National Vapers Club Applauds Federal Appeals Court Ruling on Electronic Cigarettes

Today’s federal ruling from court of appeals was a 3-0 ruling, the Federal Court of Appeals ruled that the FDA cannot stop the importation of electronic cigarettes into the United States based on their continued insistence that they are a drug/delivery device.

Online PR News – 07-December-2010 –Spike Babaian, National Vapers Club President, says that today’s federal ruling from court of appeals shows common sense on the part of the three judges who ruled on the decision. In a 3-0 ruling, the Federal Court of Appeals ruled that the FDA cannot stop the importation of electronic cigarettes into the United States based on their continued insistence that they are a drug/delivery device.
In a press release earlier today, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids disagreed with the unanimous federal court vote saying, "A federal appeals court ruling today that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cannot regulate electronic cigarettes as drugs and devices is wrong on the law, wrong on the facts and fails to take into account the harmful implications of this decision for public health.”
Earlier this year, National Vapers Club joined with other public health advocates in filing the Smokefree Pennsylvania, et al. amicus brief supporting Sottera/NJoy’s position that electronic cigarettes are recreational smoking replacement products and not drug devices as asserted by the FDA.
In referring to this brief, Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University School of Public Health said, “…electronic cigarettes are clearly defined as tobacco products, and absent any therapeutic claims, must be regulated as tobacco products under the Tobacco Act rather than as drug/device combinations under the FDCA.”
Dr. Siegel continued, “Ultimately, I believe this would be in the best interests of the public's health. Electronic cigarettes appear to be a much safer product than regular cigarettes and there is strong anecdotal evidence that they are helping many people to successfully quit smoking. Thus, they truly have life-saving potential.”
Nathan Dunn of NVC pointed out that, “These two contradictory opinions demonstrate the discordant attitudes frequently observed between public health experts with regard to tobacco harm reduction strategies. This leaves the public without clear guidance.”
Recently a much publicized report by researchers at UC Riverside “found design flaws, lack of adequate labeling, and several concerns about quality control and health issues. They conclude that e-cigarettes are potentially harmful and urge regulators to consider removing e-cigarettes from the market until their safety is adequately evaluated.” (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...32.htm)However, today’s ruling observed, “…the FDA cited no evidence to show that electronic cigarettes harmed anyone. More significantly, the court rightly found that the FDA has authority under the Tobacco Act to regulate electronic cigarettes, enabling it to mitigate or perhaps extinguish any harm to public health.” http://www.vapersclub.com/AppealsCourt.pdf
Janet Andersen of the NVC stated that, “This ruling is exactly what we’ve been saying all along. Electronic cigarettes are a consumer product and should be reasonably regulated as one by the FDA, as they are in the UK. Safety concerns regarding labeling, packaging and quality assurance can all be addressed by the FDA without forcing this potentially life-saving product off the market while millions of dollars worth of research is done.”