FDA and bringing new vaping products to market

Status
Not open for further replies.

oplholik

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Mar 22, 2011
12,078
33,872
San Bernardino area, So. Cal.
I was wondering about this and what it does to Imeo producing new mods and selling in the US. Not very promising.
The FDA has set the date of Aug. 8th, 2016 as a deadline for bringing new vaping products to market. After this date FDA approval will be needed, likely a very expensive and and lengthy procedure.
This thread may be helpful. FDA Deeming updates - VTA issues FDA regulations calendar
 

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,314
1
83,835
So-Cal
I am not an expert on all this, it is all so confusing, but from what I understand after Aug 8th, nothing vape related gets sold w/o FDA approval.

This isn't exactly true.

Products that have not been sold Before August 8th are considered "New Products". And these New Products can Not be sold after August 8th without 1st receiving Approval from the FDA via a PMTA for ENDS application.

Which BTW will be All but Impossible for anyone but BT, BP or possibly BV.

Another member posted this in the Big "Deeming" thread. It does a Pretty Good job of explain the Basics.

Dear Mr. Guster,


Thank you for contacting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding its recently finalized rule, “Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as Amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act” (Deeming rule).


FDA anticipates that newly regulated businesses may have many questions and compiled this e-mail as a resource to help you better understand the Deeming rule and the potential impact to your business. We encourage you to review this information and keep checking our website for new information such as compliance training webinars and updates based on questions FDA receives.


The law defines a manufacturer as anyone who manufactures, fabricates, assembles, labels, or processes a tobacco product. Establishments, such as vape shops, that mix and/or prepare combinations of liquid nicotine, flavors, and/or other liquids, or an establishment that creates or modifies an aerosolizing apparatus for sale to consumers would be considered a tobacco product manufacturer.


These requirements include:

  • Register domestic manufacturing establishment(s) and submit product listings to FDA by December 31, 2016;
  • Reporting ingredients, and harmful and potentially harmful constituents;
  • Requiring premarket review and authorization of new tobacco products by the FDA;
  • Placing health warnings on product packages and advertisements; and
  • Not selling modified risk tobacco products (including those described as “light,” “low,” or “mild”) unless authorized by the FDA.
Manufacturers of newly-regulated products must show that the products meet the applicable public health standard set forth in the law and receive authorization from the FDA, unless the product was on the market as of Feb. 15, 2007. For products that were not on the market as of the effective date, a premarket authorization is required prior to marketing those products. For products on the market as of the effective date, under staggered timelines, the FDA does not intend to enforce the premarket review requirements for up to three years while manufacturers submit – and the FDA reviews – a new tobacco product application. The FDA will issue an order granting marketing authorization where appropriate; otherwise the product will be subject to enforcement.

Under the new Deeming Rule, FDA now regulates any product that meets the definition of a tobacco product, except accessories (e.g., ashtrays, humidors, carrying cases). This includes any component of a tobacco product that is intended to alter the tobacco product’s performance, composition, constituents or characteristics or intended to be used with or for the consumption of a tobacco product. Some examples of components include cigar wrappers, cigar tobacco filler, coils, flavor cartridges, and liquid nicotine cartridges that are used in e-cigarettes.

All manufacturers of components of tobacco products that are sealed in final packaging intended for consumer use have to comply with certain provisions of the law. Some examples of these requirements include: establishment registration and product listing, premarket review, reporting of Harmful or Potentially Harmful Constituents (HPHCs), submission of tobacco health documents and ingredient listing, and compliance with the free sample ban.

Only those manufacturers of components of tobacco products that are sealed in final packaging intended for consumer use and are made or derived from tobacco must comply with the nicotine warning statements required on package labels and advertisements. And only those manufacturers of components of cigars that are sealed in final packaging intended for consumer use and are made or derived from tobacco must comply with the health warning statements required on the package labels and advertisements and submission of a rotational warning plan to FDA.

The following are a few examples for illustration:

Company A manufactures many liquid nicotine cartridges in different strengths that are packaged and intended to be sold to consumers to be used in an e-cigarette. Company A is required to comply with establishment registration and product listing, premarket review, reporting of HPHCs, submission of tobacco health documents and ingredient listing, and compliance with the free sample ban. Also, because the liquid nicotine is made or derived from tobacco, it also must bear the required nicotine statement on its packaging and advertisements.

Company B manufactures liquid flavor cartridges intended for use in flavored e-cigarettes. Company B sells their product to Company C who assembles a flavored e-cigarette closed system device. Company C sells their flavored e-cigarettes to Company D who packages and labels the flavored e-cigarette for sale to consumers. FDA will not require Company B or C to comply with any of the regulatory requirements listed above. Company D, however, is required to comply with the establishment registration and product listing, premarket review, reporting of Harmful or Potentially Harmful Constituents (HPHCs), submission of tobacco health documents and ingredient listing, and compliance with the free sample ban.

Company E manufactures many different flavors in different cartridges that are packaged and intended to be sold to consumers to be used in e-cigarettes. Company E is required to comply with establishment registration and product listing, premarket review, reporting of HPHCs, submission of tobacco health documents and ingredient listing, and compliance with the free sample ban. However, Company E does not have to comply with the nicotine warning on its packaging and advertisement because the component is not made or derived from tobacco.

Please see Deeming Rule and Small Entity Compliance Guide for further information.

FDA does not assess fees associated with the requirements identified above. The costs associated with compliance with these requirements may vary based on the type and complexity of the product, and, as a result, FDA is not able to provide an individualized estimate of costs that you may incur. However, FDA has included in the preamble to the Deeming rule its estimates of the quantified costs associated with the Rule over 20 years, as well as estimated hourly burdens on impacted entities (such as tobacco product manufacturers) for the requirements described above. Please see the link provided below for more information.

Final Rule and Accompanying Documents

Resources for Additional Information

FDA continues to update its Deeming webpage to provide information designed to help industry understand the Deeming rule. We plan to soon add a chart that may help you determine which provisions apply to you and the timeframes for complying. In addition, FDA plans to post Tobacco Compliance Webinars.


We also encourage you to subscribe to FDA’s “This Week in CTP.” By subscribing, you’ll receive updates about regulatory activities, retailer notices, upcoming events, and public education campaigns.


Should you have further questions after reviewing this information, you may contact CTP using the following communication methods:


Email:

SmallBiz.Tobacco@fda.hhs.gov

Phone:

1-877-287-1373

Mail:

Food and Drug Administration

Center for Tobacco Products

10903 New Hampshire Avenue

Silver Spring, MD 20993




IM0978383
 

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,314
1
83,835
So-Cal
Thanks zoiDman for the clarification. My statement above was misleading.

Hey no Problem oplholik.

The Entire FDA Deeming is a Ginormous Cluster Fluck. And it is Confusing even for those who have been Deeply Involved with it.

One thing to Note that Many People are Not Considering. And that is After e-Cigarettes, e-Liquids, and even some Component Parts are Deemed a "Tobacco Product", then sellers are going to have to Comply with any City, County, State and Federal Requirements for the Sale of "Tobacco Products".

So you May be able to Sell that RDA or Tank because it was Sold before Aug 8th, and it is Not a New Product, if you can Not Fulfill ALL the requirements to sell a "Tobacco Product" in your City, County, State or the Feds (like your Location is Not Zoned for Tobacco Product Sales) then you may be SOL.
 

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,314
1
83,835
So-Cal
Just wanted to Add that for those Products that have been Sold before Aug 8th, there will be a 2 Year window to File a PMTA for ENDS application with the FDA.

A PMTA for ENDS is basically a FDA Approval Process that says you product has meet the Mythical and Unspecified Requirements of the FDA for a "Tobacco Product" to be sold in the USA.

If you submit a PMTA for ENDS Application for your Product and the FDA Denies your Application, then you will Not be Able to Sell you Product, Period.
 

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,314
1
83,835
So-Cal
any idea about the money they are needed to file a PMTA and approved by fda zoi?

Estimates Vary Wildly.

And since there is No Clear Understanding of How Much Study/Scientific Data is Needed, it is Hard to say what the Overall Cost would be.

If I just had to Throw Out a Number for a Piece of Hardware, Maybe $150,000 ~ $200,000 ?

For a Flavored e-Liquid? Wow... Very Hard to Say. $350,000 ~ ???
 

oplholik

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Mar 22, 2011
12,078
33,872
San Bernardino area, So. Cal.
This sounds about right, I've heard it will be very expensive. I believe it's made so expensive so that big tobacco will be the only ones that can afford it. So you pay your money, and there is no guarantee of approval, and no refunds. When you get into juices, even more expensive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zoiDman

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,314
1
83,835
So-Cal
Yes... The Monetary Requirements are going to Filter Out all but BT, BP and perhaps BV or a BV Collective.

But it is the No Guarantee of Approval that makes it such a Crocked and Unethical Process. Because the FDA doesn't tell an applicant what would be Considered Expectable. And what Wouldn't.

It is like Sending in you Tax Return (and a Big Fat Check) not know what you supposed to be Paying. Only to have the IRS say Sorry, that wasn't Enough. Try Again.

A Regulation should Set a Standard for Minimum Compliance. And these Standard should be part of the Public Record.
 

imeothanasis

Unregistered Supplier
ECF Veteran
Feb 13, 2009
47,882
34,510
Athens, Hellas
gg-goldengreek.com
I dont see how anyone will be able to pay those money zoi. And even if he pays the money, even if he is sure that his product will be approved, the guy will need years to take back these money from sales and also make money too. So the thing is that almost all companies will close. The worse thing is that innovation will totally stop.
Also are these money required too for the existing in the market devices that have to be registered during the 2 years time?

op, the trick is the usual one: Ask them for money that they cant pay lol
 

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,314
1
83,835
So-Cal
I dont see how anyone will be able to pay those money zoi. And even if he pays the money, even if he is sure that his product will be approved, the guy will need years to take back these money from sales and also make money too. So the thing is that almost all companies will close. The worse thing is that innovation will totally stop.
Also are these money required too for the existing in the market devices that have to be registered during the 2 years time?

op, the trick is the usual one: Ask them for money that they cant pay lol

I think what makes All this Hard for People to Wrap their Heads Around it, is that people are comparing scenarios to a "Free Market". And not to a Regulated Market with Limited Suppliers.

How much is the Total US e-Liquid market worth? A Billion Five? 2 Billion Dollars? What if you could Capture a 25% Share of that?

Now ask Yourself if that 3 or 4 Hundred Thousand seems like Much? Heck, spend 10 or 20 Million if the Return is going to be 300 or 400 Million. And that's per year. Every Year.

So Yeah... Big Money PMTA's are going to Price Out Small/Mid-Sized Companies. But it Isn't going to Price out BT. Or BP. Or maybe even a BV. There is Just Too Much Money laying on the Floor for Someone not to Pick It Up.
 

Rickajho

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Apr 23, 2011
11,841
21,763
Boston MA
This isn't exactly true.

Products that have not been sold Before August 8th are considered "New Products". And these New Products can Not be sold after August 8th without 1st receiving Approval from the FDA via a PMTA for ENDS application.

Which BTW will be All but Impossible for anyone but BT, BP or possibly BV.

Another member posted this in the Big "Deeming" thread. It does a Pretty Good job of explain the Basics.

I find it troubling that the examples cited in the FDA reply all use pre-filled "cartridges" as their example of a manufactured product. It makes me wonder about two things: First, is the FDA still really that unclear about what they are actually doing. Secondly, if this is true there could be very murky waters about all aspects of the regulations for a long time. (Neither of which may actually be a bad thing.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Izan

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,314
1
83,835
So-Cal
I find it troubling that the examples cited in the FDA reply all use pre-filled "cartridges" as their example of a manufactured product. It makes me wonder about two things: First, is the FDA still really that unclear about what they are actually doing. Secondly, if this is true there could be very murky waters about all aspects of the regulations for a long time. (Neither of which may actually be a bad thing.)

I Don't think you should be Troubled by the references to "Closed System" Cartridges. I think it Should Scare the Hell Out of You!

Because some believe that "Closed System" Cartridges are about the Only Thing that will receive PMTA for ENDS approval.

If you Think about it from the FDA's perspective, Closed Systems tie up a Lot of Annoying Lose Ends.
 

Rickajho

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Apr 23, 2011
11,841
21,763
Boston MA
I Don't think you should be Troubled by the references to "Closed System" Cartridges. I think it Should Scare the Hell Out of You!

Because some believe that "Closed System" Cartridges are about the Only Thing that will receive PMTA for ENDS approval.

If you Think about it from the FDA's perspective, Closed Systems tie up a Lot of Annoying Lose Ends.

I still say it leave us loopholes you can drive a bus through. Only time and those lawsuits will tell.
 

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,314
1
83,835
So-Cal
That's been passed around in circles enough already by us armchair Attorneys. What we need is some real legal opinion - and some more filings. I don't buy the "we say and do whatever we want" product definitions myself.

OK.

But JSYK, the interjection of "Intended Use" wording by the FDA has Closed any of the "Loopholes" that many have suggested a Deeming Rule Set may have.

That is, Unless I am Mis-Understand your use of the word "Loophole".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread