I oppose this. I think it could have the same hazards as those brought up on the last amendment.
We have a long record of the tobacco industry promoting certain products as less harmful when there's been no evidence of that. Given the difficulty in clawing something back once you approve it, if anything is coming out and making the claim that it's less harmful or relatively less harmful, I think there should be sufficient time to review it through another legislative cycle. I think the clause as written protects the public from being deceived that certain types of tobacco products are less harmful when in fact they're not.