Talk:Heated tobacco product

A few minor changes

Hi All,

As I mentioned the other day, I'd like to suggest some corrections to this article:

In the 2nd to last paragraph (“The application was rejected in January 2018”): to clarify the chronology, PMI submitted an application, the FDA is reviewing it, a Panel (TPSAC) made nonbinding recommendations, FDA is still reviewing (no ruling yet). The whole process is here and the page clearly indicates that the IQOS application is still ongoing. I think it makes sense to edit that part of the paragraph to something like the following:

A committee appointed by the FDA reviewed PMI’s application in January 2018. (existing ref 51) It recommended against accepting two of the three claims sought by PMI and “expressed concerns about the lack of data” on risk relative to cigarettes.(existing ref 50) The committee voted in favor of the claim that IQOS reduced users’ exposure to harmful chemicals. (existing ref 51) The FDA’s review of the application is still ongoing. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids criticized the product, saying "The iQOS looks suspiciously similar to the most popular e-cigarettes among children."(existing ref 51) However, most of the speakers advocated for the committee to submit a positive recommendation.(existing ref 51)

The other point that I think could be updated is to use a word other than “smoke” when talking about the aerosol of HNB products. I get that this is a way that some news articles are speaking about this category, but as I understand it, this language is based on one research publication (see reference 51, where the authors discuss), but that paper was heavily criticized by the FDA back in January (reference here, see pages 13 and 14: “There are significant analytical issues”). In fact, this is the same publication that serves as the reference for IQOS meaning “I-Quit-Ordinary-Smoking” (first paragraph), when in fact it’s just a brand name and not an acronym at all: PMI specifically mentions that point in its FAQ here. You may want to remove that part from the first sentence and correct instances of iQOS with IQOS (upper case i).

Rather than smoke, I suggest using the more accurate term “aerosol” throughout for heated tobacco products, and reserving “smoke” for cigarettes. See for example here

Also, I saw references 8 and 45 are to the same publication, just one is a PDF and the other is the HTML version. Thanks! Sarah at PMI (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I reverted the copyright violation I think the edit history needs to be deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

What exactly was the copyright violation that you are talking about? And why do you think it is so bad that not only did you revert another users text, but also ask for it to be redacted from history??? --Kim D. Petersen 20:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

He is upset because some of the content in Diff of Talk:Heat-not-burn tobacco product was copied from User:QuackGuru/Nicotine 1 without his permission or the legally-required attribution. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

My apologies for the misunderstanding, thank you for deleting my change if it is in fact in violation. The context for this issue is here: I had made the request that is currently visible for changes to the Heat-not-burn tobacco product page, and QuackGuru invited me to comment/discuss regarding his draft page. When the specific changes we were working on together were settled, he asked me not to point to his draft nor our discussion of it, and I agreed. He also told me that he was not willing to make the changes we had just discussed to the Heat-not-burn tobacco product page, but I could try to have someone else make the changes. Based on how our discussion ended, I believed that I was ok to post the pieces we had worked on together and request they be added to the Heat-not-burn Tobacco Products article. I am continuing to learn and I appreciate your patience and feedback. Cheers, Sarah at PMI (talk) 09:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Specific Changes Requested

Hi all,
I am following up on my previous change request to include more specific changes that should work as direct copy and paste if no changes to my proposed text are needed. Diannaa or KimDabelsteinPetersen, would either of you be interested in reviewing and possibly implementing these changes? They are similar (but not copied) from what QuackGuru and I had originally agreed on:

• Throughout this article, the term "smoke" should be changed to "aerosol" or "emissions" when referring to the material produced by heat-not-burn tobacco products and inhaled by the user. The products do not burn tobacco, and thus do not produce smoke but instead produce an aerosol. Also, the following change will introduce a more authoritative source for what is produced by these products:

Current text: The resulting smoke contains nicotine and other chemicals.
Proposed text: The resulting aerosol contains nicotine and other chemicals that are inhaled through the mouth by the user.

• In the beginning of the section on iQOS, I recommend removing the (I-Quit-Ordinary-Smoking) acronym from the first sentence, because it is not an official acronym according to the FAQ on PMI.com: https://www.pmi.com/faq-section/faq/does-iqos-have-a-specific-meaning.

Current text: The introduction of iQOS (I-Quit-Ordinary-Smoking) was announced on 26 June 2014.
Proposed text: The introduction of iQOS was announced on 26 June 2014. The Express Tribune reported some have stated iQOS stands for "I quit ordinary smoking."

• In the same section, the paragraph beginning with "One independent study…" Should add a sentence to the end of this paragraph:

Proposed text: In a January 2018 document, the US FDA stated that "There are significant analytical issues in the Auer et al. study, such as lack of testing reference samples, low number of replicates, lack of selectivity on some analytical methods."

• In the same section, the paragraph beginning with "The application was rejected…" is incorrect. First, the FDA has not rejected the application and is still reviewing it. Second, the quote from the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is not a direct quote from the Campaign's speaker, it's a direct quote of NPR's paraphrasing. I recommend revising this paragraph the following way:

Current text: The application was rejected in January 2018; the FDA ruled that Phillip Morris had not shown that their product cut risks; the panel also "expressed concerns about the lack of data" on risk relative to cigarettes. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids criticized it, saying "The iQOS looks suspiciously similar to the most popular e-cigarettes among children".
Proposed text: The Tobacco Product Scientific Advisory Committee, an advisory panel appointed by the US FDA, reviewed Philip Morris International’s application in January 2018. NPR quoted Matthew Myers, representing the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, who told the US FDA advisory panel that iQOS "is high-tech. It is sleek. It is designed in exactly the way that would appeal to young people." NPR also reported that most of the speakers at the meeting recommended that the committee vote in favor of approving the application. The committee voted 8-1 in favor of the claim that iQOS significantly reduces the body's exposure to harmful chemicals. On the question of whether Philip Morris International demonstrated that the product reduces the risks of diseases associated with tobacco use, the panel voted 8 against and one abstention. The panel also voted against Philip Morris International's claim that switching to iQOS is less harmful than continuing to smoke cigarettes, with a vote of 4-5. The panel also "expressed concerns about the lack of data" on risk relative to cigarettes. The US FDA is reviewing Phillip Morris International's data, the US FDA's own laboratory testing data, other scientific information, and comments submitted by the public. Philip Morris International's application is still under review to be considered a modified risk tobacco product.

• Reference names "AuerConcha-Lozano2017" and "renamed_smoke" are the same research publication (Auer et al, 2017), and should be merged into one reference. I recommend to use "AuerConcha-Lozano2017" as I included in this request because the DOI links to the open-access publication at the website, where the PDF can also be freely downloaded.

Thanks! Sarah at PMI (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC) ---