Consultation As part of its 2016 consultation on the regulation of e-cigarettes, the Ministry of Health asked whether there were other products that should be regulated as consumer products at the same time as e-cigarettes. A number of submitters thought that there were and named a wide range of potential products. More recently, the Ministry of Health held targeted discussions on the regulation of smokeless tobacco and nicotine-delivery products with tobacco sector stakeholders including health sector agency staff, academics, the tobacco companies which have a presence in New Zealand, and a number of vape retailers. Views varied widely. Process for providing authorisation to market A few stakeholders, including academics and two tobacco companies, thought that no smokeless tobacco product should ever be regulated as a consumer product and that New Zealand should maintain its existing prohibitions. However, most of these stakeholders were open to regulating nicotine-delivery products as consumer products. Most stakeholders seemed to favour a pathway on pre-market approval. Some of those favouring a pre-market approval process noted that their rationale for this preference is that it is better to set the regulatory bar higher in the first instance as it is easier to relax overall requirements than to strengthen them once products are on the market. One tobacco company preferred a notification/self-certification process as it considered the US pre-market approval process was too strict. There was a strong view by academics and the health sector in particular that there should be processes in place to ensure that evidence on the risks and benefits of products was independently assessed (eg, independent advisory committees). Some stakeholders were particularly concerned about independent assessment if a notification/self-certification system was adopted. Some considered that provisions should be made for approving classes of products in some cases (eg, for products that have been used for decades with well-known risks and benefit, such as snus). Many stakeholders suggested that it may not be worth considering legalising existing smokeless tobacco products, as newer products are cleaner and more likely to be used in New Zealand. In particular, some academics and a couple of tobacco companies suggested that oral tobacco products, such as snus, should not enter the New Zealand market as there is no market for them.
Consultation As part of its 2016 consultation on the regulation of e-cigarettes, the Ministry of Health asked whether there were other products that should be regulated as consumer products at the same time as e-cigarettes. A number of submitters thought that there were and named a wide range of potential products. More recently, the Ministry of Health held targeted discussions on the regulation of smokeless tobacco and nicotine-delivery products with tobacco sector stakeholders including health sector agency staff, academics, the tobacco companies which have a presence in New Zealand, and a number of vape retailers. Views varied widely. Process for providing authorisation to market A few stakeholders, including academics and two tobacco companies, thought that no smokeless tobacco product should ever be regulated as a consumer product and that New Zealand should maintain its existing prohibitions. However, most of these stakeholders were open to regulating nicotine-delivery products as consumer products. Most stakeholders seemed to favour a pathway on pre-market approval. Some of those favouring a pre-market approval process noted that their rationale for this preference is that it is better to set the regulatory bar higher in the first instance as it is easier to relax overall requirements than to strengthen them once products are on the market. One tobacco company preferred a notification/self-certification process as it considered the US pre-market approval process was too strict. There was a strong view by academics and the health sector in particular that there should be processes in place to ensure that evidence on the risks and benefits of products was independently assessed (eg, independent advisory committees). Some stakeholders were particularly concerned about independent assessment if a notification/self-certification system was adopted. Some considered that provisions should be made for approving classes of products in some cases (eg, for products that have been used for decades with well-known risks and benefit, such as snus). Many stakeholders suggested that it may not be worth considering legalising existing smokeless tobacco products, as newer products are cleaner and more likely to be used in New Zealand. In particular, some academics and a couple of tobacco companies suggested that oral tobacco products, such as snus, should not enter the New Zealand market as there is no market for them.
ris-regulation-smokeless-tobacco-and-nicotine-delivery-products.docx