The costs of running this huge site are paid for by ads. Please consider registering and becoming a Supporting Member for an ad-free experience. Thanks, ECF team.

After FDA Approval, New Tobacco Product To Launch In Atlanta (iQOS)

Discussion in 'FDA Regulations' started by sofarsogood, May 2, 2019.

Tags:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Image has been removed.
URL has been removed.
Email address has been removed.
Media has been removed.
  1. sofarsogood

    sofarsogood Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Oct 12, 2014
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Rossum

    Rossum Surly Curmudgeon Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Dec 14, 2013
    NE FL
    This is yesterday's news. ;)

    Permitting sale is not the same as "FDA approval"

    While today’s action permits the tobacco products to be sold in the U.S., it does not mean these products are safe or “FDA approved.

    I expect IQOS to be moderately successful because it delivers things that vaping cannot; the minor alkaloids and MAOIs in a form that actually tastes like a cigarette, but without most of the other bad stuff like tar and carbon monoxide. Nicotine alone doesn't cut it for some people; if it did vaping would already have killed off smoking by now.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  3. sofarsogood

    sofarsogood Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Oct 12, 2014
    But everybody is going to say FDA approved except the industry. No stopping that.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. bombastinator

    bombastinator ECF Guru Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Sep 12, 2010
    MN USA
    What always kills me about this stuff is when some hack writes a headline that is immediately contradicted in the body copy. They knew I’d was garbage WHEN THEY WROTE THE HEADLINE! but they did it anyway. Lying liars are lying again.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. Bill Godshall

    Bill Godshall Executive Director
    Smokefree Pennsylvania
    ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Apr 2, 2009
    At last year's FDA TPSAC meeting, I urged Mitch Zeller to not approve the PMTA submitted by Altria/PMI for IQOS unless and until FDA rescinds its Deeming Regulation (that bans the sale of >99.9% of vapor products now on the US market on 8/8/2022, that banned sales of nearly all vaporizers sold at vape shops because they weren't on the market on 8/8/2016, and that FDA is citing to unlawfully ban sales of flavored vapor products at stores that allow youth entry). My testimony is posted at
    FDA TPSAC meeting on PMI/Altria's MRTP for Marlboro Heat Sticks and IQOS

    FDA's End Game strategy for the vapor industry since 2011 has been (and remains) to create legal multi billion dollar heat-not-burn and vapor product monopolies/cartels (by approving PMTAs one, two or several heat-not-burn and vapor products owned by Big Tobacco, as only several of the largest tobacco companies have the $100+ Million and dozens/hundreds of research & development and regulatory staff necessary to submit a PMTA to FDA that the agency will actually consider reviewing).

    After FDA approves PMTAs for several of these Big Tobacco products, those FDA created monopolists (i.e. Altria/PMI, BAT Reynolds, and perhaps others) will aggressively lobby FDA (alongside CTFK and other vapor prohibitiionists) to aggressively and strictly enforce the Deeming Rule's ban on the sale of ALL other vapor products (that Gottlieb extended to 8/8/8022, then changed the date to 8/8/2021 in a draft guidance that also banned sales of flavored vapor products at stores that allow youth entry).

    The most effective way to keep hundreds of thousands of different vapor products on the shelves of 10,000+ vape shops and online is to prevent/delay the FDA from approving PMTAs (and MRTPs for products marketed by the Big Tobacco companies that urged FDA to impose the Deeming Rule).
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. Bill Godshall

    Bill Godshall Executive Director
    Smokefree Pennsylvania
    ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Apr 2, 2009
    FDA's comment claiming IQOS wasn't "FDA approved" traces its roots to my 2004 letter to members of US Congress (below) urging them to reject the Tobacco Control Act legislation (that was negotiated and agreed to in 2003/04 by Philip Morris lawyer Mark Berlind, RWJF financed CTFK's Matt Myers and then GlaxoSmithKline lobbyist Mitch Zeller).

    One of the reasons cited in my letter was that the TCA legislation would
    "- allow manufacturers to promote cigarettes as FDA approved,"

    When Henry Waxman and Ted Kennedy introduced the Tobacco Control Act bills in 2005 they included a clause that specifically prohibited all tobacco companies from claiming that any of their products were "FDA approved" (even if FDA approved a marketing order for Substantial Equivalence, or a PMTA). That clause is in the TCA, the FDA has already approved marketing orders for hundreds of different cigarette brands via SE, but none of the companies are allowed to say so).



    Via FAX September 20, 2004

    The Honorable Mitch McConnell
    361-A Russell Senate Office Building
    Washington, DC 20510
    Attention: Michael Zehr

    Dear Senator McConnell:

    On behalf of Smokefree Pennsylvania, I write urging you to OPPOSE the DeWine-Kennedy Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (S.2461) for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) tobacco regulations that the Senate amended to the FSC/ETI legislation, and to also OPPOSE both House and Senate approved tobacco quota buyouts.

    Since I founded Smokefree Pennsylvania in 1990, our nonprofit organization has advocated policies for smokefree air, reducing tobacco marketing to youth, increasing tobacco taxes, preserving civil justice remedies for injured tobacco victims, and increasing smoking cessation. We've also exposed many deceptive tobacco industry protection policies, programs, strategies, coalitions, front groups, lobbyists and politicians.

