Judge Leon strikes again, rules FDA TPSAC had "conflicts of interest", quashes menthol report, orders FDA to reconstitute TPSAC
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17
Like Tree91Likes

Thread: Judge Leon strikes again, rules FDA TPSAC had "conflicts of interest", quashes menthol report, orders FDA to reconstitute TPSAC

  1. #1
    Executive Director
    Smokefree Pennsylvania
    Vaping Advocate
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,125

    Default Judge Leon strikes again, rules FDA TPSAC had "conflicts of interest", quashes menthol report, orders FDA to reconstitute TPSAC

    Judge Richard Leon strikes again, rules FDA TPSAC had "conflicts of interest", quashes menthol report, orders FDA to reconstitute TPSAC
    RICHMOND, Va.: Judge: FDA can't use tobacco panel menthol report | Business | NewsObserver.com

    Looks like Mitch Zeller is now looking for a replacement for Jonathan Samet, who has chaired TPSAC since its creation.

    But don't expect Zeller (who has had even more conflicts of interest than Samet) to appoint any objective researchers or anyone who has acknowledged that e-cigs are far less hazardous than cigarettes, helped more than a millions smokers quit smoking, are consumed almost exclusively by smokers and former smokers (who switched to vaping), and/or that e-cigs aren't addicting nonsmokers.

    Instead, Zeller will appoint someone who will promote Zeller's regulatory agenda and who will follow Zeller's instructions (and who can read really really fast and swiftly evaluate the 100,000+ page MRTP application filed by Swedish Match, and the estimated 25 New Tobacco Product applications for e-cigs if/when FDA issues a Final Rule for its proposed deeming regulation).
    Last edited by Bill Godshall; 07-22-2014 at 04:39 PM.
    Kent C, DC2, pianoguy and 10 others like this.

  2. #2
    Executive Director
    Smokefree Pennsylvania
    Vaping Advocate
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,125

    Default

    Here's Richard Craver's article in the Winston-Salem Journal
    Judge: FDA can

    Of course, Big Pharma funded CTFK's Matt Myers (who has even more Big Pharma conflicts of interests than the 3 TPSAC members) urged FDA to double down yet again by saying the conflicted TPSAC members are "the best scientific minds available", by urging the FDA to appeal Judge Leon's ruling, and by urging FDA to ban menthol (which would result in FDA getting sued yet again, and likely losing yet again).

    Although Zeller would like to ban or sharply limit menthol in cigarettes, I suspect Zeller may not heed Myers' advice (as Lawrence Deyton did on many occassions) because he doesn't want the FDA to keep losing in court.


    As expected, anti-tobacco advocacy groups urged the U.S. Justice Department to appeal Leon’s ruling.

    Matthew Myers, executive director of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said the ruling “would not only deprive the tobacco advisory committee of the best scientific minds available, but could also impact the FDA’s broader ability to carry out its mission and protect public health.”

    Myers urged the FDA to “move forward to ban the sale of menthol cigarettes based on the conclusions of its own, independent scientific review of the public health impact.”
    Last edited by Bill Godshall; 07-22-2014 at 05:05 PM.
    Kent C, faile, sonicdsl and 6 others like this.

  3. #3
    Double Guru Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Kent C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    NW Ohio US
    Posts
    20,312
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default

    I urge everyone to read the whole piece. There's a wealth of information as to 'how things work' here. And there is some 'ammo' for our comment period, wrt to studies being used against ecigs and flavoring. Here's the judge:

    "In his order Monday, Leon said the FDA erred in determining that the members didn't have conflicts of interest and therefore, the agency's appointment of those members was "arbitrary and capricious," and tainted both the panel and its work.

    "Conflicts of interest whether actual or perceived undermine the public's confidence in the agency's decision-making process and render its final product suspect, at best," he wrote."

    As has been pointed out in earlier posts here, Zeller, especially in comments made in the Senate HELP committee (but elsewhere as well), has the earlier 2009 decision in mind (he winces) when coming close to the aspects of that earlier court decision. Imo, he's more afraid of the courts than any pro-ecig senators. When Harkin was being rather pointed on the idea of banning, Zeller 'reminds him' of the court's decision, almost in a way of throwing his hands up in the air - as if that aspect is out of his control..... I'm 'paraphrasing' here but anyone who paid attention should know of what I speak. Again, imo, this is a hot point for Zeller.

    And on the judge's statements, one could call into question, any of the studies made with the $270 million dollars the FDA got for studies along these same lines of 'actual or perceived' conflicts.

    By the same token 'our studies' could come under the same scrutiny.
    DC2, aubergine, faile and 9 others like this.

  4. #4
    Executive Director
    Smokefree Pennsylvania
    Vaping Advocate
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,125

    Default

    For background info, here's an article from 2011 announcing the lawsuit by Lorillard and Reynolds against FDA
    JURIST - Tobacco companies file lawsuit against FDA advisory panel


    Looks like FDA probably won't be appointing anyone to TPSAC who still receives funding from Big Pharma or who has testified as an expert witness against a tobacco company. I suspect the FDA also won't appoint anyone to TPSAC who is receiving FDA funding (as that also is likely to be perceived as a conflict of interest).


    Kent wrote:

    And on the judge's statements, one could call into question, any of the studies made with the $270 million dollars the FDA got for studies along these same lines of 'actual or perceived' conflicts.

    By the same token 'our studies' could come under the same scrutiny.

    Although "one could call into question" any studies on e-cigs (and doing so would help our cause), Judge Leon's ruling on this case won't have any legal, public policy or news media impact on any FDA research except for TPSAC's report on menthol cigarettes.
    Last edited by Bill Godshall; 07-22-2014 at 05:32 PM.
    Kent C, aubergine, LaraC and 4 others like this.

  5. #5
    Ultra Member ECF Veteran DrMA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Seattle area
    Posts
    1,865
    Blog Entries
    16

    Default

    Excellent! I'm glad there are still people in power today who can objectively evaluate and recognize conflicts of interest when it comes to the tobacco field.

    Edit: this is another wonderful opportunity to remind the FDA that it cannot arbitrarily and capriciously deem ecigs as tobacco products, based on biased research, unsupported conjecture, and malicious propaganda from the fatally conflicted tobacco control field.
    Last edited by DrMA; 07-22-2014 at 05:44 PM.
    Kent C, DC2, sonicdsl and 5 others like this.
    The war against vaping continues: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/fda-regulations/
    Get involved: casaa.org

  6. #6
    Double Guru Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Kent C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    NW Ohio US
    Posts
    20,312
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default

    Thanks for posting this, Bill. I think it is a significant development. It is evident how effective the tobacco companies can be with the money they have (from many of us, I might add), and while I don't give them a pass on trying to corner the ecig market, and praising the proposed deeming, but this, imo, helps our cause, if only in pointing out that certain studies are obviously intended for only one purpose - that of the FDA's - not of science and objectivity.

  7. #7
    Executive Director
    Smokefree Pennsylvania
    Vaping Advocate
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,125

    Default

    Since FDA's TPSAC menthol cigarette report misrepresented the scientific evidence (by falsely claiming menthol cigarettes are more addictive, more hazardous and more difficult to quit than nonmenthol cigarettes), and since the TPSAC report dismissed/ignored the potential of a menthol ban creating a huge black market (and only cited one survey citing some menthol smokers saying they might quit smoking if menthol was banned), I'm pleased Judge Leon struck down TPSAC's report on menthol.


    The real irony about menthol cigarettes is that CTFK's Matt Myers negotiated and agreed to the FSPTCA deal with Philip Morris in 2004, which exempted menthol from the FSPTCA's list of banned flavorings (even though menthol accounted for >99% of all flavored cigarettes on the market and smoked by teens).

    Then in 2007, when I convinced Mike Enzi to offer an amendment to the FSPTCA to actually ban menthol cigarettes (and to require graphic warnings covering 50% of cigarette packs), CTFK defended its dirty deal with Philip Morris by falsely accusing Enzi's amendments of being "poison pills" and a "Trojan Horse" to destroy the FSPTCA. While Enzi's graphic warning amendment was approved by the Senate HELP Cmte, the proposed menthol ban was not.

    BTW I never supported the menthol ban proposed by Enzi, but thought it important for the US Senate to consider (especially since CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA, Kennedy, Waxman et al were falsely claiming that the FSPTCA's cigarette flavoring ban was necessary to "protect public health and children from Big Tobacco").

    Only after the FSPTCA was signed into law in 2009 did CTFK's Myers begin calling for FDA to ban menthol cigarettes "to protect the children". Unfortunately, the news media (especially Felberbaum at AP) hasn't exposed any of Matt Myers' hypocrisy since 1997 when Myers endorsed and lobbied for the Global Tobacco Settlement that would have given the cigarette industry immunity from lawsuits.

    Had we not defeated that Global Tobacco Settlement (by defeating Sen. John McCain's bill in the US Senate in 1998), none of the recent string of lawsuit victories by injured smokers against cigarette companies in Florida would have occurred.
    Last edited by Bill Godshall; 07-22-2014 at 06:34 PM.
    Kent C, aubergine, LaraC and 4 others like this.

  8. #8
    Double Guru Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Kent C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    NW Ohio US
    Posts
    20,312
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Godshall View Post


    Although "one could call into question" any studies on e-cigs (and doing so would help our cause), Judge Leon's ruling on this case won't have any legal, public policy or news media impact on any FDA research except for TPSAC's report on menthol cigarettes.
    I fully understand the specificity involved in the decision. It's the wider concept of bias that is shown that could be used for PR purposes in the same way that the anti-ecig studies conflate tobacco and nicotine, flavors and kids, etc. that can be shown to be just as biased and perhaps challenged in court. And I don't mean as just a 'bluff' but perhaps a true challenge using 'legal defense funds' when and if that circumstance arises.
    Jman8, Anjaffm and CabinetGuyScott like this.

  9. #9
    Ultra Member ECF Veteran DrMA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Seattle area
    Posts
    1,865
    Blog Entries
    16

    Default

    If anyone is interested, here is Judge Leon's memorandum opinion in this case (Civil Action No. 2011-0440; LORILLARD INC et al v. UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION et al):

    https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin...?2011cv0440-82
    LaraC, Jman8, aikanae1 and 1 others like this.
    The war against vaping continues: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/fda-regulations/
    Get involved: casaa.org

  10. #10
    PV Master ECF Veteran Jman8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,053
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Godshall View Post
    But don't expect Zeller (who has had even more conflicts of interest than Samet) to appoint any objective researchers or anyone who has acknowledged that e-cigs are far less hazardous than cigarettes, helped more than a millions smokers quit smoking, are consumed almost exclusively by smokers and former smokers (who switched to vaping), and/or that e-cigs aren't addicting nonsmokers.
    Then this would work to our advantage even more than if they went the route of integrity. Would open them, very easily, to same type of ruling if TPSAC tried to conclude things about eCigs that only ANTZ can support, and that independent researchers find, even slightly, different results with.

    I would expect people who claim to be scientific, to follow professional integrity of science, or be called out by scientific bodies (at very least) and possibly by legal authorities if attempting to engage in overreach that impacts the general public.
    Anjaffm likes this.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks