BAT subsidiary Nicoventures signs contract to market new nicotine inhalation technology

[Bill Godshall]

Less than a week after Philip Morris bought the rights to new nicotine inhalation technology, British American tobacco's subsidiary Nicoventures announced that it is going to market a new nicotine inhalation technology.

Pursuit of a safer cigarette gathers pace
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4ceee0e6-8c7a-11e0-883f-00144feab49a.html#axzz1O4TOU5Js

You need to register (for free) with the Financial Times to access this excellent article.

 

[Vocalek]

I love this product description: "a device that uses miniaturised breath-operated inhalation technology."

 

[rothenbj]

A very interesting read with only one comment-

Please respect FT.com's ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article - FT.com / Companies / Personal Goods - Pursuit of a safer cigarette gathers pace

Alex Hearn, founder of Kind Consumer, argues that success this time around depends on more than delivering a safe nicotine hit. The rituals surrounding smoking must also be mimicked, he says, and adds that the products must be affordable and available by the same channels as cigarettes; that means regulatory approval is paramount – an area where electronic cigarettes have stumbled.

Now I don't know the true background, but I have read on hear some time ago that a number of PV companies approached the government on getting "regulatory approval" and were rebuffed in that effort. That was all before the infamous July 2009 dog and pony show so who knows.

I suppose any effort that produces "safe and effective" in terms of a commercial, non-pharmaceutical solution that can be cost effective to the consumer should be applauded.

 

[Ande]

I know, Bill, that you've been advocating, at many levels, for tobacco companies to get involved in harm reduction alternatives for many years.

I'm always nervous about them getting a monopoly, though, and this looks like where they want to head- IF they are able to get regulatory approval, this thing has the potential to negatively impact the business of a lot of ecig entrepeneurs, which worries me.

It also has the potential for a few big tobacco companies to control most of the market, which would also dramatically influence the development of new products and the availability of old ones. (This could be good or bad, depending on the quality of the product they come up with.)

BUT...they also have the economic and administrative muscle to move mountains. IF this goes well, it could be a dramatic positive impact on the availability and accesibility of alternatives to smoking. Which could be a very good thing.

Color me worried, but cautiously optimistic.


BEst,
Ande

 

[rothenbj]

BUT...they also have the economic and administrative muscle to move mountains. IF this goes well, it could be a dramatic positive impact on the availability and accesibility of alternatives to smoking. Which could be a very good thing.

Color me worried, but cautiously optimistic.

That was my read between the lines thought.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Ande wrote:

I'm always nervous about them getting a monopoly, though, and this looks like where they want to head- IF they are able to get regulatory approval, this thing has the potential to negatively impact the business of a lot of ecig entrepeneurs, which worries me.

It also has the potential for a few big tobacco companies to control most of the market, which would also dramatically influence the development of new products and the availability of old ones. (This could be good or bad, depending on the quality of the product they come up with.)

Encouraging more companies to market competitive products is the best way to prevent a monopoly. So I don't understand the logic of worrying that a monopoly might be created just because several tobacco companies are introducing new smokefree alternatives into the market.

Also, anti-trust laws can (if/when enforced) prevent monopolies from being created and break up existing monopolies. That's what happened a century ago when Teddy Roosevelt busted several monopolies, including Buck Duke's American Tobacco cigarette monopoly, which resulted in the creation of Philip Morris.

But if either BAT or Philip Morris somehow managed to create a monopoly in some country for their new smokefree products, that could only occur if most cigarette consumption was first replaced via consumption of one of these new products. Instead of viewing that as a problem, I'd view that an historic victory for public health.