By Justin Leventhal, American Consumer Institute
The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) first authorization of fruit-flavored vapes should have marked the beginning of a real change. One that gives adult legal access to lower-risk flavored alternatives to cigarettes. Instead, the FDA paired that approval with invasive biometric monitoring. The biggest obstacle standing between smokers and the products to help them quit is the FDA’s misguided view that flavored vapes are uniquely dangerous.
Despite a large and growing body of research showing that vaping is far less harmful than smoking combustible cigarettes, federal policy treats vapes—especially flavored vapes—as categorically suspect while approving more than 100 new cigarettes each year. The FDA’s recent decision to authorize two fruit flavored Glas products, should have opened the door to a more rational system, but instead, the agency undercuts that progress with extreme, paternalistic, and invasive restrictions, including smartphone pairing and recurring identity checks.
Rather than the traditional age verification system for tobacco products which happens at the point of purchase, the FDA instead chose a pathway that monitors consumers after purchase. Glas users must pair the device with a smartphone over Bluetooth, keep the device connected to the phone for it to function, and periodically submit a photo to prove who is using the device. That turns a simple retail transaction into ongoing monitoring of adults who just want a lower-risk alternative to cigarettes. Ongoing biometric monitoring and device locks punish lawful adult consumers by making safer products more invasive, less convenient, and less attractive than the cigarettes they are trying to replace.
The FDA has authorized 45 e-cigarette products, and the Glas authorization marks the first time fruit-flavored products have made it through the federal process. Approving any fruit-flavored vapes is a step in the right direction for an agency that has spent years discounting evidence that non-tobacco-flavored vapes can help smokers switch away from cigarettesmore effectively than tobacco flavored ones. However, the FDA is still far from the goal of permitting a functioning market. The FDA is moving from de facto prohibition toward conditional tolerance while leaving most adult-preferred products trapped in regulatory limbo and demanding personal biometric data in exchange for that for that limited access.
Nicotine policy should distinguish between dangerous combustible tobacco and noncombustible alternatives. The central problem is not that vaping is risk-free; it is not. The problem is that the government often treats less harmful alternatives as more suspicious than the cigarettes adult smokers are trying to leave behind. Public health policy should not make the deadliest nicotine product the easiest one to buy. Yet, the FDA still approves new cigarette products while inventing new restrictions, including biometric monitoring, for harm-reduction products like vapes.
The FDA’s rationale, protecting children from nicotine, isn’t served by its actions. Children should not be able to buy nicotine products of any kind, but making adult products absurdly invasive will not prevent youth access. Education, enforcement against illegal sales, and the broader public turn against smoking are more effective tools. Youth e-cigarette use fell to itslowest level in a decade in 2024, down from 2.1 to 1.6 million middle and high school students reporting current use.
That does not justify ignoring youth risk. It means policymakers should stop pretending the only way to protect minors is to deny adult smokers legal access to alternatives. The proper response is age verification at the point of sale, meaningful penalties for retailers who sell to minors, and consistent product-safety standards for all applicants regardless of flavor. It is not surveillance-style monitoring of adults who are trying to stop smoking.
The FDA has spent years moving too slowly on technologies that reduce tobacco harm. While regulators tried to dictate which products adults should be allowed to use, the illegal market grew by serving what smokers actually wanted. A black market is not a public-health strategy. It is what happens when regulators mistake scarcity for safety.
Justin Leventhal is a senior policy analyst for the American Consumer Institute, a nonprofit education and research organization. For more information about the Institute, visitwww.TheAmericanConsumer.Org or followon X @ConsumerPal.
