FDA US House Appropriations Cmte bill would prevent FDA from banning e-cigs now on the market

[SeniorBoy]

Not a single word about ecigs in the official Committee web site text. That's OK! /lol We can all read page 86. Interesting numbers for your reading pleasure:

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) –The FDA receives a total of almost $2.6 billion in discretionary funding in the bill, an increase of $30 million over the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. Total funding for the FDA, including revenue from user fees, is $4.6 billion – $106 million above fiscal year 2015. Within this total, food safety activities are increased by $41.5 million, and medical product safety activities are increased by $4.2 million.

Subject Committee Source: Appropriations Committee Releases the Fiscal Year 2016 Agriculture Appropriations Bill | Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives

 

[SeniorBoy]

"Harold Wimmer, president and chief executive of the American Lung Association, said his group “is deeply disappointed” that the subcommittee would target FDA funding."

“This provision would significantly weaken FDA’s authority over these unregulated tobacco products,” Wimmer said.

Source: House subcommittee decision could limit money to regulate electronic cigarettes - Winston-Salem Journal: Nation / World

Deal with it Harold!

 

[zoiDman]

....you have to admit this was a brilliant move including this in the appropriation bill

To be Honest with you, I hate Tactics like this.

Measures should be Judged on their Own Merits. And I don't like Holding things as Financial Hostage which are Bound Up in a Much Larger spending package.

But... I feel the Grandfather Date was set with the Sole Purpose of Stifling the e-Cigarette Market. So as to Benefit BT,

So maybe 2 Wrongs do make a Right?

 

[YoursTruli]

I get what you are saying and usually wholeheartedly agree this kind of tactic usually works against majority opinion which is why I feel they do it this way I swear but for once benefiting the underdog turns out to be a good thing. now to see if it goes through as is because so much gets cut and rewritten.

ETA: as it stands right now Rep. Tom Cole’s bill (HR 2058) is given a 3% statistical chance of passing which is scary

 

[zoiDman]

I get what you are saying and usually wholeheartedly agree this kind of tactic usually works against majority opinion which is why I feel they do it this way I swear but for once benefiting the underdog turns out to be a good thing. now to see if it goes through as is because so much gets cut and rewritten.

...

Yeah... I hear you.

It's just I don't like saying something like this is OK when it Benefits me. And an Subversion of the System when it Doesn't.

I will say this though. It seems that Vaping has had to Endure Orchestrated Misinformation Campaigns. Biased FDA Workshops. Slanted "Studies". And "Save the Children" drum beaters left and right. All of which have Been Heavily Funded using Public Funds. Seems like Everywhere I turn, someone is Subverting the System to Slam e-Cigarettes.

So perhaps Bending Ones Integrity a Tad is needed if one must Fight Fire with Fire.

 

[caramel]

The whole system is bent beyond the point where you could still achieve something just through the voice of reason.

Why would you want to shed a tear, especially for some Antz that fully used the system to their advantage?

 

[caramel]

“This provision would significantly weaken FDA’s authority over these unregulated tobacco products,” Wimmer said.

!

This sentence doesn't make much sense. If they're unregulated, then FDA has no authority on them. How do you weaken no authority?

 

[YoursTruli]

I think sometimes you have to take any edge you can get, at least it's an honest edge. This has not been a fair or honest fight on the antz side from day one. A large part of the problem is some of same political powers and antz organizations that fought in the cigarette/tobacco/smoking fight are still in power and know what tactics worked to achieve their goals. Heck some even bragged about it in the senate hearing and FDA workshops, they have taken this issue from a political battle to a personal vendetta and have shown they will do what ever it takes to win.

 

[Jman8]

Exactly what I am saying. I do not support this one or the 2007 grandfathering. Both are illogical.

We are not talking about rolled up leafs here. In the context of vaping, this grandfathering nonsense makes no sense.

If arguing both are illogical, I would say rolled up leafs are equally illogical.

Moving the grandfather date is the most significant move we can make given what we know so far about the proposed deeming. It is also within reasonable political reality. Suggesting it not be advocated for because it doesn't go far enough is IMO, being completely impractical. Undeniably impractical. I would like to hear the alternatives that anyone thinks stands a chance of going forward politically. I'm thinking no one will be able to come up with any alternatives, even while the idealistic alternative (don't regulate it further) is what pro-vaping position would love to see happen. In that fantasy version of reality, I'm guessing there is no such animal as ANTZ.

 

[Stubby]

But... I feel the Grandfather Date was set with the Sole Purpose of Stifling the e-Cigarette Market. So as to Benefit BT,

The grandfather date was set long before anyone here even heard of electronic cigarettes. The reason for the date is that it was the original date that the bill was first introduced. It didn't get passed until over 2 years later, but the grandfather date stood.

It is a long sorted story as to why this was even put in the tobacco control bill of 2009, but what it essentially comes down to is the date freezes the market at February 15, 2007. It wasn't really aimed at the e-cig market, it was aimed at all new tobacco products. E-cigs simply got caught in the middle of it.

 

[zoiDman]

...

It is a long sorted story as to why this was even put in the tobacco control bill of 2009, but what it essentially comes down to is the date freezes the market at February 15, 2007. It wasn't really aimed at the e-cig market, it was aimed at all new tobacco products. E-cigs simply got caught in the middle of it.

Yeah... You are right.

The Question I have Asked many People outside of the ECF is what problem is there in moving the Grandfather date for e-Cigarettes up to say 2014? Or even 2012?

They just kinda Smile.

It's like you said, e-Cigarettes were Caught up in the Middle of this.

 

[caramel]

The FSPTCA was not designed with e cigs in mind. In fact, FDA didn't even think of e cigs as being covered by FSPTCA until a certain lawsuit suggested it to them. And then they tried to fit e cigs into it through language abuse. No matter what they say, there are no tobacco leaves in e cigs. Nor are e cigs substantially similar to tobacco leaves extracts.

Fitting e cigs under FSPTCA is a travesti and everyone knows it.

 

[Stubby]

The FSPTCA was not designed with e cigs in mind. In fact, FDA didn't even think of e cigs as being covered by FSPTCA until a certain lawsuit suggested it to them. And then they tried to fit e cigs into it through language abuse. No matter what they say, there are no tobacco leaves in e cigs. Nor are e cigs substantially similar to tobacco leaves extracts.

Fitting e cigs under FSPTCA is a travesti and everyone knows it.

The travesty is not just electronic cigarettes but all of the newer low risk products, wether they contain tobacco leaves or nicotine extracted from tobacco, since that has nothing to do with actual risk. The real crime is the FDA's inability to differentiate low risk from high risk. Keller's statements about the continuum of risk has not lead to any real action, and I have little hope of them doing so in the future.

 

[azb8496]

I'll agree with many of you that riders are not a good practice in politics, in general. However, we don't live in an ideal world and, in fact, in an ideal world we wouldn't need the evils of politics. Ultimately, it would be far worse not to act in any legal way we could in regard to salvaging this lifesaving technology.

Also, e-cigarettes aren't in the middle of anything, except the threat of unethical people wielding power over its citizens. There are several modes different government bodies can use to inflict devastation to the industry and its consumers.

 

[Bob Chill]

If the grandfather date is changed, the enforcement angle gets awful muddy. Probably to the point that it won't even happen unless there is some new groundbreaking technology that is vastly different that what is already on the market. From the 10k foot view of regulation, there is really no technological difference between the first vv/vw power supply and what is on the market now. They all still operate and are powered the same. Just bigger and better. Same with tanks/atomizers/drippers etc. They work the exact same as they did the first time they were introduced. Drawing the lines between new and old isn't even worth the fight IMO.

The blindside regulation I'm more worried about is nicotine solution regulation. Regardless of what goes down with the FDA's final rule, new legislation could be introduced at any time that requires nicotine solution to be in sealed, tamper proof, and disposable containers. It could come at the State level and not even in the hands of the Feds.

 

[Kent C]

They work the exact same as they did the first time they were introduced. Drawing the lines between new and old isn't even worth the fight IMO.

Excellent points! Esp. that ^ one. What would be more obvious would be stuff like a total change in vaporizing where coils (and/or wicking) is no longer used.

 

[DC2]

If you read up on "substantial equivalence" even the slightest changes would theoretically require it.

You'll have to prove that one more watt of power will not induce more people to use them.
Or that slight changes to the design of the battery tube will not make it more attractive.

Yeah, grandfathered in is very good.
Substantial Equivalence is still what it is though.

 

[Rossum]

The blindside regulation I'm more worried about is nicotine solution regulation. Regardless of what goes down with the FDA's final rule, new legislation could be introduced at any time that requires nicotine solution to be in sealed, tamper proof, and disposable containers. It could come at the State level and not even in the hands of the Feds.

Of course new legislation could be introduced at any time, to do whatever. But legislation typically has to go through committee, get voted on on two houses, and be signed by an executive (all steps at which the public can oppose it) before it gets handed to some executive agency for implementation/enforcement. Heck, the regs that we're now awaiting to see the final version of are based on legislation that was passed and signed in 2009.

IMO, anything that buys time is A Good Thing; it allows vaping to become more established/entrenched, and gives us more time to stock our freezers at reasonable prices.

 

[Bob Chill]

If you read up on "substantial equivalence" even the slightest changes would theoretically require it.

You'll have to prove that one more watt of power will not induce more people to use them.
Or that slight changes to the design of the battery tube will not make it more attractive.

Yeah, grandfathered in is very good.
Substantial Equivalence is still what it is though.

Agreed about the substantial equivalence but it's the enforcement part that I don't think will stand much chance. Meaning that I don't think anybody (regulatory or not) will give a crap about 1 more watt or one more ml in a tank. Or a new chip. Or anything else. If they change the grandfather date then hardware gets off scott free for the most part. Drawing the line between 07 and 15 is a major gap. Pretty easy to see a clear and defined line. The market it completely stuffed to the gills with all kinds of cool stuff now. Far too much to even make it worth an effort to keep track of.

If you look at vv/vw/mech mod or any tank/dripper out on the market now, is there really any substantial "difference" than what was on the market 2 years ago? Things are cooler and sleeker but there is no real difference in functionality or use. We're basically doing the same exact thing we did a couple years ago. Just with cooler stuff.

Now the future product I envisioned (a self cleaning and wickless chip controlled vape injection system with variable flavor,nic stength, and base ratio) may be in jeopardy. But I can live without that even though it sounds really cool. Heck, I'd be totally happy using the boxes and tanks I have now forever. I haven't bought a new gadget in months. The prospect of losing that isn't acceptable though.

 

[Bob Chill]

Of course new legislation could be introduced at any time, to do whatever. But legislation typically has to go through committee, get voted on on two houses, and be signed by an executive (all steps at which the public can oppose it) before it gets handed to some executive agency for implementation/enforcement. Heck, the regs that we're now awaiting to see the final version of are based on legislation that was passed and signed in 2009.

IMO, anything that buys time is A Good Thing; it allows vaping to become more established/entrenched, and gives us more time to stock our freezers at reasonable prices.

My worry is the ease that it could happen. It's a simple "protect us from ourselves" type of legislation with a really easy target. State and local govs absolutely adore protecting us from ourselves and making decisions for us. And with an issue like this, us vapers will always be far in the minority.

I already have 7 years in the freezer. I'll add a few years to that if things look dicey either way. I've already made my own decision and it can't be taken away for a long time