WHO seeks to push for clinical testing of PG at Big Smoke's expense

[dc2k08]

Document recommends tests over period of five years and to also include nicotine, amonia, glycerol and others.


In this document they also seek to ban pretty much all mention of any tobacco product anywhere.
Broken down Key excerpts of document at E-cig News


Full list of current FCTC WHO NOV 2008 documents to be updated daily.

[MagusSteele]

Very HArsh

There is no way companies are going to give up most of that information, IF they even have it.
I dont know about in Europe but over here, that whole report is unrealistic.
Regulate product placement in things such as Movies? Yea right, no way.

[dc2k08]

i would hate to either work or have shares in the tobacco industry and read that. the amount of money they would have to spend to implement it all would make only the bravest of fools want to not jump ship. It would be an extra spear in their side if electronic cigarettes got to ride piggy-back.

[jpc815]

i would hate to either work or have shares in the tobacco industry and read that. the amount of money they would have to spend to implement it all would make only the bravest of fools want to not jump ship. It would be an extra spear in their side if electronic cigarettes got to ride piggy-back.

But since they do have tobacco and access to nicotine it would be to their benefit to produce. test and sell quality e-juice. Since smoking of tobacco has been banned they are bound to be losing money and it would make sense for them to get involved. Of course we probably would not be able to afford it if they did!

[dc2k08]

i dont get it either jpc, it seems too that apart from Philip Morris' failed electronic smoking system called the accord, they also had developed a very secretive inhaler that could deliver a nicotine mist deep into the lungs, using the nicotine extracted from his crop. This never saw the light of day and the article below speculates on few possible reasons.

The Mystery of Philip Morris' Nicotine Inhaler - Los Angeles Times

They might have had similar motives to GM in the case of its electric car, but ultimately these motives might contribute to their undoing.

Axing the EV1 electric-car program and not putting the right resources into hybrids. It didn't affect profitability, but it did affect image.

GM CEO admits killing electric car was a blunder

[TropicalBob]

Surely no major industry in the history of the civilized world has faced anything as severe as these proposals. Basically, WHO is telling Big Tobacco to commission and pay for expensive studies that will be used against them to undermine their product sales, without allowing the study results to be used to defend litigation against them. Furether, the documents effectively ban this business from doing business -- and place unconstitutional limits on free speech and free press.

The bottom line is "if we can't make tobacco use illegal, we'll make tobacco products invisible and difficult to obtain." That's one step from prohibition. Fortunately, the U.S. doesn't seem to have signed on to this narrow-minded madness.

But do note this phrase buried in the report. At first, you'll think WHO wants to ban candy cigarettes, bubble gum cigars and chocolate sticks, but look closely and you'll see legal language that could apply to electronic smoking devices as presently sold.

There would be a ban on:

Production and distribution of items such as sweets and toys or other products that resemble cigarettes or other tobacco products.

That's us, folks. E-cigs, e-cigars, e-pipes. If these proposals are adopted and countries put them into effect, the legal grounds to ban e-smoking devices will be in place. That means devices, not just our questionable liquids.

This kind of nonsense makes me so mad that I want to go back to smoking cigarettes, just to spite them. But how can I lash back at WHO, when the only one paying a penalty for smoking would be me? Grrrrr.

[TropicalBob]

DC, that story on Philip Morris is fascinating and has information I've not read before. PM could have given us e-cigs in 1994! How many lives ....?

I was drawn to two paragraphs that apply to us:

Unlike cigarettes, which are not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, a tobacco-free nicotine product would face a long and costly government review, with uncertain results.

That's what our Chinese gizmos face -- and it won't be pretty.

and:

Now, Chrysalis Technologies Inc., a tiny Philip Morris subsidiary, is trying to sell the inhaler as an alternative to injections for a variety of medications, including pain remedies and treatments for emphysema, a disease caused by smoking.

Haven't we been suggesting that almost from the beginning of e-smoking? These are fabulous devices we have in our hands, and satisfying nicotine addiction is only one application for this technology. Think of them as personal vaporizers for delivery of chemicals and you can see where these could take us.

[PeteMcArthur]

That can be worked around TB. Does the SD look like a cigarette? The fuzzy Janty images show something even less cigarette like. Make it look like a cell phone!

[dc2k08]

Production and distribution of items such as sweets and toys or other products that resemble cigarettes or other tobacco products.

you're right bob, i over-looked that quote. it definitely includes the electronic cigarette especially as they come in such a wide range of exciting flavours. the angle will be that, this will tempt children to an addiction. they might not be happy until the only flavour available is "none". but then we could and do add our own flavours easily.

electronic cigarettes' one hope is that extensive mandatory tests paid for by the tobacco industry and over-seen by WHO will show that nicotine, pg, glycerol and what-ever else is in e-liquid to be safe for consumption. the boon for electronic cigarette manufacturers is that they might not even have to reach into their own pockets to pay for any study themselves as long as all the ingredients are also in cigarettes.

as the document shows and as we knew already pg and glycerol are added to act as humectants in tobacco. if they played their cards right, they might be in a position for a free ride all the way, but i doubt the cigarette companies would be too pleased and would probably start kicking the dirt.

That's why i just dont understand why philip Morris or any of the others is yet to go electric. I wonder what patent they have listed if any for that secretive nicotine inhaler. With all of these new WHO recommendations, the market will be geared towards getting people off tobacco and not to continue the habit much as they would like it to be. any of them could instantly wipe the rest of the electronic cigarette competitors off the map with their wide distribution network and brighten their brand-image at the same time.

i think cigarettes will be a novelty within my life-time, a momento of the olden days sold only in curiosity shops. its time for them to adapt before the electronic cigarette companies take it from under them.

[dc2k08]

i have just listened to a webcast the Chief Executive Officer of Philip Morris made to investors today. it was followed by a question and answer session. Not one mention of electronic cigarettes throughout. their main point of concern being how to position themselves in new markets such as russia, china and africa. nor was there a mention of the WHO FCTC meetings and how their recommendations might direct their marketing. they must be aware of these meetings and if i was an investor, i would be following them closely. but they just dont seem phased. i have to wonder if they know something i dont.

transcript without question and answer session here