Excellent balanced HuffPo article 1/9/14 - interesting FDA comments
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 30
Like Tree95Likes

Thread: Excellent balanced HuffPo article 1/9/14 - interesting FDA comments

  1. #1
    Ultra Member Supporting Member Roger_Lafayette's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Moved On
    Posts
    1,039

    Default Excellent balanced HuffPo article 1/9/14 - interesting FDA comments

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lynn-t...b_4550443.html authored by Lynn Kozlowski, who's the Dean of the School of Public Health and Health Professions at SUNY Buff. (Those of you who are keeping track of the credentialed experts on our side can add his name to that of Micheal Siegal.)

    I was intrigued by:
    The FDA is prevented by its rules from making any changes in cigarettes that would create a contraband market in cigarettes, just as it is prevented from banning cigarettes.
    Which lead me to: Overview of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act: Consumer fact Sheet and then to Section 907 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act - Tobacco Product Standards (sec. 907 of the FDCA, the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act):

    The Secretary shall consider all other information submitted in connection with a proposed standard, including information concerning the countervailing effects of the tobacco product standard on the health of adolescent tobacco users, adult tobacco users, or nontobacco users, such as the creation of a significant demand for contraband or other tobacco products that do not meet the requirements of this chapter and the significance of such demand. [color and boldface added]
    Right now, it's not clear to me exactly what this means in the context of e-liquid restrictions, but it does suggest to me that the FDA doesn't have the authority to ban interstate sales of vaping hardware.

    (That said, I think sometimes there's an understandable tendency to obsess over the FDA, since they once tried to ban PVDs. Congress, of course, can probably do whatever it likes.)
    Randyrtx, LaraC, Jman8 and 3 others like this.

  2. #2
    Moved On
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Greenville, SC, USA
    Posts
    1,055

    Default

    One thing from the article that I thought was interesting...

    [quote]The FDA is prevented by its rules from making any changes in cigarettes that would create a contraband market in cigarettes, just as it is prevented from banning cigarettes. Similar protections should be considered for the much safer product, e-cigs, especially since they have become so popular.[/quote]

    (bolding mine...)

    Doesn't that statement imply that 'similar protections' (i.e. the right to ban cigarettes) is *not* applicable to e-cigs. In other words, is it saying that the FDA currently *does* have the right to ban e-cigs??

  3. #3
    Ultra Member Supporting Member Roger_Lafayette's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Moved On
    Posts
    1,039

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barbara21 View Post
    Doesn't that statement imply that 'similar protections' (i.e. the right to ban cigarettes) is *not* applicable to e-cigs. In other words, is it saying that the FDA currently *does* have the right to ban e-cigs??
    Yes Barbara, my understanding is that this was precisely what the FDA unsuccessfully argued back in 2010, when it attemped to ban PVDs.

    You might take a look at this NYT article: http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.c...ype=blogs&_r=0

    I believe what the court found was that PVDs are (non-therapeutic) tobacco products for purposes of the FDCA, and therefore the FDA lacked the authority to ban them. Presumably this applies to e-liquids as well.

    Subsequent rulings have held that the FDA couldn't ban importation of PVDs and e-liquids, therefore (?) they also lack the authority to ban interstate sales.

    However the FDA may regulate both, which is why I believe many observers anticipate that all flavorings except tobacco flavorings (i.e. flavorings that are intended to taste like real tobacco) and menthol will be banned to protext children. (Yeah, like flavored alcoholic spirits are banned too, right? This is exactly what ocurred with analogs.

    But let me emphasize again - IMO the real dangers are (1) legislation, both by states and nationally; and (2) taxation (also both at the state and federal levels). I ran the numbers for e-liquid taxation here: Some fun (or macabre) potential taxation figures

    Of course once states start taxing e-liquids, Congress will likely oblige them by banning importation and interstate sales - which also happened w/ analog ciggies.

    (Some people think such a ban will be ineffective because e-liquid is so much more compact than analogs ... I have my doubts. After all, they can keep liquid illegal drugs out. Besides, who wants to be charged with tax evasion? I've also heard stories to the effect that state departments of revenue sent huge bills to people who purchased analogs interstate via the 'net
    Last edited by Roger_Lafayette; 01-21-2014 at 06:01 PM.
    LaraC likes this.

  4. #4
    Double Guru Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Kent C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    NW Ohio US
    Posts
    20,730
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default

    What's the line? "I don't usually read/watch ..... but this isn't that bad"... Kozlowski isn't Michael Siegal, the 'balanced' approach includes some regulation and Kozlowski could be responsible for the "wild west" tag from his article in June '13:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lynn-t...healthy-living

    As far as style goes - compared to others, he's the 'weaseling/waffling' kind. His focus is stopping cigarette smoking rather than personal freedom, but if personal freedom was his focus, he wouldn't be writing for HuffPo.

    He's more than 'ok' on the regulation of cigarettes and looks at ecigs only as a viable alternative to that end, although he considers the 'information' out there on ecigarettes is 'confusing'. "Web searches find a tangle of pro, con or undecided views, with examples of encouraging and discouraging pieces even within The Huffington Post." He's right on that last part.

    Kozlowski will never go where Jeffery Tucker did here, in the 'cold dead fingers' article:

    "Thatís the theory, but then thereís the reality: nothing the state does that is worth doing cannot be done better by people themselves. Thatís especially obvious in our time when the forces of innovation and progress are entirely on the side of markets, while governments are left behind to wallow in their own bureaucratic and politicized mire. Given this, what are states to do?

    The goal is always and everywhere control. They override our free choices and replace them with their own will. That necessarily means reducing the quality of our lives. And this they have done in nearly every area ó they wreck consumer products daily, shut down websites we love, override innovation, harass entrepreneurs, tax the successful, and otherwise try to hold humanity back as much as possible."


    You can have my e-cig when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers | The Daily Caller
    Uma, progg, LaraC and 1 others like this.

  5. #5
    Ultra Member Supporting Member Roger_Lafayette's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Moved On
    Posts
    1,039

    Default

    Kent, we'll have to agree to disagree on the Q of regulation.

    My sense is that letting people buy crappy cheap e-liquids with diethylene glycol in them may eventually lead to a complete ban on PVDs. (And frankly I'd feel a bit safer if I knew that I could do at least some price-based comparison shopping, instead of having to stick with the larger, well-regarded - and more expensive - e-liquid vendors.)

    At the very least the lack of regulation (and the presence of diethylene glycol in cheap e-liquids) will result in more and more "hit job" studies that encourage people to argue that PVDs are more dangerous than analogs, which is the current line being pushed by the ATNZs: c.f.: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/...ntinue-to.html by Dr. Siegal.

    (What if health insurance companies decided that vapers deserve higher premium surcharges than those which are currently leveled on analog smokers? Currently this is probably prohibited by Federal law, but enough "hit job" studies could change that.)

    I'd rather have half a loaf than none at all: I've smoked analogs for four decades, and don't want to be forced to go back (or quit, which I don't think I could w/o PVDs). Besides, I enjoy vaping
    jameth likes this.

  6. #6
    Double Guru Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Kent C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    NW Ohio US
    Posts
    20,730
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default

    Pretty sure the diethylene glycol 'incident' was one carto in the 2009 FDA batch that they got from one vendor. The market as it does with knowledgeable vapers work this out as it has done here on mulitiple occasions. The idea that 'not everyone reads ECF' doesn't work with me as I'm a Darwin awards type. Ignorant (those who don't or refuse to get informed on stuff they use) people will pay for their ignorance or for their 'education' to where they become better consumers through the best teacher in the world - their own mistakes - without the help of gov't.

    IOW, agree to disagree :-)
    Uma, progg, sonicdsl and 2 others like this.

  7. #7
    Ultra Member Supporting Member Roger_Lafayette's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Moved On
    Posts
    1,039

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kent C View Post
    Pretty sure the diethylene glycol 'incident' was one carto in the 2009 FDA batch that they got from one vendor ...
    I think there may have been more, but your general point stands that these were isolated incidents.

    Unfortunately we'll never hear the end of it.

    C.f. the Indy Star hit job article that I just posted about yesterday in this area (in which the author said that PVDs "contain" diethelyne glycol.

  8. #8
    Double Guru Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Kent C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    NW Ohio US
    Posts
    20,730
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger_Lafayette View Post
    I think there may have been more, but your general point stands that these were isolated incidents.

    Unfortunately we'll never hear the end of it.


    C.f. the Indy Star hit job article that I just posted about yesterday in this area (in which the author said that PVDs "contain" diethelyne glycol.
    It's the thing that 'regulator types' cling to. Why I'm not one.
    progg likes this.

  9. #9
    Super Member ECF Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Kilkenny
    Posts
    461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger_Lafayette View Post
    I think there may have been more, but your general point stands that these were isolated incidents.

    Unfortunately we'll never hear the end of it.

    C.f. the Indy Star hit job article that I just posted about yesterday in this area (in which the author said that PVDs "contain" diethelyne glycol.
    If I recall correctly their were several cartos but all from the same batch. Their was none found in other cartos from the same company. The likely cause was contamination on the outside of the cartos. Anyway the cartos were from a company that's no longer in business. No diethelyne has ever been found since.
    I still cant get the continued life in this factoid but it might have to do with it being the only one they found that would be part of the public consciousness since the French Wine scandal from a few years ago where some producers used diethelyne glycol as a preservative in their wine, accidently or on purpose I don't recall, more of a Sam Adams man myself.
    Kent C, progg, claudebo and 2 others like this.

  10. #10
    Ultra Member Supporting Member Roger_Lafayette's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Moved On
    Posts
    1,039

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tommy2bad View Post
    ...
    I still cant get the continued life in this factoid ...
    Our grandchildren will still be hearing about that one long after we're all dead. And their grandchildren, etc.

    I'm about 99% sure that I found it on: no-smoke DOT org/document.php?id=794 ... they've done a pretty thorough job of providing resources for hit job articles.

    As I think I said before - lots of people with letters after their names can advance their careers that way (or build their practices if they're MDs, etc.). Ditto lazy reporters.

    It's too bad we don't have a little web page somewhere that summarizes all the bogus allegations and responses to them.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks