e-liquid is a "tobacco product"
- Thread starter FireDragon1138
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
You apparently don't understand the FDA process for approval of a new tobacco product.
By the FDA's own estimate, each product registration will cost the manufacturer about $334,000.00.
If you take cigarettes as an example, a Marlboro Red, a Marlboro 100, a Marlboro Gold (light) and a Marlboro Gold 100 are 4 separate products. The menthol versions add 4 more products. Each of these needs to be registered. However, the barrier is very low for cigarettes, because they can claim that a cigarette is "SE" (substantially equivalent) to another cigarette that was on the market before 2007. In this case, although there is a significant cost to registering, it is much less than a "new product" registration.
If e-liquids come under this regulation:
Vanilla e-liquid 3mg 50/50 is one product
Vanilla e-liquid 6 mg 50/50 is one product
Vanilla e-liquid 3 mg 70/30 is one product
Vanilla e-liquid 3mg 50/50 with 1 extra flavor shot is one product.
The number of permutations of even a single flavor of e-liquid is huge, and EACH would need to be separately registered.
SE is NOT on the table because none of these e-liquids were on the market in 2007. The FDA expects that between 20-80 product registrations will happen.
So basically:
All the US flavor vendors will go out of business, or perhaps offer one flavor at one concentration and one PG/VG mix, and it will cost 10 times what it does today.
B&M's will NOT be allowed to do custom mixes, neither will e-liquid vendors.
B&M's will NOT be allowed to have tasting bars (no free samples allowed).
In other words, you'll have the opportunity to get BOTH kinds of e-cigarettes - Blus AND nJoys!
That sound good to you?
By the FDA's own estimate, each product registration will cost the manufacturer about $334,000.00.
If you take cigarettes as an example, a Marlboro Red, a Marlboro 100, a Marlboro Gold (light) and a Marlboro Gold 100 are 4 separate products. The menthol versions add 4 more products. Each of these needs to be registered. However, the barrier is very low for cigarettes, because they can claim that a cigarette is "SE" (substantially equivalent) to another cigarette that was on the market before 2007. In this case, although there is a significant cost to registering, it is much less than a "new product" registration.
If e-liquids come under this regulation:
Vanilla e-liquid 3mg 50/50 is one product
Vanilla e-liquid 6 mg 50/50 is one product
Vanilla e-liquid 3 mg 70/30 is one product
Vanilla e-liquid 3mg 50/50 with 1 extra flavor shot is one product.
The number of permutations of even a single flavor of e-liquid is huge, and EACH would need to be separately registered.
SE is NOT on the table because none of these e-liquids were on the market in 2007. The FDA expects that between 20-80 product registrations will happen.
So basically:
All the US flavor vendors will go out of business, or perhaps offer one flavor at one concentration and one PG/VG mix, and it will cost 10 times what it does today.
B&M's will NOT be allowed to do custom mixes, neither will e-liquid vendors.
B&M's will NOT be allowed to have tasting bars (no free samples allowed).
In other words, you'll have the opportunity to get BOTH kinds of e-cigarettes - Blus AND nJoys!
That sound good to you?
Not at all baffled. Labeling it as a 'tobacco product" makes it easy to classify. A "tobacco product" is only allowed to be used in certain places by 'adults', to be sold under state purchased licenses, users can be legally vilified by the majority of the population, gives non-smokers that 'feel good' feeling of not having the vice, allows insurance companies to charge more to tobacco users, and "tobacco products" are an easy source of revenue for the taxing authorities. Hence the label helps protect the status quo! God help the economy and our moral fiber if these things actually work on getting more of the smoking population to quit!
Last edited:
Perhaps the real problem is the stigmatization of tobacco use, even reduced-risk products? Politically, it would be a bad move for vapers to not consider e-liquid a tobacco product, because it pits vapers against all other "nicotine users". There are many more smokeless tobacco users in the US and it has a longer track record as tobacco harm reduction than vaping (about 1/3 of smokeless tobacco users are former smokers) and it can often be used invisibly even in situations where people cannot vape, many vapers seem to not realize they are not the "only game in town" when it comes to harm reduction.
Some further thoughts on this:
http://antithrlies.com/2013/07/25/e...o-please-stop-wasting-time-arguing-otherwise/
Some further thoughts on this:
http://antithrlies.com/2013/07/25/e...o-please-stop-wasting-time-arguing-otherwise/
Last edited:
Just curious
has anyone tried to extract nicotine from Broccoli or Cauliflower for use in e-liquid? While i am sure it would be far less efficient, it would probably also create some interesting opportunities.
MANUFACTURER.
An ecig shop that mixes liquids and flavors is NOT a manufacturer. The people they buy their supplies from are.
You're making an alarmist leap that isn't there. The FDA doesn't require individual shops to test their flavors anymore than the FDA wants restaurants to test the foods they make. It's the ingredients that have to meet FDA testing, so a producer of nicotine solution would have to submit their solutions to testing, but the buyers of the solutions do not have to re-test when using them.
And 0 nicotine juices are still unregulated. That should tell you something about your little B&M self-mixed flavor theory there.
Do you like paying $100 dollars for a small bottle of e-liquid?
There's just not enough nicotine in nightshade vegetables to be remotely cost effective.
Listen to this broadcast about what we're up against. I'm not trying to run around screaming the sky is falling, it's not. Not yet. But this is a roundtable discussion about the deeming regulations and it includes commentary from people who know a hell of a lot more about this than most of the rest of us (including the owner of ECF, Oliver Kershaw). It's long, but I highly recommend everyone listen.
http://www.grimmgreen.com/post/84137718883/the-vplive-fda-roundtable-thank-you-so-much
http://www.grimmgreen.com/post/84137718883/the-vplive-fda-roundtable-thank-you-so-much
Last edited:
E-liquid isn't a tobacco product the same way beer isn't a petroleum product: both beer and gasoline contain ethanol, but that's not reason enough to put them in the same class of products. And just like e-liquid, some beers come in alcohol-free variants, making the comparison even more unlikely.
And just like tobacco, gasoline is taxed and regulated a lot more than beer, and is much more of a cash cow for the state.
And you can bet the powers-that-be would like nothing better than to tax beer as a petroleum product if they thought they could get away with it But they can't because people know what beer is. E-liquid on the other hand...
And just like tobacco, gasoline is taxed and regulated a lot more than beer, and is much more of a cash cow for the state.
And you can bet the powers-that-be would like nothing better than to tax beer as a petroleum product if they thought they could get away with it But they can't because people know what beer is. E-liquid on the other hand...
I believe you'll find that, under the proposed regs, if an ecig shop (retailer) were to mix its own juice for sale*, the FDA would consider it a manufacturer and hold it to the same requirements for obtaining PMTAs for each product.
It's somewhat naive to equate restaurants with tobacco products. The FDA regulations and procedures are quite different one from the other.
As I read the proposed rule, and from my knowledge of the FDA regulatory process, the fact that the retailer/mixer may simply mix two already-approved eliquids is irrelevant. According to regulations, the retailer has created a *new* products, for which it must obtain a new pre-marketing tobacco approval (PMTA).
If eliquid containing nicotine derived from tobacco is considered a "tobacco product," then is cheese not a meat product?
I agree that we shouldn't be wasting our time over whether or not they are tobacco products, at least so far as what words are used. It's the accompanying legal regulation that comes with that legal definition that would essentially destroy the e-cig business. They still need to be regulated differently then cigarettes, or our only choices will be Blu and Njoy and even they may decide to cut corners and reduce flavors or choice of nicotine level.
Edited to add - I just reread your comment and I misunderstood it. You're saying we should be battling the regulation on cigarettes, not just impending regulation on e-cigarettes. I disagree on that. I quit smoking because cigarettes ARE more dangerous to my health then e-cigarettes ever could be. I have seen no compelling evidence that second isn't dangerous, and some compelling evidence showing that it IS dangerous. While I disagree with any smoking ban out doors, indoors is another issue. E-cigarettes should be regulated separately according to their relative safety. Including cigarettes in the battle against regulating e-cigarettes will set us back. These are not cigarettes, we are not inhaling and exhaling smoke, and they should be treated as such.
Last edited:
Considering nicotine in nic eliquid does come from tobacco, I think the comparison is a bit off unless our petro supplies came directly from beer. Now, that is not to say I consider eliquid a tobacco product any more than I consider NoDoz or Red Bull to be a coffee product.
I don't think the our argument should center around whether nicotine in our eliquid is a product of tobacco or not (considering it is), but our efforts should be focused on debunking the notion that any association with, or product derived from tobacco is inherently the same thing as tobacco in and of itself. Basically, nicotine education is key!
So very true. A better analogy is maybe, digitalis -- a useful, valuable drug for those with heart problems. It comes from the foxglove plant -- deadly!
Nicotine is a useful, valuable drug, for many things potentially, but particularly of use for those trying to get OFF TOBACCO -- deadly!
Andria
I don't know about the rest of you, but the e-cig that I vape contains 0mg Nic. My ProVari and Sour Apple 0nic e-juice is no more of a tobacco product than the cup of coffee it's sitting next to.
Depending on how the FDA enforces it's rules, what will most likely happen is that it will force more people to DIY. You will be able to buy your flavor base and then be responsible for adding your own nicotine.
Depending on how the FDA enforces it's rules, what will most likely happen is that it will force more people to DIY. You will be able to buy your flavor base and then be responsible for adding your own nicotine.
I find it offensive that the fda chooses to consider the source of nicotine to mean that anything containing nicotine is the same as the most harmful thing made from the source, but the do not consider
the source of any other chemical that they regulate(ie. Chocolate is not equal to ........) Many of the chemicals used in the production of food have sources that are disgusting if not disturbing and yet these are hidden from the public with fda approval under the classification "natural flavorings"
I guess i just can't think of PVs or eliquid as tabacco products knowing that i took an advanced human mind with an understand of chemistry, physics,electronics, and a whole slew of other disciplines, to refine these products to what we know today.
the source of any other chemical that they regulate(ie. Chocolate is not equal to ........) Many of the chemicals used in the production of food have sources that are disgusting if not disturbing and yet these are hidden from the public with fda approval under the classification "natural flavorings"
I guess i just can't think of PVs or eliquid as tabacco products knowing that i took an advanced human mind with an understand of chemistry, physics,electronics, and a whole slew of other disciplines, to refine these products to what we know today.
I agree in one sense. A "best-case" scenario as I see it is that the FDA will approve one or two products (nicotine in VG and nicotine in PG). Hopefully they will allow this in concentrations high enough to allow for mixing (60mg/ml at least).
If this does occur, shops could sell 2 products; for example, a 5 ml bottle of nic liquid (tobacco product) and a 30 ml bottle (filled to 25 ml) of flavored PG/VG mix (not a tobacco product). The customer would mix the two himself or herself.
The question here is whether the FDA would approve of 60mg unflavored liquid as a product. There are no guidelines whatsoever in the proposal that cover what will or won't be allowed. I see real danger of a scenario where they decide not to approve anything over (for example) 10 mg/ml or even 6.
- Status
Similar threads
