1Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRegistered!
Registered!
Are there plans for making a CASAA facebook page in the future?
I personally wouldn't know a facebook page from a paged book face. Any volunteer who would like to create and maintain it would be welcomed wholeheartedly.
CASAA is on Facebook: Welcome to Facebook | Facebook
Originally Posted by kristin
sweet, thanks!
Mmh, I feel like I'm picking an argument, and don't want to be rude .. but I just went over and signed on for the heck of it, and browsing around, the tone is still quite.. cheerleading. As someone diving into this stuff, I do want 'advocacy', and as a consumer that means I'm equally concerned about availability, safety and accountability.
Notably absent from the poll that popped up re: "what you'd like to see more of" is independent, peer-reviewed science. Continuing to frame it as the 'big bad FDA' vs. manufacturer-funded studies that couldn't possibly be biased doesn't do anyone any favors. But doing science properly does take time, and with the cat out of the bag, it'd be a big disservice to take our toys away until they're proven 100.00000% safe.
Notably absent from the 'history' is that big tobacco was also dabbling with the idea in the 1990s but didn't take it anywhere for various reasons (I recall two widely-publicized prototypes, one being a battery-powered heater 'box' that one would stick a presumably-PG-impregnated cigarette into - looked quite a bit like certain 'mods' around now; the other used a charcoal tip to 'fuel' the vaporization of treated tobacco in what I think was a disposable design). Whether the Chinese designs emerged independently or not, it took their looser regulatory environment to get the idea past incubation, and now that it's been guinea-pigged for half a decade... well, it'd be stupid to ignore that data set, whatever it tells us. [Apparently that people aren't keeling over in the streets from a new epidemic of e-cig-related pulmonary disease, so it should be safe enough to permit sales while monitoring for adverse effects, though it would be nice to have concrete data.]
How about the following for a manifesto?
*Okay, I know the trans-fat bans are still controversial but that was a big scientific surprise. For decades it seemed like hydrogenated vegetable oils couldn't possibly be worse than animals fats - and then, hey, whups, who knew! The original ingredients (butter, lard..) were perfectly functional before the popularization of the 'healthier' hydrogenated replacements, so I have to find the government-out-of-my-Crisco crowd's passions misplaced. If it turns out breathing PG is going to cripple me or make me grow a third head or something, I'd rather know than stick my head in the sand...
- We acknowledge we're taking an "unknown" risk;
- We believe inhaling a ml of "juice" per day with currently-available products shouldn't possibly be worse than smoking, and support unbiased research that can tell us the truth and how consumer safety can be improved;
- We advocate for efficient regulation that balances our individual right to choose with our expectation not to be taken advantage of. (Don't ban the Big Mac, but keep the trans-fat,* heavy metals, and e. coli out, please.)
...
And yeah, this is controversial, but I was happy to see the FDA given authority over tobacco - if you've been following the 'TSNA wars' and look at the snus fiends and Sweden, that sort of regulation is what it took to get the industry to invest in obvious measures to reduce harm. Of course, then the flavor ban hit (What, no more cloves? Can I blame the birthers for this one because the administration doesn't want to look soft on Indonesia?) and I smacked myself, but I think it's a case of 'well-meaning' nonsmokers at the agency getting a feel for the real public mandate - we want the FDA to prevent undue harm, not pitch us into one big national nic-fit - if Congress was after prohibition they could've passed it themselves.
If I understand the federal court ruling we're all happy about, perhaps we shouldn't be - if the availability of e-cigs hinges on them being 'tobacco products,' then presumably the 'safest' 100% synthetic, pharmaceutical-grade, never-been-near-a-tobacco-plant incarnation wouldn't be covered? Pharma could have a place here from a consumer perspective, either by competing and encouraging other manufacturers to meet the same standards, or as a source of clean and standardized ingredients to those smaller business. (From what I've read here, sourcing guaranteed 'human-grade' nicotine seems to remain an issue in the US.)
...
So... yeah, not to be rude, but does the charter here take all that into account, or is this just going to be another we-swear-it's-safe we-quoted-some-doctor-saying-there's-a-genetic-requirement-for-nicotine** don't-regulate-us organization? My personal opinion is that the FDA should (gasp!) be involved - it spreads out the burden of compliance and can take over the burden of independent testing [hopefully with better, more consistent, and less knee-jerk methodology than the one 'infamous' test] - but someone has to kick them to accept e-cigs in a manner equivalent to/no harsher than that for Class I or II devices ... accept that they took the world by surprise, make sure manufacturers are registered so the supply-chain can be traced, and monitor for adverse effects or clear excursions from the norm in safety (arsenic flavor, anyone?), rather than jumping on them immediately.
**I understand what he's trying to say, and he's got a point - but that's nicotine happening to be an effective treatment for a genetic predisposition... any argument that nicotine dependence has evolved into some major percentage of the human population within about 400 years seems disingenious at best, and phrasing it more clearly - nicotine remains an effective treatment for certain medical disorders, and we should think carefully about regulating away access to something that gives those people real relief - would be more persuasive to those outside our little addicted camp.
YES, well-designed studies that test what they say they are testing. Publication in journals without an obvious agenda is also important- the reviewers also need to be as unbiased as possible. Funding for those studies is also an issue. I hope that once CASAA begins to accept contributions, that might be a source for some funding (probably not nearly enough, but maybe).
I agree with the first and second points. I'm not sure about the 3rd. I wonder if efficient regulation is an oxymoron.
Though regulation as a tobacco product could be 'iffy' if synthetic nicotine is used, regulation as a medical device to me seems more likely to result in loss of access.
Lastly, science is also useless if it is it is distorted or not well-communicated. So clear communication and public education is also necessary. Perhaps adding something about communication of results to the public?
It seems to work for food, sometimes.
As I understand it, the different tiers for 'devices' actually help clarify how much they can regulate - whether it's preemptive, or whether they can only step in when there are significant adverse reports. The current ruling keeps it out of their bailiwick entirely (unless/until there are appeals), but Congress can then easily give them that authority, so I'd like to see it happen with some sanity.
The good news (as I accidentally noticed earlier) is that the FDA is apparently carving out a 'Modified-Risk Tobacco' category which might provide a template. Looks like the qualification process there is still heavier than we'd want, but that's starting from mostly-tobacco, rather than USP/food-grade ingredients that already have a qualification from the original manufacturers.
Like western civilization, that seems like a good idea.Lastly, science is also useless if it is it is distorted or not well-communicated. So clear communication and public education is also necessary. Perhaps adding something about communication of results to the public?
Maybe an impartial index of all known publications would be a start, separate from the press releases opining on them? That'd only cost a disk drive. [Thinking direct studies on 'vaping'/esmoking, since the relevancy threshold for every study that happened to involve PG would be a nightmare.]
there aren't all that many- there's a list of links in the ECF library, as well as posted on the CASAA page. the most recent one (see the CNN link in this forum) wasn't particularly well designed, IMO.
Meant that more as a community-relations, full-disclosure kind of thing, if there was any question. We might look here, but would anyone else?
And by maintaining a complete catalog, CASAA could also keep track of who paid for what and comment on that if there are trends that seem funny. (In fact, as a view on a website, that would be an interesting column to be able to toggle on and off, especially sorting chronologically. There could also be some sort of 'independence rating' to opine on what seems fair to everyone. But offering up the un-annotated list is what would look good as a service to the public and science, and having a policy to assemble it from submissions/as-the-organization-becomes-aware would keep the legwork down.)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks