FDA Regulation Could Make E-Cigarettes Less Effective

[Tom950]

CASAA: FDA Regulation Could Make E-Cigarettes Less Effective

 

[TennDave]

Tom, I believe that Elaine posted this a few weeks ago? I noticed that there were not many comments (only one), so I posted one. Never get tired of reading that article- so well written.

 

[Vocalek]

I posted a link to the the site where the story is published in one of the responses to the rather lengthy thread on FDA regulation. It might have been relatively unnoticed there. FDA Regulation Could Make E-Cigarettes Less Effective

From the All Voices site, you can "Like" it on Facebook and you can Tweet it. So far it has been viewed 254 times and Liked 20 times. On the CASAA site, the blog post has been Liked 27 times and Tweeted 7 times.

 

[Myk]

I don't think that would hold up in court. Marketed before XXXX does not mean something can't be improved. If it did they could ban all tobacco products including cigarettes using the same excuse.
I remember when Marlboro lights had a plastic liner in the filter, then they were modified to not have it. tobacco pipes have been changing over the years, sometimes the materials used, sometimes the designs in how the holes are drilled.

 

[Vocalek]

I don't think that would hold up in court. Marketed before XXXX does not mean something can't be improved. If it did they could ban all tobacco products including cigarettes using the same excuse.
I remember when Marlboro lights had a plastic liner in the filter, then they were modified to not have it. Tobacco pipes have been changing over the years, sometimes the materials used, sometimes the designs in how the holes are drilled.

I wish you were right. But the FDA has a nice loop-hole for this. They have issued guidance on what constitutes "substantial equivalence". So they can just say, "Well if company X does this, that, and the other tests--including clinical trials--and spends $10 billion to do so, then we might just say, 'OK, this product is substantially equivalent to the earlier one and can be sold.' But then again, we might not."

 

[DaveP]

There are ways around patents, ways around regulations, and there are regulations that are crafted without sufficient knowledge of the product to be regulated or its intended purpose. The FDA hates tobacco, but puts up with it because of the tax revenue and settlement revenue that it generates. Tobacco will be around as long as it's profitable to government, but ecigs pose a threat to that cash cow, IMO.

We see everyday that people misunderstand the concept of ecigs as replacements to smoking. As the quoted vaper in the article clearly explained, ecigs are a way off of a known dangerous product and have not exhibited any dangerous characteristics so far. We still fight the battle of ignorance in the media and the only way to overcome ignorance is with the truth. Even then, the truth must be proven to be fact. I'm wary of the lack of published scientific research on ecigs. I have to believe that information is being suppressed due to bias and an agenda designed to limit their penetration into the market. For that reason, I was glad to see Lorillard's purchase of Blu. At least these people have the marketing strength to bring the message to the people. Let's hope that message is one of straight truth, presented in a manner that educates the public.

 

[Myk]

I wish you were right. But the FDA has a nice loop-hole for this. They have issued guidance on what constitutes "substantial equivalence". So they can just say, "Well if company X does this, that, and the other tests--including clinical trials--and spends $10 billion to do so, then we might just say, 'OK, this product is substantially equivalent to the earlier one and can be sold.' But then again, we might not."

They thought they had a loophole against e-cigs claiming they were a medical device and that didn't hold up in court.

Now if they were to change the liquid I could see requiring testing, but not fixing leaks and battery issues.
That would be like me drilling my pipes up through the center bottom of the bowl, or a guy who makes the area where the bottom of the bowl and draft hole meet thicker so it doesn't burn being considered a whole new system for pipe smoking. I don't see a court allowing that as an excuse to go back and retroactively make pipe tobacco have to go through testing.