Very few, except for hunters, have farm animals, people who have their own gardens, grow herbs and spices, make their own beer, wine, soup, etc. but yeah, very few.
FDA FDA announces 3rd so-called Public Workshop on Electronic Cigarettes and Public Health on June 1 & 2
- Thread starter Bill Godshall
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Very few, except for hunters, have farm animals, people who have their own gardens, grow herbs and spices, make their own beer, wine, soup, etc. but yeah, very few.
It really showed Bill in everything that was presented there was very little scientific value and a lot of supposition. I did really like Dr David Abrams and felt he probably had the most complete presentation, being in the healthcare field myself for better then 20 years and attending many like presentations, I felt he presented himself and his research very well.
Overall I don't feel things look good for vapers or the industry as we know it now, just how bad it is going to get still depends on how hard we push back, the way we present ourselves and the ammo we choose. These are not reasonable people we are dealing with here and I think unless someone has ever had the opportunity to deal with gov officials at this level they have no idea just how difficult it really is.
Last edited:
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 66
At FDA Workshop, AVA Urges More Responsible Dialogue About Risks of Vaping
Earlier this morning, AVA President Gregory Conley gave public comment before a FDA Center for Tobacco Products workshop on e-cigarettes and vapor products. This is the third time in six months that Conley has spoken at a meeting of the agency.
During the 3-minute public comment period, Conley delivered the following message:
AVA President Gregory Conley at the FDA
(June 2, 2015)
Good morning. My name is Gregory Conley and I am the President of the American Vaping Association, a nonprofit organization that advocates for small and medium-sized businesses in the vapor market. In August, I will be celebrating 5 years both as a non-smoker.
Ever since the first surveys on vapor product usage were released, fair-minded researchers and advocates have been trying to communicate that better survey methods are necessary to truly understand how adults and teens are experimenting with and using vapor products. I was extremely pleased to see that our calls have been vindicated, as several of yesterday presentations acknowledged the need for more thorough and detailed data collection on items like: (a) days of the month usage and (b) nicotine vs. non-nicotine usage.
On the other hand, regrettably, many of yesterday's presenters were clearly guided more by ideology than by science and reality. For example:
(1) A panelist stated that until regulations are in place, one cannot "assume" vaping is safer than smoking, as if the absence of regulation somehow cancels out the clear body of scientific evidence on the topic.
(2) On the marketing panel, not one speaker could admit that if advertising restrictions led to less adult smokers using vapor products, such a regulation could be bad for public health. I'd hardly call that a balanced panel.
(3) Upon hearing that many doctors were truthfully informing adult smokers that vaping was a good way to quit or substantially reduce their smoking, one panelist gleefully began plotting ways to reverse that by misinforming doctors of the relative risks of smoking versus vaping.
(4) Panelists pushed for flavor bans without even pausing to consider whether such restrictions could harm public health by discouraging adult smokers from transitioning to vaping, while another felt the need to declare, "I'm not pro-harm reduction," as if that wasn't clear from her speech.
(5) Panelists endorsed campaigns that seek to unethically scare smokers away from switching to vaping by highlighting scary-sounding chemicals found in vapor, even if those levels were below those allowed in inhalable medications.
To cap it off, the day ended with a panel that did not include a single person who was willing to state that it was a bad thing for smokers to grossly overestimate the perceived harms of e-cigarette use.
I will close my proposing this -- instead of having speakers declare their financial conflicts of interest, it may be more useful for future participants to start off by answering the question 'Are vapor products less hazardous to users than cigarette smoking?' After all, not knowing the truth about relative risk - or being unwilling to tell the truth - is a much bigger conflict than any financial interest.
Thank you.
About the American Vaping Association:
The American Vaping Association is a nonprofit organization that advocates for the rapidly growing vaping and electronic cigarette industry. We are dedicated to educating the public and government officials about the growing evidence that e-cigarettes - battery-powered devices that heat a liquid nicotine solution and create an inhalable vapor - are harm-reduction products that effectively help smokers quit
Earlier this morning, AVA President Gregory Conley gave public comment before a FDA Center for Tobacco Products workshop on e-cigarettes and vapor products. This is the third time in six months that Conley has spoken at a meeting of the agency.
During the 3-minute public comment period, Conley delivered the following message:
AVA President Gregory Conley at the FDA
(June 2, 2015)
Good morning. My name is Gregory Conley and I am the President of the American Vaping Association, a nonprofit organization that advocates for small and medium-sized businesses in the vapor market. In August, I will be celebrating 5 years both as a non-smoker.
Ever since the first surveys on vapor product usage were released, fair-minded researchers and advocates have been trying to communicate that better survey methods are necessary to truly understand how adults and teens are experimenting with and using vapor products. I was extremely pleased to see that our calls have been vindicated, as several of yesterday presentations acknowledged the need for more thorough and detailed data collection on items like: (a) days of the month usage and (b) nicotine vs. non-nicotine usage.
On the other hand, regrettably, many of yesterday's presenters were clearly guided more by ideology than by science and reality. For example:
(1) A panelist stated that until regulations are in place, one cannot "assume" vaping is safer than smoking, as if the absence of regulation somehow cancels out the clear body of scientific evidence on the topic.
(2) On the marketing panel, not one speaker could admit that if advertising restrictions led to less adult smokers using vapor products, such a regulation could be bad for public health. I'd hardly call that a balanced panel.
(3) Upon hearing that many doctors were truthfully informing adult smokers that vaping was a good way to quit or substantially reduce their smoking, one panelist gleefully began plotting ways to reverse that by misinforming doctors of the relative risks of smoking versus vaping.
(4) Panelists pushed for flavor bans without even pausing to consider whether such restrictions could harm public health by discouraging adult smokers from transitioning to vaping, while another felt the need to declare, "I'm not pro-harm reduction," as if that wasn't clear from her speech.
(5) Panelists endorsed campaigns that seek to unethically scare smokers away from switching to vaping by highlighting scary-sounding chemicals found in vapor, even if those levels were below those allowed in inhalable medications.
To cap it off, the day ended with a panel that did not include a single person who was willing to state that it was a bad thing for smokers to grossly overestimate the perceived harms of e-cigarette use.
I will close my proposing this -- instead of having speakers declare their financial conflicts of interest, it may be more useful for future participants to start off by answering the question 'Are vapor products less hazardous to users than cigarette smoking?' After all, not knowing the truth about relative risk - or being unwilling to tell the truth - is a much bigger conflict than any financial interest.
Thank you.
About the American Vaping Association:
The American Vaping Association is a nonprofit organization that advocates for the rapidly growing vaping and electronic cigarette industry. We are dedicated to educating the public and government officials about the growing evidence that e-cigarettes - battery-powered devices that heat a liquid nicotine solution and create an inhalable vapor - are harm-reduction products that effectively help smokers quit
So true. It's better to know that they're a liar, than who finances their lies. Thanks Greg! and Bill for posting it!
They'll print the "Proceedings of..." then quote it in further materials that will be quoted in further materials etc. until the trace to the origins is lost and their allegations become "science".
your right in saying that just about every thing is regulated.
its the amount of regulation that maters. the devil is in the details.
its interesting to note that Indiana's draconian regulations that concern
the actual production only require that one meet the standards already
in place concerning food handling and production.
i have been saying this is all that is necessary all along.
local regulations can handle the facilities. no need for over-burdensome
federal regulations.whats already on the books is all that is necessary.
regards
mike
So whom from the list below attended these workshops?
http://www.nih.gov/news/health/sep2013/od-19.htm
http://www.nih.gov/news/health/sep2013/od-19.htm
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
