FDA and the Fight Against E-Cigs

[HHTY]

Being a new member, I could not post in the thread that I wanted to (http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/for...uid-ban-5.html) , so I am putting this response here. I do a pretty good job of locating information on the internet, and I usually ONLY take information from sites that are actual authorities in any given subject. So... I place this link (Electronic Cigarettes) to give an idea of what the FDA's true agenda is (notice the link is THE fda's website). If you take the time to read that page, you will see the ABSOLUTELY BOGUS slant the FDA takes on the e-cig.... hmmm.... and THEY want the COMPANIES that sell them to be upfront and honest? Kinda do as we say, not as we do, isn't it?

Anyway, there are meeting minutes and other items of interest on the site, you just have to know where to look (you can't really link to them from the actual website - which I felt was "odd" - however, a little manipulation with the help of google and I found what I was looking for). Take a peek at this:
2012 TPSAC Meeting Materials and Information and note the links to the documents within. TPSAC stands for Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee.

There is an immense amount of reading involved here, so only people who REALLY do want to know what is going on should take a stab at this... I will try to research a little more and then provide a summary of the situation - that is if there is a bit of true interest from the readership here. I won't spit any propaganda, "scare people" dialog, or any of that. Quite frankly, I can't stand conspiracy theorists. So anything I add to this after more review will be strictly based on things that can be proven by court issued documents and government meeting minutes (those I can find anyway).

Simply reply to this thread to show interest - especially if you want to help and get involved.
Cheers.

[Vapoor eyes er]

Join and support CASAA
CASAA - The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association
I only wish we had something up here along the same lines.

[HHTY]

I posted a link to the meeting documents that took place on March 1st 2012. I have given a cursory glance over the document titled March 1-2, 2012: TPSAC Meeting Transcript (PDF - 480KB). On page 24 of that document, starting on line 12 you will see the following excerpt that is the beginning of the presentation presented by Elaine Keller, president, the Consumer Advocates for Smokefree Alternatives Association (CASAA). Again, look at the FDA's slant on the e-cig and what it publicizes and compare it to MS. KELLER's presentation:

Begin excerpt:
So we have four public commenters today. You've each been allocated 10 minutes for your presentation, and you will receive a warning when you have two minutes left in your presentation. I think the lights are up on the podium for you to see. And at the end of 10 minutes, please end your presentation.
Our first presenter is Elaine Keller, president, the Consumer Advocates for Smokefree Alternatives Association. Please.

MS. KELLER: Good afternoon. My name is Elaine Keller, president of CASAA, The Consumer Advocates for Smokefree Alternatives Association. I have no conflicts of interest.
Before I address TPSAC's draft report on dissolvables, I have a true story to share with you. During the last several years that I smoked, I was being kept awake by my own loud nighttime wheezing, I had a productive morning cough, and laughing would trigger an embarrassing coughing jag.
On March 27, 2009, I finally smoked my last cigarette. Within a month, the wheezing and the morning phlegm were gone. Best of all, I was able to enjoy a good belly laugh for the first time in years.
Now, how many of you believe that these health improvements would have happened if I had continued smoking for the last three years? Anyone? Me, neither.
Why didn't I stop smoking earlier? It wasn't for lack of trying. The problem is that every medically approved smoking cessation method requires complete abstinence from nicotine. When my inability to concentrate, pay attention, and remember became unbearable, I would relapse. I'd try it again, only to experience defeat time after time.
Don't think for a moment that I'm the only victim on this wheel of misfortune. The vast majority of today's smokers will never be able to quit if nicotine abstinence is a requirement.
How did I finally manage to stop inhaling smoke? I switched to what was then a brand-new product called an electronic cigarette. The device vaporizes a liquid solution that contains a small amount of nicotine. Imagine my dismay when I learned the FDA wanted to ban these products.
I used to believe in science and in the honesty and goodwill of scientists, researchers, and doctors. In July 2009, I lost my credulity and my innocence. The FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research issued a news release headlined, "FDA and Public Health Experts Warn about Electronic Cigarettes."
The press statements cleverly employed classic propaganda techniques with the goal of making the public believe that these products are much more dangerous than smoking. "They contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals such as diethylene glycol, an ingredient used in antifreeze," announced the lead paragraph.
The words "carcinogens" and "antifreeze" were carefully selected, aimed at creating feelings of fear and loathing on the part of the public. CDER failed to mention that conventional tobacco cigarettes contain nearly 16,000 times higher levels of the so-called carcinogens. The FDA found 1 percent DEG in a cartridge that holds half a milliliter of liquid. CDER failed to mention that even a small adult, weighing in at 50 kilos, would need to drink the contents of a thousands cartridges in a single day to reach a lethal dose.
Unsupported conjecture was expressed with all the conviction of proven fact by a host of experts who had no firsthand knowledge whatsoever. The goal of the campaign was to make the public believe that these products are much more dangerous than conventional combusted cigarettes. To a large extent, the campaign was effective. Smokers who had been considering trying e-cigarettes announced, "Man, those things will give you cancer or poison you. I'm sticking with my smokes."
Numerous foreign countries banned sales of e-cigarettes based on the press coverage of the FDA's testing. Millions of smokers across the world were denied the opportunity to switch to an alternative that might have saved their bodies from further smoke damage.
I have seen some of the same hidden persuader techniques applied in the testimony and reports presented to this committee regarding dissolvable tobacco products. I commend the committee for looking past the hype and recognizing that dissolvable tobacco products reduce exposure to TSNAs and do not increase nicotine intake.
The important issue is not that some potentially harmful substances have been detected in the products. We have these in our drinking water. The issue is whether these substances are present in large enough quantities to endanger health. Are they? The peer-reviewed literature failed to reveal this important information.
It isn't enough to say that TSNA yields of dissolvables are lower than those of cigarettes. The public should be informed that levels are more than 100 times lower. If switching to snus results in the same life expectancy as becoming completely abstinent, it stands to reason that switching to a dissolvable form of tobacco could provide similar lifesaving benefits.
TPSAC's draft report states the 50 percent of snus users in Sweden are new tobacco users. The report needs to acknowledge that increased use of snus has lowered both the smoking rates and the total use of tobacco. In 1981, 47 percent of males used tobacco and 34 percent were smokers; 27 percent of women used tobacco, and nearly all of them smoked. The percent who were snus users grew modestly, but total tobacco use among men dropped to 31 percent and among women to 20 percent.
It isn't enough to state that labeling in Sweden differs from the U.S. It's important to point out that labeling in Sweden doesn't mislead tobacco users into believing that switching to smoking won't increase their health risks.
Why is the FDA concerned that availability of products with much lower health risks than cigarettes might lead to increased used? Even if every single adult in the U.S. took up use of a tobacco product that was 90 percent less hazardous than smoking, there would be 171,000 fewer deaths from tobacco each year. But it is probably more likely that snus, e-cigarettes, and dissolvables are 99 percent less hazardous than smoking, which would save over 400,000 lives every year.
The Institute of Medicine's 2001 report, "Clearing the Smoke," mentioned something that really should be obvious to everyone in this room. The faster you can help smokers to stop inhaling smoke, the less irreversible damage will be done to their bodies. Conventional smoking cessation methods and products are not working fast enough.
One tool to help smokers halt the damages is to encourage them to switch to non-smoked sources of nicotine such as snus, e-cigarettes, and dissolvable tobacco products, even long-term use of NRTs. It boggles my mind that some people in tobacco control believe that if only they can discourage smokers from switching to something safer, those smokers will suddenly quit altogether.
This type of magical thinking is dangerous. Even if someday they do quit altogether, someday will be too late for many smokers. Let's stop insisting on the perfection of complete nicotine abstinence. It isn't working. Let's strive for the good of harm reduction. Thank you.
DR. SAMET: Thank you. And are there questions or comments from committee members?
[No response.]
MS. KELLER: I left them speechless.
DR. SAMET: Thank you.

END EXCERPT.

I encourage all to read the whole document. It is quite interesting.

[HHTY]

@Vapor Eyes - I agree. The more people who back up Elaine Keller and the CASAA, the better off we will be.

[Vapoor eyes er]

I agree. I'm in Canada and sometimes get the feeling I'm more supportive of CASAA than most. Legislation right now in New York State- If/ when it passes many NY vapers will be in a state of shock IMO.
Cheers and thank you- always LOVE hearing that some still do care enough to keep everyone updated and remind us of exactly what is going on. Kudos for the research.

@Vapor Eyes - I agree. The more people who back up Elaine Keller and the CASAA, the better off we will be.

[HHTY]

So far, the only big deal I see coming (if it even does) is that the prices for the products we use will go up. In my opinion, the only way they could effectively ban the electronic cigarette (and its accompanying products) is to PROVE that it is actually more unhealthy than cigarettes... fat chance there. But the mere regulation of it will force manufacturers and distributors to increase prices to reflect all the added TAXES (much like cigarettes) - which tends to give us a glimpse of what is REALLY important to the FDA and the government as a whole. And it isn't the health of the public.

What do I mean?

Big Tobacco shells out a BOAT LOAD of money to the government due to The Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) of 1998 - most of you probably didn't know THIS little nugget of information:
The Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) was entered in November 1998, originally between the four largest United States tobacco companies and the attorneys general of 46 states. The states settled their Medicaid lawsuits against the tobacco industry for recovery of their tobacco-related, health-care costs, and also exempted the companies from private tort liability regarding harm caused by tobacco use.[1]:25 In exchange, the companies agreed to curtail or cease certain tobacco marketing practices, as well as to pay, in perpetuity, various annual payments to the states to compensate them for some of the medical costs of caring for persons with smoking-related illnesses. The money also funds a new anti-smoking advocacy group, called the American Legacy Foundation, that is responsible for such campaigns as The Truth. The settlement also dissolved the tobacco industry groups Tobacco Institute, the Center for Indoor Air Research, and the Council for Tobacco Research. In the MSA, the OPMs (Original Participating Manufacturers) agreed to pay a minimum of $206 billion over the first twenty-five years of the agreement. (eh hmmm... thats no less than 8.24 BILLION dollars a year).

So basically, ANYTHING that threatens Big Tobacco and its ability to pay these fees, also threatens the governments wallet. Which, when you think about it, is rather ironic... I'll let you the reader figure out why. I don't want to put anything in your mind that you can't come up with on your own due to facts, if'n ya know what I mean. :-P

[Vapoor eyes er]

Again I agree. In 2008 18 billion $$ in taxes. I've been involved politically for some time and actually converted 2 members of 2 politician's family to vaping. They believe in it strongly BUT refuse to come out of the closet and support us publicly...they told me that there was just too much at stake-taxes, employment, farming and far too many orgs/ businesses with deep pockets and heavy political connections.Then we have BP that loves return business with their miserable success rate with nic patches, gum, pills, etc. And next we have all these "supposed" anti- analog non profits with fat cat execs pulling in big bux at the expense of people and their loved ones suffering from analog related diseases/ death. Reminds me of when they came out with the U.S. DO NOT CALL list/ program- first ones to sign up were the execs from the largest telemarketers on the planet. Now ya got me going but this thread needed a bump
Cheers.

[ThunderT]

When I tried my 1st e cig I was blown away, finally!, I thought, I am quitting the analogs. Then I found this site, did a small amount of research and the FDA has me worried. Makes me want to hoard some juice.

Thanks for posting this.

[apbtdog1]

When I tried my 1st e cig I was blown away, finally!, I thought, I am quitting the analogs. Then I found this site, did a small amount of research and the FDA has me worried. Makes me want to hoard some juice.

Thanks for posting this.

Right! Makes me wanna get a 5 gallon bucket of "guerilla juice" and hide it in my closet

[tgr5m69]

I wish that the FDA would get a bit more enlightened about the potential benefits of e-cigs compared to analogs...