FDA to hold public hearing Dec. 17 on NRT regulation

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bill Godshall

Executive Director<br/> Smokefree Pennsylvania
ECF Veteran
Apr 2, 2009
5,171
13,288
67
FDA to hold public hearing December 17 and requests public comments "on FDA consideration of applicable approval mechanisms and additional indications for nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs), and to request input on a report to Congress examining the regulation and development of innovative products and treatments for tobacco dependence."
http://www.gpo.gov:80/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-11-28/html/2012-28835.htm


Public Hearing, December 17, 2012 (8AM-5PM Eastern US Time)
FDA Actions Related to Nicotine Replacement Therapies and Smoking-Cessation Products; Report to Congress on Innovative Products and Treatments for tobacco Dependence
http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/NewsEvents/ucm324938.htm (Notice)

To watch live Webcast, go to
https://collaboration.fda.gov/Section918

Agenda: FDA Public Hearing, December 17, 2012
15 of the 23 scheduled testifiers are tobacco harm reduction advocates (including 10 e-cigarette consumers/vendors), and 8 are drug industry funded/affiliated NRT promoters (including e-cigarette prohibitionists)
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/NewsEvents/UCM331857.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Berylanna

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 13, 2012
2,043
3,287
south Bay Area, California
www.facebook.com

Bill Godshall

Executive Director<br/> Smokefree Pennsylvania
ECF Veteran
Apr 2, 2009
5,171
13,288
67
It would be very helpful if many e-cigarette consumers testify at the hearing.

For the past five years, I've been urging the FDA to deregulate NRT products, and to approve their use for THR (especially since the vast majority of NRT is consumed as either a temporary or long term substitute for cigarettes).

I'll once again urge the FDA to approve NRT products for long term use (as FDA currently only approves them for 12 weeks use) and as temporary substitutes for cigarettes, to change the warnings labels on NRT products (as the current warnings discourage their use instead of encouraging use because they contain many unwarranted warnings), to truthfully inform smokers and the public that NRT products have very similar risk/benfit profiles to moist snuff and e-cigarettes.

While NRT products aren't very effective for treating tobacco/nicotine dependence (as 95% of NRT users revert back to cigarettes), they are fairly effective as harm reduction alternatives (although not as effective as e-cigarettes or moist snuff because the latter products are more consumer friendly and are less expensive).

I'll be pleased to assist anyone who is testifying in preparing their testimony.

Just send me an e-mail to smokefree@compuserve.com
 

Berylanna

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 13, 2012
2,043
3,287
south Bay Area, California
www.facebook.com
It would be very helpful if many e-cigarette consumers testify at the hearing.

For the past five years, I've been urging the FDA to deregulate NRT products, and to approve their use for THR (especially since the vast majority of NRT is consumed as either a temporary or long term substitute for cigarettes).

I'll once again urge the FDA to approve NRT products for long term use (as FDA currently only approves them for 12 weeks use) and as temporary substitutes for cigarettes, to change the warnings labels on NRT products (as the current warnings discourage their use instead of encouraging use because they contain many unwarranted warnings), to truthfully inform smokers and the public that NRT products have very similar risk/benfit profiles to moist snuff and e-cigarettes.

While NRT products aren't very effective for treating tobacco/nicotine dependence (as 95% of NRT users revert back to cigarettes), they are fairly effective as harm reduction alternatives (although not as effective as e-cigarettes or moist snuff because the latter products are more consumer friendly and are less expensive).

I'll be pleased to assist anyone who is testifying in preparing their testimony.

Just send me an e-mail to smokefree@compuserve.com

How many are going? How many should go and take up chairs? How much gray hair should be in the room? How many should go to stand outside?
How many could go if they could share a room with someone, cheap? (Would we want to separate into 4 groups? male/female X snorer/non-snorer ?)
 

Luisa

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 8, 2010
690
419
harlingen,texas
How many are going? How many should go and take up chairs? How much gray hair should be in the room? How many should go to stand outside?
How many could go if they could share a room with someone, cheap? (Would we want to separate into 4 groups? male/female X snorer/non-snorer ?)
If half the people on this forum would sign up and show up,it would certainly have an effect! If I were not preparing for minor surgery,I would go. It is not too expensive on Southwest if you can handle the crowded conditions on that airline.
 

Berylanna

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 13, 2012
2,043
3,287
south Bay Area, California
www.facebook.com
If half the people on this forum would sign up and show up,it would certainly have an effect! If I were not preparing for minor surgery,I would go. It is not too expensive on Southwest if you can handle the crowded conditions on that airline.

There's no CASAA meeting before Dec 6. I want to know what they'd like to see. On the one hand, I don't want to disrupt any CASAA strategy, or take seats they need. On the other hand, I don't want ANTZ to outnumber us.
 

TrueNews

Full Member
Dec 1, 2012
54
55
Perth, Australia
I know that there are a lot of very well meaning ‘Vaping’ supporters contributing to this thread.

I also note that there are some ‘Heavy Hitters’ from organisations like Smokefree Pennsylvania and CASAA that contribute here and that, as a newbie to this site, I am probably not expected to wade into this debate with the level of veracity that will follow, for this I apologise in advance.

Why on Earth are we trying to get E-Cigs (ENDS) recognised as NRT (Nicotine Replacement Therapy) devices, It is absolute lunacy.

I can only assume that most here might not have read anything from Europe or the rest of the World as to the effect that this action would have in ‘non US’ regulation.

The EU would love it, you would have done their bidding (classifying ENDS as medical devices) for them. The EU does not ‘fast track’ anything (other than their own salaries).

The WHO would love it to, WHO-FCTC_COP5_13 agenda completed in full, Thank You very much. !!!

What about the FDA – do you really think that they forgive us for defeating them in Federal Court last time, and that they will now come up with ‘sensible’ legislation to help us all out ?. Not a chance, Payback Time, ‘Fast Track’ could be 5 years for new NRT devices.
Pfizer must be posting ‘ROFLS’ from here to Uzbekistan.

I live in a country that is basically a proxy for all the crazy things that the US and UK would like to do, like plain packaging for cigarettes, minimum price for alcohol, banning of E-Cigs etc.
As such, I get a little bit sensitive when I see my well meaning, but globally myopic, peers advocating for legislation that will then be held up to the rest of the World as ‘best practice’.
The initial FDA ruling on E-Cigs might have been overturned in the US, but the other countries that followed that lead and banned E-Cigs, have not rescinded their legislation.

Sorry for the rant, but please, please be careful out there, you might actually get what you wish for, in spades.
 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
We aren't trying to get e-cigs recognized as NRT!" Absolutely not! The main interest vapers would have with this testimony is advancing tobacco harm reduction policies. The greater implication of the FDA allowing long term use of NRT is that it would essentially be acknowledging the validity of THR and the fact that "quit or die" all nicotine policy isn't working. If long term, (as long as needed) NRT use is permitted and promoted, vaping definitely benefits from that. Testimony or comments from vapers would be that having an effective, satisfying, smoke-free nicotine product, without the expectation to have to quit all nicotine (either short or long term) has worked far better than "quit or die." So we'd be supporting THR policies through long term NRT use, NOT turning e-cigs into ineffective NRTs.
 
Last edited:

TrueNews

Full Member
Dec 1, 2012
54
55
Perth, Australia
NO NO NO
This is the part that you don't uinderstand.
THR = YES
NRT = NO

E-Cigs are and MUST be an ALTERNATIVE to smoking - no ifs and no butts (pun)

Anything else makes them NRT (medical) devices and in the REST of the DEVELOPED World that means 5 years and squillions of Dollars to get any device registered and many more squillions of Dollars for each and every change to that device.

What you do in the USA has much wider consequences than you realise.

Please, for goodness sake, stop being so introvert, vaping is GLOBAL.
 

Berylanna

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 13, 2012
2,043
3,287
south Bay Area, California
www.facebook.com
(3) the
potential for additional indications for NRTs, including for craving
relief or relapse prevention; and (4) how best to regulate ``innovative
products and treatments'' targeted at tobacco users in order to achieve
abstinence from tobacco use, reductions in consumption of tobacco, and
reductions in the harm associated with continued tobacco use. FDA will
consider the information it obtains from the public hearing in its
implementation of the requirements of section 918, including in
drafting the report to Congress required by section 918(b)
.


B. Report to Congress on How Best To Regulate Innovative Products and
Treatments To Achieve Abstinence From Tobacco Use, Reductions in the
Consumption of Tobacco, and Reductions in the Harm Associated With
Continued Tobacco Use

Section 918(b) of the FD&C Act requires that the Secretary of HHS,
after consultation with recognized scientific, medical, and public
health experts, submit to Congress a report that examines how best to
regulate, promote, and encourage the development of ``innovative
products and treatments (including nicotine-based and non-nicotine-
based products and treatments) to better achieve, in a manner that best
protects and promotes the public health--(A) total abstinence from
tobacco use; (B) reductions in consumption of tobacco; and (C)
reductions in the harm associated with continued tobacco use.'' The
report to Congress must include the recommendations of the Secretary of
HHS on how FDA should coordinate and facilitate the exchange of
information on these ``innovative products and treatments'' among
relevant offices and Centers within FDA and within the National
Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
and other relevant Agencies such as the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration.
One question raised by section 918(b) of the FD&C Act is how FDA
should regulate specific ``innovative products and treatments'' that
make claims in the three categories identified. ``Abstinence from
tobacco use'' may be understood to include non-initiation of tobacco
use (never starting to use) as well as cessation of tobacco use (a user
successfully quitting). Product claims in this category might therefore
include claims to prevent or inhibit initiation as well as claims to
bring about cessation.
A claim to reduce consumption of tobacco might, for example,
suggest that the product would cause users to smoke fewer cigarettes or
otherwise consume less tobacco. A claim to reduce the harms associated
with continued tobacco use might, for example, suggest that the user
could continue consuming tobacco as desired without experiencing one or
more of the harmful effects of tobacco use.

Section 918(b) also raises a question as to how FDA and other HHS
Agencies can implement regulation and policy with regard to the
``innovative products and treatments'' referenced in the statute to
bring about the three effects identified--abstinence, reductions in
consumption, and reductions in the harm associated with continued use--
as broader outcomes, in a manner that best protects and promotes the
public health.
FDA seeks comment on the following issues related to these
provisions of section 918(b):
4.1. What kinds of innovative products and treatments designed to
achieve any of the above three purposes--abstinence from tobacco use,
reduction in tobacco consumption, and reduction in the harm associated
with continued use--might be developed to meet the criteria for
marketing under applicable legal authorities?
4.2. With regard to the ``abstinence'' category, what innovative
products and treatments might be developed to better achieve either
cessation or non-initiation? What are the established methods for
measuring the prevention or inhibition of initiation?

[[Page 70958]]

4.3. With regard to innovative products and treatments for
``reduction in consumption of tobacco,''
a. How can the reduction best be measured?
b. If the reduction is associated with a certain goal or benefit:
i. What evidence is available to indicate that the reduction in
consumption will bring about that goal or achieve that benefit?
ii. What degree and duration of reduction are necessary to achieve
that goal or benefit?
4.4. With regard to innovative products and treatments for
``reduction in the harm associated with continued tobacco use'':
a. How should the ``harm'' be identified and measured?
b. Is there a range of harms that might be addressed, and if so,
which are the most important to address?
4.5. With regard to innovative products and treatments making
claims in any of the three categories identified in section 918(b),
what barriers exist to development and marketing approval?

4.6 In regulating the innovative products and treatments referenced
in section 918(b), how can FDA and other HHS Agencies act to ensure
that the three effects mentioned in section 918(b)--total abstinence
from tobacco use, reductions in consumption of tobacco, and reductions
in the harm associated with continued tobacco use--are achieved as
broader outcomes, in a manner that best protects and promotes the
public health?
4.7. How can these broader outcomes be taken into account in FDA's
premarket evaluation of new product candidates?

On my earlier read-through, I noticed their verbiage about THR but didn't notice the subtleties here. I thought maybe they had some scientists involved.

Danger danger Will Robinson. They are talking about regulating any product that claims ANY of the following:

-- Claims smoking fewer cigarettes is beneficial
-- Claims to be safer than smoking

Note they are talking about having the power to do PREMARKET evaluation -- they are hoping that someone will tell them they can stop things before they go to market.

I'm worried that this needs expert response. I know the FDA is going to want to keep every iota of power they have, that is the nature of human organizations, so extreme care is needed. But I need to know by Dec 6 whether I should:
1. sign up and book a flight
2. contribute to a temporary fund to send better folks than I to the meeting
3. submit electronically
4. Shut up and let senior CASAA folks handle this.
5. Keep an eye open for when they report to congress and ask the same questions again at that time.
 
Last edited:

Berylanna

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 13, 2012
2,043
3,287
south Bay Area, California
www.facebook.com
I know that there are a lot of very well meaning ‘Vaping’ supporters contributing to this thread.

I also note that there are some ‘Heavy Hitters’ from organisations like Smokefree Pennsylvania and CASAA that contribute here and that, as a newbie to this site, I am probably not expected to wade into this debate with the level of veracity that will follow, for this I apologise in advance.

Don't be silly, I cannot imagine you posting here unless you are trying to get off stinkys.

Blackened lungs makes you a Veteran even if you are new here.
 

patkin

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Nov 6, 2012
3,774
4,141
Arizona USA
I am admittedly a noob to vaping and don't know all the legal history but it does perplex me, given the pharmaceutical company corruption, that this device is being seen solely as an avenue to smoking cessation. Why am I not hearing anything about other applications and protections from behavioral health problems?

1. Diabetes... vaping desert and fruit flavors or even savories like bread and pizza is enormously helpful to them (speaking as one myself) and may contain no nicotine at all.
2. Obesity... same thing.
3. Dieters other than the obese... same thing.
4. Personal vaporizer as an inhaler... again a personal interest. This one is especially dear to my heart as drug companies have made it essential now, by taking other products off the market without a prescription like inhalers and nebulizers, to see a doctor who will push their products most of which do not work.

I do hope the above will be addressed by someone so the focus is expanded to include its other uses.
 

Berylanna

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 13, 2012
2,043
3,287
south Bay Area, California
www.facebook.com
I am admittedly a noob to vaping and don't know all the legal history but it does perplex me, given the pharmaceutical company corruption, that this device is being seen solely as an avenue to smoking cessation. Why am I not hearing anything about other applications and protections from behavioral health problems?

1. Diabetes... vaping desert and fruit flavors or even savories like bread and pizza is enormously helpful to them (speaking as one myself) and may contain no nicotine at all.
2. Obesity... same thing.
3. Dieters other than the obese... same thing.
4. Personal vaporizer as an inhaler... again a personal interest. This one is especially dear to my heart as drug companies have made it essential now, by taking other products off the market without a prescription like inhalers and nebulizers, to see a doctor who will push their products most of which do not work.

I do hope the above will be addressed by someone so the focus is expanded to include its other uses.

That could be a new thread. But the legal history is that there was a court decision saying that if no nicotine or other drugs are involved, then the FDA can not stop the devices. They can ONLY regulate them as a tobacco product.

So for now, only those of us who need to be able to vape nicotine and/or WTA are at risk of being forced back to unhealthy habits, i.e. "Quit or die"

In addition, there are enough You Tube videos and blogs on how to make your own devices and juice so that even if all of this became illegal to sell, anybody who does not need something regulated that requires advanced chemistry to extract can take care of themselves.
 

TrueNews

Full Member
Dec 1, 2012
54
55
Perth, Australia
Don't be silly, I cannot imagine you posting here unless you are trying to get off stinkys.

Blackened lungs makes you a Veteran even if you are new here.

Yes Berylanna, you are so right in many ways, but wrong in thinking that I want to stop smoking :)

I am virtually off stinkys, but only by chance (my son bumped into a Vaper - long story)
August 2012, I and my Family started vaping, but, I still keep my (non legal now, non plain packaged) cigarettes right in front of me and I force myself to have 2 of them per week. (they taste disgusting)

The reason is, that if I ever get lucky enough to discuss this matter with our Senate, then I can say, with all honesty, that E-Cigs are genuine THR devices and are definately not NRT devices (because I still Smoke).
Weird logic maybe, but at least it is the truth on my part.

There is way more to the NRT debate than most people realise, and most of it is insideous.

There are studies currently on this site that request users to send data to JEAN-FRANÇOIS ETTER of Stop Tabac and JOHN R HUGHES of Vermont University - and nobody seems to know why, where the data will end up, and / or what purpose it will be used for.

I am not big on conspiracy theory and I believe J F Etter to be, like Clive Bates (ex ASH CEO) a genuine proponent of THR.
I am hoping that we have these sort of professionals on our side, they just might make the difference in what seems to be a very tough battle ahead.

I hope so for us all.


PS.
Now that is over, would anyone here like to hear my Baby Boomer rant about Gen X :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread