Philip Morris International COO makes inaccurate and misleading comments about e-cigarettes

[Bill Godshall]

At Investor Day on June 21 in Lausanne (Switzerland), Philip Morris International's Chief Operating Officer André Calantzopoulos gave the following presentation that, except for some comments about e-cigarettes, was an excellent and informative update on the international tobacco markets, PMI's markets, business opportunities and Next Generation Products.
Remarks
https://www.media-server.com/m/instances/8hjnb6wm/items/v2b4bx9m/assets/m8djui39/0/file.pdf
Accompanying Slides
https://www.media-server.com/m/instances/8hjnb6wm/items/v2b4bx9m/assets/qa4ps3n3/0/file.pdf
I recommend printing the remarks, and reading them while viewing the accompanying slide presentation.

The June 21 Bloomberg news article at
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-21/philip-morris-to-introduce-next-generation-cigarette-by-2017.html
was based upon Calantzopoulos' presentation.

But some inaccurate and misleading claims about e-cigarettes appeared on page 10 of Calantzopoulos' Remarks, and Pages 40 and 41 of the Accompanying Slides. So I sent the following letter to two folks I know at PMI who specialize in new tobacco products and product regulation. I suspect Calantzopoulos' comments criticizing e-cigarettes were just another case of one competitor unfairly criticizing products made by competitors, and I hope my e-mail will convince PMI to not repeat its inaccurate and misleading claims.

Calantzopoulos' presentation indicates that PMI won't be marketing e-cigarettes in the near future, and instead is pursuing other smokefree tobacco aerosole product alternatives.

----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Godshall
To: James Arnold ; Rolf Lutz
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 2:30 PM
Subject: Recent PMI comments on e-cigarettes inaccurate and misleading


Jim and Rolf,

On page 10 of last week's remarks by André Calantzopoulos in Lausanne at
https://www.media-server.com/m/instances/8hjnb6wm/items/v2b4bx9m/assets/m8djui39/0/file.pdf
and on page 40 of the accompanying slide at
https://www.media-server.com/m/instances/8hjnb6wm/items/v2b4bx9m/assets/qa4ps3n3/0/file.pdf

the following incorrect and misleading statements about e-cigarettes were made: "The major issue with these products is a poor sensory experience and a weak nicotine delivery profile. Some of them may also present certain safety issues."

The slide on page 41 is especially deceptive because it shows data from Vansickel/Eissenberg's long since refuted 2010 study finding e-cigarettes emit very little nicotine in which they recruited cigarette smokers who had never used an e-cigarette before, instructed them to use the e-cigarette as if they were smoking a cigarette, then held a press conference to boast that e-cigarettes emit "no-nicotine" citing plasma nicotine levels following their first time e-cigarette use.

After I and several hundred e-cigarette consumers criticized and challenged Eissenberg's 2010 claim and study finding e-cigarettes emit no nicotine, Eissenberg and Vansickel conducted another study using e-cigarette consumers finding that e-cigarette products not only emit nicotine, but can (based upon usage patterns) emit just as much nicotine as cigarettes.

Below and attached are documents related to Eissenberg's 2010 study and subsequent research findings.

Also, e-cigarettes provide a very good "sensory experience" and have a very good safety record except for about a dozen incidences (out of about one trillion product uses) of exploding batteries in modified products that is best described at
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...61-exploding-mods-update-february-2012-a.html
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...0594-q-im-worried-my-e-cig-might-explode.html and
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/ecf-library/129569-rechargeable-batteries.html

While e-cigarette battery safety is a concern that has/is being addressed (without assistance from government regulators), the safety record of e-cigarettes has always been exponentially better than that of burning tobacco cigarettes.

Bill Godshall
Executive Director
Smokefree Pennsylvania
1926 Monongahela Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15218
412-351-5880
smokefree@compuserve.com


CNN news article "Electronic cigarettes don't deliver" cites Eissenberg claiming e-cigarettes emit no nicotine (2/8/2010), and attached Vansickel/Eissenberg 2010 study (whose findings were cited by PMI last week).
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-cnn-com-today-eissenberg-study-feedback.html

Eissenberg recruits experienced e-cigarette users for new study (10/24/2010)
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...s-experienced-electronic-cigarette-users.html

Vansickel/Eissenberg announce preliminary results at SRNT of new study finging e-cigarettes do emit nicotine (2/24/2011)
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...nbergs-study-yep-e-cigs-deliver-nicotine.html

Etter/Bullen study (attached) finds e-cigarettes emit nicotine (11/1/2011)

Tom Eissenberg letter to tobacco research community acknowledging e-cigarettes deliver nicotine (11/4/11)
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/media-general-news/236169-e-cigarettes-deliver-nicotine-jf-etter-3.html#post4493293

Attached Vansickel/Weaver/Eissenberg study finds e-cigarettes emit nicotine (1/12/2012), with interesting dialogue between Eissenberg and me about their 2010 "no nicotine" study and their 2012 "delivers nicotine" study at
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...kel-weaver-eissenberg-study-e-cigarettes.html

 

[TennDave]

Awesome Bill- Please share what response you get!!

 

[panachronic]

I hate to say "I told you so", but... I told you so.

 

[Vocalek]

Well, he is probably going on the information about e-cigarettes that his marketing department supplied, and those folks tend to stick with the stuff published in the mainstream media. If PMI management was smart, they would start to learn everything they can not only about the marketplace, but about the science, the consumers, and what consumers consider important.

 

[panachronic]

Well, he is probably going on the information about e-cigarettes that his marketing department supplied, and those folks tend to stick with the stuff published in the mainstream media. If PMI management was smart, they would start to learn everything they can not only about the marketplace, but about the science, the consumers, and what consumers consider important.

Right. PM's stance against e-cigs has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact they are developing a competing technology. Of course.

 

[Petrodus]

Well, he is probably going on the information about e-cigarettes that his marketing department supplied, and those folks tend to stick with the stuff published in the mainstream media. If PMI management was smart, they would start to learn everything they can not only about the marketplace, but about the science, the consumers, and what consumers consider important.

That would require doing some real "Research"
It's so much easier to just Copy/Paste.

 

[DaveP]

Sooner or later we will generate enough public interest to foster some in depth testing by "creditable" testing labs and the truth will be known about ecigs. I'm really surprised that the FDA hasn't required this kind of study already. The government has paid for and received testing results for just about everything we use or consume, but relatively little hard data about ecigs. The testing we have is ignored unless there's a trace element in a contaminated sample and that got nationwide publicity.

If peanut butter testing can get mass media attention, why can't ecigs? I guess we don't have public scares like some of the food sources have experienced. Maybe that's a good thing.

We already know that the nic levels of most ecigs is in the low range, but the effectiveness of ecigs is widely accepted by the vaping community. It only takes a little nic and a good reproduction of the hand to mouth actions of smoking to satisfy ex-smokers quite nicely. The quit rate among vapers is astounding. That's one thing that needs to be publicized highly.

 

[Coffeeroasters]

Well there is the new testing report on 2nd hand vapor by Utah Vapers - Clearstream Air Study

 

[EJH]

Well, he is probably going on the information about e-cigarettes that his marketing department supplied, and those folks tend to stick with the stuff published in the mainstream media. If PMI management was smart, they would start to learn everything they can not only about the marketplace, but about the science, the consumers, and what consumers consider important.

The sole reason for a corporation to exist is to make money. I'm 99% positive that PMI, with its big PR/marketing and research groups, does indeed know everything there is to know about e-cigs and smokeless. With this information, they probably had their financial brainiacs run the numbers and what came out was a Return On Investment that didn't satisfy their voracious need to make money. Lorillard's brain trust obviously came to a different conclusion.

In light of that, PMI feels its necessary to pooh-pooh e-cigarettes to keep their shareholders from bolting to the competition.

It amazes me that politicians and people in charge, in this day and age, keep forgetting about this "Internet" thing, which makes it easy for anybody to fact check the stuff (aka lies and misinformation) they say.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

[Bill Godshall]

DaveP wrote:

Sooner or later we will generate enough public interest to foster some in depth testing by "creditable" testing labs and the truth will be known about ecigs. I'm really surprised that the FDA hasn't required this kind of study already. The government has paid for and received testing results for just about everything we use or consume, but relatively little hard data about ecigs. The testing we have is ignored unless there's a trace element in a contaminated sample and that got nationwide publicity.

Dozens of labs and professionals (including the FDA) have already conducted many tests on e-cigarettes, and all have consistently found that e-cigarettes DO NOT contain or emit anything hazardous. The problem is that the FDA and other e-cigarette prohibitionists have grossly misrepresented the scientific and empirical evidence about e-cigarettes in an attempt to justify their e-cigarette prohibition and demonization policies.

 

[Petrodus]

It amazes me that politicians and people in charge, in this day and age, keep forgetting about this "Internet" thing, which makes it easy for anybody to fact check the stuff (aka lies and misinformation) they say.

I hear Google is coming out with a new add-on.
Ya can simply click on a Truth/Lie icon and Google
will automatically search the Net and reveal if
something is True or a Lie.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Since many folks at PMI are on my e-mail list, I suspect that the PMI team who wrote and approved their COO's remarks at Investor Day about e-cigarettes (and who chose to include Eissenberg's deceptive 2010 e-cig plasma nicotine chart) were aware that e-cigarettes deliver nicotine, that e-cigarettes provide good "sensory experience", and that e-cigarettes pose far fewer safety risks than burning cigarettes.

Their goal was to ensure investors that the new smokefree aerosole products PMI is researching and developing will be able to compete against e-cigarettes, and will have a better chance of being approved by FDA (and regulators in other countries)
as a Modified Risk Tobacco Product.

 

[DC2]

Their goal was to ensure investors that the new smokefree aerosole products PMI is researching and developing will be able to compete against e-cigarettes, and will have a better chance of being approved by FDA (and regulators in other countries) as a Modified Risk Tobacco Product.

Exactly, and he would have been derelict in his duties to have done otherwise.

 

[Vocalek]

Right. PM's stance against e-cigs has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact they are developing a competing technology. Of course.

I have a saying about situations like this: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by ignorance.

 

[Shining Wit]

If many of the world's most experienced and respected drivers studied a new kid driving and agreed that he was a safe driver and how impressed they were, it wouldn't make it acceptable for him to drive a vehicle on the road. The only thing that would be 'credible' is a piece of paper with a stamp on that said 'Pass', then he could drive to his heart's content.

That is the way of the world whether we like it or disagree with it.

When CN Creative (Intellicig) obtains its MA (Marketing Authorisation), then it will become credible, because a piece of paper says so. No matter what anyone thinks of the 'recreation v medical' argument, that is the way it will happen and CNC will recoup the millions it has invested into making it happen then go on to make a lot more.
It might not offer consolation to those selling 'unlicensed' products, but it will certainly answer a great many detractors, who will probably jump from one bandwagon on to the next, similar to the way ASH changed their opinion when certain medical professionals came out in favour of ecigs.

Rather than decry CNC as traitors to the cause, people should be advance-planning to take maximum advantage of the climate change that a licensed product will bring. "They must be safe, they have been licensed as a medical product" sounds like a positive, 'wave the bit of paper' argument to me

Cheers

John

 

[panachronic]

I have a saying about situations like this: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by ignorance.

Point taken (although, the word used by Hanlon's Razor is actually "stupidity"), but there is ample evidence that ignorance is not in play here, and I think it's naive to pretend otherwise.

PM is well-funded, shrewdly managed, and they've already demonstrated that they do not see their self-interest coinciding with the future of e-cigarettes.

So, if we can rule out ignorance and stupidity, what are we left with? Malice.

 

[Bill Godshall]

This Business Insider article falsely claims PMI forthcoming tobacco products (that are not yet marketed) are "popular with children"
Philip Morris Is Releasing A Bunch Of Cool New Cigarettes - Business Insider

 

[Tom09]

[...]Rather than decry CNC as traitors to the cause, people should be advance-planning to take maximum advantage of the climate change that a licensed product will bring. [...]

While you outlined the potential positive, we should not neglect a potential negative. Up to now, the winning moral argument for e-cig proponents had been that medical classification equals prohibition, condemning smokers to die early. CNC, however, actively seeks a medical classification, that’s their business model. Personally, I do understand the idea that e-cigs could possibly co-exist while branched along the lines of a) a medical product and b) a consumer product. However, I’m not yet sure if this line is likely to be drawn in practice. Legitimizing the medical branch might well outlaw the other.

 

[TennDave]

While you outlined the potential positive, we should not neglect a potential negative. Up to now, the winning moral argument for e-cig proponents had been that medical classification equals prohibition, condemning smokers to die early. CNC, however, actively seeks a medical classification, that’s their business model. Personally, I do understand the idea that e-cigs could possibly co-exist while branched along the lines of a) a medical product and b) a consumer product. However, I’m not yet sure if this line is likely to be drawn in practice. Legitimizing the medical branch might well outlaw the other.

Don't really think that will happen. Lozenges and orbs and other dissolvables currently coexist. The FDA was perfectly willing to "consider" e-cigs as pharmaceuticals if they were submitted and passed the mustard with them (at a very huge expense without a guarantee that they would pass). Problem was that no one had submitted them and some folks were advertising them to be a therapeutic device- leading to their confiscation of products back in 2009.