Page 1 of 144 123451151101 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 1434
Like Tree3480Likes

Thread: FDA may soon propose regulation that could ban many/most e-cigarette products, eliminate many/most companies

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

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,647

    Default FDA may soon propose regulation that could ban many/most e-cigarette products, eliminate many/most companies

    It appears that the FDA may soon (perhaps in the next several weeks or months) follow through with the agency's April 25 stated intent (in red below) to propose a regulation that would apply Chapter IX of the FSPTCA to e-cigarette products (that contain nicotine) and other currently unregulated tobacco products, including: small cigars, large cigars, pipe tobacco, hookah/shisha tobacco, dissolvable tobacco/nicotine products (that aren't smokeless tobacco products), nicotine water, tobacco/nicotine skin cream and patches, non electronic nicotine inhalers, tobacco/nicotine nasal sprays, etc.


    April 25, 2011

    Regulation of E-Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products

    The Agency intends to propose a regulation that would extend the Agency’s “tobacco product” authorities in Chapter IX of the FD&C Act, which currently only apply to certain specifically enumerated “tobacco products,” to other categories of tobacco products that meet the statutory definition of “tobacco product” in Section 201(rr) of the Act. The additional tobacco product categories would be subject to general controls, such as registration, product listing, ingredient listing, good manufacturing practice requirements, user fees for certain products, and the adulteration and misbranding provisions, as well as to the premarket review requirements for “new tobacco products” and “modified risk tobacco products.”
    June 16, 2011

    Sens. Merkley, Brown and 10 other Democrats pressure FDA to reverse ruling that Star's Ariva BDL and Stonewall BDL aren't smokeless tobacco products (as defined by FSPTCA), grossly exaggerate health/safety risks of dissolvable tobacco (that now includes nicotine lozenges), falsely claim products are marketed to youth, call them candy.

    New Senator Brown and Senate Colleagues to FDA: It's Time To Close The Door On Tobacco Candy
    http://www.ktvz.com/news/28300863/detail.html (6/16/11 Dem Sens. letter to Margaret Hamburg)


    Although we recognize that FDA has not yet asserted jurisdiction over the full range of tobacco products potentially subject to regulation under the statute, FDA does have authority over smokeless tobacco products. For this reason, we do not understand why Ariva-BDL and Stonewall-BDL should not be categorized as “smokeless tobacco products” and subjected to immediate FDA regulation. We fear that this action will encourage other tobacco companies to introduce new forms of dissolvable tobacco products in an effort to avoid regulation as smokeless tobacco products, an outcome that Congress intended to prevent. Already, another tobacco manufacturer, R.J. Reynolds, recently reintroduced dissolvable, candy-like Camel products, including Sticks, Strips and Orbs, in Charlotte and Denver. Yet another manufacturer, Altria has debuted its “smokeless tobacco stick” and is test marketing it in Kansas. The recent proliferation of dissolvable tobacco products—which can easily end up in the hands of children—in the marketplace, makes FDA’s decision particularly disturbing.
    October 14, 2011

    US Senate Democrats Blumenthal, Lautenberg & Brown urge FDA to "swiftly" expand tobacco regulations, falsely accuse tobacco industry of undermining FSPTCA, urge agency to apply Chapter IX to all cigars, pipe tobacco, hookah/shisha, dissolvables, e-cigarettes and other tobacco products, criticize companies for marketing exponentially less hazardous smokefree alternatives to smokers, grossly misrepresent health risks/benefits and marketing of smokefree products.
    Senators Send Letter to FDA on Other Tobacco Products

    http://www.cspdigitals.com/tobaccoenews/tom-letter.pdf (Oct. 14, 2011 letter to Margaret Hamburg from Sens Lautenberg, Blumenthal, Brown)

    Now, we respectfully request that FDA build on these successes and move swiftly to issue a strong regulation that would legally treat or deem all tobacco products, including cigars, pipe tobacco, and hookah tobacco and accessories, as subject to the Tobacco Control Act. We appreciate FDA's past work to issue this important regulatin. Now we ask that you provide us with an update on the agency's progress and anticipated timeline for completion of this regulation, commonly known as the "deeming" rule. In addition, we would appreciate the opportunity to discuss the specifics of this new rule with you, and would also ask that you respond to this letter with a date indicating your availability for such a meeting.

    On July 13, 2011, Dr. Lawrence Deyton, Director of FDA's Center for Tobacco Products, met with Senators Blumenthal, Sherrod Brown, and Merkley to discuss FDA's regulatory decision around Star Scientific's products Ariva-BDL and Stonewall-BDL, two recently-developed dissolvable tobacco lozenges. In June, FDA deemed both products to be outside the direct regulatory authority afforded the agency under Chapter IX of the FSPTCA, thus requiring FDA to issue an additional regulation in order to assert authority over such products. While we continue to respectfully disagree with this decision, we were encouraged during this meeting to hear of FDA's commitment to swiftly issue such a "deeming" regulation, and were pleased to hear of an anticipated October release.
    November 29, 2011

    Cigars | FDA | Obama Administration | Regulations | The Daily Caller


    Cigar smokers are mad as hell, and they aren’t going to take it anymore. Faced with an unprecedented assault on their guilty pleasure from President Barack Obama’s Food and Drug Administration, aficionados and industry insiders told The Daily Caller that they’re picking up their torch lighters and revolting.

    Usually divided by their preferences for mild, medium and full-bodied smokes, they’re uniting against regulations that threaten to make cigars prohibitively expensive, shut down scores of small cigar shops, jeopardize tens of thousands of jobs and erase the traditionally bright line between Camels and Cohibas.

    Cigar lovers are also recruiting members of Congress to defend what public health activists and anti-cancer crusaders see as little more than gentrified cigarettes smoked by economic one-percenters.

    “Only a couple weeks remain,” one apocalyptic online pitch warns, “to stop the FDA from ruining cigars.” If that seems like a stretch, don’t bother telling Famous Smoke Shop. The e-tailer has sent 1.7 million emails to customers on its mailing lists, asking them to encourage their representatives in Congress to co-sponsor legislation designed to tie the FDA’s hands.

    Cigar industry representatives told TheDC that efforts like this have already generated more than 113,000 messages to Congress.


    It’s no surprise, then, that 125 House members and four senators are on board. They include 26 Democrats, along with six of Congress’ 20 physicians and two of its seven nurses — all strange bedfellows for a pro-tobacco law in the making.
    Sen. Mary Landrieu, a Louisiana Democrat, announced Wednesday that she will join them. Landrieu chairs the Senate Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship, a crucial position from which to influence an issue that affects mostly mom-and-pop retailers.

    Cutting an Exception

    The Traditional Cigar Manufacturing and Small Business Jobs Preservation Act of 2011 arrived in the House in April and the Senate in August. Much of the domestic cigar supply enters the United States in the Sunshine State, and two Florida legislators — Republican Rep. Bill Posey and Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson — are leading the charge.

    The bill’s focus is to carve out an exception for premium cigars in the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, signed into law by President Obama in 2009.

    The Tobacco Control Act (TCA) gave the FDA new authority to regulate tobacco, and the agency has most famously wielded that power by requiring garish photographic warnings this year on cigarette packs. But the law, an FDA spokesperson told The Daily Caller in an email, “also permits FDA to deem other ‘tobacco products’ subject to the TCA’s general controls by regulation.”

    The FDA spokesperson explained that a “proposed rule deeming cigars to be subject to FDA’s jurisdiction” could be “finalized” after a public-comment period expires, giving the agency the authority to regulate “any product that meets the definition of a ‘tobacco product’ under the TCA, including cigars, little cigars, and certain novel nicotine containing products (such as certain electronic cigarettes).”

    The FDA seems to be taking its longer leash seriously. On three occasions since December 2010, the agency has already put the cigar industry on notice that it intends to propose a rule to “deem cigars subject to the Tobacco Control Act.”
    Last edited by Bill Godshall; 12-02-2011 at 02:25 PM.

  2. #2
    Super Member ECF Veteran sqirl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    778

    Default

    when does this public comment period expire? is what they're saying is that after it does, no law can stop them? what can we do about this? if that cigar bill could help can you link to it's popvox so we can support it?
    Last edited by sqirl1; 12-01-2011 at 07:30 PM.
    Antoly and wes434 like this.
    STOP THIS BILL NOW! IT TAXES E-Cigs like ANALOGS! SIGN UP AND VOTE NO! https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/s1403

  3. #3
    Executive Director
    Smokefree Pennsylvania
    Vaping Advocate
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,647

    Default

    The reason I stated that an FDA regulation to apply Chapter IX of the FSPTCA to e-cigarettes could ban many/most e-cigarette products (that contain nicotine) is because Section 910 of the FSPTCA could allow the FDA to ban some/many/most/all e-cigarette products that were not available in the US market before February 15, 2007.

    Under the provisions of Section 910, manufacturers/importers (of all tobacco products that weren't on the market prior to February 15, 2007) would need to submit an application to the FDA claiming that the product is "substantially equivalent" to another product that was already on the market prior to 2/15/2007, and the FDA would have sole discretion of determining whether the product is or isn't substantially equivalent to the other e-cigarette product.

    Also, Section 911 would prohibit all e-cigarette manufacturers and importers from truthfully claiming that e-cigarettes are less hazardous than cigarettes, as such a claim would render the product as a "modified risk tobacco product". Section 911 requires any company desiring to make a MRTP claim to apply to the FDA to do so, and the FDA must approve the application.

    Many other provisions in Chapter IX would basically require every e-cigarette manufacturer and importer to hire a team of lawyers just to comply with the currently pending provisions (as well as comply with regulations approved in the future).
    Last edited by Bill Godshall; 12-02-2011 at 02:29 PM.
    Lisa Belle likes this.

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

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,647

    Default

    In the next few days, I'll be collaborating with CASAA to develop an action alert, sample letters to send to members of Congress, and sample letters to send to newspaper editors.

    If/when the FDA proposes this regulation, we'll also need to generate thousands of public comments to the FDA urging them to reject their proposed regulation, but the agency holds all the cards (and can ignore all of the public comments and simply approve the proposed regulation).

    That is why we need to contact members of Congress (especially Republicans) urging them to oppose this potentially forthcoming power grab by FDA.
    Last edited by Bill Godshall; 12-01-2011 at 07:46 PM.

  5. #5
    Super Member ECF Veteran sqirl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    778

    Default

    how long do you think we got? I think another thing we need is for people to donate so that we can help pay for possible legal fees, I'll be donating some $$ tomorrow when I get paid for sure! damnit this sounds bad! I'm glad we got you on our side, Bill! I'll be sending my congressman a letter pretty soon for sure! I'm getting a shiny new E-cigar tomorrow from my local supplier, they're not taking it from me!
    STOP THIS BILL NOW! IT TAXES E-Cigs like ANALOGS! SIGN UP AND VOTE NO! https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/s1403

  6. #6
    Super Member ECF Veteran sqirl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    778

    Default

    I just sent Rush Limbaugh an e-mail

    Dear Rush,

    I understand you are a vaper (aka, you use E-cigs) well it has come to my attention that the FDA is proposing regulations that could make any tobacco product (aka anything with nicotine other than patches, gum, etc.) subject to their regulations. this could mean most E-cigarette products could be banned under a section of the tobacco control act that require all tobacco products (including e-cigs) not on the market prior to 2007 to be under review until approved as "substantially equivalent" to older products. For more information I encourage you to visit CASAA | The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association and join CASAA, which stands for the Consumer Advocates for Smoke Free Alternatives Association. also you can find detailed information on this particular regulation being proposed here FDA may soon propose regulation that could ban many/most e-cigarette products, eliminate many/most companies ; At any rate PLEASE HELP US! I don't want E-cigs banned and I know you don't either.

    Thanks for reading,
    -G.R.
    hopefully he'll help us get the message out!
    wv2win, CJsKee, DC2 and 23 others like this.
    STOP THIS BILL NOW! IT TAXES E-Cigs like ANALOGS! SIGN UP AND VOTE NO! https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/s1403

  7. #7
    Registered Supplier ECF Veteran skinny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles Ca. USA
    Posts
    344

    Default

    Well, here we go again. When will it ever stop. No wounder our country is in the dumpster!
    rave, Uma, KDK and 15 others like this.

  8. #8
    Super Member ECF Veteran sqirl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    778

    Default

    Bill, what are your thoughts on the likelihood of the hardware itself being targeted? This is a concern that many of us have been debating for a while, what do you think will happen? do you think the hardware will be relatively left alone just because you theoretically don't need to use nicotine or will they try to ban that too?
    FeistyAlice and Tumblelily like this.
    STOP THIS BILL NOW! IT TAXES E-Cigs like ANALOGS! SIGN UP AND VOTE NO! https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/s1403

  9. #9
    Ultra Member Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Pamdane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Cleveland area, Ohio
    Posts
    2,521
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasnt e-cig juice on the market prior to the cut off date? Wasnt liquid nicotine?
    FeistyAlice and somejerk like this.

  10. #10
    MTV
    MTV is offline
    PV Master Verified Member
    ECF Veteran

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    3,136

    Default

    translation...*we are the new thought police...for now...we will try to control your life...and make it better in our eyes*...end of communication

Page 1 of 144 123451151101 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •