FDA BT (and BT alone) wrote these regulations?

[Jman8]

Can anyone cite data that supports this sort of assertion? I see it often on ECF and find it baseless. I don't dispute that BT may be accepting of some of the regulations. Some vapers, myself included, may despise this. But I think that is entirely different claim than the ones that say, as if there's no doubt, that BT wrote the regulations, to favor BT products only.

So, I'd like to see that backed up. If not understanding what I'm asking for exactly, I'll be glad to repeat it as may be necessary.

 

[Bobbilly]

I doubt it. But I think they won't fight it because they are set up to live with it

 

[mooreted]

I think big pharma has more influence and lobbies harder. NRT is big business.

Sent from my easy chair using brain waves.

 

[DrMA]

We could never hope to get that kind of insight into what happens between lobbyists and their pet regulators behind closed doors at exclusive venues. We'd need a whole new Snowden-like event to get our hands on that kind of inside info.

For now, however, I'm perfectly comfortable to say that the FDA deeming regs appear to be written wholly by BT. This is an inference that's particularly easy to make, since BT is the obvious sole survivor in the ecig market should these regs be enacted.

 

[Kent C]

Can anyone cite data that supports this sort of assertion? I see it often on ECF and find it baseless. I don't dispute that BT may be accepting of some of the regulations. Some vapers, myself included, may despise this. But I think that is entirely different claim than the ones that say, as if there's no doubt, that BT wrote the regulations, to favor BT products only.

So, I'd like to see that backed up. If not understanding what I'm asking for exactly, I'll be glad to repeat it as may be necessary.

Who do you think wrote in the options of 'premium cigars'? (actual question).

Or perhaps more correctly, why do you think such an option was included?

 

[patkin]

Concrete... no. Circumstantial... yes. Who benefits?

 

[sonicdsl]

Wholly written by BT? I have my doubts; I tend to think there was at least certainly a huge amount of input by both BT and BP. I can see them all in a back office w/FDA honchos negotiating certain aspects of it...

 

[cclaplante]

Cancer treatment is bigger business, but I expect if these deeming regulations somehow don't go in favor of the tobacco lobby, pharma will be next to try and stick their hand in the cookie jar. Either way, some rich folks get richer.

-C

I think big pharma has more influNRT is big business.

Sent from my easy chair using brain waves.

 

[aikanae1]

Wholly written by BT? No, but they may have been highly influenced by 3rd parties reflecting BT's positions. I'm also of the belief that BP was influential in much the same way. Then we also have ANTZ doing their fair share. What I've caught myself doing is shortening the story rather than list them all; if it seems predominately BT that's who I mention.

These regs have gone through several phases in development and everyone has tried to influence the stages. It's not hard to look back and find various claims of influence. Remember when BT was discovered having closed talks with the FDA < a year ago, or that TVECA appears to have the draft regulations before anyone else. In the UK there was controversy over the role tobacco played, making a deal theirs would be approved or exempt for some reason, and that's why tobacco gave their blessings to the regs. Tobacco companies in the states had publicity lined up within hours of deeming regulations released, also giving them thumbs up. That's mighty fast work for a pr dept. without advance notice. But I don't think it's a far off bet to assume the FDA got tobacco to sign off on them in a deal before they were released. The way regulatory agencies and congress work together today, I think that's courtesy anymore.

Did BT write them? Probably not. But did they influence them? Probably. Just like all the major stakeholders have had influence to various degrees. It's too bad the public hasn't been considered a major stakeholder in these negotiations. It's all about "public health" and yet the public have probably had the least influence.

 

[rurwin]

BT, BP and ANTZ are all different parties with different agendas. None of them are friendly toward us.

BT is happy with e-cigs so long as they can control the market. That's difficult as things stand, but if the market was half a dozen cig-a-likes with an expensive barrier to market entry, that would suit BT down to the ground.

BP want to keep selling expensive quit aids. Maybe in a dark dream, cancer treatments too. A cheap, effective and uncontrolled quit aid like e-cigs is a death knell. On the other hand, half a dozen ineffective cig-a-likes will be no problem.

ANTZ wants to ban all tobacco, nicotine and the horse they rode in on. They are along way along making nicotine socially unacceptable and having more and more drakonian laws passed against it. Effective e-cigs with an ever expanding user-base threaten to destroy what they have spent forty years or more building. On the other hand, if the only e-cigs available were useless, then nobody would want to use them. They want an all out ban, but that would be a good second best.

The deeming regulations, as written, read as a compromise between all three positions, with no regard to us users. Whether it was or not, you'd have to open that closed door to find out.

 

[KODIAK (TM)]

Wholly written by BT? I have my doubts; I tend to think there was at least certainly a huge amount of input by both BT and BP. I can see them all in a back office w/FDA honchos negotiating certain aspects of it...

This.

After their last ...-whooping by NJoy, the FDA would be fool-hearty not to run certain aspects by anyone with the pockets to litigate. The FDA has basically brought "suit" against the industry and the rest was all plea bargaining.

 

[Stubby]

I don't know about the deeming regulations, but the tobacco act of 2009 (Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act) was written by Altria along with Tobacco Free Kids. When it first passed it was referred to by those in the know as the Marlboro protection act. It was written to protect the status que, which is exactly was it is doing. The deeming regulation is based on the Tobacco Control Act.

By making it very difficult for new products to come on the market it essentially freezes the market at 2007. Many of the new innovative products, which also happen to be far less risky then smoking, came on the market after 2007. The tobacco act is likely the worst law every written for public health.

 

[Jman8]

We could never hope to get that kind of insight into what happens between lobbyists and their pet regulators behind closed doors at exclusive venues. We'd need a whole new Snowden-like event to get our hands on that kind of inside info.

For now, however, I'm perfectly comfortable to say that the FDA deeming regs appear to be written wholly by BT. This is an inference that's particularly easy to make, since BT is the obvious sole survivor in the ecig market should these regs be enacted.

Agree with first paragraph.

Second one, I strongly disagree with. BT will not be sole survivor in the eCig market.

But I reckon those who agree with your take, which I would say is majority of ECF politically aware vapers, see it this way. Agree that BT will be sole survivor and that at very least it appears like FDA regs are wholly written by BT. And yet weirdly, there is nothing to substantiate this other than supposition.

To be clear, this is not a matter of inference.

 

[Jman8]

Who do you think wrote in the options of 'premium cigars'? (actual question).

Or perhaps more correctly, why do you think such an option was included?

I think like BV, CASAA, BT and perhaps others, that premium cigar manufacturers/lobbyists got to FDA before proposal and made it clear that their products are not used by kids and have never come close to being marketed to kids. FDA saw that, and came up with option 1 wording, that will allow comments help determine route they will go.

 

[Jman8]

Wholly written by BT? I have my doubts; I tend to think there was at least certainly a huge amount of input by both BT and BP. I can see them all in a back office w/FDA honchos negotiating certain aspects of it...

Supposition that ignores what OP was asking for. But as that is thus far common in this thread, I would be interested in your version of why BT would do this if that version is different than what DrMA was supposing.

 

[Kent C]

I think like BV, CASAA, BT and perhaps others, that premium cigar manufacturers/lobbyists got to FDA before proposal and made it clear that their products are not used by kids and have never come close to being marketed to kids. FDA saw that, and came up with option 1 wording, that will allow comments help determine route they will go.

I think the same for your question - but as others have said, not concrete (or none than I know of - perhaps it's in someone's email whose computer crashed and they can't now retrieve it ) but circumstantial.

 

[Jman8]

BT, BP and ANTZ are all different parties with different agendas. None of them are friendly toward us.

BT is happy with e-cigs so long as they can control the market. That's difficult as things stand, but if the market was half a dozen cig-a-likes with an expensive barrier to market entry, that would suit BT down to the ground.

BP want to keep selling expensive quit aids. Maybe in a dark dream, cancer treatments too. A cheap, effective and uncontrolled quit aid like e-cigs is a death knell. On the other hand, half a dozen ineffective cig-a-likes will be no problem.

ANTZ wants to ban all tobacco, nicotine and the horse they rode in on. They are along way along making nicotine socially unacceptable and having more and more drakonian laws passed against it. Effective e-cigs with an ever expanding user-base threaten to destroy what they have spent forty years or more building. On the other hand, if the only e-cigs available were useless, then nobody would want to use them. They want an all out ban, but that would be a good second best.

The deeming regulations, as written, read as a compromise between all three positions, with no regard to us users. Whether it was or not, you'd have to open that closed door to find out.

I mostly agree with this, and with what aikanae1 was getting across as it speaks to influence, rather than nefarious claim of authoring the regs to benefit BT. In my opinion (and observation) BT and FDA despise each other. Far more than any vaping company despises FDA including NJoy. Night and day difference, IMO. But BT has learned to not take a firm position that would appear as having little to no concern for kids possibly using a product (that contains nicotine).

I can't substantiate the claim, off hand, about BT and FDA despising each other, but feel it is very obvious.

I do think proposed regulations do take users into account and Zeller's comments since then show this (fairly certain I can substantiate this). I don't think they bend over backwards to appease users, nor would a reasonable person expect this. I think our opposition (ANTZ) will essentially never let up on pushing ANTZ to be abundantly harsh on all tobacco products, and that at times, depending on how the political winds blow, FDA will show up as caving into latest ANTZ tactic.

 

[stevegmu]

Successful corporations are successful because of strategies employed and planning for the future. If I ran a company facing regulation, I would certainly propose and agree to regulations which would allow my business to succeed, rather than leave regulation up to the regulatory agency. I'd much rather face regulations on my own terms, so of course I would send said agency a list of proposals agreeable to my business strategy and let the regulators feel they are the ones who have won, even though it is me who has helped shape the rules...

 

[Kent C]

A really successful company would have gotten into ecigarettes much earlier. BT is a bit like Kodak in that respect. However, Kodak didn't have any regulatory agency that would set them up like the FDA did here. As a result, Kodak failed in the free market, like it should have. The same should be true of BT but governments always penalize the winners in the free market and subsidize or help the losers. That way you get more losers who need gov't to exist.

 

[zapped]

Wholly written by BT? I have my doubts; I tend to think there was at least certainly a huge amount of input by both BT and BP. I can see them all in a back office w/FDA honchos negotiating certain aspects of it...

My grandpa always used to say "follow the money" in situations like these.

As an ex-vendor, I can tell you that its a popular misconception that vendors are making out like bandits. That may have been the case 4 years ago when people were paying 80 bucks for a KR808 but nowadays theres far too much competition for that. Regardless of their profits, vendors, even if they pooled all of their collective money together, still dont have hundreds of millions of dollars to "influence" politicians and the FDA.

That leaves only BP and BT as they major players on the board and you can bet they will act in their own "enlightened" self interest.

Basic law of economics.