FDA misrepresents scientific and empirical evidence and FSPTCA on new "Health Fraud" webpage

[Bill Godshall]

New FDA webpage entitled "Health Fraud" at [URL="http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/ResourcesforYou/ucm255658.htm"]http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/ResourcesforYou/ucm255658.htm[/URL] misrepresents scientific and empirical evidence and the FSPTCA by stating:
"Claiming less harm or reduced risk of disease from using tobacco products misleads consumers to think that these products are safe to use. FDA considers these kinds of claims to be health fraud. These kinds of claims can only be made after scientific evidence to support them has been submitted to FDA, and FDA has issued an order permitting their marketing use. To date, no tobacco products have been scientifically proven to reduce risk of tobacco-related disease, improve safety or cause less harm than other tobacco products."

In fact, decades of research and data confirm that cigarette smoking poses far greater morbidity and mortality risks than usage of smokefree tobacco products, and that switching to smokefree alternatives reduces smoker's health risks almost as much as quitting all tobacco/nicotine. Also, Chapter IX of the FSPTCA
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi...=111_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ031.111.pdf
only applies to four types of tobacco products (cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, RYO and smokeless tobacco) but not to e-cigarettes, gums, lozenges and at least several other dissolvables, while Section 911 only prohibits manufacturers and importers of smokeless tobacco products from truthfully stating that those products are less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes.

 

[Vocalek]

I would say that the FDA is the one committing health fraud in this case.

 

[DC2]

Yeah, I see where the are coming from...

Claiming reduced risk is not cool, unless they endorse it.
The FDA can shove it, as far as I'm concerned.

What a load of crap, just like their battle against electronic cigarettes.

 

[sqirl1]

who CARES what the FDA has to say on this one? snus ain't going ANYWHERE. the FDA can BS this until they're blue in the face, but here's the deal: most people will agree that the FDA are full of crap. everybody I've talked to about them -- E-cigarettes and tobacco completely left out of the discussion most of the time -- agree with me that the FDA are full of crap. I don't consider them a threat here at all. let them pull this crap, nobody believes them. there's no thereat of it being banned. companies just can't SAY certain things whether they're true or not. don't get me wrong, that's BS, but most snus and nasal snuff (your best bet in smokeless tobacco I would say) are bought online as imports, therefore not subject to FDA regulation. I say in this case it's best to just ignore them. let them waste their time and money (which I guess is our money, but they only get a set amount of it) on spreading messages nobody believes. I say its just a distraction for them, which is exactly what we need.

 

[Ande]

The problem is, people DO believe their crap. At least when they want to. Since I've started vaping, LOADS of people have told me that "it's just as bad as smoking!" I ask how they know, and they tell me that the FDA found toxic chemicals and antifreeze...you know the drill.

Nearly 15 years ago, I quit smoking for several months, using smokeless tobacco. My mother, amongst others, continually harrangued me about the fact that it's just as bad as smoking...

And I believed it, though the chemist in me had a hard time seeing how it could be true.

So I quit the smokeless. And, a few months later, miserable without nicotine and not improving, I caved and started smoking again.

IF I had had truthful information then, maybe I'd have 15 years less damage done to my lungs?

This "Any tobacco use is as bad as smoking" bull.... is, quite literally, murder. And we need to call it out as that wherever we find it. It's untrue, it's known not to be true, and it kills millions of people.

Thank you Bill, for keeping this kind of bull.... visible.

Best,
Ande

 

[dagnagan]

In my view, those who insist that e-cigarettes must be banned until proven safe are advocating the application of the precautionary principle:


From The Volokh Conspiracy, a libertarian-leaning law blog, a definition of the precautionary principle (in another context):

When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.
In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof.

And the argument against it:

Since it is the “proponent of an activity” that “should bear the burden of proof” under the precautionary principle, the principle counsels against its own adoption unless and until its advocates can prove that it won’t cause “harm to human health or the environment” in any of the above ways. Moreover, they must effectively address even those possible “threats” that “are not fully established scientifically.” Advocates of the principle haven’t even come close to meeting that burden of proof.

So the FDA and the non-profits should have to prove that banning e-cigarettes will not cause harm, and they must address not just the scientific proof, but the large body of evidence "not fully established scientifically", i.e. the rising flood of personal testimony from former smokers who quit by using e-cigarettes.

 

[sqirl1]

The problem is, people DO believe their crap. At least when they want to. Since I've started vaping, LOADS of people have told me that "it's just as bad as smoking!" I ask how they know, and they tell me that the FDA found toxic chemicals and antifreeze...you know the drill.

Nearly 15 years ago, I quit smoking for several months, using smokeless tobacco. My mother, amongst others, continually harrangued me about the fact that it's just as bad as smoking...

And I believed it, though the chemist in me had a hard time seeing how it could be true.

So I quit the smokeless. And, a few months later, miserable without nicotine and not improving, I caved and started smoking again.

IF I had had truthful information then, maybe I'd have 15 years less damage done to my lungs?

This "Any tobacco use is as bad as smoking" bull.... is, quite literally, murder. And we need to call it out as that wherever we find it. It's untrue, it's known not to be true, and it kills millions of people.

Thank you Bill, for keeping this kind of bull.... visible.

Best,
Ande

damn that sucks, while most people do believe smokeless tobacco is just as bad, the people I talk to don't have much of an opinion on E-cigarettes, and the ones that do pull the "well I don't need a substance to get me through life, and I think people who do are weak minded" bullcrap. also, even if smokeless tobacco WERE just as bad for you as smoking, users still have a defense to that, just say "would you rather me smoke and make you have to smell it, or would you rather me use something in which I'm hurting nobody but myself?" also as for places that even ban smokeless tobacco..... well.... good luck catching you with snus or a disolvable under your lip. either way, I guess you do have a point, and don't get me wrong, it is about time somebody stood up to these antis. I think the main reason they don't want to admit smokeless tobacco is much better than smoking is because they've already spent millions if not billions of dollars trying to spread the message that smokeless tobacco is just as bad in public schools, and they think if they came out and admitted smokeless wasn't as bad for you, all the kids will start using them. their goal is to eliminate all tobacco use of all kinds, probably in a larger scale effort to ram their universal health care down our throats.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Its pretty clear to me that the FDA is beginning its propaganda, intimidation and public relations campaign to apply Chapter IX of the FSPTCA to e-cigarettes by last week posting
Health Fraud
and issuing the same day news release
FDA takes action against illegal marketing of tobacco products
that includes the following inaccurate and misleading claim

“There is no known safe tobacco product. It is illegal for tobacco companies or retailers, including internet sellers, to make unsubstantiated claims or statements that imply tobacco products reduce health risks,” said Lawrence R. Deyton, M.S.P.H., M.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products. “FDA will pursue enforcement actions to protect the public health.”

as well as the FDA announcement on WHO "World No Tobacco Day" at
World No Tobacco Day
that intentionally misprespresents the heatlh risks of different tobacco products by stating

According to WHO:

Tobacco kills up to half of its users.
In fact, it kills more than five million people a year – an average of one person every six seconds – and accounts for one in 10 adult deaths.
The annual death toll of more than five million could rise to more than eight million by 2030 unless urgent action is taken to control the tobacco epidemic.

Also last week, US DHHS' Howard Koh similarly celebrated WHO "World No Tobacco Day" by deceptively claiming that tobacco use (not cigarette smoking) is major preventable cause of disease and death worldwide
http://www.medilexicon.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=227010

 

[James Wall]

Wouldn't it be nice if the FDA was doing this because they feel their cash cow is actually at risk instead of it just being SOP?

 

[Thulium]

Wouldn't it be nice if the FDA was doing this because they feel their cash cow is actually at risk instead of it just being SOP?

Their cash cow IS at risk. If smokers switch to smoke-free tobacco products, who will buy COPD medications?

 

[Old Chemist]

Guys, tell me - what is the REAL difference between FDA and Big Tobacco statements?
But seriously - if they claim: "To date, no tobacco products have been scientifically proven to reduce risk of tobacco-related disease, improve safety or cause less harm than other tobacco products." - does that also apply to Big Pharma nicotine products, like gums and patches - they also come from tobacco, right?

 

[Vap0rJay]

Wouldn't it be nice if the FDA was doing this because they feel their cash cow is actually at risk instead of it just being SOP?

See... Laws/Bans/etc only work when people listen. If every single smoker in the entire US said f- it and just lit up... same date same time... what COULD they do?!? There's just not enough room for us all and half the signs I read say subject to a fine not to exceed $25.

Smoker day protest. We're here and we're not going anywhere. xxx day at xxx time across the entire US, smoke em if you got em! LOL. Hell, I don't even want anything tobacco anymore i love my pv... but hell I'd light one up in protest.

 

[Vocalek]

The perfect day for it would the the American Lung Association's annual "Great American Smoke-Out."

Must mean that everyone should go out and smoke, right? Would be a great day to go vaping wearing a T-shirt that reads "Vapor is not Smoke."

 

[Stubby]

We could call in a smoke-in. Probably couldn't handle a cigarette anymore but I could break out the corncob or one of those cubans I smuggled in from Canada I still have stashed away. Count me in

 

[nerofiend]

Shizz, im up for that. Be nice to spit some mild venom back there way for a change.

 

[KDK]

Hey, If you are serious about this, COUNT ME IN!

 

[jerry69nolan]

Its all BS, all needs to be done is is have a non bias non gov study done. Just have so many ... holes who want to have a finger up your bum and tell you what's good for you and what they think is not good for you. Seems like if they were really concerned about our health they would out right ban tobacco, but alas that would de fund so many of there political pork funds and they would have to figure another way to steal from us. Seems like all you have to do is get in front of congress tell some out right lie ( pot makes negros rape white women and e-cigs are killing more people than war ) all of a sudden there is funding to start a new agency to employ there unemployable ... family members or add more jobs in the federal government to be mind full of things that are not good for us because we are stupid and don't know better. It makes me sick to be in the land of the free and home of the raped!

 

[Vocalek]

We could call in a smoke-in. Probably couldn't handle a cigarette anymore but I could break out the corncob or one of those cubans I smuggled in from Canada I still have stashed away. Count me in

Hmmm...you may have something there. They make folks go outside to smoke (except of course in parks, beaches, on the street, etc. in civilized places such as NY and CA) right? So why not hit the local bars en masse and have a "Vape In"? Even in New Jersey. Maybe especially in New Jersey. Maybe we should all pick that day to visit Trenton.

 

[hairball]

What cracks me up about the FDA is the fact that they "protect" BT. If they are so worried about our health, then why have they not banned the sale of cigarettes? I just don't understand those idiots at all.

 

[rothenbj]

Guys, tell me - what is the REAL difference between FDA and Big Tobacco statements?
But seriously - if they claim: "To date, no tobacco products have been scientifically proven to reduce risk of tobacco-related disease, improve safety or cause less harm than other tobacco products." - does that also apply to Big Pharma nicotine products, like gums and patches - they also come from tobacco, right?

The difference is that the FDA does not consider the products tobacco products. In their minds, those products are Pharma products. I'd especially like the FDA to explain how those Pharma products contain TSNAs if they are not considered tobacco.

It might explain the recent FDA ruling on Star Scientific's BDL Stonewalls and Ariva that they are not tobacco products since their TSNA levels were below detectable levels and certainly lower than existing Pharma products.