Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!

[zoiDman]

Now it should be about the reasonable interpretation of the legislation they were given. And the legislation does recognize a benefit from a MRTP that decrease cigarette use and improves public health. Whether they can be compelled to reconsider the current interpretation remains to be seen. It's a mater of how motivated the head of the tobacco Institute and the Commissioner of the FDA are to doing what's appropriate to the mission given by the TCA, decreasing harm from tobacco.

Yeah... Seems like we need some New Thinking at the FDA when it comes to MRTP's. Because based on some of the Studies coming out of the UK, it would seem that most e-Cigarettes would be a Slam Dunk for a MRTP Market Order.

BTW - Here is a Interesting Table.

Modified Risk Tobacco Products

 

[MacTechVpr]

You're right, if the FDA took a wildly different interpretation of MRTP than they have in the past, it could be possible within the current regulations.

How do you fix a process where its basis in fact is fraudulent, its proponents disingenuous and its authority supra-legal?

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Good luck all.

 

[Lessifer]

An interpretation that can change on the whim of the director, especially one that can be revoked at any time, just doesn't seem like a stable foundation for an industry. I think it would be better if there were clear standards.

 

[CMD-Ky]

An interpretation that can change on the whim of the director, especially one that can be revoked at any time, just doesn't seem like a stable foundation for an industry. I think it would be better if there were clear standards.

The threat of change is a tool of power in the hands of a bureaucrat. It is the flute by which the government keeps all of the serfs dancing like chained bears. There will be no clear standard, a standard which is clear and stable is a standard to which an industry can adapt. The government will never abandon the power of uncertainty.

 

[CMD-Ky]

How do you fix a process where its basis in fact is fraudulent, its proponents disingenuous and its authority supra-legal?

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Good luck all.

I would like to "Like" this many more times than once.

 

[DC2]

Your entire post was outstanding, but the part below in particular reads like poetry to me...

Why fashion the same half-measures that only served as inadequate compromise in the face of an adversarial or indifferent Congress and leadership? Why voluntarily subscribe now to an unlawful process already in place which only promises further constraint and limitations on property. That somehow misconstruction by regulators will then cease? Or, will it rather be assured?

 

[MacTechVpr]

Your entire post was outstanding, but the part below in particular reads like poetry to me...

Thank you but I would far rather trade all my mods and toottie-puff the rest of my life to see a broader understanding of this by the public and particularly the vaping community.

Good luck.

 

[Bronze]

Just listened to Trump reading a new executive order he signed this afternoon. Simply put, he is ordering each government agency to set up their own task force to evaluate the legitimacy of each regulation in their purview. Essentially, A) is the regulation necessary, and B) does it stifle economic growth?

Bottom line is the Deeming regulations will get reviewed by the Department of Health and Human Services. I'm guessing those regulations that are time sensitive will be given some level of priority.

 

[DavidOck]

That may be a good thing, if enough attention is paid to the economic impact of stores closing...

 

[Rickb119]

That may be a good thing, if enough attention is paid to the economic impact of stores closing...

It all depends on how they "spin" the facts. Or, in the works of Mark Twain, "There are lies, damn lies and statistics".

 

[Bronze]

That may be a good thing, if enough attention is paid to the economic impact of stores closing...

Exactly!

 

[beckdg]

That may be a good thing, if enough attention is paid to the economic impact of stores closing...

That's how we nixed the reptile ban, the non-indigenous pet ban and the asian fish ban.

This is definitely good news.

Tapatyped

 

[Bronze]

I think most of us felt the Deeming regulations would get reviewed at some point by the new administration. This executive order signed today just puts it into writing and should put to rest any notion that they would not get reviewed. And as mentioned by David, it will be reviewed from an economic impact standpoint. My opinion, but it seems pretty obvious to me that jobs will be lost when you essentially regulate an industry out of existence. Given this, it will pass Trump's threshold for negatively affecting economic activity. From there, it should get some priority to be reviewed for its necessity (in this case, its relative safety).

 

[beckdg]

It all depends on how they "spin" the facts. Or, in the works of Mark Twain, "There are lies, damn lies and statistics".

Maybe not.

All you have to do is be honest.

*An addict is a life long consumer.
*Tax money is being lost.
*Massive companies are losing money in the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries.
*Cigarette addiction costs more to the average consumer than our alternative after initial investment.

Economically all we have is decimation of an entire industry of little guys.

An industry who's whole goal is to eliminate the profits of addiction. Or at least I'd hope so.

Tapatyped

 

[zoiDman]

Just listened to Trump reading a new executive order he signed this afternoon. Simply put, he is ordering each government agency to set up their own task force to evaluate the legitimacy of each regulation in their purview. Essentially, A) is the regulation necessary, and B) does it stifle economic growth?

Bottom line is the Deeming regulations will get reviewed by the Department of Health and Human Services. I'm guessing those regulations that are time sensitive will be given some level of priority.

Yeah... I saw that.

Just Me. But if you were an Incoming President, wouldn't you want to get All of your Agency People in place before you called for such a Review?

I mean, who is going to setup such a Review Task Force at the FDA? Ostroff?

 

[Bronze]

Yeah... I saw that.

Just Me. But if you were an Incoming President, wouldn't you want to get All of your Agency People in place before you called for such a Review?

I mean, who is going to setup such a Review Task Force at the FDA? Ostroff?

Not necessarily. Those agencies that don't have Trump's guy in place can be given extensions until the new guy gets his/her feet wet. But for those agencies with secretaries in place there should be no reason why they can't get started. In case of the FDA, it wont be them setting up the task force. That will be up to Tom Price at DHHS. And he might be given latitude to delay this action until he has his FDA guy in place (for those things that are FDA related). If I'm Tom Price I'm not going to allow an interim commissioner to decide who sits on a task force unless I felt he was the right guy...especially since Ostroff was appointed by the Obama administration.

 

[Eskie]

Yeah... I saw that.

Just Me. But if you were an Incoming President, wouldn't you want to get All of your Agency People in place before you called for such a Review?

I mean, who is going to setup such a Review Task Force at the FDA? Ostroff?

And therein lies the problem. It's a matter of WHO does the review and WHAT criteria do they apply? If an agency comes back and said "OK we looked, all fine on our end", is the White house going to vet every evaluation for objectivity and accuracy? It looks good to sign an executive order like that as a feelgood action, but it's putting those words into effect that determine the outcome. And if the FDA chooses to remain with the view that vaping is the devil incarnate, in agency reviews will get us nowhere. I'd like them to, but I'm not expecting that. Legislation and some litigation remain the best path to assuring a long term stable approach by the agency.

 

[Bronze]

And therein lies the problem. It's a matter of WHO does the review and WHAT criteria do they apply? If an agency comes back and said "OK we looked, all fine on our end", is the White house going to vet every evaluation for objectivity and accuracy? It looks good to sign an executive order like that as a feelgood action, but it's putting those words into effect that determine the outcome. And if the FDA chooses to remain with the view that vaping is the devil incarnate, in agency reviews will get us nowhere. I'd like them to, but I'm not expecting that. Legislation and some litigation remain the best path to assuring a long term stable approach by the agency.

Can't disagree with anything you said. But if DHHS came back and said the Deeming regulations need to go you wont see me complaining.

All hands on deck!

 

[motordude]

And therein lies the problem. It's a matter of WHO does the review and WHAT criteria do they apply? If an agency comes back and said "OK we looked, all fine on our end", is the White house going to vet every evaluation for objectivity and accuracy? It looks good to sign an executive order like that as a feelgood action, but it's putting those words into effect that determine the outcome. And if the FDA chooses to remain with the view that vaping is the devil incarnate, in agency reviews will get us nowhere. I'd like them to, but I'm not expecting that. Legislation and some litigation remain the best path to assuring a long term stable approach by the agency.

Egzactly!!!
I like the words coming out, but I'm dying to see some actual action!

 

[Rossum]

If an agency comes back and said "OK we looked, all fine on our end", is the White house going to vet every evaluation for objectivity and accuracy?

I don't think that would fly with this administration. I would expect the people appointed to these task forces to understand that they are all "apprentices" and what two words DJT is best known for.