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

[NorthOfAtlanta]

FUD is all they have as no one has anything but junk science to use against them. batteries exploding? Any lithium ion battery using product has this. Possible poisoning? Same as any cleaning product, medicine or other things in a normal household. Don't feed them to the children or your pets.

The reason they're fighting them, BP and Governments pocketbooks, they can't stand the thought of losing the easy money we have provided them for the last 30+ years.

The smoking teat is drying up and it's going to cause some serious financial problems for a lot of companies and governments.

 

[Kent C]

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?

Such a perfect reply! You're absolutely right. We (the PV industry) 'perfected' (and are perfecting) nicotine delivery. They were right about the bad side of smoking, but we knew there was something good about it - whether it was just the smoke/contemplation/relaxing aspect or the focus we got from it. But the cancer part was true for first hand smoke (not on SHS) so they 'had us'. And many of us caved. Not me btw. I had resigned myself - ie. I made the conscious choice - to continue to smoke, because, for me, the pros outweighed the cons. We're all going to die somehow and cancer unlike heart conditions and stroke, actually gives oneself some time to get things in order. As the studies (even their studies) show, people don't die young from smoking.

And, regardless of the reason, it is that conscious choice that they hate. They want it to be their choice, not ours. And that's the basic difference between liberty and tyranny. And that applies to vaping, eating, what car to drive, what you do with your land or business, etc. etc. so long as what you do does not violate others rights. It is why the fallacious arguments about 'second hand smoke' had to be pushed by them, and why second hand vapor is really their only "hope".. or at least would be in anything other than a total tyrannical gov't. A truly free republic doesn't protect individuals against themselves.

 

[Berylanna]

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?

It's tempting. HOWEVER, in every single state or local hearing I've gone to, one of the first things the ANTZ do is lie and say they are ALL FOR smokers switching to ecigs, and they support Tobacco Harm Reduction 100%, and they agree they are less harmful than combustibles (though they sure underplay that!) Then they say "we just want to regulate them."

It's really difficult to argue that when we can't ask questions ourselves.

When will those House hearings on the FDA's handling of tobacco start? Anybody know anything about that? Can we send someone?

 

[DrMA]

Just heard on "Good morning America" that the FDA may release their 'deeming' regulation as early as next Monday, April 21, 2014.

 

[patkin]

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.

Since the info was posted on the New Member's board, it now says this:


"Proposed FDA eCig regulations

The TVECA has had informal discussions with the FDA today, 4/18/2014, and we all decided that in the best interest of the regulatory process as well as the industry and the public, not to post the document on Tuesday."

Could be coincidence I guess but I don't think so.

 

[Berylanna]

Since the info was posted on the New Member's board, it now says this:


"Proposed FDA eCig regulations

The TVECA has had informal discussions with the FDA today, 4/18/2014, and we all decided that in the best interest of the regulatory process as well as the industry and the public, not to post the document on Tuesday."

Could be coincidence I guess but I don't think so.

AKA "You want in? Play ball!"

 

[pamdis]

Since the info was posted on the New Member's board, it now says this:


"Proposed FDA eCig regulations

The TVECA has had informal discussions with the FDA today, 4/18/2014, and we all decided that in the best interest of the regulatory process as well as the industry and the public, not to post the document on Tuesday."

Could be coincidence I guess but I don't think so.

They were probably never supposed to reveal that the FDA had shared a copy with them and that the FDA told them it was going to be released on Monday. TVECA told Good Morning America that little tibit and GMA announced it to the world.

The 'informal discussion' today was probably FDA taking TVECA to task for sharing, as I don't think a govt agency is supposed to be handing out information like that to private parties.

It's supposed to be published in the Federal Register, not someone's website. I bet either someone at the FDA is in big trouble for leaking, or TVECA is now on FDA's list for not keeping quiet about being allowed an 'in'.

 

[Jake6731]

Now there is this:
Appears that perhaps TVECA was blowing smoke and is now #1 on theta ..... list.

This from the FDA:
A Special Statement from CTP – April 18, 2014

The FDA has not issued its proposed rule regarding what additional tobacco products should be regulated by the agency. We are aware that the Tobacco Vapor Electronic Cigarette Association has indicated publicly that they have a copy of our proposal. The proposal is still in draft form and under review. As a matter of policy, the FDA does not share draft rules with outside groups while a rule is still under review.
A Special Statement from CTP – April 18, 2014

 

[DrMA]

So, in the interest of the public, they decided to keep the information from the public, to protect the public . How enlightened of them.

 

[EleanorR]

Most. Transparent. Evah!!

 

[Katya]

The FDA has not issued its proposed rule regarding what additional tobacco products should be regulated by the agency. We are aware that the Tobacco Vapor Electronic Cigarette Association has indicated publicly that they have a copy of our proposal. The proposal is still in draft form and under review. As a matter of policy, the FDA does not share draft rules with outside groups while a rule is still under review.
A Special Statement from CTP – April 18, 2014

 

[Katya]

So, in the interest of the public, they decided to keep the information from the public, to protect the public . How enlightened of them.

So what else is new?

 

[Katya]

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 just saw one of those types on the news (not sure who it was--somebody from the LA City Council, I guess) justifying the ban on vaping in bars in LA that just went into effect at midnight tonight--they had to do it because some chiiiiildren had been caught vaping in school.

 

[sonicdsl]

 

[patkin]

^ Oh, I'm thinking of the little buggers a lot these days.... I just won't say what.

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

Don't hit me for double-posting the same link, but I'm almost caught up w/ media for the week, and will post this in the 4/17-8 summary ... it's from you-know-who's blog:

http://www.tobacco.ucsf.edu/
obama-administration-should-release-draft-fda-e-cig-rule-level-playing-field-between-tobacco-industr

I assume that Glantz's predictions are offered for entirely nefarious reasons, and may have little to do w/ what he actually anticipates. But don't know enough about the "politics" here to get a sense of why he's saying certain specific things. (Bill, maybe you can help, or Carl if you're reading this thread. Or anyone else for that matter who knows more than I do, which is basically everyone.)

As a practical matter, it seems to me that a F2F sales requirement for anything containing water-soluble nic to consumers and licensing for manufacturer-purchasers will hobble the non-cigAlike industry as we know it: local vape shops as well as most of the US equipment suppliers. That's because e-liquid margins are so high. There are other ways to get to the same result - i.e. testing/manufacturing standards. (I may not know much about regulation, but I do have a background in retailing. I know margin when I see it.)

Will any deep-pocketed players oppose things like that? I doubt it. Certainly not BT/BV to be sure, they're into cigAlikes.

Reading the tea leaves here is not something I feel comfortable doing (they seem opaque enough on this issue). The PR work has already been done, methinks - the obvious justification will be protection of children.

FDA does have the power to regulate e-liquid sales and manufacturing under its Tobacco Products jurisdiction, correct?

 

[skoony]

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?

you are very correct in your observation on the war against smoking.
3 years before the state ban in minnesota the bar owners were told on no uncertain terms the ban is coming get used to it.
in the mean time dangled promises of ventilated spaces to be allowed for smoking areas.
many businesses spent many thousands of dollars preparing.
in the end the specs for air quality were made more stringent than those mandated for an operating room.
they dumped that any way and passed an all out ban.
40/50 % of the none branded private bar/grills gone forever.
new openings are massively funded through port authority or government backed redevelopment loans.
and of course if your a woman,minority,or affluent constituent you can get one of those.

regards
mike

 

[sonicdsl]

<...>

FDA does have the power to regulate e-liquid sales and manufacturing under its Tobacco Products jurisdiction, correct?

That's what the whole deeming regulation is about... they have the power to deem that ecigs/liquid/etc. will be under their jurisdiction.

 

[swampergene]

That's what the whole deeming regulation is about... they have the power to deem that ecigs/liquid/etc. will be under their jurisdiction.

Yup, all because nicotine is produced from tobacco. Very curious how 0 nic products are going to be handled.

To me the solution is simple, as mentioned just create manufacturing/product standards for nicotine, which done correctly shouldn't be too big of a deal. But I also think the underlying theme of all of this is going to be taxation. Once the FDA deems it a tobacco product, I think "per cigarette" taxes will be able to be applied without the need for legislation, which will make vaping pretty much cost prohibitive.

 

[AgentAnia]

Yup, all because nicotine is produced from tobacco. Very curious how 0 nic products are going to be handled.

I don't see Tobacco Control making any distinction between nic and 0-nic products in their prohibition attempts (even tho nicotine is their great satan). After all, even vaping 0-nic "looks like smoking," which is one of the few arguments left to them after their "science" is debunked.

(However, it *is* an important legal distinction, and it'll be interesting to see how it gets sorted out in the legislatures and the courts.)

To me the solution is simple, as mentioned just create manufacturing/product standards for nicotine, which done correctly shouldn't be too big of a deal. But I also think the underlying theme of all of this is going to be taxation. Once the FDA deems it a tobacco product, I think "per cigarette" taxes will be able to be applied without the need for legislation, which will make vaping pretty much cost prohibitive.

I would change "which will make vaping pretty much cost prohibitive" to "which will create and promote a burgeoning and profitable black market in vaping supplies." It's happening w/ cigarettes; ecigs will be no different.