FDA in bed with Big Tobacco.. The money The Lies..

[THE]

Electronic Cigarette Wholesaler Empowered After U.S. Judge Decision Against FDA | Tobacco Facts.
(Posted below in part)

Earlier this month, in a sharply worded decision, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon scolded the Food and Drug Administration for trying to assert jurisdiction over the cigarettes, which are battery-powered or rechargeable devices that vaporize a liquid nicotine solution. It is a $100 million industry, with at least 3 million users in the U.S.

“This case appears to be yet another example of FDA’s aggressive efforts to regulate recreational tobacco products as drugs or devices,” he said in granting an injunction barring the FDA from regulating the cigarettes as a drug-device combination. E-cigarettes were first made in China and are sold mostly on the Internet. The battery-powered devices work by a emitting a “puff” or fine mist of nicotine in the lungs. A law passed last year gave the FDA power over regular cigarettes and other tobacco products. But while e-cigarettes contain nicotine, they do not contain tobacco and are not subject to the new oversight.

One of the ways that the government managed to pass its recent tobacco reform bill was by enlisting big tobacco’s support. So the FDA and big tobacco have a symbiotic relationship. The government gets billions of dollars from excise tax revenue on and lawsuits related to cigarettes. Big tobacco gets regulation that makes it harder for smaller companies to compete. So the FDA needs to keep up its end of the bargain here and not allow a threat like e-cigarettes to take hold in the U.S. — even if they did turn out to be good for the American people.

A Few of the Ingredients that Goes into the Making of Cigarettes:

* Acetone – ingredient in nail polish remover
* Methanol – used as rocket fuel
* Naphthylamine – a carcinogenic
* Pyrene – a carcinogenic
* Naphthalene – moth repellent
* Cadmium – used in batteries, a carcinogenic
* Carbon monoxide – poisonous gas
* Vinyl Chloride – used in plastic materials
* Cyanhydric acid – was used in gas chambers
* Ammonia – detergent
* Arsenic – lethal poison
* Dibenzacridine – a carcinogenic
* Polonium 210 – a radioactive element
* DDT – insecticide
* Formaldehyde – used as an embalming fluid

Ask a person on the street how or what poisonous chemicals an e-cigarette produces, and they will give you the same puzzled facial expression Mr.Bean has been giving his fans worldwide for the last ten years. Now that we are well acquainted with the toxicities present in cigarettes, lets analyze the containments of e-cigarettes.

Mind Games played by the FDA

So what really is it really about the e-cigarette that makes it so bad, so repelling for the human body as appose to the number one all-time over-the-counter human killer? Well, let’s take a look: E-Cigarette is an electronic device consisting of a battery and a heating element. When activated, the heating element boils a small amount of liquid in the device, creating a vapor, which is then inhaled by the user. The experience of inhaling the vapor closely mimics the experience of inhaling smoke from a regular cigarette.

The liquid and vapor contain three main ingredients: nicotine, propylene glycol, and flavoring.

These three ingredients are also found in regular cigarettes and are known not to be carcinogenic, and are approved by the FDA.

Puzzled? So were we, until we dug further.

BOSTON, July 27 — The FDA recently went public with misleading information about the safety of electronic cigarettes and the marketing of the devices, not only using its clout but recruiting other prominent organizations to demonize a product that has great public health benefit potential.

A group of prominent doctors and tobacco researchers, including Dr. Michael Siegel at the Boston University School of Public Health, Dr. Joel Nitzkin of the AAPHP Tobacco Control Task Force, and Dr. Brad Rodu, Endowed Chair, Tobacco Harm Reduction Research University of Louisville, challenge the FDA to provide the full quantitative data of the study upon which the FDA has based its warning against electronic cigarettes. They are concerned that the FDA’s disingenuous targeting of electronic cigarettes through a biased presentation of the scientific data has had significant negative impact upon the public perception of electronic cigarettes, when the best available evidence suggests that these have shown that the devices offer great potential to reduce serious health issues among traditional tobacco smokers.

In a July 22 news release, the FDA cited the detectable presence of carcinogens and “toxic chemicals” in a “small sample” of electronic cigarette cartridges as reason for alarm, singling out nitrosamines as particularly toxic. What the FDA fails to inform the public is that detectable amounts of carcinogens are also present in nicotine replacement products such as NicoDerm CQ and Nicorette gum, both approved by the FDA, and nitrosamines that can be also found in food items such bacon and beer. This double standard and alarmist attitude has had the significant and unfortunate effect of inducing hysteria among the public, discouraging tobacco smokers from using a product which is thought to be a significantly safer alternative to traditional tobacco.

Regrettably, the FDA has used biased reporting of this small and inconclusive study, the complete results of which have not been made public, to secure the vocal support of groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics Tobacco Consortium, the Institute for Global Health, and the American Lung Association in their attack on electronic cigarettes. These researchers argue that it is absurd to consider taking electronic cigarettes off the market when it is the conventional ones which have been shown to be killing people. Further, the electronic cigarette community calls for accurate and fair reporting relative to the findings and statements of prominent medical professionals in favor of this new and important technology and challenges the media to tell the other side of the story.

“The FDA’s laboratory findings actually indicate that electronic cigarettes are much, much safer than conventional cigarettes,” says Dr. Michael Siegel. “The traces of carcinogens present are also present in nicotine replacement products. The FDA and the anti-smoking groups have fallen into a huge analytical trap as they have failed to ask the appropriate question. The question they are asking is: ‘Are electronic cigarettes safe?’ That is not the right question. The right question is: ‘Are electronic cigarettes much safer than traditional ones?’”

Dr. Rodu states, “The FDA tested e-cigarettes for TSNAs using a questionable sampling regimen, and the methods that were so sensitive that the results may have no possible significance to users. The agency failed to report specific levels of these contaminants, and it has failed to conduct similar testing of nicotine medicines that have been sold in the U.S. for over 20 years. These are not the actions of an agency that is science-based and consumer-focused. These pseudo-scientific actions are clearly intended to form the justification for banning a category of products that are probably 99.9% safer than cigarettes.”

Dr. Joel Nitzkin speaking as individual states, “The newly adopted FDA/Tobacco legislation will give full FDA approval to currently marketed conventional cigarettes. The new law encourages cigarette companies to produce new “reduced exposure” cigarettes to be marketed as reduced exposure products, with no scientific evidence that such reductions in exposure will reduce risk of future tobacco related illness and death. In the context of these provisions of the newly adopted FDA/Tobacco bill — FDA should be encouraging, not maligning the manufacture and sale of electronic cigarettes, and working with manufacturers to assure the highest possible quality control.”

​

 

[THE]

New York Moves Towards Total E-Cigarette Ban | Tobacco Facts.

LIES ARE LIES

The New York State Assembly has voted overwhelmingly 125-0 to ban e-cigarettes [e-cigs]; a product which has already been banned in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Israel, Mexico, and New Zealand, restricted in Finland, Malaysia, and Singapore, pending restriction in the UK as a drug, and the subject of law suits by attorneys general in several states, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, Executive Director of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH).

The decision followed an email sent by Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) to New York’s legislators seeking to correct misinformation they apparently received from marketers and others. ASH previously helped persuade New Jersey and Suffolk County, NY, to ban the use of e-cigarettes in no-smoking sections.

ASH’s email noted that the FDA, the only agency both authorized and qualified to evaluate whether e-cigs are both safe and effective, has reported that e-cig use poses “acute health risks,” that “the dangers posed by their toxic chemicals . . . cannot seriously be questioned,” and that e-cigs have caused a wide variety of potentially serious problems “including racing pulse, dizziness, slurred speech, mouth ulcers, heartburn, coughing, ........, and sore throat.” It ruled they are “illegal”

Virtually all of the major national and well-respected medical and antismoking organizations have also voiced strong concerns about the risks posed by e-cigarettes, and urged restrictions on their sales. These include the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights, and the Association for the Treatment of Tobacco Use and Dependence.

ASH also pointed out that the FDA, in its own words, “is concerned that electronic cigarettes, cigars, or pipes may introduce young people to nicotine use which may lead to an increase in the use of conventional tobacco products with well-known, adverse, health consequences. Additionally, it is unclear what health effects these products could have on users or if misuse or product failure could lead to nicotine poisoning or other serious adverse health consequences.”

The FDA also warned that “conference participants stressed the importance of parents being aware of the health and marketing concerns associated with e-cigarettes. It was stated that parents may want to tell their children and teenagers that these products are not safe to use. . . . Of particular concern to parents is that e-cigarettes are sold without any legal age restrictions, and are available in different flavors (such as chocolate, strawberry and mint) which may appeal to young people. . . . In addition, the devices do not contain any health warnings comparable to FDA-approved nicotine replacement products or conventional cigarettes.”

Although some users claim that the products helped them to quit smoking, ASH countered by citing the FDA’s own findings: “at this time, we are not aware of any data establishing electronic cigarettes, cigars, or pipes as generally recognized among scientific experts as safe and effective. . . . There may be a perception among some users that electronic cigarettes, cigars, or pipes are safer alternatives to conventional tobacco products. There may also be a perception that these products are a safe and effective means to quit smoking conventional forms of tobacco. However, FDA is not aware of any scientific data to support those perceptions.”

Michael Eriksen, ScD, the former director of CDC’s Office of Smoking and Health and an FDA adviser warned: “I have seen no evidence that people switch from tobacco cigarettes to e-cigarettes or other smokeless tobacco products. If you look at how smokeless products are marketed, they are sold as something to use at times you can’t smoke. The implication is you will increase nicotine exposure, not reduce smoking,”

ASH also raised concerns not yet addressed by the FDA: the extent to which the vapor exhaled by e-cig users — including propylene glycol (a respiratory irritant used in antifreeze and known to cause respiratory tract infections), nicotine (a deadly and addictive drug which can help trigger heart attacks), and other substances the FDA labels as “carcinogens” and “toxins” — could threaten the health of nearby nonsmokers.

ASH cited a typical reaction from a sensitive bystander: “My first exposure to e-cigarettes was last year in a hospital. Smokers were made to go outside but 3 e-smokers plus 2 staff were using the e-cigarettes inside . . . I have lupus and the vapor irritated my nose, eyes, throat, and chest, plus the nicotine was making me feel nauseous so there must have been significant quantities in the side-vapor.”

ASH, America’s first antismoking organization, and the one which started the nonsmokers’ rights movement by first getting smoking restricted and ultimately banned on airplanes and in many public places, believes that nonsmokers should not be subjected to the vapors emitted by e-cig users unless and until they have conclusively been shown to be completely safe, even to children, the elderly, those at increased risk, and those with special medical problems.

Public interest law professor John Banzhaf of ASH, argues that there is no possible justification for subjecting the great majority of Americans who are nonsmokers to the totally unnecessary risks posed by a mixture of toxins and carcinogens. Even if e-cigarettes did help some smokers quit — which the FDA denies — “it’s your monkey, keep him off my back.”

​

 

[Dee74]

Nothing to say other than, just stunning. First we become lepers for smoking soon we will be criminals,amazing.

 

[T^2]

From the state's point of view... E-cigs cut into tax revenues....

From the Tabacco industry's point of view... E-cigs cut into sales/profits....

 

[banjo]

Great post. I really appreciate your efforts to provide this information. Thanks!

 

[ashora]

awesome post and all im going to say is big tobacco and the fda GRRRRR!! ok i cant post what i want to say cause all you will see are stars ****

 

[THE]

You are welcome... and believe me.. this ain't the only "stunning and amazing" or government does here!!!