Issue link: http://read.dmtmag.com/i/566084
52 tobaccoasia / Issue 4, 2015 (September/October) There is practically no disagreement from ei- ther side – neither the manufacturers nor the au- thorities – that nicotine alone is not the principal culprit causing the health risks commonly asso- ciated with tobacco use, Even the UK National Institute for Health & Care Excellence (NICE) stated in its 2013 report that "…most health prob- lems are caused by other components in tobacco smoke, not by the nicotine." Instead, "it is the tox- icants in cigarette smoke that cause the majority of smoking related diseases, like cancer and respira- tory diseases…", as BAT's Proctor put it; and it's nothing that we haven't heard before. The MRTP Champions The sensible solution to the dilemma therefore is not to burn tobacco, and that is where the main champions come in: those products most likely to eventually – if ever – be granted MRTP classifica- tion. For the time being and until the r&d depart- ments of tobacco companies can come up with something phenomenally better, these primarily comprise e-smoking devices, including vaporizers and heat-not-burn gadgets, and – lo and behold – snus. "E-vapor products offer the greatest potential as reduced risk products. As the scientific evidence builds supporting the category, and as the technol- ogy improves to meet consumer expectations, the market for e-vapor will grow," explained Thomp- son. And he might be onto something. Almost since their first emergence in the market not too many years ago, vaporizers – but lately also tobacco heating (a.k.a. heat-not-burn) devices – have been hailed as a healthier alternative to conventional smoking. After all, what the consumer inhales is basically nothing more than a nicotine-laced gly- col vapor devoid of harmful tobacco components such as tar and a plethora of carcinogens, if the chorus of manufacturers is to be believed. Two e-smoking devices under development at BAT Comparison of the thermal decomposition of tobacco in tobacco heating products (vaporizers, heat-not-burn devices) vs conventional combustible cigarettes Vaping machine at BAT Thompson. "The critical step is for a government regulatory authority to clearly define the predicate tests and scientific criteria by which a product can be assessed and endorsed [as an MRTP." The Consensus Because conventional combustible tobacco prod- ucts will categorically be denied MRTP status for obvious reasons, the question that rightfully arises is: "Which products are possible contenders for a coveted MRTP recognition?"