    While some health groups have endorsed S.2461, upon detailed analysis,

    Smokefree Pennsylvania opposes this FDA legislation because it would:
    - protect cigarettes from market competition by lower risk tobacco,
    - increase Philip Morris cigarette sales and huge 50% market share,
    - perpetuate manufacturer safer cigarette frauds via FDA oversight,
    - misrepresent health risks of noncombustible (smokeless) tobacco,
    - ban harm reduction marketing of lower risk products to smokers,
    - severely limit FDA authority to issue effective product regulations,
    - do very little if anything to reduce cigarette use, diseases or deaths,
    - allow manufacturers to promote cigarettes as FDA approved,
    - fool people into believing FDA is resolving the cigarette pandemic,
    - reduce manufacturer liability as cigarettes kill 500,000 annually.

    Sound regulations discourage or eliminate the most hazardous products, and encourage the development of and transition to lower risk products. But S.2461 protects the most hazardous tobacco product (cigarette) from competition by prohibiting truthful marketing of lower risk noncombustible (smokeless) tobacco products to addicted smokers.

    Cigarettes kill 50% of addicted smokers, and up to 63,000 American nonsmokers annually (from secondhand smoke and fires). In contrast, smokeless tobacco kills about 1% of addicted users, but ZERO nonusers. Swedish smokeless (snus) and other new low nitrosamine noncombustible tobacco products pose even fewer risks. Smokers who switch to smokeless products sharply reduce disease and death risks.

    But S.2461 perpetuates the myth/fraud that noncombustible tobacco is as hazardous as cigarettes by requiring larger labels on smokeless packs and ads stating: "This product is not a safe alternative to cigarettes," and by not informing smokers (e.g. labels on cigarette packs and ads) that smokeless tobacco poses fewer mortality risks.

    Sound product regulations protect consumers from health frauds. But S.2461 perpetuates the deadliest consumer fraud (safer cigarettes) by allowing 'light' cigarettes to remain on the market in their easily recognized pack designs and colors (minus the word 'light'). Marlboro Lights largest market share would increase (at expense of competitor brands) while current customers continue smoking the brand, which Philip Morris would call Marlboro Gold. Yet, S.2461 does nothing to warn smokers that 'lights' are just as hazardous as other cigarettes.

    Any S.2461 authorized FDA performance standards for cigarettes almost certainly would be incorrectly perceived by the public as making cigarettes safer, which would discourage many smokers from quitting and could encourage youth and exsmokers to smoke. Just as filters, low tar, lights and ultralights never reduced cigarette's health hazards, neither would removing a few chemicals or carcinogens from cigarettes or from the smoke, but the public (especially smokers) would be fooled.

    Section 911(g)(2) would allow a cigarette manufacturer to apply for and receive FDA approval for "an explicit or implicit representation that such tobacco product or its smoke contains or is free of a substance or contains a reduced level of a substance, or presents a reduced exposure to a substance in tobacco smoke."

    Philip Morris has stated it will market a so-called 'reduced exposure' cigarette this year, and it appears that Section (g)(2) was drafted by the company in order to obtain FDA approval for its new marketing campaign. The FDA shouldn't perpetuate, initiate or allow safer cigarette frauds.

    Although Philip Morris desires the benefits it receives from S.2461, the company is contemplating legal challenges to other provisions. Mary Shaffrey of the Winston-Salem Journal (upon interviewing Mark Berlind of Philip Morris about the legislation) recently reported: "However, because of a 2001 Supreme Court ruling that dealt with tobacco advertising, Berlind said he is confident that the FDA provisions in the Senate bill would eventually be changed."

    Sound regulations also allow regulatory agencies unfettered authority to issue regulations that reduce access to hazardous products. But S.2461 prohibits the FDA from issuing many of the potentially most effective cigarette access reduction regulations, including:

    - increasing the minimum age to purchase cigarettes beyond 18 years,
    - eliminating cigarette sales from any type of retail outlet (about 500,000
    retail outlets sell cigarettes in America),
    - requiring prescriptions to buy cigarettes (as FDA does with other drugs),
    - removing nicotine from cigarettes,
    - eventually removing cigarettes from the market.

    More comprehensive public health analyses of this FDA legislation is available at: www.notobaccobailout.org.

    Smokefree Pennsylvania supports fair and effective federal regulations for tobacco products, and we acknowledge that S.2461 contains some improvements over the status quo. But overall, this FDA legislation gives the cigarette and Philip Morris significant unwarranted protection and benefits, at the expense of public health.

    Finally, we urge you to oppose both the $9.6 billion House approved and $12 billion Senate approved tobacco quota buyouts because the overwhelming majority of beneficiaries don't even grow tobacco.

    Thank you for your consideration, and feel fee to contact me for additional information about these important policy matters.

    Sincerely,


    William T. Godshall, MPH
    Executive Director
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Love Love x 1
  7. bombastinator

    bombastinator ECF Guru Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Sep 12, 2010
    MN USA
    This says to me that the vapocalypse is still on. Maybe I need another couple of liters of nic.

    Anyone remember when the aromamizer plus came out? Is it pre-deeming?
     
  8. sofarsogood

    sofarsogood Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Oct 12, 2014
    Thanks for posti
    Thanks for posting those writings. It's hard to believe the FDA would use their authority as you propose but listening to recent news about our "deep state" in Washington and it's hard to rule out anything with those people.

    Today was about medical check up stuff. Vaping got me off cigarettes 4 1/2 years ago. Since then I'm on a health kick, diet, exercise, etc. that is only be happening because I managed to switch The indifference of my government towards my personal well being is obvious and chilling to put it mildly.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice