Leonard W Interviewed On YouTube By Big Apple Pipes

[TheIronMonkey]

@leonardw

Your engagement with the community has been much appreciated. Thank you.

Something that hasn’t been touched on in-depth in any of your interviews has been the Sutliff blends that have not survived the culling; you mentioned that adjustments might be made over the next couple years and that blends could be brought back. My question is this:

If a good number of these Sutliff blends don’t get brought back to life in the next few years, are they destined to languish in obscurity, or is it possible that the intellectual properties for these blends could be sold off, auctioned, or licensed to other companies and brought back to market?

I imagine this is unlikely because this would create competition for STG (unless a licensing percentage made it a worthwhile thing to do). It just seems criminal that so many Sutliff blends are destined to be nothing but a memory.

 

[Mike N]

*** In 2023 The Cigar Association of America, along with other cigar lobbying groups, successfully sued the FDA to prevent them from regulating cigars.

At the Pipe Tobacco Council, we weren't as successful, but we did convince the FDA to not make pipe tobacco part of a proposed flavor ban.

I’m no expert on the FDA, and I’m not sure if the Pipe Council had the same financial muscle as the Cigar Association to fight the regulatory issue, but those conflicting results seem questionable. Cigars and pipe tobacco are arguably functionally similar.

This from a medical products decision (Bracco) after very cursory research:

“What the FDA is not free to do, however, is to treat [similar products] dissimilarly and to permit two sets of similar products to run down two separate tracks, one more treacherous than the other, for no apparent reason. ***The disparate treatment of functionally indistinguishable products is the essence of the meaning of arbitrary and capricious. See Independent Petroleum Assoc. of America v. Babbitt, 92 F.3d at 1260; Doubleday Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 655 F.2d at 423. Plaintiffs therefore are likely to succeed on this argument as a matter of law.”

 

[TriedPiper]

“What the FDA is not free to do, however, is to treat [similar products] dissimilarly and to permit two sets of similar products to run down two separate tracks, one more treacherous than the other, for no apparent reason. ***The disparate treatment of functionally indistinguishable products is the essence of the meaning of arbitrary and capricious. See Independent Petroleum Assoc. of America v. Babbitt, 92 F.3d at 1260; Doubleday Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 655 F.2d at 423. Plaintiffs therefore are likely to succeed on this argument as a matter of law.”

Quoting Case Law - That is awesome! Thanks!

 

[Zamora]

In 2009 the FDA started regulating cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. At that time, they said that if a product was on the market prior to February of 2007, it could remain on the market. This is called Grandfather status. To receive Grandfather status, a company has to provide evidence (an invoice typically) showing that the product was sold in February 2007. The company also signs an affidavit stating that no changes of any kind have been made to the product.

At any time, the FDA can go to a manufacturer and request proof that not changes have been made to the product, in terms of ingredients, packaging materials and size. The company would have to provide a full list of ingredients from 2007, along with a list of the vendors they purchased the ingredients from. They would also have to provide the full list of ingredients and vendors for the product currently in production.

If you made ANY changes to the product it would be considered a new tobacco product, and you could not sell it without FDA approval. One way to get FDA approval is Pre-market tobacco application (PMTA). Completing that application would cost millions of dollars and take several years. It's basically like trying to get a drug approved, including clinical testing.

Alternatively you can submit a Substantial Equivalence application (SE). There you are saying that no Product A was not sold in February of 2007, but it is the same as Product B, which was sold then. What makes a product Substantially Equivalent is not firmly defined. This essentially provides the FDA the ability to reject a product for any reason or no reason.

In 2016 they finalized the rules to regulate pipe tobacco and cigars. Those rules went into effect in 2018. But they did not change the grandfather date. They kept the same February 2007 date from the cigarette rules.

In 2023 The Cigar Association of America, along with other cigar lobbying groups, successfully sued the FDA to prevent them from regulating cigars.

At the Pipe Tobacco Council, we weren't as successful, but we did convince the FDA to not make pipe tobacco part of a proposed flavor ban.
View attachment 365898

Thank you for your advocacy work with PTC. I don't understand what they sought to accomplish with that arbitrary cut off date, it really seems like they just love bullying the cigar and pipe tobacco industries. It's just asinine, it would be like if they decided no new beers or sodas after February 2007.

 

[Zamora]

I’m no expert on the FDA, and I’m not sure if the Pipe Council had the same financial muscle as the Cigar Association to fight the regulatory issue, but those conflicting results seem questionable. Cigars and pipe tobacco are arguably functionally similar.

This from a medical products decision (Bracco) after very cursory research:

“What the FDA is not free to do, however, is to treat [similar products] dissimilarly and to permit two sets of similar products to run down two separate tracks, one more treacherous than the other, for no apparent reason. ***The disparate treatment of functionally indistinguishable products is the essence of the meaning of arbitrary and capricious. See Independent Petroleum Assoc. of America v. Babbitt, 92 F.3d at 1260; Doubleday Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 655 F.2d at 423. Plaintiffs therefore are likely to succeed on this argument as a matter of law.”

Pretty sure the PTC is nowhere as strong as CRA, the industry is much smaller so it stands to reason that the advocacy isn't as strong. I'm glad we have a PTC and CRA, though I do wish the CRA would do more for the pipe tobacco industry since the causes are connected.

 

[Yambo]

In 2009 the FDA started regulating cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. At that time, they said that if a product was on the market prior to February of 2007, it could remain on the market. This is called Grandfather status. To receive Grandfather status, a company has to provide evidence (an invoice typically) showing that the product was sold in February 2007. The company also signs an affidavit stating that no changes of any kind have been made to the product.

At any time, the FDA can go to a manufacturer and request proof that not changes have been made to the product, in terms of ingredients, packaging materials and size. The company would have to provide a full list of ingredients from 2007, along with a list of the vendors they purchased the ingredients from. They would also have to provide the full list of ingredients and vendors for the product currently in production.

If you made ANY changes to the product it would be considered a new tobacco product, and you could not sell it without FDA approval. One way to get FDA approval is Pre-market tobacco application (PMTA). Completing that application would cost millions of dollars and take several years. It's basically like trying to get a drug approved, including clinical testing.

Alternatively you can submit a Substantial Equivalence application (SE). There you are saying that no Product A was not sold in February of 2007, but it is the same as Product B, which was sold then. What makes a product Substantially Equivalent is not firmly defined. This essentially provides the FDA the ability to reject a product for any reason or no reason.

In 2016 they finalized the rules to regulate pipe tobacco and cigars. Those rules went into effect in 2018. But they did not change the grandfather date. They kept the same February 2007 date from the cigarette rules.

In 2023 The Cigar Association of America, along with other cigar lobbying groups, successfully sued the FDA to prevent them from regulating cigars.

At the Pipe Tobacco Council, we weren't as successful, but we did convince the FDA to not make pipe tobacco part of a proposed flavor ban.
View attachment 365898

Thanks, Leonard, really!

 

[Snook]

Mac Baren Mixture Scottish Blend, since apparently it's wildly popular but I've strangely never had it before.

I sampled it with an order back in November when all this started. I enjoyed it so much that I stocked up on 2 pounds. I'd definitely recommend trying it!

 

[Zamora]

I sampled it with an order back in November when all this started. I enjoyed it so much that I stocked up on 2 pounds. I'd definitely recommend trying it!

I love it. I got two oz of bulk which should last me a while, I'll definitely get more when I smoke that up

 

[metalheadycigarguy]

I thought it was a very good interview. I appreciate @leonardw for participating on the forum as well as doing the interview to share what he can and explain the situation. It's very rare to have an employee engage consumers in such a way, after a business makes a business decision, to try to educate people on why certain decisions were made instead of just giving a canned response of, it was a business decision.

I genuinely felt that leonardw hated the fact that he was the guy that had to make a decision on all 988 blends, but from a business standpoint, I completely agree that it's not a good business model for STG to keep all those blends. Just like he said it's "shitty."

Now, like Big Apple Pipes said towards the end of the interview, leonardw, please bring back Sutliff 515RC-1.

 

[Zamora]

I thought it was a very good interview. I appreciate @leonardw for participating on the forum as well as doing the interview to share what he can and explain the situation. It's very rare to have an employee engage consumers in such a way, after a business makes a business decision, to try to educate people on why certain decisions were made instead of just giving a canned response of, it was a business decision.

I genuinely felt that leonardw hated the fact that he was the guy that had to make a decision on all 988 blends, but from a business standpoint, I completely agree that it's not a good business model for STG to keep all those blends. Just like he said it's "shitty."

Now, like Big Apple Pipes said towards the end of the interview, leonardw, please bring back Sutliff 515RC-1.

Yeah he easily could've done the classic "this wasn't an easy decision to make"

 

[mingc]

Yeah he easily could've done the classic "this wasn't an easy decision to make"

Actually, he did say that. And I wasn't convinced. It was all based on profits. Seems to me it couldn't have been easier! In his defense, somebody had to do it.

 

[Zamora]

Actually, he did say that. And I wasn't convinced. It was all based on profits. Seems to me it couldn't have been easier! In his defense, somebody had to do it.

Personally I would've suggested selling Sutliff, as it is they really wanted to buy Mac Baren and Sutliff was collateral damage. Mac Baren had bought Sutliff from Altadis so it's not like that would've been without precedent. However I would never buy something just to eliminate competition so I wouldn't have approved of the purchase in the first place.

 

[mingc]

Personally I would've suggested selling Sutliff, as it is they really wanted to buy Mac Baren and Sutliff was collateral damage. Mac Baren had bought Sutliff from Altadis so it's not like that would've been without precedent. However I would never buy something just to eliminate competition so I wouldn't have approved of the purchase in the first place.

Just because they're discontinuing SKUs doesn't mean Sutliff can no longer be sold. Go for it. Make an offer!

 

[Zamora]

Just because they're discontinuing SKUs doesn't mean Sutliff can no longer be sold. Go for it. Make an offer!

 

[romaso]

In 2009 the FDA started regulating cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. At that time, they said that if a product was on the market prior to February of 2007, it could remain on the market. This is called Grandfather status. To receive Grandfather status, a company has to provide evidence (an invoice typically) showing that the product was sold in February 2007. The company also signs an affidavit stating that no changes of any kind have been made to the product.

At any time, the FDA can go to a manufacturer and request proof that not changes have been made to the product, in terms of ingredients, packaging materials and size. The company would have to provide a full list of ingredients from 2007, along with a list of the vendors they purchased the ingredients from. They would also have to provide the full list of ingredients and vendors for the product currently in production.

If you made ANY changes to the product it would be considered a new tobacco product, and you could not sell it without FDA approval. One way to get FDA approval is Pre-market tobacco application (PMTA). Completing that application would cost millions of dollars and take several years. It's basically like trying to get a drug approved, including clinical testing.

Alternatively you can submit a Substantial Equivalence application (SE). There you are saying that no Product A was not sold in February of 2007, but it is the same as Product B, which was sold then. What makes a product Substantially Equivalent is not firmly defined. This essentially provides the FDA the ability to reject a product for any reason or no reason.

In 2016 they finalized the rules to regulate pipe tobacco and cigars. Those rules went into effect in 2018. But they did not change the grandfather date. They kept the same February 2007 date from the cigarette rules.

In 2023 The Cigar Association of America, along with other cigar lobbying groups, successfully sued the FDA to prevent them from regulating cigars.

At the Pipe Tobacco Council, we weren't as successful, but we did convince the FDA to not make pipe tobacco part of a proposed flavor ban.
View attachment 365898

I trust you were wearing your Captain Black belt buckle with the suit. Thanks for the info and also for all you do for pipes!