FDA names new head of tobacco products center -- impact on us?

Status
Not open for further replies.

DC2

Tootie Puffer
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 21, 2009
24,161
40,974
San Diego
While your new administration promised to promote science over politics, with this appointment that have yet again gone against their word. Sadly the government takeover of healthcare, has put the big pham companies in a unique position of power and they just appointed an industry lackey at the head of the tobacco department at the FDA.
With the population aging, it seems that there is no bigger growth industry than Big Pharma.
And given the fact that Big Government and Big Pharma have each other's back, their prospects look better than ever.

And I'm not just talking about here in the United States.
I'm talking all over the world.

In fact, I think it can be argued that most countries are farther ahead of this curve than we are.
Apparently we still do have some semblance of checks and balances in place.

Thanks Judge Leon!

As for this Zeller guy? The more I find out about him, the scarier it looks.
Perhaps a major battle looms before us, and I for one am ready.
 

Lilkurty

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Jan 26, 2013
281
197
Canada
With the population aging, it seems that there is no bigger growth industry than Big Pharma.
And given the fact that Big Government and Big Pharma have each other's back, their prospects look better than ever.

And I'm not just talking about here in the United States.
I'm talking all over the world.

In fact, I think it can be argued that

As for this Zeller guy? The more I find out about him, the scarier it looks.
Perhaps a major battle looms before us, and I for one am ready.


"I’m convinced that there’s very little we can do on the toxicant side," Zeller said. "But imagine a world, however many decades from now, in which the cigarette remains as deadly and toxic as it is today, but it’s not addictive because there’s no nicotine in it."

From a public health perspective, Zeller thinks that the lack of the main addictive agent in cigarettes would do more for reducing the overall population susceptibility to the dangers of smoking than any amount of biotech tinkering could do in reducing the carcinogens in tobacco.


Zeller, who has been tracking genetic modifications of tobacco since the early 90s, said that even though the tobacco industry has had success on the scientific side of manipulating chemical levels in tobacco leaves, the dangers of smoking could never be eliminated.

"They’ve already demonstrated they can… reduce the toxicant level in the leaf and reduce the toxicant level a little bit in the finished product," he said. "But the reality is that when you finish with all these modifications, you’re going to stuff the leaves into a cigarette and burn it."

And at the end of the day, Zeller pointed out the obvious: inhaling smoke is still inhaling smoke:

There are at least 69 known carcinogens in tobacco smoke.
Let’s say they could bring about reductions in 15 or 20 of them, and that’s being very charitable. We don’t know how big the reductions are and nobody in the tobacco industry can tell you what that actually means in terms of reducing risk. It doesn’t mean anything in public health in terms of reducing harm at the population level.

The Cigarette of the Future: All the Cancer, None of the Nicotine | Wired Science | Wired.com


DC2, what do you think of him now?


PS. He starts tomorrow

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20130222/us-fda-tobacco-director/
 
Last edited:

junkman

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Aug 24, 2012
1,282
788
Louisville
"I’m convinced that there’s very little we can do on the toxicant side," Zeller said. "But imagine a world, however many decades from now, in which the cigarette remains as deadly and toxic as it is today, but it’s not addictive because there’s no nicotine in it."

From a public health perspective, Zeller thinks that the lack of the main addictive agent in cigarettes would do more for reducing the overall population susceptibility to the dangers of smoking than any amount of biotech tinkering could do in reducing the carcinogens in tobacco.


Zeller, who has been tracking genetic modifications of tobacco since the early 90s, said that even though the tobacco industry has had success on the scientific side of manipulating chemical levels in tobacco leaves, the dangers of smoking could never be eliminated.

"They’ve already demonstrated they can… reduce the toxicant level in the leaf and reduce the toxicant level a little bit in the finished product," he said. "But the reality is that when you finish with all these modifications, you’re going to stuff the leaves into a cigarette and burn it."

And at the end of the day, Zeller pointed out the obvious: inhaling smoke is still inhaling smoke:

There are at least 69 known carcinogens in tobacco smoke.
Let’s say they could bring about reductions in 15 or 20 of them, and that’s being very charitable. We don’t know how big the reductions are and nobody in the tobacco industry can tell you what that actually means in terms of reducing risk. It doesn’t mean anything in public health in terms of reducing harm at the population level.

The Cigarette of the Future: All the Cancer, None of the Nicotine | Wired Science | Wired.com


DC2, what do you think of him now?

I haven't read the article, but it sounds like he is advocating the opposite of an e-cig. All the cancer, none of the nicotine vs. All the nicotine and none of the cancer.

I guess in his view they can effectively eliminate cigarettes without the need to forbid their sale. After all, without the nicotine, the market would be pretty small.
 

Vocalek

CASAA Activist
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
I haven't read the article, but it sounds like he is advocating the opposite of an e-cig. All the cancer, none of the nicotine vs. All the nicotine and none of the cancer.

I guess in his view they can effectively eliminate cigarettes without the need to forbid their sale. After all, without the nicotine, the market would be pretty small.

I'd agree that that's their plan.

How well would that have worked for prohibition -- just making all the wine, beer, and liquor alcohol-free? My guess is that exactly what did happen would be what happens -- a black market run by criminals with no quality control involved. People who want nicotine will figure out a way to get it. And if they outlaw all the lower risk tobacco and nicotine products, then people will import what isn't available here (as is being done with several types of illicit drugs) or they will grow their own just as during prohibition people brewed their own beer and made bathtub gin.
 

