Why so many members take issue with the FDA

[EddardinWinter]

It is sad to me that I see some defending the FDA here by calling posters names, marginalizing any person who questions the FDA, and refusing to see what a real threat to the vaping community the FDA represents. Many of the posters have legitimate gripes with the FDA.

The purpose of this thread is to illustrate why certain members of this community are distrustful of the FDA. I really would like to keep the content of this thread strictly to what the FDA is doing with vaping. True, with my "statement" example I do swerve off course and get into a food example, but I hope everyone can see it is simply an example of use of language. In any case, here is part of my issue with the FDA. I had no opinion at all of the organization prior to vaping.

Here are two concrete examples of why I think the FDA is not acting as a good steward of public health on this issue. This sort of rubbish the FDA is stating creates a general contempt for the organization and makes people legitimately nervous.

Example 1

Here is a sample of what the FDA is saying to “protect” you:

As the safety and efficacy of e-cigarettes have not been fully studied, consumers of e-cigarette products currently have no way of knowing:

• whether e-cigarettes are safe for their intended use,
• how much nicotine or other potentially harmful chemicals are being inhaled during use, or
• if there are any benefits associated with using these products.
Additionally, it is not known if e-cigarettes may lead young people to try other tobacco products, including conventional cigarettes, which are known to cause disease and lead to premature death.

FDA SOURCE
Electronic Cigarettes (e-Cigarettes)

Now, the bullet points are all reasonably sound until you get to the last one, but let’s give that a pass for now. But then we come to the meat of the FDA’s thinly veiled attack on vaping. “It is not known if e-cigarettes may lead young people to try other tobacco products.” The FDA is unbelievably irresponsible in this speculation. What evidence is there to support this premise? Has anyone ever heard of children trying vaping to begin smoking? I do not know anyone who has began smoking after vaping. I know dozens who began vaping after smoking.

How about this statement:
It is not known if the FDA has intentionally hidden evidence of its own agents putting toxins in the milk supply of several Midwestern states, which are known to cause sickness and deaths of innocent children. If it did happen, this action could kill hundreds or thousands of our helpless boys and girls. To date, they have presented no evidence to the contrary, nor have they denied these events transpired.

I have not accused them of any misdeeds, I have not stated any falsehoods. I have only insinuated wrongdoing by creating a presumption of guilt. But does that make the statement fair? You tell me.

Example 2

Q: What concerns does FDA have regarding electronic cigarettes?

A: FDA has not evaluated any e-cigarettes for safety or effectiveness. (1)When FDA conducted limited laboratory studies of certain samples, FDA found significant quality issues that indicate that quality control processes used to manufacture these products are substandard or non-existent. FDA found that cartridges labeled as containing no nicotine contained nicotine and that three different electronic cigarette cartridges with the same label emitted a markedly different amount of nicotine with each puff. (2)Experts have also raised concerns that the marketing of products such as e-cigarettes can increase nicotine addiction among young people and may lead kids to try other tobacco products. Visit FDA’s Electronic Cigarettes webpage for additional information.

FDA SOURCE
E-Cigarettes: Questions and Answers

I have pointed out two excerpts from this short Q&A by numbering them. Let’s examine them, shall we?


(1) Here is an example of painting with an intentionally broad brush to impugn the entire industry. Why not publish the list of suppliers who were found to have the lack of quality control described? In a very large sample size, a few were found to be as stated in this web page. I love the part about, “three different electronic cigarette cartridges with the same label emitted a markedly different amount of nicotine with each puff”. What? How were the “puffs” measured? Were the methods the same? Who conducted this study? Where are your citations? There are no citations as there is no scientific study. There is only irresponsible un-scientific scare tactics. Is the agenda public health when it comes to e-cigs? It does not appear to be the case here.

(2) Now you can see it again, they express their concern about “marketing these products…may lead kids to try other tobacco products.” This is purposefully misleading innuendo. This is not the act of some rogue agent who is part of a great and noble group. This is not some small minority of the large organization. This is the official position of the FDA from their web site. They appear to be using their position of trust to distort reality and manufacture malicious intent on the part of the e-cig industry. There never was, nor is there now, an effort by manufacturers to market e-cigarettes to kids, and the FDA knows it. They seem to be using the sanctimonious “we protect the children” stance to make their intentions seem pure. What are their intentions? Who knows, but if there is sound reason to warn consumers about e-cigarettes, why resort to these tactics?


The bottom line on this in my book is simple. From where I stand, these guys at the FDA don’t let a few facts get in the way of a good story.

Every one of us is entitled to our opinions. While I do skewer the FDA, they are my employee, and I am giving them needed feedback. Trust me, I have let them know my displeasure with their web site directly. My repeated written requests to review the site information has gone without any effect on the content of the website.

So when they are distorting facts, they make vapers angry. Given their past activities, I think we should all be a bit distrustful.

 

[AgentAnia]

Just for a start:

As the safety and efficacy of e-cigarettes have not been fully studied, consumers of e-cigarette products currently have no way of knowing:

• whether e-cigarettes are safe for their intended use,
• how much nicotine or other potentially harmful chemicals are being inhaled during use, or
• if there are any benefits associated with using these products.

The assumption here is that without the FDA saying so, consumers have no way of knowing etc. BUT, consumers have tried ecigs and have found that etc. I'm sorry, FDA, but I don't need you to tell me. I've been vaping for 2 weeks short of year, and I'm still alive, I'm still healthy, healthier in fact than I was a year ago. I'm inhaling enough nicotine to satisfy. If I'm inhaling harmful chemicals, they have yet to make themselves known. I have discovered, all by myself, the benefits associated with using these products...

Random thoughts:

ALWAYS be wary of a statement that uses "could" or "may." When they are used, you're not reading a statement of fact.

When I come down on the FDA here, I should specify that I'm talking about the FDA Tobacco Control Board.

 

[DC2]

Anybody who does NOT distrust the FDA when it comes to vaping has NOT been paying attention.

 

[FlamingoTutu]

I don’t want to live in a world without the FDA. They have done many, many good things and saved countless lives but I’m not going to hang on their every word and follow them like a blind sheep. I don’t trust their thinking (or lack of) on the vaping issue. Decisions should be based on facts and genuine concerns not propaganda and payoffs. This article says it pretty well. Why Is The FDA Shielding Smokers From The Good News About E-Cigarettes? - Forbes

Smokers who used to love their cigarettes are disgusted by the taste of them after vaping for a period of time. Why would a kid find them more appealing after vaping? Seriously.

 

[FlamingoTutu]

Double post. Sorry, once was enough.

 

[ut1205]

I am leery of any person or organization that operates with an "agenda" rather than "facts".

 

[DC2]

This article says it pretty well. Why Is The FDA Shielding Smokers From The Good News About E-Cigarettes? - Forbes

Now THAT'S what I'm talking about!
No beating around the bush, take the fight right to them.


Thanks for posting that.

I went on vacation for a week and got way behind in the Media and General News subforum.
I don't think I will ever be able to catch back up again.

 

[Robino1]

With what is happening with ecigs, my trust of the FDA is on very shaky ground. If they are lying and using nefarious methods to have their way in this, what else have they manipulated to fit their twisted ideals?






and first thing I do is derail and take it in a different direction. Forgive me Edd.

 

[vjc0628]

would like to keep the content of this thread strictly to what the FDA is doing with vaping

the sad truth is the only reason they are doing what they are doing with vaping is they have been getting away with it
in every other area

the truth is what is happing to vaping is only a symptom of a larger disease

if all you do is win the battle with vaping and lose the larger picture there are worse things ahead

 

[danca90]

As far as I'm concerned, pipe tobacco is taxed as a food. I hope that the FDA does the same to eliquid. However, it was ruled as a tobacco product, so it can't be banned unless tobacco is banned.

 

[Ken_A]

I have to agree with the stance that the FDA is doing more harm than good in a lot more areas than just vaping.
These quotes are from the FDA

[10-24-2011] The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has reviewed the results from two FDA-sponsored epidemiological studies that evaluated the risk of neuropsychiatric adverse events associated with the smoking cessation drug Chantix (varenicline). Neither study found a difference in risk of neuropsychiatric hospitalizations between Chantix and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT; e.g., NicoDerm patches).
...
FDA is continuing to evaluate the risk of neuropsychiatric events with Chantix. The drug manufacturer is conducting a large safety clinical trial of Chantix to assess neuropsychiatric adverse events, and results from this study are expected in 2017.

Another partial quote

Current Drug Safety Communications

FDA investigating leukemia drug Iclusig (ponatinib) after increased reports of serious blood clots in arteries and veins
10/11/2013
FDA warns of increased risk of death with IV antibacterial Tygacil (tigecycline) and approves new Boxed Warning
9/27/2013
Boxed Warning and new recommendations to decrease risk of hepatitis B reactivation with the immune-suppressing and anti-cancer drugs Arzerra (ofatumumab) and Rituxan (rituximab)
9/25/2013
FDA requiring color changes to Duragesic (fentanyl) pain patches to aid safety―emphasizing that accidental exposure to used patches can cause death
9/23/2013
FDA investigating rare brain infection in patient taking Gilenya (fingolimod)
8/29/2013

If the FDA were actually concerned with public health and safety, then these products would not have made it onto the market.
It was many incidents JUST LIKE THESE above that caused me to not trust the FDA, not their stance on vaping.
I have not trusted them since 1998 and have not seen enough evidence that they can be trusted.

The PURPOSE of the FDA is a good and noble one. The execution of that purpose is greatly flawed and has been for many years.

Their stance on vaping is what concerns this portion of the community at large, however I personally do not recommend a steadfast faith in any organization that has consistently demonstrated that their concern is the dollar and not the consumer.

You may now flame me for my rabid mistrust

 

[DC2]

I've learned a lot in the four years I've been vaping.
That's all I'm going to say about that on this thread at this time.

Read between the lines if you will.
And GO CHARGERS!!!

 

[Thrasher]

The PURPOSE of the FDA is a good and noble one. The execution of that purpose is greatly flawed and has been for many years.

+1 .................

 

[Jman8]

FDA is charged with FSCPTA, and denying this aspect within larger discussion because of trust issues is, I believe, counter productive. That act is bigger than whatever it is FDA is bringing to the table.

While on this topic, can I make plea to those inspired to organize CTAs? Please stop using the word "banning" in your attempt to organize resistance to the impending changes in the market. Often, if discussion goes beyond soundbites, you (who use that word) will stipulate it to mean 'de facto banning' which would be better to start with than with the speculative / fear mongering tactic that resorts to 'outright banning.'

Here is FDA's overview on FSCPTA, which I think is a decent reference point in this discussion. A search for the word "ban" on that page doesn't list anything on eCigs. So, those who throw that out there (ecigs will be banned) are either misguided or providing an idea to FDA that currently isn't on their public agenda.

The overview does say the following: "Bans cigarettes with characterizing flavors (except menthol and tobacco)." I would say regardless of how eCigs are ultimately classified, I think FDA and whole slew of ANTZ type groups will push for this with regards to eCigs. I think they will lose this fight one way or another (black market being number one way they would lose the fight).

Most importantly, I see this battle as one we have brought on ourselves. I truly dislike that some vapers/ex-smokers are now carrying the torch for ANTZ to some degree. And as Americans, we now live in a society where smoking is seen as, how did Forbes put it, "cigarette smoking is without question the most devastating and preventable public health risk that we need to address in this country."

Yeah, I disagree with that view and find it questionable. But, reality is that discussion is met with people who already have their mind made up and really really don't care to hear another side of the issue, seeing it as only excuses to justify a sad, self destructive addiction. And as long as vapers are in that group of mind made up about logs, and all ready to roll over on the logs side of the equation, it just makes it that much easier to 'lead them to the light' that maybe, just maybe, their new delivery of choice is also dangerous and any disagreement is really just excuses to justify a sad, self destructive addiction.

So we argue and rant on forums where not so surprisingly, our fellow vapers agree with us. While majority of citizens aren't caught up with an addiction / desire for nicotine and don't really care to get into the details of vaping nicotine. Majority of citizens, I believe, only care a) if this is now an item that will be done (widely) in public and b) if it will hook my Sue or Johnny?

After all, these discussions are always about the kids.

And in my worldview, the kids are alright / will be fine, regardless of what humanity dreams up today as next big thing for self destruction. I also happen to think that everyone reading this, regardless of your age or stature in society is, in fact, a kid.

As I said, these discussions are always about the kids.
FDA is attempting to be a good parent.

 

[EddardinWinter]

FDA is charged with FSCPTA, and denying this aspect within larger discussion because of trust issues is, I believe, counter productive. That act is bigger than whatever it is FDA is bringing to the table.

FDA has what control it has over e-cigarettes it has due to it's failed attempt to ban them. They seized property and attempted to snuff vaping out. They were stopped in court, where the US Circuit Court Judge found them to be tobacco products. This is at the core of the mistrust of the FDA. When the first action of an entity is to seize property and usurp authority from the people, it is quite telling. I would say that history is much more important when we try to understand why vapers have antipathy towards the FDA. Again, the point of this thread is to illustrate WHY the FDA is mistrusted by our fellow vapers.

While on this topic, can I make plea to those inspired to organize CTAs? Please stop using the word "banning" in your attempt to organize resistance to the impending changes in the market. Often, if discussion goes beyond soundbites, you (who use that word) will stipulate it to mean 'de facto banning' which would be better to start with than with the speculative / fear mongering tactic that resorts to 'outright banning.'

You are already off topic. No one in this thread (except you) have used the term "banning". If the market is regulated to a point where we cannot purchase liquid that is flavored and has a concentration of nicotine greater than 6 mg, this constitutes an effective ban. Who cares how the FDA makes vaping untenable? They have demonstrated the will (but not the skill) to do so. Your desire for precision language appears to be quite selective. Your use of a "fear mongering tactic" to describe a reasonable interpretation and word choice ("ban"-still not used in this thread!) many vapers have used to describe the FDA's intent is precisely what I said I despise in my OP, take it somewhere else.

Here is FDA's overview on FSCPTA, which I think is a decent reference point in this discussion. A search for the word "ban" on that page doesn't list anything on eCigs. So, those who throw that out there (ecigs will be banned) are either misguided or providing an idea to FDA that currently isn't on their public agenda.

That is not the point of this thread. You are quite fixated on this "ban" term. How about you go start your own thread on this topic?

The overview does say the following: "Bans cigarettes with characterizing flavors (except menthol and tobacco)." I would say regardless of how eCigs are ultimately classified, I think FDA and whole slew of ANTZ type groups will push for this with regards to eCigs. I think they will lose this fight one way or another (black market being number one way they would lose the fight).

Black Market? You feel this is an acceptable resolution to a flavor ban? I do not feel going underground is a winning play. In any case, you continue to steer further an further away from the point of the thread.

Most importantly, I see this battle as one we have brought on ourselves. I truly dislike that some vapers/ex-smokers are now carrying the torch for ANTZ to some degree. And as Americans, we now live in a society where smoking is seen as, how did Forbes put it, "cigarette smoking is without question the most devastating and preventable public health risk that we need to address in this country."

Yeah, I disagree with that view and find it questionable. But, reality is that discussion is met with people who already have their mind made up and really really don't care to hear another side of the issue, seeing it as only excuses to justify a sad, self destructive addiction. And as long as vapers are in that group of mind made up about logs, and all ready to roll over on the logs side of the equation, it just makes it that much easier to 'lead them to the light' that maybe, just maybe, their new delivery of choice is also dangerous and any disagreement is really just excuses to justify a sad, self destructive addiction.

So we argue and rant on forums where not so surprisingly, our fellow vapers agree with us. While majority of citizens aren't caught up with an addiction / desire for nicotine and don't really care to get into the details of vaping nicotine. Majority of citizens, I believe, only care a) if this is now an item that will be done (widely) in public and b) if it will hook my Sue or Johnny?

You are blaming vapers? That is an interesting perspective. Your attack on vapers as a group is quite telling. I see this as a fight started by the FDA, pursued vigorously by their ANTZ allies, and backed by the Statists. As vapers, we just want to vape. If anything, I believe that as a group we have been far too docile. Science is on our side, the rule of law is on our side, only the brainwashing of anti-smoking zealots is against us.

After all, these discussions are always about the kids.

And in my worldview, the kids are alright / will be fine, regardless of what humanity dreams up today as next big thing for self destruction. I also happen to think that everyone reading this, regardless of your age or stature in society is, in fact, a kid.

As I said, these discussions are always about the kids.
FDA is attempting to be a good parent.

Thanks, I bet you would not call me a 'kid' in any place but on an internet forum. Viewing everyone as children is a central core value of the Statist. You made your assertion of it as a fact in bold it so we would not miss it with our childlike lack of attention to detail. But saying that it is so does not make it true.

You made a very long post here, very little of it on topic. Maybe you should start your own thread? I would appreciate it if you find something else to do besides derail mine.

EDIT: Corrected typo in the second to last paragraph, clarified last sentence in same.

 

[SissySpike]

The FDA is no different than a majority of our government. It is out of control operating with out any accountability. It is been perverted in to something it was never intended to do. When you see the lies propaganda and misinformation being put out buy the FDA they are ether incompetent, or up to no good for agendas other than the public's best interest. No matter what the reason its not good.

I chose to believe these are educated competent people working in the FDA so I can not see what they are doing in any other way than corrupt. I think like alot of our regulatory boards are over stepping their intended purposes and doing more harm than good buy driving up prices, and worst of all making regulations for the benefit of certain company's.

Why dose the FDA have a swat team? If this dose not open your eyes to the abusive power welding authority the FDA has risen/ declined to nothing will.

 

[Anjaffm]

I also happen to think that everyone reading this, regardless of your age or stature in society is, in fact, a kid.

That is at attempt to assert an obvious untruth.
An untruth is the precise opposite of a "fact".

Full Definition of KID
1
a : a young goat b : a young individual of various animals related to the goat
2
a : the flesh, fur, or skin of a kid b : something made of kid
3
: a young person; especially : child —often used as a generalized reference to one especially younger or less experienced <the kid on the pro golf tour> <poor kid>

source

Interesting attempt to derail the thread. With questionable motives.
----------------------

Do go on, please, Eddard.
Great OP. And great reply to that .. uhm.. person

 

[Ken_A]

FDA has what control it has over e-cigarettes it has due to it's failed attempt to ban them. They seized property and attempted to snuff vaping out. They were stopped in court, where the US Circuit Court Judge found them to be tobacco products. This is at the core of the mistrust of the FDA. When the first action of an entity is to seize property and usurp authority from the people, it is quite telling. I would say that history is much more important when we try to understand why vapers have antipathy towards the FDA. Again, the point of this thread is to illustrate WHY the FDA is mistrusted by our fellow vapers.
...
You are already off topic. ....
You made a very long post here, very little of it on topic. Maybe you should start your own thread? I would appreciate it if you find something else to do besides derail mine.

Yeah... That was probably partially my fault... I feel I also got slightly off topic in my response trying to illustrate that vaping policy is not always the only reason for mistrust of the FDA.

All vapers certainty have adequate reason to mistrust them just in regards to their vaping policies. Their history in this area should give people warning enough.

 

[EddardinWinter]

Yeah... That was probably partially my fault... I feel I also got slightly off topic in my response trying to illustrate that vaping policy is not always the only reason for mistrust of the FDA.

All vapers certainty have adequate reason to mistrust them just in regards to their vaping policies. Their history in this area should give people warning enough.

I swerved off topic in my OP.

You swerved off topic, but you did "bring it home" in the end. I don't mind a twist or two along the road. Let's just keep the ending in mind as we make the journey. I believe you did.

 

[Fulgurant]

You are blaming vapers? That is an interesting perspective. Your attack on vapers as a group is quite telling. I see this as a fight started by the FDA, pursued vigorously by their ANTZ allies, and backed by the Statists. As vapers, we just want to vape. If anything, I believe that as a group we have been far too docile. Science is on our side, the rule of law is on our side, only the brainwashing of anti-smoking zealots is against us.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I think I love you.