Exclusive ECF interview with John and Brandon from Evolv

[Oliver]

Up now on vaping.com: http://vaping.com/news/exclusive-interview-brandon-john-from-evolv

If anyone has any follow-up questions, please use this thread for them and I will get answers for you.

Hope you enjoy the interview as much as I did doing it!

 

[suspectK]

Extra like!

Don't have time to focus reading all of it at the moment, but very clear and concise, from both sides..

 

[dr g]

Fabulous interview. Directions and depth not seen before, and the focus on the relationship to regulatory issues, I hope, should once and for all put to bed questions of whether Evolv is leading or falling behind.

Evolv is at the very front of the pack in almost every way. No Chinese megawattage cloner is ANYWHERE on that, nor can they be since they do not innovate.

I also enjoyed the digs at YiHi

 

[suspectK]

Read. Amazed. Above and beyond. Incomplete sentence.

I don't know what else you can add to vaping's technology..really. The cigarette "study" was neat. Finally, now if only batteries would catch up, and no-one would smoke..not that the current cells (or present day cells-for those adopting new vocabulary) aren't(weren't) impressive..

It's always comforting to see the voltage sag of my batteries with my IPV2. .lol..at least it drops to 10 Watts right 5 seconds before it's dead.

AutoCAD will be played with on the morrow...after I plan out a hustle to get some of these boards... I'd hate to be just getting to the party when they pull something else out of "the hat."

 

[Katya]

They want "to solve the e-cigarette." I really like that! Those guys are making a lot of sense!

Let's hope they get two more years or so to complete their work.

Thank you, SmokeyJoe!

 

[MrPlink]

1st of all bravo to evolv.

My comment (not really a question) is,
while I applaud the good faith efforts targeted towards the FDA, let's be honest here, it is all conjectural.

It would be very nice if the FDA chose a framework by those who truly understanding the industry, but it is (sadly) very idealistic to think they will.

The worst part isn't even the possibility of regulation being a complete train-wreck, but our lack of recourse if it is.

I'm not trying to sound like a complete pessimist but we really are just in a holding pattern now while we await on my personal bureaucracy pass down their learned wisdom.


P.S.
Cheers to SmokeyJoe

 

[dr g]

1st of all bravo to evolv.

My comment (not really a question) is,
while I applaud the good faith efforts targeted towards the FDA, let's be honest here, it is all conjectural.

It would be very nice if the FDA chose a framework by those who truly understanding the industry, but it is (sadly) very idealistic to think they will.

The worst part isn't even the possibility of regulation being a complete train-wreck, but our lack of recourse if it is.

I'm not trying to sound like a complete pessimist but we really are just in a holding pattern now while we await on my personal bureaucracy pass down their learned wisdom.


P.S.
Cheers to SmokeyJoe

In the case of Evolv it may not be all conjectural. Remember the FDA does engage with some companies in the industry. The real takeaway from the interview is the fact that Evolv is capable of innovating on that level, while other companies are going in the opposite direction if any.

 

[MrPlink]

Again, it may be for the sake of building framework, or it may be lip service. Also, wanna take any guesses to other interested parties that the FDA is holding council with?

 

[Oliver]

Your comment is absolutely fair - imo, and we can't know where on the conjecture-reality scale the comments lie.

It didn't really feel fair to try to press them on the issue, but they do have very good contacts. It's worth bearing in mind that the FDA does have some listening sessions coming up, and I know a fair few people that will be presenting - so the door is certainly not shut on anyone that has a case to make.

I think the principal point John made was sound: that they have to get as much to market as possible as soon as possible for it to have any hope of a bearing on regulatory impacts.

But, I'm also pretty stoked about temperature protection purely from the consumer safety side. So, although it might have been punishing for them coming to market so quickly with it (and probably has interfered with their business planning), I'm sort of glad the regs have forced the issue!

 

[Cearamm]

I think some people may be putting the cart before the horse here.

The FDA has no clue what is going on in the "real" vapor cig market- mods, performance atties, new rba materials, etc.

They see the cigalike market mainly. When they see us, they see all the negatives that an open system affords- dangerous batteries, exploding mods, acrolein, diacetyl etc.

However if we can bring to them a safe way of operating an open system through self regulation - child proof containers, clear labeling, temperature limiting, research studies, only safe ingredients, clean wick and heating elements, etc....then do you really not think they will see that and take it into consideration? IMO i think they will want to transition people to this because of one main reason: MONEY

From a fiscal perpective,
The key problem with cigarette smoking is that 1 of every 2 smokers dies an early death due to smoking. In playing devils advocate here,
That is a loss of revenue for tobacco companies. I know they dont care about health but they do care about money. So if that 1in2 person DOESNT die from smoking but instead vapes, they will continue to collect that revenue.

Dont take that as if i want to hand the industry over to big tobacco. I just think they need to have some incentive to enter into the open vapor market where they can have some semblance of control over the product. Maybe a semi open system or something.

Now if companies like Evolv and Provape and others can present alllllllll this data in a cohesive manner, do you guys not think they will at least consider our alternative? I dont trust them as far as i can throw, but that financial incentive is there and it can be a massive incentive if even 30% of the active smoking populace transitions to vaping.

I really hope i made logical sense folks. Im sorry if i was confusing.

Cheers

 

[Oliver]

Cearamm - I don't believe the FDA is motivated (not directly, at least - i.e. lobbying by pharma notwithstanding) by fiscal considerations.

It's more insidious than that. The FDA's core competency is in regulating medicines, and so they start from that perspective. Furthermore, the Tobacco Act was the result of a 20 year campaign to regulate tobacco as nicotine delivery devices - so when all's told, the tobacco act is a sort of pseudo-medicines framework for tobacco, and e-cigs are being subjected to this framework. So, the "closed system" model is certainly going to be dominant as far as the FDA is concerned - but it's simply not true that the FDA is unaware of the open devices: They're quite aware, and have had meetings with people from "our side" going back at least 18 months.

What I think you're getting at is that the Tobacco Industry itself may hope to profit out of e-cigarettes long term, essentially by having a loyal customer base that doesn't die early?

I happen to think that's at least partly true - and I'm not someone who reflexively disbelieves tobacco companies when they say that they believe in harm-reduction (as absurd, on face value, as it seems). However, the problem is that Tobacco Companies are publicly traded companies who must answer to their shareholders. They must sell the right story to their shareholders and, frankly, that story is that they will continue to own and dominate the nicotine market. The only thing that's going to save them is regulations.

And there's the rub. They simply cannot compete in an open system market and need it closed down to ensure their survival. It's doubly perilous for them, because they need to convince shareholders in the short term, and need to balance their books in the long term.

 

[Ryedan]

Excellent interview SmokeyJoe. It brought to light good information about Evolve that I didn't know and I think many people also didn't

 

[MrPlink]

Cearamm - I don't believe the FDA is motivated (not directly, at least - i.e. lobbying by pharma notwithstanding) by fiscal considerations.

Well let's think about this statement.
As a matter of conventional wisdom most here would easily tell you that BT is the main enemy of the eCig segment.

But what about big pharma?

BT'S lobbyist look like kids at a lemonade stand compared to big pharma's lobbyists.

Let's now consider how the NRT segment has all but been completely dispatched thanks to eCigs. Who makes NRT?
(Do I need to spell this out anymore?)

Google Fu it yourself.

 

[Oliver]

MrPlink - sorry for late reply.

I totally agree with your analysis. But my point remains that those in the FDA are not directly motivated by financial (or fiscal) considerations.

The truth is far more complex than that.

The FDA's core competency is in medical regulations. The Tobacco Act was created to give FDA regulatory authority over tobacco, with a view to making ALL tobacco products less desirable and less addictive. Essentially, to regulate them out of existence.

Tobacco Harm Reduction (including vaping) simply does not fit into either narrative - it's not a medicine, so those regulations are not appropriate (and, unless claims are made, the FDA does not have jurisdiction, as per Judge Leon) - and it needs to be attractive and, to some extent, addictive (whatever that means in practice) in order for smokers to migrate across.

So, the real issue with the FDA is that the context is all wrong.

The lobbying efforts become an issue because the various groups (BT/BP) are exerting their influence within that context. Tobacco, to make sure that it's locked into their model: noting that a regulation designed at core to make new (disruptive) products less attractive than the incumbent products is rather beneficial for the tobacco industry.

And pharma are lobbying to make sure that the PACT act is applied as intended (but not on a product that it was intended for). Fundamentally the same strategy as BT, but with far more leverage due to matched core-competencies with the FDA.

In reality, both together are causing big problems. That said, the widespread popularity of the open-vapor systems has not gone unnoticed, and there is hope.

Hope that makes my understanding of the issues clear.