FDA Big news coming out of FDA
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I get how this could affect new customers, but even then I see it as a maybe thing. Someone that is new can get the info elsewhere, or remain in the dark about what eCigs are given that they live in the 21st century and apparently have zero idea what internet searches are.
But for existing customers, do you need another advertisement for whatever vaping product you buy that says, "no ash" or "less chemicals than traditional cigarettes?"
I'm thinking all of my non-vaping friends know at least something about the safety of eCigs and I'm including all those who I haven't had the educational talk with. It's been around that long to know about them.
Perhaps there is an example I am overlooking that would make or break a vaping product. I'd like to have that put on the table for all of us to consider.
But I'll also just note that there will be tests on all of this stuff, and there will be companies that cave into FDA warning letters in a heartbeat and other companies that wish to take FDA to court to fight for their right to advertise in way that they think FDA is stretching way too much on the MRTP front. If vaping company comes out with something in say 2017 that vapers have not seen before and it makes sense to them to highlight a design feature that deals with safety, I think they'll do it, and will likely have already figured out how they would respond to FDA / State should they choose to make an issue out of things. To assume the FDA / government is automatically going to win in these cases is the part that is self defeating.
Marketing refers to more than ads. One point would be that with this, all e-liquid would most likely be required to carry a warning of "Not a safe alternative to smoking" or some other nonsense.
For anyone who already knows about vaping, marketing doesn't really matter, for those who are still on the fence about trying it, it can mean a lot.
Better not say drinking water is a safe alternative to smoking. fda might freak out.
I'm not sure some grasp how businesses who make things which go into the body are allowed to market their product...
Do you think e-liquid vendors should be compelled to add "WARNING: Not a safe alternative to smoking" to their labels?
Doesn't make a difference to me, but not smoking and not vaping is the only safe alternative to smoking...
Do you believe vaping to be safer than smoking?
It's not about not being able to make the claim that it is safer than smoking, it's about being forced to warn that it's not.
Sure, but it is harm reduction, not elimination. I entrust the FDA to require whatever warning labels they feel are appropriate, which 99% of consumers will ignore anyway. It really doesn't matter...
As someone who has dealt with the fda, they really shouldn't be trusted. They don't give a crap about people. They care about one thing and that is money. If you think they can be trusted look at all the crap that they approve that ends up hurting people or worse. Here is a small example of the things I saw when dealing with them. The product ran through water to cool. The water would get nasty. So someone decided to put a couple of drops of bleach in the water. Well the fda flipped out because it wasn't in the procedure for that product. They saw how dirty the other water was and didn't care as it was following procedure. This was stuff that would end up in the body....... Wouldn't they want it as clean as it could be? After an investigation and a fine they allowed the procedure to be changed.
There was no testing to see if the bleach did anything to the product. So it wasn't like they where concerned it was doing anything. If they cared they would have said good job on making it cleaner. Instead they saw a way to make a quick Buck.
There was no testing to see if the bleach did anything to the product. So it wasn't like they where concerned it was doing anything. If they cared they would have said good job on making it cleaner. Instead they saw a way to make a quick Buck.
They won't require that because it also states an unproven claim.
What they may require is:
"This product has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease or condition."
Wouldn't this depend on what you do when you are not smoking and not vaping?
IMO, some people don't grasp how smoking cessation doesn't equate to a "now you are safe from threat of dying" card.
I think it is quite plausible that vaping is healthier than not vaping. I've done the cold turkey thing. Got colds on average of twice a year. Not so as a vaper.
But if there are warning labels smokers won't take up vaping, because the warning labels every smoker knows by heart prevented them from smoking....oh, wait a minute...
That's a great selling point. E liquid companies should advertise vaping prevents sickness, and why not have them also say vaping prevents and or cures cancer. Sounds pretty reasonable...
No FDA should promote how not smoking cures all cancers and prevents you from dying. Sounds entirely reasonable...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
