FDA demands review of newer tobacco products- Front Page MSNBC

[Aaeli]

I apologize if this is being discussed somewhere else and I missed it but I just noticed this a few minutes ago. Apparently this happened today? Can someone who has more information that me explain if this could possible affect us? I'm a noob and am not entirely sure if "ecigs" would be considered pre-07 or post. The fact that the words "or other tobacco products" makes me think pvs are a possible target.

FDA demands review of newer tobacco products - Health - Addictions - msnbc.com

RICHMOND, Va. — The Food and Drug Administration says it must review tobacco products that were introduced or changed after February 2007 in order for companies to keep selling them.
The agency on Wednesday issued guidance to the tobacco industry outlining how to apply for review.
Tobacco makers have until March 22 to prove that the cigarettes or other tobacco products are "substantially equivalent" to ones commercially available before Feb. 15, 2007. That mean the ingredients and design are similar and do not raise different public health concerns -- otherwise they may be prohibited from sale.
The FDA won the authority in 2009 to regulate tobacco products.
"This specific part of the law is meant to ensure that new tobacco products are evaluated by the FDA before they are cleared to enter the marketplace," Dr. Lawrence Deyton, head of the FDA's tobacco center, said in a statement.

 

[jtcaseyjr]

I just read this also. I wonder what it means for e-cigs. Not sure it means anything to them, but on the other hand if they are being regulated as a tobacco product, then it very well could.

 

[Nightseer]

I honestly believe it was a setup directly FOR ecigs........but maybe just me.

 

[jj2]

I guess all those tobacco companies will have to stop using the adhesive (ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer emulsion based adhesive) to make the analog stop burning. NOW THAT probably won't happen but I know some smokers who would be tickled pink if it was removed.

And if they can, in any way, use this against the e-cig they will!!!

 

[PlanetScribbles]

Again, I let rip. This is an obvious plan to circumvent the decision of the US courts.

 

[Uma]

I honestly believe it was a setup directly FOR ecigs........but maybe just me.

Not just you. Add me.
This turns my stomache

 

[Vocalek]

Actually, the pre-2007 date was written into the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act ("Tobacco Act") that gives FDA the authority to regulate tobacco products. The bill was first introduced in 2007 but did not get passed until 2009.

 

[Aaeli]

Not just you. Add me.
This turns my stomache

Nope, I read it that way too. Thought maybe I was being paranoid LOL

 

[Aaeli]

Actually, the pre-2007 date was written into the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act ("Tobacco Act") that gives FDA the authority to regulate tobacco products. The bill was first introduced in 2007 but did not get passed until 2009.

Yeah, I've read that so I understand that far. I guess I'm asking if pvs would be considered to be something "on the market" after that date? Glad you took notice of this thread, I've read a lot of your posts and you are knowledgeable about this and very level headed.

 

[four2109]

I guess all those tobacco companies will have to stop using the adhesive (ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer emulsion based adhesive) to make the analog stop burning. NOW THAT probably won't happen but I know some smokers who would be tickled pink if it was removed.

Ditto JJ2! One could only hope. I wish the FDA would prohibit the use of anything but tobacco in so called tobacco products.

 

[Aaeli]

I guess all those tobacco companies will have to stop using the adhesive (ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer emulsion based adhesive) to make the analog stop burning. NOW THAT probably won't happen but I know some smokers who would be tickled pink if it was removed.

And if they can, in any way, use this against the e-cig they will!!!

LOL I don't miss this one bit. Annoying.

 

[jagstang]

Well, they sure as hell did not exclude PVs from this ...

"Substantially equivalent" means the products have the same ingredients, design, composition and heating source, among other characteristics, as an existing product, or they have different properties that don't raise new questions of public health.

the heating source part seems to be directly aimed at our little devices.

 

[Vocalek]

Yeah, I've read that so I understand that far. I guess I'm asking if pvs would be considered to be something "on the market" after that date? Glad you took notice of this thread, I've read a lot of your posts and you are knowledgeable about this and very level headed.

All we need is one vendor who was selling electronic cigarettes before that date to keep at least that brand available here. I had one vendor tell me that he was selling products via mail order in 2006, and opened a retail business during 2007.

Other vendors would need to show that their products are very similar in content (liquid) and design (operational characteristics). Perhaps this is the type of thing that the manufacturers should be jumping into, rather than individual vendors. Anybody know an executive at Ruyan and other major Chinese manufacturers?

 

[jagstang]

Just to add ...

To continue to market recently introduced or altered products, manufacturers must apply for review by March 22. The tobacco companies must also pay for the review.

 

[devilock76]

Wait a second, let's look at the language in a literal form. It states that this concerns tobacco products introduced or changed since 2007. Be that as it may wouldn't we just be talking about the liquids? I mean by itself an E-cig is nothing more than a portable electronic vaporizer.

Ken

 

[devilock76]

That being said, aren't most of the e-liquid producers in China so how is the FDA going to regulate them?

Ken

 

[Vocalek]

But as long as they were marketing their products before (whatever month it was) 2007, they don't have to apply for review, do they? I don't know the answer. I'm asking.

 

[jagstang]

That being said, aren't most of the e-liquid producers in China so how is the FDA going to regulate them?

Ken

By stopping the import of the products.

 

[devilock76]

But as long as they were marketing their products before (whatever month it was) 2007, they don't have to apply for review, do they? I don't know the answer. I'm asking.

Unless they "changed" it since then. So that means they would have had to have changed the liquid composition since then. Before 2007 I think most of the ones in china were well underway.

Ken

 

[devilock76]

By stopping the import of the products.

The FDA doesn't have the power to contraband an international item or stop its shipment to the states, although I am sure they would like to have that power.

Ken