FDA’s flavored smoke-free products rules should protect children and respect adults
by Raquel Mitchell · The Washington TimesOPINION:
Why did the United States allow so many illegal, flavored nicotine products to flood the market?
For years, that has been the real problem: not that a regulated nicotine product might remain available to adults, but that a sprawling illicit market grew with too little enforcement and too little accountability.
Recent Food and Drug Administration guidance did not erase the rules. It sharpened enforcement around the worst actors, including counterfeit products and goods that have not even cleared the basic threshold for scientific review.
That matters because much of the current rhetoric makes it sound as if flavored smoke-free products only recently appeared and are putting young people at risk. In fact, many flavored products have been widely available for years, often through channels that do not reflect anything close to a well-run regulatory system.
If our goal is to protect children, then the first question should not be whether this debate can generate another round of headlines, but rather why so many illegal products were allowed to take hold in the first place.
Treating every flavored smoke-free product the same leads to bad policy. There is a real difference between an illegal product that sidesteps the regulatory process entirely and a product that is subject to scientific review, responsible marketing practices, labeling rules and other controls meant to limit youth access.
Recognizing that difference is not a favor to industry; it is what regulation is supposed to do.
Facts should matter here. According to the 2025 National Youth Tobacco Survey, released by the FDA this March, youth tobacco use has dropped to new lows.
Advertisement Advertisement
This data indicates that vaping has largely declined with tobacco use among American youths, continuing a downward trend. The same goes for youth nicotine pouch use, which remains relatively low.
The FDA’s own surveillance data also suggests the issue is more complicated than the public narrative often implies. Youth tobacco use is at historic lows, and flavored products are not the primary reason young people report trying e-cigarettes.
This does not mean the problem is solved or that we must no longer be vigilant, but it does mean the public debate should be rooted in what is happening in the marketplace, not in rhetoric that treats every smoke-free product the same and ignores the difference between illegal products that appeal to youths and highly regulated products subject to tighter controls.
Policymakers should resist the temptation to talk about flavored nicotine products only in the context of youth use. For many adults who smoke, smoke-free products may be worth considering precisely because they are different from cigarettes.
Switching is not just a matter of willpower. These products involve different rituals, a different feel and often a very different taste. For some adults, flavors can help make that transition possible.
Advertisement Advertisement
That does not justify a free-for-all or excuse irresponsible marketing, but it does require a more honest conversation. A regulatory system that ignores adult preferences and the potential role of smoke-free alternatives in moving people away from combustible cigarettes is unrealistic.
Protecting young people and maintaining a credible regulatory pathway are not opposing goals. In fact, they depend on each other. When regulators fail to control the illegal market, they create the very conditions that make it harder to prevent youth access and to sustain public trust.
The answer is not to lump every product, company and regulatory posture into one simplistic narrative. It is to enact tougher enforcement against illegal actors and clearer rules for the marketplace — and to have a public conversation grounded in evidence instead of panic.
If our goal is to protect youths, then that is where the focus belongs.
Advertisement Advertisement
• Raquel Mitchell is the deputy director of Moms for America Action.