Carl Phillips: FDA reveals its views on ecigs in new publication

[aikanae1]

Councilmember Rose Herrera sent an email yesterday to members of her district asking that residents show up in support of the ordinance, noting that, "Going up against big tobacco and addiction is not an easy feat and I need your help." She apparently doesn't realize that the battle she is waging isn't against "big tobacco," but, rather, against thousands of individual vapers in San Jose who have improved their health and dramatically reduced their health risks by switching (either in whole or in part) to a product estimated to be 99% less hazardous than smoking.

This is an issue that's been present since I first started vaping and it's MARKETING. Just as they've never recognized valid medical studies that didn't support their agenda - they don't recognize b&m's, or "the vaping industry" as being independent. We didn't exist - at least until Well's Fargo recognized the "vaping industry".

The good news is that the councilmember asked for the public's help "because it's so tough". That tells me whatever the push back has been it's been more than they expected. They should have to fight to pass their agenda. Remind them that's called "democracy" and it's not evil. It seems to me the smart move would be to pack the house with independent vendors and vapers so that councilmember could see we exist. Whatever your doing is working. Ty.

This shouldn't be a surprise that they'd want to ignore us. There was even a study of videos at YouTube noting that merchandise was sent to reviewers as evidence that proved we were bought. Just because they try to make a faulty association doesn't mean that we should be silent. If anything, it means they are wounded and need to "prove it". That's exactly when we need to step in and loudly. I think someone else on ECF noted that an explaination is not a sign of winning. True.

We are not big tobacco and we don't want big tobacco (at least me). I am terrified that big tobacco, in the name of competition, will start adding stuff to eliquids to make them more addictive just like they did with cigarettes. The fact BT has been quiet on restrictions leads me to think they believe "the deal has been struck". Look at Illinois ban on nicotine sales, except cigalikes. Huh? How'd that happen ... hmmm.

I really liked the fact WSJ pointed out Herzog's statement that mods and tanks allowed users to dial down their use of nicotine and QUIT!!! Now that's a statement for a poster if I ever saw one.

If they are worried about cigalikes "renormaliizing" smoking then suggest they ban cigalikes just like they did with candy cigarettes. Offer to help them to that. I think that might shake up some of the rotten apples.

But yea, shop owners would be foolish not to show up to something like that and miss their opportunity to claim their right to exist that doesn't include a marrage to BT (or anyone else).

Let me add that I'm not familar with the organization mentioned, nor Conely's. It just seems late in the game to start laying groundwork. I know the vape shops surrounding me know who CAASA is.

Right now, I'd like to see a huge national membership drive because the numbers count.

 

[randyith]

It's possible a few of those things would sell well in places like Zazzle / Cafe Press and I think a few others. That way people can get them as stickers, magnets, shirts, mugs, etc. For all I know, they may even have a ecig holder in there for printing on. That's the distance between the general public and regulation.

I thought an interesting poster would be pics of all the various forms of harm reduction (seat belts etc) with the final pic an ecig. That's more appropiate to what they should be viewed as. There's a lot of potential for parody - ya' just can't make this stuff up.

I just don't see many manufacturers or retailers interested in doing anything. A few have stepped up and I don't want to discount that, but for the most part even those few have done a one time thing as a singular effort rather than contribute to a sustained approach. Do they really think if they beat back a bill one year that the threat is gone forever - or it can't happen here?

I think they need a graphic wakeup call.

LOL! What I'd like to say to the FDA

View attachment 326870

(as far as I know, those images are passed around as open for non-commercial uses)

Why would we tell you what we are doing behind the scenes? We are the ones that have invested millions and have the most to lose. Like we are really going to post private conversations we have had with our 2 US Senators.

Edit: There is a lot more going on with large NC online vendors then you think. A few of us use the s`me law firm and have reached out to Blu.

 

[2coils]

Randy, are you saying its a fallacy that vendors are not stepping up to the plate as much as WE think some should? I am not trying to be sarcastic, but trying to interpret your post

 

[2coils]

Randy, are you saying its a fallacy that vendors are not stepping up to the plate as much as WE think some should? I am not trying to be sarcastic, but trying to interpret your post

Just saw your edit!

 

[randyith]

Randy, are you saying its a fallacy that vendors are not stepping up to the plate as much as WE think some should? I am not trying to be sarcastic, but trying to interpret your post

yes that is correct for NC companies.

 

[2coils]

I can not speak for what is going on in your area, only in Jersey. What I DO know is we have over 20, maybe even 30 vape shops in Jersey now (not counting online vendors), and on March 18th, when fighting in response to the enormous tax, there were a handful of vendors at best in Trenton to testify. This seems to be a common theme nationwide, with a few exceptions. You may be the exception, I give you that. There HAS NOT been any cohesiveness with vendors, until very recently that I can tell, and I am sure many here would agree. I do not dismiss the fact that not all vendors are sharing their business with customers, though, attendance and awareness with some speaks volumes.

 

[2coils]

I do know something is finally organizing in Jersey, My point is, it took a hell of a beating for people to wake up! I hope it isnt too late.

 

[aikanae1]

Why would we tell you what we are doing behind the scenes? We are the ones that have invested millions and have the most to lose. Like we are really going to post private conversations we have had with our 2 US Senators.

Edit: There is a lot more going on with large NC online vendors then you think. A few of us use the s`me law firm and have reached out to Blu.

Why? Vapors show up to testfy and there might be 1 or 2 business owners present. Maybe. I keep hearing the same theme over and over. I think it's a bit surprising when 2 major business' in a state wait until 24 hours before the vote to break silence with a panicked sounding email. What can anyone do then - where were they when all the hearings and rally's were happening? So yea, it does feel like customers care more even though business have more to loose. It's weird.

You have been proactive. There's been others too. I don't want to discount that. The video I posted earlier was sponsored by several eliquid companies, I'm impressed with IMPROOF campaign and I'm sure there's more. I've heard rumors about organizing in the background yet when many of these local bans come up there's little support from small b&m's.

I looked at SFATA and they looked focused on lobbying, which is great because it's essential, no doubt about it. But that's not going to help at the local level. I think a membership drive would be more productive and instead I see donations to animal shelters, disease charities, while those are worthy causes, it makes me wonder if small vape shops are living on the same planet. I can't explain it.

There aren't that many secrets around here. Most of the small shops have owners behind the counter that are very accessable and friendly. It's a small world. Our state has been saved by the fact there's a couple of vapers in the legislature. Lucky, for now.

 

[Jman8]

I realize this thread isn't announcing the FDA deeming regulations.

But IMO, it is providing information that is more important than that. Reading over the linked articles provides, I think, what exactly to expect in deeming regulations. Yet, if that exact information is desired in concise, sound bite form, then this is not for that audience.

When they (opposition) has previously said, "we just don't know," I and many others took that as anecdotal hogwash. Now, in this series of articles, they lay that out. From the first article in the series:

Critical information/tool gaps
Additional scientific studies are needed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of e-cigarettes. Topics for future research include the following:

Understanding of the designs and functions of products currently on the US market is incomplete.

Variable and increased voltage e-cigarettes appear to introduce the ability to deliver increased nicotine concentrations. Higher voltages and other features may introduce the ability to manipulate particle size and increase aerosol mass. Little research is available concerning these functions.

Knowledge of all the materials involved in aerosol production is lacking.

Hazards associated with the use of batteries require further study. Failure mechanisms and the frequency of burn, shock and explosion hazards are unknown.

The possible presence, function and capabilities of the software, sensors and microprocessors incorporated into e-cigarettes are unknown. It is not known what health or topographical data are being collected or how the data may influence or affect regulation and health policies. Software vulnerabilities are also unknown.

The absence of standardised testing protocols compromises comparisons across studies. Standardised test protocols that allow for meaningful testing, categorisation and comparison of e-cigarette test results would be a valuable research tool.

Knowledge of product lifecycles, degradation over time, third-party component performance and misuse is needed.

Underlined emphasis mine.

I'm not saying I agree that all these things are unknown, but am saying this is where they are coming from, and if vaping survives, it will have to address all of these things (and more) because this is the proverbial microscope that the industry is under.

But philosophically, and getting back to sound bite thinking for just a moment, if these things are unknown and a report is now public saying "we need more information," then one can essentially conclude that this industry/product will be around for awhile, if for no other reason to justify (the labor costs) for such studies/research. Plus, if it is truly unknown, then all claims of actual harm are either unknown or made up.

Moreover, if the (actual) science is truly on the side of vaping/vapers, then this publication is a wonderful thing. As in bring it on!

 

[AgentAnia]

Comment on Jman's post: I find it puzzling that people at FDA CTP, public health officials, and alphabet and TC prohibitionists find it acceptable -- nay, praiseworthy -- to keep repeating "we don't know."

Ecigs have been around in this country for at least 7 years. SEVEN! Relevant long-term studies could have been well underway and nearing completion by now if these people were serious about gaining ecig knowledge. The CTP was established (I believe, w/o fact checking) in 2009, so it's existed for five years. FIVE! And still all they can say is "we don't know," and "we need further study." Further study?

Stop telling us how much you don't know and get on with knowing it, is what I say.

 

[Kent C]

Comment on Jman's post: I find it puzzling that people at FDA CTP, public health officials, and alphabet and TC prohibitionists find it acceptable -- nay, praiseworthy -- to keep repeating "we don't know."

What is more disturbing to me, in that what used to be known in papers as a 'morgue file', is all the stories on poisoning, gateway, cancer, etc. etc. and the 'we don't know' ... gets republished every time some reporter or blogger wants to do a 'piece' and does a google search.

And... this will be the case if there is never any tax or regulation on ecigarettes. But there will always be 'those types' that want to bring it up again and they will have all the lies and misinformation as 'ammo'. This is why people should truly despise people like Glantz and Prue. et. al. This is what they do and as Roger seems to want to continuously bring up - they do it well. That they do it so well, means they must be doing this in the face of all the other information out there, and have for their personal or financial or political reasons, chosen to ignore all of that and continue to spread the falsehoods. These aren't 'regular' people.

 

[Jman8]

Comment on Jman's post: I find it puzzling that people at FDA CTP, public health officials, and alphabet and TC prohibitionists find it acceptable -- nay, praiseworthy -- to keep repeating "we don't know."

It certainly is rhetoric in political form, but hard to say it is inaccurate. There are umpteen hundred things to 'know' about eCigs. Just look at ECF. We have a thousand plus threads covering every minute detail on every possible aspect of the rather simple act of vaping. I'm mostly, or usually, in category of "Don't really care about that stuff" but sometimes I care, and sometimes I learn stuff I was overlooking. When it comes to the harder hitting questions of, "will this hurt me," I sometimes see us go with the "don't know for sure. Check with your doctor. Go read CASAA site. More research is needed." So on and so forth. Doctors and CASAA only 'know' so much and reality is they are going on 'best guesses.' Not on everything, but on some pretty important things.

Thing is, if you applied this same scrutiny to I would say virtually any other topic, you'd get a lot of the same lack of knowledge at work. Only people that would "know" for sure are industry experts or arrogant people who think they know, but when scrutinized would likely show up as not knowing jack. Which is partially why I don't really care that much.

Like the first item on that FDA list: "Understanding of the designs and functions of products currently on the US market is incomplete."

Take off the "is incomplete" part, and you could just as well be talking about lots of people on ECF who seem to really care about the designs and functions about products currently on the market. Me, I care if my cigalike is functioning normal today. Beyond that, and it seems like much ado about nothing.

Ecigs have been around in this country for at least 7 years. SEVEN! Relevant long-term studies could have been well underway and nearing completion by now if these people were serious about gaining ecig knowledge. The CTP was established (I believe, w/o fact checking) in 2009, so it's existed for five years. FIVE! And still all they can say is "we don't know," and "we need further study." Further study?

Stop telling us how much you don't know and get on with knowing it, is what I say.

The way I read (into) this report is they are getting on with the knowing of it. Apart from this report, and in the political spectrum, I think they (opposition) relishes in the idea that 'we don't know' and since that is plausible to apply to anyone interested in eCigs, then they can control the narrative to suggest it is potentially hazardous. And because opposition is entirely willing to be deceptive, then in the political spectrum, it kinda sorta doesn't really matter if they did 'know.' Because, they would STILL spin it as probably / undeniably hazardous.

I give you secondhand smoke as prime example. Many here, and all around, would (arrogantly) claim to know that it is harmful/dangerous, based on word of so called experts. IMHO, they don't know jack and have been duped by those who control the narrative within the political spectrum.

 

[aikanae1]

I have to agree that saying they "don't know" is disingenuous. And that's being polite. It seems like everyday, without trying, I run into more information about studies that answers those questions and have been done many times with FDA approval.

I found an PG aerosal update from CIR (cosmetic industry) that evaluates particle size, including ecig (2012) that has been the basis in other industries. I guess CIR has been monitoring inhalation for over a decade. (Of course, I can't find the link to it right now)

There has been intensive testing on inhaled flavorings since they are used in regular cigarettes since the 80's. Surprised me. True that the full range that we are playing with in liquids may not be tested, but that's more like picking up what's left over vs. starting from scratch. Below is information from the 80's;

Included on the publicly released list of cigarette additives are the fragrant and flavorful extracts of anise, cinnamon, molasses, dandelion roots, and walnut hulls; juices from apples, raisins, figs, and plums; black currant buds; peppery capsicum oleoresin; clover tops; nutmeg powder; vanilla; vinegar; smoke flavor; tea leaf; orange blossom water; and oils of basil, bay leaves, caraway, carrots, dill seeds, ginger, lavender, lemon, lime, pepper, Scotch pine, oak chips, and patchouli. The list also includes butter, chocolate, caffeine, coffee, cognac oil, cocoa, honey, rum, water, sherry, and yeast.

All of these have been approved by FDA for use in foods or appear on a federal list of substances "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS).

This stuff could be pulled together. Oh yea, cigarette companies don't like to reveal their "secrets". What bugs me is that tobacco companies have successfully stalled complying with the Master Settlement Act for over a decade now. We still don't know what is in cigarettes. We don't know nicotine level or tar. Some reports say that there are chemicals in them that are illegal to throw in any garbage dump due to toxicity. I didn't have a lot of time, but this doesn't seem to be creating headlines about their non-compliance. Below is from 2009;

The new report found that, despite smoking fewer cigarettes, smokers today are at far greater risk of developing lung cancer than they were 50 years ago, when the first Surgeon General's Report on Smoking and Health alerted the nation that smoking causes lung cancer. The new report also concluded that this outcome is the result of changes made during that time in the design and composition of U.S. cigarettes.

I don't want tobacco companies doing this to ecigs and based on past history, FDA and Congress are not willing to provide the industry oversight. But ecigs? Oh their panties are all in a knot.

This is garbage. We're being yanked around.

No one believes the FDA concerns are genuine. If anything, this is an indictment of what liars they are. They have allowed cigs to get worse, not better and that's "oversight"? I'd like to know why Chantix is still on the market - and why doctors don't seem to know about the numbers of suicides or class action lawsuit. I still get asked if I want it, which is a really bad idea. Doctors don't know. Just like smokers didn't know that "lights" were worse for them. Gee thanks FDA.

I'll bet cigalikes figure they are "safe" due to a backdoor deal already. Good luck with Blu.

I'm sure Bill has talked about a lot of this info already and my details are probably lacking.

Vaping is a safer alternative to smoking. No one guarentees 100% safety and it sounds like that's what the FDA is expecting. Yet at the same time, it demonstratable the agency is incompetent to carry out oversight of any cessation products, due to their insistance on abstation.

Chantix; Quit or die trying (by suicide or cardiac arrest). It'd be cheaper to take us out back and shoot us.

 

[2coils]

Aikanae1 said: Vaping is a safer alternative to smoking. No one guarentees 100% safety and it sounds like that's what the FDA is expecting. Yet at the same time, it demonstratable the agency is incompetent to carry out oversight of any cessation products, due to their insistance on abstation.

Well put! It baffles me too. Cigarettes are and will continue to be readily available, and the DO kill people. Chantix is readily available (with prescription" and has been linked to over 500 deaths.

The actions of the FDA to date show they are no fan of e-cigs. Lets not forget the OMB already kicking back their proposed regulations. E cigs are linked to NO deaths, other than an intentional suicide. Millions of people have switched already, and "coincidentally" cigarette sales are on a more rapid decline the last couple of years. The FDA claims they can't use this information. and actually take credit for the decline in smoking thanks for their own efforts. THIS industry does not have an invitation, to their already formed triangle. The FDA, BT, BP have their own party going on, and WE are not invited!! Health of the taxpayer / average citizen means NOTHING! I have never been more angered in my life!

 

[Kent C]

It almost seems to me that they are using more 'scare mongering' on ecigarettes than they did with cigarettes. Probably not, but the barrage has been endless, with a new black PR line coming up weekly if not daily. They're going over each ingredient (and some just made up) of eliquids and the ecigs themselves. It seems that we have more info on cigarettes than they do - the 4000 different chemicals have only come to wide attention since ecigarettes. Not that the data wasn't there, just that it wasn't as widely known to most.

 

[AgentAnia]

It almost seems to me that they are using more 'scare mongering' on ecigarettes than they did with cigarettes. Probably not, but the barrage has been endless,....

Quite probably *yes* IMO. They are being *forced* to come up with increasingly fearsome scaremongering rants on ecigs, as I see it for two principle reasons: 1) There was very little pushback from smokers when Tobacco Control started its anti-smoking crusade. Vapers, on the other hand, are vocal, knowledgeable, and getting more organized all the time. Vapers are fighting back, and TC is, so far, inexperienced in dealing with opposition; and 2) As the reasons ecig opponents give for their opposition are exposed as bad science, greed, and pure ideology, they are having to find other, more esoteric "reasons" to oppose them. When they can't come up with any more "science," there's always "the chiiiiildren" and "nicotine as a weapon of terrorism," and of course that old standby, "it looks like smoking."

They never had to do all this with cigarettes because there was basically no opposition. Totally different battlefront today, no?

 

[Berylanna]

TVECA | The Tobacco Vapor Electronic Cigarette Association
"Proposed FDA ecig regulations will be posted on TVECA in (countdown timer)

Don't know where they got that info.

 

[pamdis]

Quite probably *yes* IMO. They are being *forced* to come up with increasingly fearsome scaremongering rants on ecigs, as I see it for two principle reasons: 1) There was very little pushback from smokers when Tobacco Control started its anti-smoking crusade. Vapers, on the other hand, are vocal, knowledgeable, and getting more organized all the time. Vapers are fighting back, and TC is, so far, inexperienced in dealing with opposition; and 2) As the reasons ecig opponents give for their opposition are exposed as bad science, greed, and pure ideology, they are having to find other, more esoteric "reasons" to oppose them. When they can't come up with any more "science," there's always "the chiiiiildren" and "nicotine as a weapon of terrorism," and of course that old standby, "it looks like smoking."

They never had to do all this with cigarettes because there was basically no opposition. Totally different battlefront today, no?

I think first they are shocked by the opposition, then they get mad - how dare we question them?

 

[Berylanna]

I think first they are shocked by the opposition, then they get mad - how dare we question them?

I think there WAS opposition on the smoking stuff, but it really was astroturf. So this time they assume it's the same. (And most of them probably don't remember IN PERSON that I bet that opposition LOOKED and sounded quite different. I wonder how many people said "smoking saved my life?")

 

[Jman8]

After reading more of the articles in the series, I'm inclined to say (in sound bite rhetoric): "They don't know, but we do!"

Often when reading the scientific mumbo jumbo items, I was questioning the alleged "need for type of research" that was being stated as necessary before (presumably) knowledge is gained. I guess I'm just skeptical / cynical about how science (actually) works when the scientific method is not being employed, where human discernment is guiding politics / research needs of the day. This is likely a different / broader discussion for another thread, but as FDA articles are continuously claiming lack of knowledge and then specifying type of studies that would gain the knowledge (they desire), I find it easy, and rationale to exercise such skepticism. It's like, "we know what we don't know, and we know what we'd like to conclude from how we know research must be done." And "oh yeah, pay no attention to the inherent bias over there behind the green curtain. We're just practicing good ol' fashioned honest science."

Apart from that, I was interested in intentionally taking snippets from the articles that could be used as sound bites that amount to "look here what FDA says that supports vaping!" Even if that is just a few items, so what? Opposition is going to be doing the same thing from their perspective and hyping up things out of context. Why not get a start on that from our perspective?