FDA Chief opposed to tobacco regulation?

[Randall Fox]

Has anyone seen this?

In an interview, FDA Chief Dr. Andrew C. von Eschenbach said:

The agency is charged with regulating goods that promote the public health, he noted, but the new bill “would ask us to apply this framework to tobacco products that, when used as intended, produce disease rather than promote health,” von Eschenbach said. “FDA cannot ‘approve’ a tobacco product in this context, because there is no scientific context to determine benefit to outweigh the numerous risks.”

I thought the FDA wanted to regulate tobacco. They tried to do it before and the Supreme Court said no.

I do agree that regulating tobacco is inconsistent with the purpose for which the FDA was established.

 

[Vicks Vap-oh-Yeah]

Link isn't working...

 

[OutWest]

link worked for me, but maybe this will be better?
the link in the OP goes to a blog, and the blog post is about this ABC article. Congress Starts Hearings on FDA's Control of Tobacco - ABC News

Article says, in part

As Congressional hearings on the issue got underway Wednesday, the chief of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration reiterated his opposition to a proposed bill granting the agency oversight over tobacco products.

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Act may be well-intentioned, said Dr. Andrew C. von Eschenbach in a statement released to meeting attendees, but "the bill could undermine the public health role of FDA."

 

[rejoice]

Seen on the news this morning that the President is to sign the tobacco bill today.
So its looks like the FDA tobacco bill is a done deal.

 

[lvlninety9]

Interesting article. But it raises one question for me. And this question makes a lot of sense. It's been said that tobacco companies shouldn't be allowed to self regulate as this just has to many flaws and loopholes in it. If I were a company that was allowed to self regulate what's to say that what my companies opinions on the subject aren't wrong? I don't think that tobacco should be a self regulated industry. And in this sense I know that the ECA wants the e-cig to be self regulated. Again here I see a problem. Self regulation is not a stance that any industry can take. With self regulation you leave to many doors open. If there was a way to develop some kind of organization that would regulate things such as tobacco and other products related to smoking, e-cigs, NRT, and such I would probably feel a might better. Already the FDA is saying they can't handle it. And it's obvious that any industry that tries to self regulate is in a situation for major scrutiny. If we want to be able to choose what we want then there needs to be some sort of regulation that isn't done by us. I feel that it's only then that we will not be criticized for what we are trying to accomplish.

 

[TropicalBob]

It is old news. Bill passed; President will sign today. What former FDA chief says is of no current relevance.

 

[lvlninety9]

I was under the impression that von Eschenbach is the current chief of the FDA.

 

[Two-A-T]

I was under the impression that von Eschenbach is the current chief of the FDA.

Not anymore. With new a administration in the White House comes new appointments at government agencies:

Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D., was confirmed on May 18, 2009 by a unanimous Senate voice vote to become the 21st Commissioner of Food and Drugs.

FROM: Commissioner's Page

 

[lvlninety9]

Ah ok. I didn't realize that since just about everything I've been reading said that von Eschenbach was the chief of the FDA.

 

[brandeeashlynn]

Hamburg is for tobacco regulation.

 

[yvilla]

I don't have a link, but I distinctly recall that at Hamburg's confirmation hearings, she did voice opposition to the bill just signed. She stated tobacco regulation should not be part of the FDA's duties.

 

[katink]

I remember that too Yvilla; so I don't think that policy of the chiefs of FDA has changed much. Still, the FDA HAS been trying to get the regulation of tobacco - so that puzzles me... Lower echelons pushing for it? Puzzling...

 

[yvilla]

Katink, I could be wrong, but it could well be that that FDA push to regulate tobacco preceeded the immediately past chief as well - I don't think he was in that position for very long.

 

[tokrjokr]

__________________

I remember that too Yvilla; so I don't think that policy of the chiefs of FDA has changed much. Still, the FDA HAS been trying to get the regulation of tobacco - so that puzzles me... Lower echelons pushing for it? Puzzling...
__________________

I have read that the tobacco industry donates 5 billion a year to FDA...so that could have a slight influence, ya think?

 

[Krakkan]

__________________

I have read that the tobacco industry donates 5 billion a year to FDA...so that could have a slight influence, ya think?

Nah they need that 5 billion to help pay for the storage for all the E-cig shipments they are protecting the American Smokers from.

 

[Bones]

Has anyone seen this?

In an interview, FDA Chief Dr. Andrew C. von Eschenbach said:

The agency is charged with regulating goods that promote the public health, he noted, but the new bill “would ask us to apply this framework to tobacco products that, when used as intended, produce disease rather than promote health,” von Eschenbach said. “FDA cannot ‘approve’ a tobacco product in this context, because there is no scientific context to determine benefit to outweigh the numerous risks.”

I thought the FDA wanted to regulate tobacco. They tried to do it before and the Supreme Court said no.

I do agree that regulating tobacco is inconsistent with the purpose for which the FDA was established.

The FDA really wants nothing to do with any of this - They are being forced into it - Political Hot Potato has been dropped in their lap - Most of the guys at the FDA are truly devoted to protecting the health of the public - That's why they took the job - As a matter of fact I would not be surprised to see the FDA finally green light e-cigs just as a way to say F-U to the politicians and their Tobacco-Company-Sugar-Daddys who dropped this on them -

 

[Bones]

__________________

I have read that the tobacco industry donates 5 billion a year to FDA...so that could have a slight influence, ya think?

How do you donate to the FDA? - Is that even possible?

 

[Krakkan]

The FDA really wants nothing to do with any of this - They are being forced into it - Political Hot Potato has been dropped in their lap - Most of the guys at the FDA are truly devoted to protecting the health of the public - That's why they took the job - As a matter of fact I would not be surprised to see the FDA finally green light e-cigs just as a way to say F-U to the politicians and their Tobacco-Company-Sugar-Daddys who dropped this on them -

I had thought the same that maybe they would want something to take the strain away of dealing with tobacco.

 

[Bones]

I had thought the same that maybe they would want something to take the strain away of dealing with tobacco.

Not only that - Doesn't the bill define and limit control to "burning tobacco"? - Or wording to that effect - I know i got the wording wrong - But pretty sure I read it here first that Ecigs don't even seem to be part of this bill at all - It's about TOBACCO!

 

[Randall Fox]

The FDA really wants nothing to do with any of this - They are being forced into it - Political Hot Potato has been dropped in their lap - Most of the guys at the FDA are truly devoted to protecting the health of the public - That's why they took the job - As a matter of fact I would not be surprised to see the FDA finally green light e-cigs just as a way to say F-U to the politicians and their Tobacco-Company-Sugar-Daddys who dropped this on them -

I agree that the majority of the employees at the FDA are "truly devoted to protecting the health of the public." I'm sure many of them do their jobs in an apolitical manner and are serious about their charge to ensure the safety of the food and drug supply.

However, it is fallacious to impute the motives of individuals to the institutional goals of a bureaucracy. A bureaucracy is institutionally incapable of not attempting to gain power for itself. That is one of the primary reasons for the USA's steady movement towards totalitarianism.

If I were a gambling man, I would take odds at 1-100 that the FDA will promulgate regulations to bring e-cigs under their authority. I would also take odds at 1-50 that they will be banned within 1 year.