A few days ago, the company Juul Labs appeared before Congress in order to explain himself on the "epidemic" that she would have caused with his e-cigarette. In trouble, the head of Juul Labs, James Monsees tried to explain that his company never intended to reach young people with the Juul e-cigarette.
FOR JAMES MONSEES, " JUUL IS NOT BIG TOBACCO«
It's hard to imagine an economic monster like Juul Labs struggling before the US Congress, and yet ... While lawmakers accuse the company of fueling the enthusiasm of high school students, James Monseesthe leader of Juul Labs had a hard time defending himself.
During this congressional session, co-founder James Monsees said his company never wanted e-cigarettes to be adopted by minors. According to him, Juul Labs had developed its vaping device and capsules for adult smokers who wanted to quit smoking. However, he acknowledged statistics showing “ a significant number of underage Americans who use e-cigarettes, including Juul products"
« We never intended to copy Marlboro "- James Monsees
«Juul Labs is not Big TobaccoMonsees told members of a subcommittee of the House, adding that " fight against the use of minors Was the number one priority of the company.
This hearing was a turning point for Juul Labs as it is the first time the company has found itself called before Congress, despite increased scrutiny from parents, politicians and public health advocates.
180 DOCUMENTS TO ATTEMPT TO BREAK IN JUUL LABS!
Drawing on more than 180 documents gathered from the company, House Democrats asked James Monsees about the early ads and marketing that they say led to 
American teenage vaping "epidemic".
«We must trace the origins that led to this epidemicSaid the Illinois representative, Raja Krishnamoorthi, who chairs the Economic Subcommittee of the House Oversight and Reform Committee.
The Democrat has convened two hearings this week after launching an investigation last month on Juul's business, technology and business practices.
Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi asked James Monsees about the similarities between the design of the original “Juul” device and the packaging of “Marlboro” cigarettes. He cited the minutes of a Juul board meeting in 2016 that mentioned a deal with Philip Morris International to remove the triangular and diamond shapes of the Juul mark.
« We never intended to copy Marlboro“Said Monsees,“ The last thing we wanted was to confuse ourselves with a big tobacco company.". Hard to believe when you know that last year Altria, the parent company of the Marlboro manufacturer Philip Morris USA, bought 35% of the capital of Juul.
During his testimony, James Monsees recalled some previous moves by Juul, including shutting down Facebook and Instagram pages and removing some flavored pods from multiple stores to prevent buying by teenagers.
The Juul leader said he understood the negative study of his company, but assured lawmakers that Juul's goal was "to eliminate cigarettes for good».
«It's an industry that has done badly for a very long timeSaid Monsees. "We are changing this from the ground up with products from people who are willing to innovate and a company committed to 100% to change the fabric of this market. »
QUICK ANTI-VAPE PROGRAMS IN SCHOOLS?
Later in the hearing, lawmakers questioned Juul's CEO, Ashley Gould, about documents that Juul offered $ 10 to some schools for anti-vaping educational programs. According to her, Juul only funded programs for 000 schools, which stopped in 6 after learning that tobacco companies were funding similar tobacco control programs decades ago.
In a video broadcast by our colleagues from CNN, however, we hear two young people explain that people Juul society intervened during classes explaining that " the device was totally healthy". According to them, the professor would have asked the speakers to leave as soon as possible.
Last Wednesday, Robert Jackler, a professor at Stanford University and a tobacco advertising specialist, testified that Juul's early promotions had imitated the tactics invented by cigarette manufacturers. According to Professor Jacklet, James Monsees, a Stanford alumnus, had personally attributed Juul's promotion mode of operation to the professor's research on tobacco advertising at a meeting last year.
In self-defense, James Monsees told lawmakers the comment was misinterpreted. He specifies that Juul had learned from the “bad actions” of these companies to “not do” the same type of advertising as that presented for tobacco by Professor Jackler.
Katie Hill, a committee member, said internal documents proved the company at one point attempted to aggressively use social media to market its products, potentially passing through hundreds of influencers. According to Katie Hill, influencers are social media users who have many followers online and established credibility with their audience. She added that the company had nevertheless told the subcommittee before the hearing that it used influencers sparingly.
James Monsees said he was unaware of the contracts she cited and told the committee member that the company had tried "a number of different things».
