Fda news release

[CoderGuy]

Something to consider:

A lawyer friend pointed out that the new revision, of course points to earlier legislation that defines 'tobacco product' in the definitions of the law that this law amends. The earlier law:

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES PERTAINING TO


11) "tobacco product" means a product that contains tobacco and is intended for human consumption.

And while the wording in the amendment say 'product of tobacco' it doesn't redefine the earlier legal definition. They of course could change that but as it is written, ejuice does not contain "tobacco" which obviously has a different identity than 'nicotine'.

A state could, eg. ban the sale of digitalis and yet allow the sale of 'foxglove' the plant that contains it. Here something that 'contains tobacco' is regulated but not nicotine or they would have defined 'tobacco product' differently. Perhaps they will but so far they haven't.

Now how the executive agency carries out the law, as we have seen at the federal level time and again, is something entirely different.

Kent, exactly. And it would not at all surprise me if the change in wording is an indirect way of being able to apply it to e-juice as they see fit. Even JC's juice, while reformulated to contain NO tobacco, may not be exempt if they can use the argument that unless it's synthetic nicotine, it is a "product of tobacco".

One of the things I pointed out on another forum is the fact that so far nobody I have talked to (including smoke shops) were even aware of this new law (including me up to a few days ago). From introduction to law in 4 months, no voter approval (which may be normal, I don't know).

Everyone here should Google their own state laws to see if they have anything like this in the works. If it can happen here and in Utah, it can happen to you too. There is still time for you to help stop the PACT Act, which would be a country wide version of this law. I am sure WA was just making sure that if the PACT Act does indeed fail, they have a fallback plan. It's too late for us, but you guys still have a chance!

CoderGuy

 

[Flitzanu]

I've done a search on - e-cigs being safe, and find news channels with their damaging reports. I also see that very few people have left comments, more people need to start leaving comments I believe. Here's just one

FDA: electronic cigarettes aren't safe - KDVR

a great idea. i usually find myself too busy or not with enough time, but this is absolutely right. there are going to be MORE AND MORE of these articles popping up all over the web, and we as a group need to start speaking.

 

[Porphy]

a great idea. i usually find myself too busy or not with enough time, but this is absolutely right. there are going to be MORE AND MORE of these articles popping up all over the web, and we as a group need to start speaking.

Yeah, I tossed my thoughts on that site as well. We do need to start proliferating our thoughts and experiences through the available media formats, especially when our life saving product is coming under fire. The best move is to do a little research yourself and then when you come across a site like this add in what you know. Be truthful and speak from the heart. Word-of-mouth still is the best form of advertising.

 

[Sar]

Not one word of praise for Harmony's lucid and well-written post? This is about the best thing I've read here in a few months. Congratulations on an intelligent commentary, with which I fully agree. He got it right ...

TBob, agreed. I've read so many great posts during these last few days! There is nothing like having a common enemy to bring people together. Much stronger glue/bond than just enjoyment of PVs. Hopefully the momentum will not get lost.

 

[DaBrat]

Well never got a response from Dr. Winickoff, though my read receipt tells me he read it within 10 minutes of my sending. As if he really would....LOL!

Its amazing how people can come out of the woodwork to attack something but cannot take the time to defend their positions.

 

[harmony gardens]

Not one word of praise for Harmony's lucid and well-written post? This is about the best thing I've read here in a few months. Congratulations on an intelligent commentary, with which I fully agree. He got it right:



And now, back to the regularly scheduled rants...

Thank you Bob. I've learned a lot from your posts, and hearing this from you is especially gratifying. You're a good man, and have influenced me a lot.

 

[DaBrat]

I say again Harmony: Stick in the FDA's inbox and tell em to smoke it!!!!

Great post!

 

[Sar]

a great idea. i usually find myself too busy or not with enough time, but this is absolutely right. there are going to be MORE AND MORE of these articles popping up all over the web, and we as a group need to start speaking.

Guys, can you please post links to any blogs/forums that are repeating FDA claims and need comments from PV users to this thread below?

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/campaigning/28233-urgent-e-smokers-unite.html

 

[TheIllustratedMan]

Dear Sir:

On Wednesday, July 22, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a health alert regarding electronic cigarettes, also known as personal vaporizers (PVs). This alert reported that "a laboratory analysis of electronic cigarette samples has found that they contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals such as diethylene glycol, an ingredient used in antifreeze." The full text can be found here: FDA and Public Health Experts Warn About Electronic Cigarettes
The toxicology report that the FDA points to is fairly consistent with previous testing done on the consumable liquid found in the PVs. There are trace amounts of Tobacco Specific Nitrosamines (TSNAs) present in these cartridges. The level of quantification for a positive hit for all four TSNAs in the FDAs report was 141 parts per billion (ppb), or 141 nanograms of TSNAs per gram of solution. In comparison, according to a study done by Irina Stepanov et al, unburned tobacco contains anywhere from 190 ppb to 9200 ppb. According to the same study, Nicorette gum contains 2 nanograms per piece, and Nicoderm patches contain 8 nanograms per patch. More research is needed to determine quantities delivered to the user in one use and over time.
Diethylene Glycol presence is a real concern, and could have been an anomaly, a contaminate, or an additive. Out of the 19 cartridges tested, only one showed the presence of Diethylene Glycol at a concentration of less than one percent. The FDA's health alert references Diethylene Glycol as being the main ingredient in antifreeze. They seem to be confusing this substance with Ethylene Glycol, which is the actual product used in antifreeze, and an extreme toxin. A lethal dose of Ethylene Glycol is 100ml, with an LD50 for oral ingestion by lab rats marked at 4700 mg/kg. In comparison, the LD50 for oral ingestion by lab rats of Diethylene Glycol is stated to be 12565 mg/kg. As you can see, Diethylene Glycol is approximately three times less toxic than Ethylene Glycol.
I urge you to publish an article showing both sides of this controversial issue. I feel that this is of major concern to the public health and safety, and should be researched and documented thoroughly. The electronic cigarette could really be a viable option for those who wish to cease smoking tobacco, and I feel that inflammatory comments from a trusted federal health organization are counterproductive and irresponsible. I have attached some links that you may find useful should you choose to delve into this difficult subject. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

>your name here<
Electronic Cigarette User

1) http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ScienceResearch/UCM173250.pdf
2) http://www.healthnz.co.nz/2ndSafetyReport_9Apr08.pdf
3) http://www.starscientific.com/404/stepanov tsna in.pdf
4) http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/materials/antifree.htm#alternate
5) http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/o8764.htm
6) http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/E5125.htm
7) http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/
8) http://www.ecassoc.org/response-to-the-fda/
9) http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-regarding-fda-press-release-7-22-repost.html

 

[DaBrat]

Off to my Congressman Illustrated, thanks for the research!

 

[TheIllustratedMan]

Appreciated, though you may not want to ask him to write an article... personalization is good!

 

[LoneRanger]

Not one word of praise for Harmony's lucid and well-written post? This is about the best thing I've read here in a few months. Congratulations on an intelligent commentary, with which I fully agree. He got it right:



And now, back to the regularly scheduled rants...

I second Harmony's post- missed it!

Lone

 

[DaBrat]

Appreciated, though you may not want to ask him to write an article... personalization is good!

LOL Did and done as well as AP! Now to Mr. Obama!

 

[LoneRanger]

If you missed it go to todays post Njoy response to fda. Go Njoy!!!!!!!!!!

 

[LoneRanger]

Found a coupon code for Njoy : Smoke 08
nice to save a few $$

Lone

 

[chad]

Very well executed IllustratedMan. This is exactly what we needed. I'm glad you didn't even touch on the whole "marketed to kids" thing - no need to recognize that BS with a response.

I'll shotgun this anywhere I can!

 

[harmony gardens]

Thanks you guys, and well done Illustrated!! Is there a link for submissions to the FDA??

 

[RazorNribbonz]

eesh...Slow down people.. I can't catch up!.. I sooo should have listened to that stupid speed reading course lol ( running back to page 35)

 

[ramblingrose]

Guys, can you please post links to any blogs/forums that are repeating FDA claims

Sar, if you google 'fda e-cigarette announcement' and 'fda e-cigarette news', you'll get far more results than we want to see.

My inclination is not so much to respond with my story as a vaper - several people have noted, and I agree, that it won't have as much positive impact as we need. But I will be writing to major publications, agencies and politicians with a brief personal note and the full text of Dr. Siegel's response from his blog. I don't know that it will help, but I sure hope if they read what a doctor in tobacco control has to say it just might make some people rethink their position, or at least open their minds enough to look further into the issue.

 

[grimmer255]

Sar, if you google 'fda e-cigarette announcement' and 'fda e-cigarette news', you'll get far more results than we want to see.

My inclination is not so much to respond with my story as a vaper - several people have noted, and I agree, that it won't have as much positive impact as we need. But I will be writing to major publications, agencies and politicians with a brief personal note and the full text of Dr. Siegel's response from his blog. I don't know that it will help, but I sure hope if they read what a doctor in tobacco control has to say it just might make some people rethink their position, or at least open their minds enough to look further into the issue.

yep all we need is some doctors with there head on straight to help convince the FDA that what they are doing is immoral and if not the FDA at least show the public the differences between real smoke and the vapor...but it needs to be scientific and placed in a detailed 3D video of smoke traveling through the lungs vs vapor traveling through the lungs....just a thought.....also show in a 3d video of all the chemical caponents of cigarettes and what each chemical can do to the body. then also show the eliquid chemical caponents....and its effects on the body.