FDA Big news coming out of FDA

[Oliver]

Things are not looking good. This is absurd: https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2015-24313.pdf?source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery …

Essentially, claims that e-cigs can help people to stop smoking will render the products subject to medical regulation.

Claims that e-cigs are safer will render them subject to "modified risk tobacco" authorisation.

E-Cig companies will be limited to marketing their products as being "satisfying", essentially using the language of the tobacco industry prior to 2000 (due to a Brown & Williamson loophole).

This rule is proposed to "remove ambiguity for marketers", but at the expense of any consumer-facing clarity.

The future looks bleak.

 

[roxynoodle]

The link isn't working for me.

 

[Ryedan]

The link isn't working for me.

It did for me. Try it here.

 

[Bad Ninja]

D
I
Y

 

[thehangdude]

We still have word of mouth! Many people still tell me ecigs are worse than cigarettes. We just need to keep informing our friends and other smokers to our better way of life.

 

[Surf Monkey]

We still have word of mouth! Many people still tell me ecigs are worse than cigarettes. We just need to keep informing our friends and other smokers to our better way of life.

We have a lot more than that, and that's why the legislation will ultimately fail. The industry is increasingly established with every passing day. Getting that foot back out of the door will be a Herculean task.

 

[Bones]

We have a lot more than that, and that's why the legislation will ultimately fail. The industry is increasingly established with every passing day. Getting that foot back out of the door will be a Herculean task.

Did you read this yet SM? I scanned it and will read more later - But -
To me it looks like it's all about labeling and advertising claims -
Not banning or doing away with as they tried before - No?

 

[Bad Ninja]

Did you read this yet SM? I scanned it and will read more later - But -
To me it looks like it's all about labeling and advertising claims -
Not banning or doing away with as they tried before - No?

There should be standards in labeling.
That much I agree.

 

[Steamix]

Things are not looking good. This is absurd: https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2015-24313.pdf?source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery …

Essentially, claims that e-cigs can help people to stop smoking will render the products subject to medical regulation.

Claims that e-cigs are safer will render them subject to "modified risk tobacco" authorisation.

E-Cig companies will be limited to marketing their products as being "satisfying", essentially using the language of the tobacco industry prior to 2000 (due to a Brown & Williamson loophole).

This rule is proposed to "remove ambiguity for marketers", but at the expense of any consumer-facing clarity.

The future looks bleak.

Ashtrays help people to stop smoking too - I can snuff the .... anytime I want and stop smoking - at least this one particular cig.

modified risk ... hmmm... buckling up modifies - but does not eliminate - risk. Installed airbags modify - but do not eliminate - risk.

satisyfying ... let's see now ... pretty much anything from food to sex toys has been marketed as 'satisfying'...

Plain food has medical properties too - it prevents people from dying of starvation or getting ill from malnourishment.
Left, right and center we get told that a well-balanced diet is essential for good health.
An apple a day keeps te doctor away 'n all that.
Let's ship it all off to the pharmacies then, including the ashtrays....

They should quit insulting our intelligence by grasping at semantic straws. Ain't gonna fool anyone who really took the trouble of just superficially researching n reading up on e-cigs.

At least come clean and say what's it really about : ''We - and our inhouse lobbyists from various interest groups - want this stuff to disappear cuz it messes up our bottom line"

 

[MattyTny]

Maybe I didn't interpret correctly, but describing most vape products as a drug, device, and or component seems Iike a stretch when the article also point out that there is a difference between "medical and recreational" products. For example, will a dry product vaporizer that is labeled now "for tobacco use" become a recreational product? It's s bit confusing for me since some states have a recreational and a medical definition for the product being used in those devices. Sorry if that's borderline inappropriate for the forum, it's a genuine question I have.

I am curious to see what constitutes a device or component to be a medical product. There seems to be a heavy emphasis on clarifying what is what in the article. I feel like the names for all our products are going to change soon.

It must be crazy expensive to get something to pass as appropriate. And that's even if the FDA will pass our "medical products". Another wall.

 

[VHRB2014]

There should be standards in labeling.
That much I agree.

Hey! I label all my DIY. "Some of this, some of that, more of the good stuff" LOL.

More to the point. I get less and less concerned with what the shrieking mobs tell me nowadays, and more concerned with what "I" know.

 

[Oliver]

No - this is all marketing - including "circumstantial evidence" that therapeutic claims are being made.

So, if you run a B&M and help your customers to transition to vaping, you better watch out.

 

[Croak]

Not good. Won't be a problem at all for atomizer and mod makers, but I think it's going to be a fatal wound to juice makers and DIY nicotine suppliers, and just about every B&M in the country will die. And once that domino topples, THEN it starts impacting the hardware makers.

And the clock starts ticking tomorrow:

24313 Filed: 9/24/2015 08:45 am; Publication Date: 9/25/2015

 

[Bad Ninja]

Hey! I label all my DIY. "Some of this, some of that, more of the good stuff" LOL.

More to the point. I get less and less concerned with what the shrieking mobs tell me nowadays, and more concerned with what "I" know.

Absolutely!

Id be happy with the same labeling guidelines as candy and food.
List ingredients from largest to smallest amounts used.
List additives, make no health claims.

Simple, proven effective, and doesn't really ban anything but sketchiness.

 

[Oliver]

MRTP - "this e-liquid contains 3mg/ml of liquid which is less than 6mg/ml"

 

[Infernal2]

I wonder if the way around this sort of regulation is to simply label everything novelty and sell components in separate store locations as they do e-liquid in much the same way that the adult toys and "water pipes" do in certain shops. Of course, you would still have to be VERY careful about your advertising but that's not too much of a surprise.

 

[Sirius]

It did for me. Try it here.

Thanks...Sounds like the FDA is forming their language for regulations. Question is, will ecigs be treated as nicotine gum and patches or just like regular cigarettes? Either or this is going down. The future of the industry is going to be expensive.

 

[Bad Ninja]

We already have the same type of regulation on vitamins and herbal dietary supplements.
It didn't really stop sales.

Here's an example:

At most convenience stores you can buy herbal extracts or other supplements over the counter.

They can't make claims that it "cures" or "treats" any ailment or condition, but they still sell them without any restrictions.

When govt starts actively restricting/banning nicotine extract we are in serious trouble.

 

[philoshop]

The "powers-that-be" are going to keep throwing stuff out there to see what sticks.
Stand together, folks. We're not done yet.

 

[Sir2fyablyNutz]

My first thought was I needed to go buy some nicotine for diy. Nah. It almost reads as if the FDA is passing the buck on this one. For some unexplained reason I am not too worried ...yet. I feel like there will be good and bad coming out of this. It has to be a major setback for the ANTZ people that the FDA didn't put a nail in the coffin (insert pun on coffin nails).