FDA says today's Wall St. Journal article is wrong

[Bill Godshall]

Here's the e-mail FDA sent out today.

This Week in CTP - Updates from the Center for tobacco Products

The FDA wants to correct inaccuracies in an August 22, 2013 article in the Wall Street Journal, titled “FDA Discusses Banning Online Sales of E-Cigarettes.”
The FDA frequently meets with members of the tobacco industry, as well as with public health groups and other stakeholders, to better understand any concerns or questions they may have. As part of this effort, “listening sessions” with e-cigarette companies have been held at their request and have given the FDA an opportunity to listen to their concerns or views.
“The FDA did not raise or weigh in on potential regulatory options—including any potential restrictions on e-cigarettes or any other particular product category—during these listening sessions,” said Mitch Zeller, director of the FDA’s Center for tobacco Products. “Any details about the agency’s intent to regulate additional categories of tobacco products will be made publicly available to all interested parties at the same time, through the issuance of a proposed rule.”
The FDA currently regulates cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco and smokeless tobacco. The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA) permits the FDA to deem other “tobacco products” to be subject to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act by regulation. The agency has announced its intent to issue a proposed rule deeming products meeting the definition of a “tobacco product” to be subject to FDA regulation.

 

[Freckle]

Last sentence, very important. Actually last two sentences.

 

[Mac]

On the bright side, I bet a whole lot of people joined CASAA today..

 

[MiamiMom63]

Could you please post a link to that site quoted. It helps. Thanks.im just trying to verify it for our Vape group.

 

[vang0gh]

On the bright side, I bet a whole lot of people joined CASAA today..

True enough. I just view it as a practice drill for what may be comming our way down the road.

 

[MiamiMom63]

Here's the e-mail FDA sent out today.

What's the link to this? Just trying to verify. Thanks.

 

[AgentAnia]

...........

 

[AgentAnia]

What's the link to this? Just trying to verify. Thanks.

Found it on the FDA CTP website: Clarification Regarding August 22 Wall Street Journal Article

EDIT: I also see that a clarification has been added to the original WSJ article:

Corrections & Amplifications
This article has been changed from its original version to reflect that the Food and Drug Administration did not initiate the idea of a proposed ban on online sales of e-cigarettes. It also clarifies that the FDA did not make nonpublic information available in its discussions with e-cigarette makers.

 

[Rickajho]

Ahem. See previous post when this article popped up. I do believe I mentioned some skepticism regarding "I read it on the internet, in a blog no less, so it must be true."

You people are going to drive yourselves insane...

 

[Frankenmizer]

Very important clarification. Thanks for posting the information.

 

[stevegmu]

What? Fear mongering, never... As I have stated several times, if there isn't a listing in the Federal Register, it isn't going to happen. Sometimes going straight to the source is better than believing rumors on the internet...

 

[Shekinahsgroom]

Here's the e-mail FDA sent out today.

Yeah....

"Ooops, guess we better put out this fire before we get caught in it and burn ourselves, hmm?"

I seriously doubt that the WSJ would publish a lie.

Someone clearly had knowledge of their (ahem) "discussions" and what's really going on behind closed doors with big tobacco...

"The FDA frequently meets with members of the tobacco industry..." (Key point, MEETS)

"As part of this effort, “listening sessions” with e-cigarette companies..." (Key point, listens)

“The FDA did not raise or weigh in on potential regulatory options—including any potential restrictions on e-cigarettes or any other particular product category—during these listening sessions,” <----(Key point)

It's of no surprise that big tobacco (and the FDA) would want internet sales to go away.

 

[dr g]

This was still discussed. Who the hell brought it up? Who's at the table with the FDA?

 

[Shekinahsgroom]

This was still discussed. Who the hell brought it up? Who's at the table with the FDA?

Sure was....and I'm sure they're pretty pisst at the WSJ for publishing their intentions before they have the details worked out with big tobacco.

 

[aikanae1]

Yeah....

"Ooops, guess we better put out this fire before we get caught in it and burn ourselves, hmm?"

I seriously doubt that the WSJ would publish a lie.

Someone clearly had knowledge of their (ahem) "discussions" and what's really going on behind closed doors with big tobacco...

"The FDA frequently meets with members of the tobacco industry..." (Key point, MEETS)

"As part of this effort, “listening sessions” with e-cigarette companies..." (Key point, listens)

“The FDA did not raise or weigh in on potential regulatory options—including any potential restrictions on e-cigarettes or any other particular product category—during these listening sessions,” <----(Key point)

It's of no surprise that big tobacco (and the FDA) would want internet sales to go away.

Whoa. That was a gigantic backpeddle. I have no doubt the initial report was "leaked" information and the retraction came about because of the response it got. WHOOHOO!

I still say that overall this created some positive movement. Advertising FOR ecig industry and a wake up call.

 

[aikanae1]

Sure was....and I'm sure they're pretty pisst at the WSJ for publishing their intentions before they have the details worked out with big tobacco.

And the fact it was leaked at all tends to indicate someone in on the talks doesn't agree with FDA's process. Hand that person an ecigar.

 

[Hulamoon]

Bill, you're the best. Now.....can we have it deemed a food or cosmetic please? (j/k)

 

[aikanae1]

How about an "adult toy"?

 

[Hulamoon]

Bwahahahaaaaaaaa!!!

How about an "adult toy"?

 

[zapped]

Bwahahahaaaaaaaa!!!

Lol...There is some merit to that comment beyond the comical.

Vendors could take a clue from the online adult entertainment industry and introduce a stricter age verification process for their customers if this is gonna be an issue in the future.

Thats going to translate into a higher cost for consumers but its better than an outright ban....or potential outright ban.

I just ran across this as I was looking up online age verification. blu eCigs Implements Stringent Online Age Verification Process -- CHARLOTTE, N.C., July 12, 2012 /PRNewswire/ --

VERY interesting!