FDA Tomorrow's FDA workshop on Biomarkers of Tobacco Exposure to focus on e-cigs

[DC2]

Somewhere on ECF there is an extremely long thread that I think rolygate put together and followed this fight from start to finish.

This may be the extremely long thread you're talking about...
Smoking Everywhere V. FDA Daily Docket Sheet Update--APPEAL's COURT ISSUES STAY | E-Cigarette Forum

And here is a summary version...
Smoking Everywhere v FDA -- What is this Case all about, why do we need to watch it, and how to get up to speed on it | E-Cigarette Forum

Somewhere I came across a in-depth e-Cigarette Timeline. I can't seem to find it though.

I wonder if you might be thinking of the timeline at the CASAA website...
E-cigarette History

 

[zoiDman]

...

I wonder if you might be thinking of the timeline at the CASAA website...
E-cigarette History

It Isn't. But that is a Good Timeline resource all the Same.

The one I saw (which might have been "Borrowed" from the CASAA site and the Enhanced) had Links to News Stories, Studies, Commentaries, ECF Threads on many of the Date Milestones.

 

[skrymir]

August - Biomarkers of Tobacco Exposure: A Public Workshop

"FDA will post the webcast along with complete transcripts on this website as soon as they are available"

Has anyone found the complete transcripts for the webcasts? Are they available yet?

 

[Bill Godshall]

Bill, I can only report my summary interpretation of the conversations I've had with both of them.

Did you read Lindblom's piece? He maintains that the FDA can allow e-cigs on the market even though they're illegal. His point is that FDA has the discretion to do this if it perceives e-cigs to have a public health benefit. I think the FDA does believe this, but does not have the knowledge required to determine which products are having this benefit.

Now, perhaps "very light touch" is over-egging things, but where I think Eric is going is towards a model in which the FDA maintains complete fiat control over e-cigs and allows those on the market that it decides are creating a public health benefit.

Do I think this is a good thing? No, emphatically not. But, his view must be considered in the context of his desire for the FDA to enact its low-nicotine cigarette policy.

Now, I accept that an ANTZ lawsuit could force the hand of the FDA. But the FDA does have this discretionary authority and also has the data (the PATH study) which would justify the public health rationale for allowing e-cigs to remain on the market.

Don't get me wrong, Bill, all of this is pointless, destructive, dangerous and costly. BUT, it's also what we might actually be facing, regardless of what we want.

A common tactic of unethical lobbyists and activists is to acknowledge that some provisions of a bill (they are lobbying to enact) could be problematic, and then claim the government agency doesn't have to implement any harmful provisions of the bill, while simultaneously insisting that the bill NOT be amended to eliminate the problems before it is enacted into law.

A more accurate term for this tactic is "lying", but its considered business as usual for many lobbyists in DC, in state capitals, and many city councils.

Regarding Hatsukami, she knows (or cares) very little about the actual ramifications of any FDA tobacco regulations, but for the past two decades she's advocated many different FDA tobacco regulations (that are counterproductive for public health, but that have been financially beneficial for Hatsukami and her ever growing staff of DHHS funded researchers and spin doctors.