FDA clears Philip Morris heat-not-burn IQOS tobacco device for sale

FDA clears Philip Morris’s heat-not-burn IQOS tobacco device for sale

Follow the Money:

On Tuesday, April 30, 2019, the FDA approved Philip Morris’s premarket tobacco product application for its heat-not-burn iQOS device in the U.S.

The FDA, in announcing the decision, said the marketing of the devices is “appropriate” for public health because “the products produce fewer or lower levels of some toxins than combustible cigarettes.”

“The F.D.A.’s decision to authorize IQOS in the U.S. is an important step forward for the approximately 40 million American men and women who smoke,” said André Calantzopoulos, the chief executive of Philip Morris International. “Some will quit. Most won’t, and for them IQOS offers a smoke-free alternative to continued smoking.”

(from the FDA press release) "Following a rigorous science-based review through the premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) pathway, the agency determined that authorizing these products for the U.S. market is appropriate for the protection of the public health because, among several key considerations, the products produce fewer or lower levels of some toxins than combustible cigarettes. The products authorized for sale include the IQOS device, Marlboro Heatsticks, Marlboro Smooth Menthol Heatsticks and Marlboro Fresh Menthol Heatsticks.



This is exciting, I’ve always wanted a healthier alternative to smoking!


It’s amazing what you can get the FDA to Green Light when you’ve got money pouring out your butt. :smirk:


I’m sure the kids will be excited, smooth and fresh menthol heatsticks :yum:


Here is an interesting (B.A. Tobacco) information source about the thermo-chemistry of heated tobacco:



It looks like things get pretty darn kinky above 400 *C, considering the chemical by-products depicted. :grimacing:


From April 30, 2019 FDA Press Release: … levels of acrolein and formaldehyde are 89% to 95% and 66% to 91% lower than from combustible cigarettes, respectively.

That is still higher than what I have seen in terms of Acrolein analysis for “typical” vaping. Acrolein is considered to represent as much as 85% of (cardiovascular system) risks of smoking tobacco. Both Acrolein and Formaldehyde are carcinogenic. Acrolein formation is associated with the presence of Glycerol (VG) - which also forms significantly more Formaldehyde than does Propylene Glycol (PG).

The acrolein content in cigarette smoke depends on the type of cigarette and added glycerin making up to 220 µg acrolein per cigarette.
Compare that to virtually no measurable Acrolein produced from VG (for coil/wick temps under 270 *C).


Acrolein was observed only in e-liquids containing Glycerol when reactor temperatures exceeded 270°C. … Glycerol produced much more formaldehyde than PG. … From an online survey of e-cigarette users, Etter et al. estimated the median number of puffs per day to be 175. … the daily exposure to formaldehyde … for an e-cigarette user vaping at 215°C could reach 105-117 μg … According to Counts et al, the estimated formaldehyde in traditional tobacco smoke is up to 52 μg per cigarette or 8-10 puffs.
Regarding Formaldehyde, a (175-puff) day of vaping may be roughly equal to (as little as) two (2) cigarettes.


Twelve carbonyl compounds were measured in vapors from 10 commercially available nicotine solutions and from 3 control solutions composed of pure glycerin, pure propylene glycol, or a mixture of both solvents (50:50). EC battery output voltage was gradually modified from 3.2 to 4.8V. … Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde were found in 8 of 13 samples. The amounts of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde in vapors from lower voltage EC were on average 13-fold and 807-fold lower than in tobacco smoke, respectively.


Raven. forgive the brutal and unfair editing of your sentence above, but I am going to try to make a simple point here. Your first sentence of your Post is about arguing Chemisrty. My first sentence in my OP is about Money’…

My point is simply this: we can argue chemistry until we are blue in the face, and all we are doing is playing into the hands of the power structure in the big pharma-tobacco-corrupt government bureaucracy.

What we need to argue to our representatives in this republic is that the big money corruption gets kicked out of Washington DC. -We also need to make the mass media aware of the conflicts here and demand that they should balance scare reports of the evils to ‘the kids’, with some media attention and time to reporting on the ‘evils of corruption in DC’.

In other words, don’t get lost in the details, look at what the big picture is telling you: * that the system is corrupt.*

That is where we need to focus our full attention.


Not sure why musing about how vaping appears less toxic than the product-line that the FDA has approved specifically impedes abilities to endeavor to “fight their power” ? Was writing for an audience that might be interested in the toxicological differences (between vaping and these new-fangled gadgets). I will, per your thoughts expressed, consider this to be a “political action” thread only. (IMO), to the dustbin of history (along with the DEA) should probably go their nanny-police-state sock-puppets at HHS (FDA and CDC). Ensuring truth in labeling should be their only purview - as opposed to saving competent adults from themselves, or to how such adults choose to parent their children. The “anti-self-misuse” juggernaut is, regrettably, in its prime and only gaining strength. Praise be to the brave warriors who would dream of slaying these Goliaths of Jive.

I wonder where Ginormous Tobacco monetarily slides-in among the following gilded purveyors of iniquities:

Source: https://static5.businessinsider.com/image/59e4e7ebd4e9200c058b5aa0-1200/top-lobbying-industries.png


Actually, I think delving into the chemistry of combustion is a fascinating topic. I must think so, as I spent the better part of my life wandering in that world (industrial explosive manufacturing and chemistry) , but yes for this topic I want to just discuss and delve into the mechanisms, not of chemistry, but of a curious twist of ‘political chemistry’ whereby we gave the responsibility of Public Health to the FDA, and what we got is a money driven corruption scheme that is costing millions of lives.

FYI: @woftam tells me that if you push the right buttons on any REPLY post you can extend your reply to another titled topic as a new related thread. I have never tried that, but you might want to do that. I will be happy to meet you over there and we can take apart the chemistry of oxidation reduction reactions at length. -:grinning:



So, where is the requisite outrage befitting a bona-fide uprising of the Lumpen Proletariat ? Where, I say !

Source: https://media.giphy.com/media/E5E3PqJmfR0C4/giphy.gif

The people demand their right to bear Alkaloids as private property untaxed by the Orange Lizard King ! :stuck_out_tongue:


@50YearsOfCigars @Raven-Knightly I was on the edge of my seat reading Y’alls… " Debate". Good stuff.

@Raven-Knightly you should make another thread like @50YearsOfCigars suggested. Though I am not quite educated enough in that field to understand everything, I still find it fascinating and as I said before, I really like your style of writing.


Already set forth the information that I have found about tobacco distillation, pyrolysis, combustion (in my post above on this thread). (IMO), our friend 50Years is here “fuming” about socio-political power instead. Matters of law (and public policy) being the least straightforward of all human endeavors, mere physical/bio-chemistry pales in comparison. Regarding such relative “intangibles” surrounding moral/ethical averments, juggernauts of specious crap rolling down piles of paternalism seems the only constant. Mutatis mutandis.


British American Tobacco Company has for some reason(s) deleted(?) their document about the molecular fates of various tobacco leaf components when heated to various temperatures. (Perhaps, speculatively) it informs (just a little) too much about the toxicities of their recently FDA-approved heated tobacco product ?

Thank goodness for “Wayback Machine” archiving. Here are archived copies of the referenced docs:



Note: The content of my previous related post (above) has been updated with wayback-archived pages.


Off topic…

I find it fascinating… how flavour art and bat have held hands a bit and snuggled up :wink:
Then again most flavoring companies are behind a few of those giants…


One can almost smell the Tobacco Leaf IQOS fumes at this point - in my own estimation, seemingly more toxic than vaping Nicotine - particularly where it comes to Acrolein levels (~95% of cardio-vascular risks).

Reference Information: (BMJ, 2018): “Heated tobacco products: the example of IQOS

Get your wallets out (for the product, as well as the later medical-bill induced bankruptcy).


I found a pack of what they call HEETS on the street a while back.
They are very small, a total length of 4.5 cm.

No idea what brand they are except foreign.
When you open this thing up there’s a whole cm of what’s supposed to be tobacco? on the inside.


I can’t find a price anywhere but I’m sure they’re not cheap. The smell is also disgusting.


those are the inserts for the iqos, soon to be sold in Atlanta Ga


I know what they are, I just wanted to show what they look like when you break them apart :wink:


weird looking… and yeah no thanks… I caught the chemical list somewhere on fb… not a clue if it has been added here or?? havent really read the whole thread here… just bits and pieces…

@woftam??? maybe you have seen the list of ingredients in it??