. After reviewing scientific studies submitted by Juul, the FDA reversed its ban to allow Juul to resume selling and marketing its products to adults age 21 and older. Officials with the American Lung Association criticized the FDA's reversal on the matter. "The American Lung Association is deeply troubled that the FDA will permit Juul to remain on the market in the U.S. and is especially concerned to learn that Juul's menthol flavor will continue being sold," the ALA said in a prepared statement. "These products have never met the Tobacco Control Act's public health standard," the ALA said. "Today's decision risks further harm to youth." The ALA says Juul uses flavored products containing high levels of nicotine and marketing that targets young people, which "hooked a generation of kids on tobacco." ALA officials want the FDA to reconsider its decision and for state and local governments to ban the sale of all flavored tobacco products.
Bloomberg
21-06-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
A Vaping Victory for Big Tobacco Masks the Real Issue
On Friday, the US Supreme Court waded into the confusing, on-again, off-again effort by the Food and Drug Administration to regulate e-cigarettes ... and didn't get too far. In voting 7-2 to allow a suit by RJ Reynolds Vapor Company against the agency to continue, the justices ruled on a tricky procedural issue and, I think, got the answer right. The litigation is far from over, but recent scholarly work suggests that the ban itself might be a mistake. To understand the case, it's useful to review a bit of history. In 2000, the Supreme Court struck down the FDA's efforts to regulate most tobacco products. Nevertheless, in 2008, the agency began seizing e-cigarettes imported into the US. The following year, Congress passed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which, among other things, required FDA approval before the marketing of any 'new' tobacco product. The courts swiftly held that the authority covered vaping devices. But rather than disrupt what had by then become a substantial market, the agency allowed companies to continue selling their e-cigarette products while it processed their applications.
21-06-2025
- Business
Supreme Court widens court options for vaping companies pushing back against FDA rules
WASHINGTON -- WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court sided with e-cigarette companies on Friday in a ruling making it easier to sue over Food and Drug Administration decisions blocking their products from the multibillion-dollar vaping market. The 7-2 opinion comes as companies push back against a yearslong federal regulatory crackdown on electronic cigarettes. It's expected to give the companies more control over which judges hear lawsuits filed against the agency. The justices went the other way on vaping in an April decision, siding with the FDA in a ruling upholding a sweeping block on most sweet-flavored vapes instituted after a spike in youth vaping. The current case was filed by R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., which had sold a line of popular berry and menthol-flavored vaping products before the agency started regulating the market under the Tobacco Control Act in 2016. The agency refused to authorize the company's Vuse Alto products, an order that 'sounded the death knell for a significant portion of the e-cigarette market,' Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion. The company is based in North Carolina and typically would have been limited to challenging the FDA in a court there or in the agency's home base of Washington. Instead, it joined forces with Texas businesses that sell the products and sued there. The conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the lawsuit to go forward, finding that anyone whose business is hurt by the FDA decision can sue. The agency appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that R.J. Reynolds was attempting to find a court favorable to its arguments, a practice often referred to as 'judge shopping.' The justices, though, found that the law does allow other businesses affected by the FDA decisions, like e-cigarette sellers, to sue in their home states. In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said she would have sided with the agency and limited where the cases can be filed. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids called the majority decision disappointing, saying it would allow manufacturers to 'judge shop,' though it said the companies will still have to contend with the Supreme Court's April decision. Attorney Ryan Watson, who represented R.J. Reynolds, said that the court recognized that agency decisions can have devastating downstream effects on retailers and other businesses, and the decision 'ensures that the courthouse doors are not closed' to them. ___
The Hill
20-06-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Supreme court widens court options for vaping companies pushing back against FDA rules
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court sided with e-cigarette companies on Friday in a ruling making it easier to sue over Food and Drug Administration decisions blocking their products from the multibillion-dollar vaping market. The 7-2 opinion comes as companies push back against a yearslong federal regulatory crackdown on electronic cigarettes. It's expected to give the companies more control over which judges hear lawsuits filed against the agency. The justices went the other way on vaping in an April decision, siding with the FDA in a ruling upholding a sweeping block on most sweet-flavored vapes instituted after a spike in youth vaping. The current case was filed by R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., which had sold a line of popular berry and menthol-flavored vaping products before the agency started regulating the market under the Tobacco Control Act in 2016. The agency refused to authorize the company's Vuse Alto products, an order that 'sounded the death knell for a significant portion of the e-cigarette market,' Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion. The company is based in North Carolina and typically would have been limited to challenging the FDA in a court there or in the agency's home base of Washington. Instead, it joined forces with Texas businesses that sell the products and sued there. The conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the lawsuit to go forward, finding that anyone whose business is hurt by the FDA decision can sue. The agency appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that R.J. Reynolds was trying to find a court friendly to its arguments, a practice often called 'judge shopping.' The justices, though, found that the law does allow other businesses affected by the FDA decisions, like e-cigarette sellers, to sue in their home states. In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said she would have sided with the agency and limited where the cases can be filed. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids called the majority decision disappointing, saying it would allow manufacturers to 'judge shop,' though it said the companies will still have to contend with the Supreme Court's April decision. Attorney Ryan Watson, who represented R.J. Reynolds, said that the court recognized that agency decisions can have devastating downstream effects on retailers and other businesses, and the decision 'ensures that the courthouse doors are not closed' to them. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of the Supreme Court at
Boston Globe
20-06-2025
- Business
- Boston Globe
Supreme court widens court options for vaping companies pushing back against FDA rules
The current case was filed by R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., which had sold a line of popular berry and menthol-flavored vaping products before the agency started regulating the market under the Tobacco Control Act in 2016. Advertisement The agency refused to authorize the company's Vuse Alto products, an order that 'sounded the death knell for a significant portion of the e-cigarette market,' Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The company is based in North Carolina and typically would have been limited to challenging the FDA in a court there or in the agency's home base of Washington. Instead, it joined forces with Texas businesses that sell the products and sued there. The conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the lawsuit to go forward, finding that anyone whose business is hurt by the FDA decision can sue. The agency appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that R.J. Reynolds was trying to find a court friendly to its arguments, a practice often called 'judge shopping.' Advertisement The justices, though, found that the law does allow other businesses affected by the FDA decisions, like e-cigarette sellers, to sue in their home states. In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said she would have sided with the agency and limited where the cases can be filed. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids called the majority decision disappointing, saying it would allow manufacturers to 'judge shop,' though it said the companies will still have to contend with the Supreme Court's April decision. Attorney Ryan Watson, who represented R.J. Reynolds, said that the court recognized that agency decisions can have devastating downstream effects on retailers and other businesses, and the decision 'ensures that the courthouse doors are not closed' to them.
