Altria letter to FDA endorses deeming and other regs for e-cigs, cigars and OTP to increase Altria's sales at expense of competitors

[Bill Godshall]

Altria sent this letter to FDA


View attachment -10LettertoDrHamburg-SupportofUnregulatedTobaccoProducts.pdf

 

[xhuffer]

James E. Dillard III wrote the letter. He is Senior VP of Regulatory Affairs for Altria Client Services.

Dillards email addy is at the bottom of the first page. Perhaps some ECF members would like to let him know why vapers know Altria supports this position. BT has no morals. Their interest is purely financial in nature and they desire to crush the emerging market.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Altria's letter should be forwarded to lots of vapers and vendors, along with the Action Alert I posted urging folks to contact members of Congress in opposition to the "deeming" regulation.

Very few vapers, vendors, ANTZ and news media are aware that Philip Morris is lobbying for FDA deeming and other regs (because Obama appointees at FDA and CDC and their allies at drug industry funded CTFK/ACS/AHA/ALA/AAP/AMA/Legacy/ATTUD/Mayo, etc have been trying to deceive the public (and they've already duped other ANTZ and the lazy news media) to believe that the FDA deeming regulation will protect children from Big tobacco.

I've been exposing and opposing Philip Morris' lobbying campaign for FDA tobacco regulations since 2003 when PM began negotiating the text of the tobacco Control Act with CTFK's Matt Myers and GSK funded (via Pinney) Mitch Zeller (who is now director of the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products, and the FDA's front man pushing the deeming regulation).

Below is a letter Smokefree Pennsylvania sent to members of US Congress in 2004 urging them to oppose the Tobacco Control Act because it would protect PM's Marlboro cigarette monopoly at the expense of 400 small cigarette companies, and at the expense of far less hazardous smokeless tobacco products (as increasingly more smokers were switching to smokeless, and PM didn't market smokeless products until it bought UST in 2007).

Please note that Waxman changed his TCA legislation in 2005 to prohibit tobacco companies from saying their products were "FDA approved" (due to my exposing that loophole) and in 2007 I convinced Sen. Mike Enzi to amend Kennedy's TCA bill (during the Senate HELP Cmte markup session) to require color graphic warnings covering 50% of cigarette packs, but the FDA approved warnings were struck down by Judge Leon as violating the 1st Amendment because they were propaganda instead of educational warnings).

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

 

[Orb Skewer]

BigT and BigP are 'blood brothers'.

 

[Uma]

I'm so gullible. The PDF letter sounded nice to me, especially their request for the FDA to reject the one size fis all theory.
This is why I follow, not lead lol.

 

[Luisa]

Altria's letter should be forwarded to lots of vapers and vendors, along with the Action Alert I posted urging folks to contact members of Congress in opposition to the "deeming" regulation.

Very few vapers, vendors, ANTZ and news media are aware that Philip Morris is lobbying for FDA deeming and other regs (because Obama appointees at FDA and CDC and their allies at drug industry funded CTFK/ACS/AHA/ALA/AAP/AMA/Legacy/ATTUD/Mayo, etc have been trying to deceive the public (and they've already duped other ANTZ and the lazy news media) to believe that the FDA deeming regulation will protect children from Big Tobacco.

I've been exposing and opposing Philip Morris' lobbying campaign for FDA tobacco regulations since 2003 when PM began negotiating the text of the Tobacco Control Act with CTFK's Matt Myers and GSK funded (via Pinney) Mitch Zeller (who is now director of the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products, and the FDA's front man pushing the deeming regulation).

Below is a letter Smokefree Pennsylvania sent to members of US Congress in 2004 urging them to oppose the Tobacco Control Act because it would protect PM's Marlboro cigarette monopoly at the expense of 400 small cigarette companies, and at the expense of far less hazardous smokeless tobacco products (as increasingly more smokers were switching to smokeless, and PM didn't market smokeless products until it bought UST in 2007).

Please note that Waxman changed his TCA legislation in 2005 to prohibit tobacco companies from saying their products were "FDA approved" (due to my exposing that loophole) and in 2007 I convinced Sen. Mike Enzi to amend Kennedy's TCA bill (during the Senate HELP Cmte markup session) to require color graphic warnings covering 50% of cigarette packs, but the FDA approved warnings were struck down by Judge Leon as violating the 1st Amendment because they were propaganda instead of educational warnings).

It is a pity the Big Tobacco companies cannot-for once-do the honorable thing. With their money and expertise working with Government agencies,we could have had a better and more honest regulatory system within the FDA--not just a selfseving one.

 

[stevegmu]

I really don't have a problem with anything in the letter. Is the issue because it is from Altria? Would the content of the letter be OK, it it were from Kanger?

 

[Placebo Effect]

I really don't have a problem with anything in the letter. Is the issue because it is from Altria? Would the content of the letter be OK, it it were from Kanger?

Summary of Altria's letter:

- Apply the worst parts of the Tobacco Control to e-cigarettes
- But don't go for a "one size fits all" approach

Well, they pretty much advocated for a "one size fits all" approach.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

Summary of Altria's letter:

- Apply the worst parts of the Tobacco Control to e-cigarettes
- But don't go for a "one size fits all" approach

Well, they pretty much advocated for a "one size fits all" approach.

I'd add one thing, make sure the are so onerous that we have only the other big (rich) companies to compete with. Small fast moving ones make life hard (expensive) on us.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Luisa wrote:

It is a pity the Big Tobacco companies cannot-for once-do the honorable thing. With their money and expertise working with Government agencies,we could have had a better and more honest regulatory system within the FDA--not just a selfseving one.

Philip Morris was the ONLY tobacco company that endorsed FDA tobacco regulation or the Tobacco Control Act from 2001-2007 (as PM drafted and negotiated the TCA bill with CTFk and GSK back in 2003/04). In 2007, UST and Swedish Match endorsed the TCA after Waxman agreed to change the TCA to allow select free samplings of smokeless tobacco in adult only locations and because UST was bought by Altria (Philip Morris). RJ Reynolds, Lorillard and the rest of the tobacco industry opposed the TCA (along with me) until the day it was signed by Obama in 2009.

Since 2009, while all tobacco companies have advocated THR policies for FDA, Altria/PM has basically endorsed all FDA regulations, while Reynolds, Lorillard and the rest of the tobacco industry have resisted/opposed most proposed FDA tobacco regs, while reluctantly agreeing to comply with most regs.

Please note that Lorillard and Reynolds successfully sued the FDA to block the graphic warnings on cigarettes, and to prevent menthol cigarettes from being banned.

 

[aikanae1]

One thing I'd like to point out to legislators was printed recently in the NYT last weekend. In the interview with NJoy, he stated they were looking for ways to make smokers more addicted to their products. In the thread discussing the article this was posted:
Freebase nicotine - SourceWatch

Do they really want a repeat of that? That's the best reason I can think of to not turn this market over to BT or BP.

 

[stevegmu]

One thing I'd like to point out to legislators was printed recently in the NYT last weekend. In the interview with NJoy, he stated they were looking for ways to make smokers more addicted to their products. In the thread discussing the article this was posted:
Freebase nicotine - SourceWatch

Do they really want a repeat of that? That's the best reason I can think of to not turn this market over to BT or BP.

I don't see anything relating to nJoy or e-cigarettes there.

 

[Luisa]

Luisa wrote:



Philip Morris was the ONLY tobacco company that endorsed FDA tobacco regulation or the Tobacco Control Act from 2001-2007 (as PM drafted and negotiated the TCA bill with CTFk and GSK back in 2003/04). In 2007, UST and Swedish Match endorsed the TCA after Waxman agreed to change the TCA to allow select free samplings of smokeless tobacco in adult only locations and because UST was bought by Altria (Philip Morris). RJ Reynolds, Lorillard and the rest of the tobacco industry opposed the TCA (along with me) until the day it was signed by Obama in 2009.

Since 2009, while all tobacco companies have advocated THR policies for FDA, Altria/PM has basically endorsed all FDA regulations, while Reynolds, Lorillard and the rest of the tobacco industry have resisted/opposed most proposed FDA tobacco regs, while reluctantly agreeing to comply with most regs.

Please note that Lorillard and Reynolds successfully sued the FDA to block the graphic warnings on cigarettes, and to prevent menthol cigarettes from being banned.

If I have misunderstood,please let me know. From your posting,it seems Altria is the worst of the worst and is not our friend. How large is their market share?

 

[stevegmu]

Altria's market share in e-cigs is pretty much nothing. The MarkTen is still only available in test markets.

 

[Jman8]

Which part of the Altria letter am I to oppose?

The part where they support legislation to mandate a minimum age to purchase tobacco products? If so, let me know what politician opposes that sort of legislation and I'll be sure to write to them. Until then, I observe that even vapers (and their leading organization) appear to favor that regulation.

How about the part where they urge the FDA to reflect Congress' intent to respect the choice of adult consumers of tobacco products? We vapers oppose them on this for what reason?

There are other parts of this that apart from my facetious questions above, I think are reasonable. That if you are in the market of 'tobacco products' all players ought to be on a somewhat level playing field. I realize that statement alone is controversial/debatable, but I'd be on board with the 'no regulations for vaping' crowd if those same folks were on board with all tobacco products having no regulation. Why can't logs have umpteen flavors injected into their products, as clearly adults do like specialty flavors?

As of this thread, I realize there's more to the PM/Altria letter and politics than meets the eye, of simple reading of the letter. But it is challenging to stand 100% opposed to all that is in that letter. And right about now, it seems impractical to suggest vaping ought to not be regulated at all. Once the FDA stuff is proposed, we'll all know what we are actually up against, rather than playing the guessing game that has been going on now for what, like 5 to 10 years?

 

[stevegmu]

They are opposed to the content of the letter because it is from a big bad tobacco company. The letter could be the most glowing composition in favor of vaping and they would still be opposed to it. My guess is most of those opposed to it haven't even read it.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Luisa wrote

If I have misunderstood,please let me know. From your posting,it seems Altria is the worst of the worst and is not our friend. How large is their market share?

Altria/Philip Morris have about 55% of cigarette market share, about 55% of smokeless tobacco market share, about 20%-30% of cigar market share, and virtually no market share for e-cigs (yet).

Altria is supporting the deeming regulation because it would further increase (perhaps significantly) their cigar and e-cig market share, and because the deeming regulation would reduce future declines in their Marlboro cigarette sales.

 

[Old Chemist]

A concise analysis of Altria's e-cig business future can be found here. I am pretty sure they know what they're doing. Small companies might really be in danger.