Vocalek

CASAA Activist
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
On the other hand.... this part of the Huffington Post article sounds very promising:

There are two approaches to regulating tobacco use: one that says there's no safe way to use tobacco and pushes for people to quit above all else. Others embrace the idea that lower-risk alternatives like smokeless tobacco and other nicotine delivery systems like gum or even electronic cigarettes can help improve overall health.

The 2009 law lays out the possibility for both, prescribing a scientific approach to improve public health. But the challenge and opportunity is for the agency to "come up with a comprehensive nicotine regulatory policy aimed at shifting tobacco users down the continuum from the most harmful to the least harmful," Zeller said, who also co-chairs the National Cancer Institute's Tobacco Harm Reduction Network.
 

Lilkurty

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Jan 26, 2013
281
197
Canada
When Big Tobacco files suit ...
I hope they prove in court the FDA
has been having unprotected sex with BP for decades !!
:p

And the offspring look like

image.jpg


Lester M. Crawford, former chief of the Food and Drug Administration, was charged yesterday with conflict of interest and lying about stock he and his wife owned in companies the agency regulates.

Lester M. Crawford before a Senate committee in 2004. He is to admit two misdemeanors in a federal court in

Dr. Crawford, who resigned abruptly in September 2005, just two months after his nomination had been approved by the Senate, is expected to plead guilty in federal court in Washington today, said his lawyer, Barbara Van Gelder.

image.jpg image.jpg image.jpg

"The Andrew von Eschenbach FDA era is upon us. The Avandia scandal is the tip of the iceberg. Is anyone ready? The words “illicit financial collusion” have been replaced by the politically correct term, “collaboration.” On May 30, in defense of his cozy relationship with Big Pharma and Big Biotech von Eschenbach told reporters, “This is a collaboration, but it’s not just a collaboration with drug companies, it’s a collaboration with academia and with other agencies.” And he forgot to include that it is also a collaboration with various Senators, such as Senator Bennett (R-UT) and Senator Hatch (R-UT), as can be seen by the highly lucrative Critical Path Initiative program for cardiovascular disease research at the University of Utah.

Plainly stated, the FDA is set on becoming a drug company involved in every aspect of drug development for the next century. This pipe dream involves using sophisticated FDA software and related technologies to set the standards for the future of medicine, which will soon require your DNA in an FDA-owned supercomputer if you would like medical care. The FDA will help design all drugs from the ground up. The FDA, through the Reagan-Udall Foundation for the FDA, will control all patents and licensing arrangements regarding the drugs that are developed.

Under this plan the fox will not only be in charge of the henhouse, the fox will eat hens at will. Privacy issues, genetic discrimination, and required implantable RFID chips will be the order of the day. Billions of dollars are at stake. Wall Street can’t wait. Drug safety and the health options of all Americans hang somewhere in the balance, including access to safe and effective dietary supplements (the only true competition)."
*************
“I want to reinstate a science-driven environment,” Daschle said in a Reuters article. “I want to take ideology and politics as much as humanly possible out of the process and leave the scientists to do their job.”

FDA Employees Say Agency Isn

*************
"As the letter in question stated, “The culture of wrongdoing and cover-up is nothing new but is part of a longstanding pattern of behavior.” The Wall St. Journal reported “managers have ordered intimidated and coerced scientists to manipulate data in violation of the law.” The letter also names names and speaks of, “extensive evidence of serious wrongdoing by Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, Dr. Frank M. Torti, top FDA attorneys, Center and Office Directors, and many others in prominent positions of authority at FDA.”

**************

image.jpg
An Update On Colonel Klink’s FDA
Last week, we told you how FDA Deputy Commissioner Frank Torti had written a memo to his staff warning against any sort of whistle-blowing behavior and threatening “disciplinary sanctions and/or individual criminal liability” to those who failed to take heed.

Now it seems Senator Chuck Grassley, the senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, has penned a fiery missive of his own—to Mr. Torti. In it, Grassley defended FDA employees who released pertinent information, referring to them as “patriotic.”

“I have serious concerns that your memorandum goes beyond legitimate privacy concerns and appears to run contrary to many statutes protecting executive branch communications with members of Congress,” wrote Grassley. “Denying or interfering with employees’ rights to furnish information to Congress is also against the law.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) secretly monitored the personal e-mail of nine whistleblowers—its own scientists and doctors—over the course of two years.


FDA Secretly Monitors Emails of Mammogram Whistleblowers

****************
March 24 (Bloomberg) -- Government employees who think public safety is being compromised may be deterred from speaking out because of a memorandum from the acting head of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Senator Charles Grassley said.


Whistleblowers at FDA May Be Stifled, Grassley Says (Update3) - Bloomberg

****************

Morale Mire
FDA scientists are increasingly unhappy, due to in-house pressures and public criticism. How can the agency restore what it once was?

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/26961/title/Morale-Mire/
 

DC2

Tootie Puffer
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 21, 2009
24,161
40,974
San Diego
Let's not sugarcoat FDA /BP/TB anymore. Let's call them out for what they are. We are not politician , we are not going to win by playing PC term. We don't have resources or connections to win. Its suck to be powerless.
We are not powerless. And I believe the FDA will find that out if they try to screw us over.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread