Economics Professor on the FDA & Kid Gambit

[sky4it]

FDA fails to account for e-cigarettes

Michael L. Marlow, a professor of economics at California Polytechnic State University, in summary says this at the end of the article,"This does not mean that the FDA should not regulate e-cigarettes. Prohibiting sales to youth and requiring a clear description of product ingredients may be appropriate. But prohibiting any information regarding potential harm reduction is hard to justify. The FDA needs to develop a regulatory strategy that fully considers the potential benefits of e-cigarettes and the unintended adverse effects on public health of stymieing the evolution of a promising harm-reduction tool.

In other words, the FDA should not remove the financial incentive to develop safer smoking products. Instead, it should foster a competitive market that empowers consumers to make wise decisions about what they choose to put in their bodies."

This guy researched it, and he has it on button down, and anchored in his study. This should put people like Glandtz and the FDA on short notice. Glandtz has NO expertise in how the market machinery effects the public health. Therefore if he speaks anymore about it not only is it rotten but, he could be disciplined. (Marlow is an expert.)

Notice exactly what Marlow has done here. He has put a difference between protecting the youth, and protecting "a promising harm reduction tool" Ie (ecigs). What he is saying is the FDA can do BOTH. The FDA clearly has not done so but attempts to drag the two together. So that now, a person can make the claim this is FDA "propaganda", without it sounding like empty rhetoric.

Econ profs typically are brilliant people, and the ones people look to, to clarify what can be done reasonably. If the FDA clamps down on tanks and other things, this is a heck of an axe to grind, and almost always with Econ guys, because they have the facts just right --- indisputable. It also forwards the idea of Friedman market economics and market competition right into the FDA's mouth and makes them chew it. That it brillant of this guy in a "study". While Marlow doesn't say so, he probably has in making these claims examined lots of facts.

 

[dragonpuff]

I like this article overall. I have issue with this bit though:

The American Medical Association may disagree. As AMA explains, e-cigarettes do not contain tobacco, the main reason regular cigarettes are so harmful. Moreover, vapor from e-cigarettes is much less toxic than secondhand tobacco smoke. And while e-cigarettes do contain nicotine, which is also not healthy, nicotine probably does not contribute nearly as much to smoking-related diseases as tobacco.

First of all, he's using the view of the AMA as an opposing view to the FDA's stance. I suppose that could work, but they are also one of the organizations that has been endorsing the view that there is an "alarming" increase in the number of children using these devices (which does not exist in reality), and they have been endorsing the FDA's deeming regulations on the specific basis that it will help prevent minors from accessing them (they appear blissfully unaware that the deeming regs will prevent everyone else from accessing them as well - I don't suspect the AMA actually read the deeming regulations they are endorsing...). The AMA is hardly an unbiased source of information here. Given their unscientific stance on this issue, I would not trust them as a source for information about e-cigarettes, and neither should the author.

Secondly, the author states flatly that "nicotine probably does not contribute nearly as much to smoking-related diseases as tobacco." It is a known medical fact that nicotine does not cause smoking-related disease; there is no "probably" needed in this statement, and using that word only promotes the idea that there is confusion on these matters when there is not. He also says immediately before this that nicotine is "not healthy" - while not many would argue that nicotine is the magical cure for all disease, saying it is "not healthy" clearly implies to the reader that nicotine is dangerous, since that would be the usual antonym for healthy. Even so, none of this surprises me since one of his primary sources for "factual" information is the AMA.

Again, I like this article overall. I just wish the author used someone other than the AMA as a source here.

 

[Kent C]

FDA fails to account for e-cigarettes

Michael L. Marlow, a professor of economics at California Polytechnic State University, in summary says this at the end of the article,"This does not mean that the FDA should not regulate e-cigarettes. Prohibiting sales to youth and requiring a clear description of product ingredients may be appropriate. But prohibiting any information regarding potential harm reduction is hard to justify. The FDA needs to develop a regulatory strategy that fully considers the potential benefits of e-cigarettes and the unintended adverse effects on public health of stymieing the evolution of a promising harm-reduction tool.

In other words, the FDA should not remove the financial incentive to develop safer smoking products. Instead, it should foster a competitive market that empowers consumers to make wise decisions about what they choose to put in their bodies."

This guy researched it, and he has it on button down, and anchored in his study. This should put people like Glandtz and the FDA on short notice. Glandtz has NO expertise in how the market machinery effects the public health. Therefore if he speaks anymore about it not only is it rotten but, he could be disciplined. (Marlow is an expert.)

Notice exactly what Marlow has done here. He has put a difference between protecting the youth, and protecting "a promising harm reduction tool" Ie (ecigs). What he is saying is the FDA can do BOTH. The FDA clearly has not done so but attempts to drag the two together. So that now, a person can make the claim this is FDA "propaganda", without it sounding like empty rhetoric.

Econ profs typically are brilliant people, and the ones people look to, to clarify what can be done reasonably. If the FDA clamps down on tanks and other things, this is a heck of an axe to grind, and almost always with Econ guys, because they have the facts just right --- indisputable. It also forwards the idea of Friedman market economics and market competition right into the FDA's mouth and makes them chew it. That it brillant of this guy in a "study". While Marlow doesn't say so, he probably has in making these claims examined lots of facts.

A few points....

"...prohibiting any information regarding potential harm reduction is hard to justify."

I've mentioned this quite a bit but it is Zeller (in the HELP committee) who does, in fact, justify prohibiting THR information from the (his only?) viewpoint that anything that would continue the nicotine addiction even though it may be a reduction of harm for some, that the net effect (by keeping those greater number of who may have quit addicted to nicotine) is more harmful than the harm reduction for a few hardcore smokers.

And... "and almost always with Econ guys, because they have the facts just right --- indisputable."

This is not right esp. for econ professors in California The market, ie. investors, as a group, are almost always right*. (not individual investors nor 'advisors' - in fact 'advisors opinions' are a contrary indicator

Economy professors while good at defining the dynamics of the market (externalities, unintended consequences, etc.) are not really good at (nor is it their intent, usually) of any market predictions or even 'the facts' of the market. Market analysts are much better but of course not perfect.

* this is 'consumers are right' idea where it is evident here from the long term as what products continue to move forward and if you discount the fanboys and the people who hate a particular company or are working for another - iow, many of the 5 stars and 1 star in the reviews at Amazon and focus on the 4 starts and 2 stars, you'll get a pretty good idea of that particular market.

 

[stevegmu]

Using nicotine isn't healthy. It may be beneficial in some regards, but that doesn't mean it is harmless.

 

[sonicdsl]

<...>

* this is 'consumers are right' idea where it is evident here from the long term as what products continue to move forward and if you discount the fanboys and the people who hate a particular company or are working for another - iow, many of the 5 stars and 1 star in the reviews at Amazon and focus on the 4 starts and 2 stars, you'll get a pretty good idea of that particular market.

(bolded) Excellent analogy, thanks for that!

 

[dragonpuff]

Using nicotine isn't healthy. It may be beneficial in some regards, but that doesn't mean it is harmless.

The issue I had with this statement in the article is the context and the way it was put. If you are going to say "nicotine is not healthy," given the present common belief that nicotine is dangerous you should either balance that by adding a more fleshed-out statement (i.e. "nicotine is unlikely to lead to serious health problems") or change the wording entirely (instead say "nicotine is not perfectly healthy"). By stating flatly that "nicotine is not healthy" with no balance to the statement, you are affirming the belief that it is very harmful. It is a subtle, but potentially fatal, error.

 

[Kent C]

The issue I had with this statement in the article is the context and the way it was put. If you are going to say "nicotine is not healthy," given the present common belief that nicotine is dangerous you should either balance that by adding a more fleshed-out statement (i.e. "nicotine is unlikely to lead to serious health problems") or change the wording entirely (instead say "nicotine is not perfectly healthy"). By stating flatly that "nicotine is not healthy" with no balance to the statement, you are affirming the belief that it is very harmful. It is a subtle, but potentially fatal, error.

You're right. They should actually source the studies related to nicotine's (not smoking's) "harmful effects".

Here's one article on how healthy nicotine can be for some:

HowStuffWorks "How can nicotine be good for me?"

Now it does increase the heart rate and for those people with conditions where that may not be healthy for them, they should proceed with caution in much the same way a diabetic should be cautious with sweets or someone with cirrhosis being cautious with alcohol.

However, the recent articles in Time and elsewhere on the 'dangers of nicotine' is from this push against ecigarettes. And some of the studies they cite are actually smoking studies not nicotine studies. The one cited here from Hai - on vascular smooth muscle cells (heart and vascular muscles) is a 'smoking' study. So media attempting to discourage people from using ecigarettes because of nicotine, should be, like you say, more specific in their citings.

Nicotine in e-cigs, tobacco linked to heart disease - CNN.com

 

[sonicdsl]

Then there's this: The Great Nicotine Myth

Nicotine is a relatively harmless normal dietary component that many people appear to need to supplement. Because the required dietary supplementation was normally supplied in tobacco smoke and therefore entailed significant risk, it became tainted by association, and only because of that. No one considers the consumption of ketchup to be an addictive or harmful behaviour, and ketchup contains significant amounts of nicotine; no one considers it a bad idea to feed their baby mashed-up vegetables, which of course contain nicotine. You feed your baby nicotine and no one has ever suggested this is a bad idea - because it isn't. B-vitamins and associated compounds are normal and desirable.

If people wish to consider supplementary nicotine consumption undesirable, then they must apply the same logic even more forcefully to the far more 'alien' coffee, tea, sherry, wine, beer, and chocolate - or risk being classed as a gold-plated hypocrite [9].

 

[stevegmu]

Perhaps e-liquid companies should extract that significant amount of nic from ketchup to make
e-juice...

 

[dragonpuff]

Perhaps e-liquid companies should extract that significant amount of nic from ketchup to make
e-juice...

Then it would be a ketchup product instead of a tobacco product! Brilliant!

 

[Rossum]

Using nicotine isn't healthy. It may be beneficial in some regards, but that doesn't mean it is harmless.

The same could be said of sugar and caffeine. Please accept the notion that anything that isn't totally harmless needs to be controlled.

 

[AndriaD]

The same could be said of sugar and caffeine. Please accept the notion that anything that isn't totally harmless needs to be controlled.

I agree; let's take all the booze away from all the anti-vaping folks, and see how they like it. Alcohol is very far from healthy!!!

Andria

 

[stevegmu]

The same could be said of sugar and caffeine. Please accept the notion that anything that isn't totally harmless needs to be controlled.

Those things aren't the topic at hand. Vapers do themselves a disservice preaching nicotine is harmless...

 

[wv2win]

The issue I had with this statement in the article is the context and the way it was put. If you are going to say "nicotine is not healthy," given the present common belief that nicotine is dangerous you should either balance that by adding a more fleshed-out statement (i.e. "nicotine is unlikely to lead to serious health problems") or change the wording entirely (instead say "nicotine is not perfectly healthy"). By stating flatly that "nicotine is not healthy" with no balance to the statement, you are affirming the belief that it is very harmful. It is a subtle, but potentially fatal, error.

Good response. Too bad it will have no effect on the recipient. When "intent" is only to provide meaningless "chatter" with no substance, you might as well be talking to a toddler.

 

[Kent C]

Those things aren't the topic at hand. Vapers do themselves a disservice preaching nicotine is harmless...

"Preaching" - yes. Showing studies that show that nicotine is only harmful in certain medical contexts, no. When you have other substances that can be harmful in certain medical contexts, but harmless in other contexts, then showing that comparison with nicotine is very much on topic, and shows the bias that is being used against ecigs when there are other substances that can be even harmful in other contexts but are ignored by the regulators.

 

[stevegmu]

"Preaching" - yes. Showing studies that show that nicotine is only harmful in certain medical contexts, no. When you have other substances that can be harmful in certain medical contexts, but harmless in other contexts, then showing that comparison with nicotine is very much on topic, and shows the bias that is being used against ecigs when there are other substances that can be even harmful in other contexts but are ignored by the regulators.

Good luck with that...

 

[sky4it]

Using nicotine isn't healthy. It may be beneficial in some regards, but that doesn't mean it is harmless.

Yeah, I dont know much abt the effects of tobaccoless nicotine. The professor probably left it out because he didnt want to provide a bath for people in murky water. aka eicgs are a ( "harm-reduction tool".)

I'm not sure it matters much Dragonpuff, if it gets us where where going. Harm reduction tool, at least provides a gateway for appalling behavior by the FDA if they dont leave vapors and there new gadgets alone. You know, since people are dying from stinkies. I defer it tho to you and the others here. I think the Prof was wise to let it go because its debatable <<< or at a minimum there is a learning curve there, and he probably didnt want that. But if you guys say its harmless, heck im on board.

And... "and almost always with Econ guys, because they have the facts just right --- indisputable."

This is not right esp. for econ professors in California The market, ie. investors, as a group, are almost always right*. (not individual investors nor 'advisors' - in fact 'advisors opinions' are a contrary indicator

Economy professors while good at defining the dynamics of the market (externalities, unintended consequences, etc.) are not really good at (nor is it their intent, usually) of any market predictions or even 'the facts' of the market. Market analysts are much better but of course not perfect.

I was trying to give the guy a boost, and what I said does need an explanation. I do think he has the facts or criteria right. Its sort of the one thing about econ that doesnt give. If you have the facts right, you should be able to predict on the Macro side. <<< Perhaps predict is the wrong word, assess is probably better. (Increase money supply in a non elastic consumber market = inflation) Why then did Keynesian econ fail?, just too many variables. Oil prices rises, inaccurate assessment of demand, and just way too MUCH money printed, the Vietnam war, etc <<< The right econ people know this too.

I dont doubt your second point at all Kent. Its what happens in microeconomic theory, its because there are just too many facts, and too many variables to be accurate mostly all the time. (And probably why market analysts as you say are perhaps better prognosticators.) When micro guys start talking about what can happen vs what will happen and perfect competion, forget it, its like a trip to Mars.

Econ guys, especially on the macro side, kind of spend the day whittling and chiseling at things that dont work. That doesnt mean necessarily they can tell you what will work, but when they tell you something can be done for certain like he did, its very un Econ Professor like. They usually dont get the dang it alls and say this is it for sure.

Perhaps i should have said Kent, "If they have the facts just right", heck i dont think most econ guys would disagree with that either,perhaps not Marlow either. But since he does seem to have it right, I just wanted to throw some salt and pepper on it.

In macro economic theory its about having a model with the facts or premises just right (and econ guys laugh about that, because they are almost never sure they do), and in this model, there just are not that many variables. (And if there are more variables then we know, this Professor probably has them plumbed in.) So that if you can get the facts just right,(rare) you can produce a model that you cannot argue against. You can almost always take Econ guys, (I knew two one from Peru and one from Germany, brilliant guys) and after the fact they can put in a can what went wrong. Studying what went wrong is just something many people are not interested in. And the Professor is telling people what is going wrong.

After the fact, doesnt do much good predicting, is why they dont make lots of predictions (or as you say "nor is it there intent")<<< agreed, (instead they provide new models) but they can tell people based upon past events what NOT to do in certain economic weather so to speak ...and here we are.......(So, i guess on the first point, will just have to agree to disagree.)

Whatever the case, vape the day away with your HRT<<<< Harm Reduction Tool <<< Priceless.

 

[Kent C]

sky4it,

I was addressing the generalization- they "get the facts right - indisputable" It's basically the 'authoritarian fallacy'. This makes Keynes just as 'indisputable' even if he's wrong, which he has been most of the time.... Marlow's 'incentive' idea was correct, but he must not have heard Zeller in the HELP committee That's also a factor - the 'mind' of the regulator... and their power to intervene. It isn't as though the FDA doesn't know that some smokers have been helped greatly - but they think in terms of the greatest good for the greatest number, so that if some minority is helped, but the greater number is not, then too bad for the minority - this.... from the type of people who proclaim they're for the minority.

(Increase money supply in a non elastic consumer market = inflation) Too absolute although 'in' tends to account for that. We've had increased money supply recently but no inflation - it actually has to 'enter the market' which it has not. The potential there is great though.....

 

[Rossum]

(Increase money supply in a non elastic consumer market = inflation) Too absolute although 'in' tends to account for that. We've had increased money supply recently but no inflation - it actually has to 'enter the market' which it has not. The potential there is great though.....

If you believe we've had no inflation, I suspect you aren't paying attention to stuff like the price of groceries or your utility bills, and you probably haven't shopped for a car in while.

However, we are digressing pretty far from the topic of this thread.

 

[Kent C]

If you believe we've had no inflation, I suspect you aren't paying attention to stuff like the price of groceries or your utility bills, and you probably haven't shopped for a car in while.

However, we are digressing pretty far from the topic of this thread.

You're citing some part of the CPI basket that is no longer counted They change those things according to what view they want. and yeah, we don't want to get into a discussion of that here.