Congressional action on electronic cigarette regulations may save vapers

[choochoogranny]

Yep, Instant_GMP, but tobacco has been around for several hundred years before being regulated and had already grown into quite sizeable companies. Whereas, ecigarettes are in the embryonic stage.

Then there are political appointees like Hamburg who recently departed the FDA who apparently paved the way with gold bricks for her husband's company to make huge profits off her "okay" on products which had been shown to have serious side effects and should at the least have "black box" warnings. She ignored medical warnings before the products were approved and even after on the market for several years.

 

[bobwho77]

There was one commenter in the video who referred to e-vapes, e-vaping or e-vapers in lieu of e-cigs...something like that. That might be the type terminology that many have sought for a long time.

When the term "electronic cigarette" was coined, most of the devices on the market were designed to look, and feel like analog cigarettes. In hindsight, that was probably a bad idea. It made it easier for our detractors to link vaping with smoking (and the tobacco companies) than it actually is.
I refer to my device as a "Personal Vaporizer", or simply "Vaporizer" I think that this is actually discussed in detail in another thread. If I can find it, I'll post the link

Here's the link. The thread is from 2013, and closed to replies. Time to reexamine the subject?

What do you refer to your device as?

 

[bobwho77]

The Azz End?

The North end of a Southbound...

 

[Lessifer]

It's not about the flavors, but mostly it's the names and the packaging that give these attacks a semblance of credibility. If you call your product something like Fruit Loops, Cotton Candy or Captain Crunch, you'll invariably be accused of shamelessly marketing to children. If you call the same exact thing something like Ostrich ..., nobody will say a word.

Edit: This site takes offense at a three letter word referring to the rearward portion of the critter.

The only time I've ever seen a politician hold up a bottle of e-liquid and claim it was targeting kids, it was a non-descript bottle and I believe it was referred to as "strawberry flavored." If you believe they'll leave a strawberry flavored liquid alone just because you decide to call it Red Silk Tie, I've got a bridge you might be interested in purchasing.

For the FDA, it boils down to that the manufacturer verifies what the vendor claims. That's when you get to collect certificate of analysis (CoA) like pokemon. Then you have to do your own in-house verification. It's to mitigate risk. If a batch has to be recalled, the FDA comes and reads the documentation. They clear you, and go after the vendor. But if you didn't do your own verification, you get roped into fines and possible litigation. It's a CYA.

It leads to a lot of paperwork of people signing off on things that other people have written or signed off on. As pharma people, we're used to the two signature requirements for official manufacturing documents.

One of the big things happening in the dietary supplements industry is that the FDA is going after firms overseas (China), that supply ingredients that are not what they claim to be, or there are issues with the strength (too little, too much).

But the major thing is that the juice was made in a clean facility and from legit ingredients.

You seem to be confusing the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products with their other departments which have vastly different functions. If the grandfather date is moved, current products will not have to go through PMTA. Subsequent products will have to pass Substantial Equivalence which would actually restrict them from making them any better or safer, as then they would not be substantially equivalent.

Tobacco products also don't have lot numbers.

 

[zoiDman]

The only time I've ever seen a politician hold up a bottle of e-liquid and claim it was targeting kids, it was a non-descript bottle and I believe it was referred to as "strawberry flavored." ...

This was from awhile back...

How Many People have Seen this about e-Cigarettes?

 

[Lessifer]

This was from awhile back...

How Many People have Seen this about e-Cigarettes?

I don't have two hours, can you tell me when they hold up the bottle? I'm thinking of a video from about a year before that. I'm not saying they won't hold up a bottle of Yummy Gummy Unicorn and say it's for kids. I'm saying that they'll call anything with a "characterizing flavor other than tobacco or menthol" something that is targeting minors, because they've done it before.

ETA: Here's an example, Camel Twist, nondescript name, not really kid friendly packaging

 

[zoiDman]

I don't have two hours, can you tell me when they hold up the bottle? ...

It's kinda in the Entire Hearing. Some Senators also keyed in on TV, Net, and Magazine ads.

You really should consider watching it some time. Not that it will make you Happy. It won't. But to see the Level that someone like Boxer will go to in her Rants. And what Tactics are being used against those who Sell/Market e-Liquids.

Fundamental Rule of Warfare: Know Thy Enemy.

 

[Lessifer]

It's kinda in the Entire Hearing. Some Senators also keyed in on TV, Net, and Magazine ads.

You really should consider watching it some time. Not that it will make you Happy. It won't. But to see the Level that someone like Boxer will go to in her Rants. And what Tactics are being used against those who Sell/Market e-Liquids.

Fundamental Rule of Warfare: Know Thy Enemy.

Oh, I know the extent to which they'll go. I think I have watched it before but probably scrubbed it from my memory. That's kind of my point though. Some people seem to think that if vendors are "reasonable" about how they package and/or name things, that they'll just let it slide.

For those who either believe, or will use the belief, that flavors target minors, there is no compromise.

 

[Kent C]

I don't have two hours, can you tell me when they hold up the bottle? I'm thinking of a video from about a year before that. I'm not saying they won't hold up a bottle of Yummy Gummy Unicorn and say it's for kids. I'm saying that they'll call anything with a "characterizing flavor other than tobacco or menthol" something that is targeting minors, because they've done it before.

Actually what you're talking about is a different hearing - Senate H.E.L.P. hearing here:

FDA Regulation E-Cigarettes | Video | C-SPAN.org

The part about flavors is when Harkin takes over at around 45:00 into the video. However, the really good part :- ) is just before that when Sen. Burr is questioning Zeller - and it's there where he talks about how ecigs may be good for 'hard core smokers' BUT not for the 'net population'. This shows Zeller's mind (at least at that time) better than anything I have seen.

 

[zoiDman]

...

For those who either believe, or will use the belief, that flavors target minors, there is no compromise.

True.

But they are Not always the ones who have the Power to Say what Is and Isn't Marketed.

 

[Lessifer]

True.

But they are Not always the ones who have the Power to Say what Is and Isn't Marketed.

True, but that fight was already lost:

On September 22, 2009, FDA banned cigarettes with characterizing fruit, candy, and clove flavors -- cigarettes that have special appeal for children. The agency’s national effort to enforce this provision of the Tobacco Control Act and to advise parents about the dangers of flavored tobacco products was an important first step for responsible tobacco regulation that will protect the American public.

What are FDA’s Regulations for Flavored Tobacco?

There really is a reason, other than semantics, that I'm against the "tobacco product" classification.

 

[zoiDman]

True, but that fight was already lost:

...

It Could be.

 

[bigdancehawk]

The only time I've ever seen a politician hold up a bottle of e-liquid and claim it was targeting kids, it was a non-descript bottle and I believe it was referred to as "strawberry flavored." If you believe they'll leave a strawberry flavored liquid alone just because you decide to call it Red Silk Tie, I've got a bridge you might be interested in purchasing.

Then you've missed the vast majority of attacks. It boils down to gifting the ANTZ with opportunities to make attacks that sound credible.

 

[Lessifer]

Then you've missed the vast majority of attacks. It boils down to gifting the ANTZ with opportunities to make attacks that sound credible.

They don't need gifts. Their argument is that flavors attract kids. Packaging and names are just icing on the cake. Will they hold up a teddy bear package? Sure, but they'll also hold up a plain white bottle with the name Jack's Drop and tell the soccer mom's that "this liquid tastes like lemon drop candies and is targeting your children." Or they won't hold up a bottle at all and just say "these drug peddlers are making their nicotine taste like fruit and candy to hook the next generation of addicts."

It's a ridiculous argument, but they know how to make it play well. They've even got a good portion of the vaping world believing it. That's okay though. Keep thinking that they'll leave it alone as long as it's not "obvious." When it happens, you can blame those who were audacious enough to call their strawberry lemonade liquid "strawberry lemonade" just like a lot of vapers blame cloud chasers for indoor vaping bans, even though those bans started appearing long before the first vaper went sub ohm.

 

[Canadian_Vaper]

It's a ridiculous argument, but they know how to make it play well. They've even got a good portion of the vaping world believing it.

It is ridiculous! Adults don't like flavor? Yeah right. Adults can enjoy all the flavors from their youth without eating copious amounts of sugar? Hazaaa!

The only thing I don't like is the packaging and it's not that it's trying to get kids hooked it's that some of them look like familiar characters from food packaging that infants may associate with those foods because it looks and smells like it, but as long as vapers are responsible and keep it out of their reach it's not even an issue..

 

[Lessifer]

It is ridiculous! Adults don't like flavor? Yeah right. Adults can enjoy all the flavors from their youth without eating copious amounts of sugar? Hazaaa!

The only thing I don't like is the packaging and it's not that it's trying to get kids hooked it's that some of them look like familiar characters from food packaging that infants may associate with those foods because it looks and smells like it, but as long as vapers are responsible and keep it out of their reach it's not even an issue..

Yup. It's why you don't leave that bottle of lemon scented pinesol on the table. Small children will get into anything. It doesn't even have to "look appealing" for them to try to eat it, depending on the age. They don't ban pictures of fruit on household cleaners though. They don't even require CRP.

 

[choochoogranny]

We all know the FDA does NOT care about children's health......else most of the surgary products on the cereal aisle of the grocery store would be gone! Might as well give them a bag of candy.

Since diabetes and overweight children are so prevalent anymore, are the images on cereal boxes constricted? How about TV advertising? Haven't had to buy cereal for a couple of decades so haven't kept up.

 

[Lessifer]

We all know the FDA does NOT care about children's health......else most of the surgary products on the cereal aisle of the grocery store would be gone! Might as well give them a bag of candy.

Since diabetes and overweight children are so prevalent anymore, are the images on cereal boxes constricted? How about TV advertising? Haven't had to buy cereal for a couple of decades so haven't kept up.

Not restricted at all. My daughter, who can't read yet, knows exactly what lucky charms is, and she knows it has marshmallows!

 

[choochoogranny]

Thought so, Lessifer. When my kids were small and grocery shopped with me, taught them where the amt. of sugar per serving was listed on the side of the box. They were allowed to select the cereal as long as that number didn't go above 11......Not much to pick from then. Bet even less so now.

 

[Lessifer]

Thought so, Lessifer. When my kids were small and grocery shopped with me, taught them where the amt. of sugar per serving was listed on the side of the box. They were allowed to select the cereal as long as that number didn't go above 11......Not much to pick from then. Bet even less so now.

I don't watch it too closely but the tiny tyrant alternates between two cereals, Cinnamon Toast Crunch and Raisin Bran. Oddly enough, CTC has 9g of sugar per serving, whereas the RB has 18g, because of the raisins.