FDA to host Modified Risk Tobacco Product workshop in DC Aug 25/26, free registration still being accepted
- Thread starter Bill Godshall
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Thanks Bill, I think I have a better understanding of the confusion. I'm thinking that the Ariva BDL and Stonewall BDL were classified as not smokeless products because of the undetectable TSNA levels. They certainly are compressed tobacco and the same as the original Ariva and Stonewall products other than the method of processing the tobacco.
I understand that to date all SNUS and Swedish snus are smokeless tobacco products however Star has indicated that they have a moist snuff in development which will also be BDL. That's why I mentioned that as something that may also be outside the FDA's Chapter IX definition. Not sure about that but there certainly would be logic to such a possibility.
I understand that to date all SNUS and Swedish snus are smokeless tobacco products however Star has indicated that they have a moist snuff in development which will also be BDL. That's why I mentioned that as something that may also be outside the FDA's Chapter IX definition. Not sure about that but there certainly would be logic to such a possibility.
This is all the announcement says right now:
Public Workshop: Scientific Evaluation of Modified Risk Tobacco Product (MRTP) Applications
I guess all we can do is keep checking to see if they have added a link. Probably not until tomorrow morning, since they all went home about 2 hours ago.
The program starts at 8:30 am, and the public speakers start at 11 a.m. (right before lunch!)
I'll be leaving my house no later that 7 am and won't be near a computer. It is up to you guys to chase it down in the morning.
-------------------------------------------------------------
SNEAK PREVIEW - I have posted the text of my testimony as a news item on CASAA: http://www.casaa.org/news/article.asp?articleID=194&l=a&p=
Included on that page is a link to download a PDF file containing the PowerPoint slides and notes.
http://www.casaa.org/files/CASAA_Modified_Risk_2011_08_25.pdf
Last edited:
Hey everyone, I'm here now and the event has started. Quite a big crowd thus far.
Elaine, Bill Godshall and Jeff Stier will be giving their comments in the next half hour or so.
God I hate living in internet no man's land. If I use the Sat dish, I eat up my daily download allotment. If I tether, I loss the signal. When will civilization reach me? 
End of rant.
Will this stuff be available as recorded media? At least I'd be able to go to a local pub and watch it later.
End of rant.Will this stuff be available as recorded media? At least I'd be able to go to a local pub and watch it later.
Excellent presentations, Elaine and Bill! A lot of sensible talk at this workshop -- wonder how the FDA will contrive to ignore it?
I watched all the speeches today. So interesting.
Bill, such a pity you ran out of time and they wouldn't let you finish. Crazy, considering they were running way ahead of time.
Elaine, your speech was absolutely brilliant. If that doesn't get the message through to the ANTZ then nothing ever will.
Bill, such a pity you ran out of time and they wouldn't let you finish. Crazy, considering they were running way ahead of time.
Elaine, your speech was absolutely brilliant. If that doesn't get the message through to the ANTZ then nothing ever will.
God I hate living in internet no man's land. If I use the Sat dish, I eat up my daily download allotment. If I tether, I loss the signal. When will civilization reach me?
Will this stuff be available as recorded media? At least I'd be able to go to a local pub and watch it later.
The website says it is recording, so it's sure to be available as a re-run.
(sorry about the net lag -- yuck)
Thanks BS, I was looking forward to hearing the presentations and this was the first time I got Connect running. I don't know if I missed something but the only configuration I could find was to mute audio. I could have lived with audio only but that didn't appear to be an option. I could have listened to the presentations and later went back to view if I felt it necessary (other than to watch Bill and Elaine, of course). That would have save a lot of bandwidth.
Sounds like they did great. They probably cut Bill off because they felt all the noise coming from these non-ANTZ presenters was just a waste of their time.
Sounds like they did great. They probably cut Bill off because they felt all the noise coming from these non-ANTZ presenters was just a waste of their time.
Bill got cut off because he was about a minute over his time. Both Bill and Elaine got some applause. I video recorded those presentations, so if the FDA doesn't release the video fast enough, we will get them up on YouTube.
I get sooooo tired of all this "marketing is everything" mentality!
I do not use, nor will I purchase, Dos Equis (?), even though I think they are the most entertaining commercials on tele. Geesh!
"If I could just come up with the perfect marketing tool, Everyone Will Buy My Product!" Simple (simple-minded rather lol)
I do not use, nor will I purchase, Dos Equis (?), even though I think they are the most entertaining commercials on tele. Geesh!
"If I could just come up with the perfect marketing tool, Everyone Will Buy My Product!" Simple (simple-minded rather lol)
Oh my! I wonder if he realized what he just said (CDC guy)?
If an ingredient is used in some other product and is considered safe, then it would be considered safe in the new product. (uh-oh all his ANTZ friends won't be happy he said that)
If an ingredient is used in some other product and is considered safe, then it would be considered safe in the new product. (uh-oh all his ANTZ friends won't be happy he said that)
My brain may explode... I'm rooting for the RJR guy lol
Shields saying, "Your [BT] marketing is effective, so why aren't you doing blah, blah, blah?
So why aren't you only marketing snus?"
and yet, also saying, "we can't trust your marketing because of what you said about light cigs"
Geesh! guy can't win
Shields saying, "Your [BT] marketing is effective, so why aren't you doing blah, blah, blah?
So why aren't you only marketing snus?"
and yet, also saying, "we can't trust your marketing because of what you said about light cigs"
Geesh! guy can't win
Ahh. Vaping at the FDA
And this message was printed at the bottom of the agenda:
The use of tobacco products is prohibited at all FDA facilities,
including buildings, grounds, and parking structures.
Fun day.
Scott Ballin's opening speech was excellent. He really should've been the moderator. The journalist who handled it did an acceptable job, but he didn't know the topic enough to challenge people when they made ridiculous statements.
As per the usual, the most well-informed and honest panel speakers were affiliated with the tobacco companies.
There were 13 comments during the public comment period, all of which were from harm reduction advocates or those affiliated with tobacco companies. Bill Godshall was fired up and did a great job, as did Jeff, Elaine, Spike from NVC, Dr. Gilbert Ross from ACHS, and a speaker from the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness.
In general, all the talk about modified risk cigarettes was unbelievably boring, and basically centered on explaining over and over again that we don't know enough about the thousands of chemicals in cigarettes to believe that modified risk classification for cigarettes will be possible.
However, the discussions about smokeless tobacco products were extremely interesting. Bill noted that there seemed to be no dispute, even from the antis, that any modern smokeless product is significantly less hazardous than smoking.
Towards the end, a professor from California was talking about how there are no tobacco products that are comparable in toxicity to NRTs. I literally took out my e-cigarette and waved it a little bit.
Most of the attendees were affiliated with the tobacco industry, so it was great to have someone make an idiotic comment and look around the room and see that it wasn't just the vapers that were shaking their heads.
I managed to have 2 twenty second conversations with two antis.
1) Dr. Peter Shields did a presentation at the beginning of the day. One slide said that the only known method of tobacco harm reduction is to quit smoking entirely. Later in the day, after he'd made some other comments that were not truthful, I went up to him with the PowerPoint slide, introduced myself, pointed to the sentence, and said, "Can you explain how you justify this sentence?" He asked me what I meant, and I brought up the Swedish experience with snus. He scoffed, told me didn't have the time to waste talking to me, and walked away. Classy guy.
2) Some crazy woman who is in tobacco control in Indiana was on the final panel of the day. Bill revealed that she's a long-time prohibitionist, and that was the tone of her speech. She brought up how when Marlboro Snus was test-marketed in Indianapolis, surveys revealed that while non-smoking teens weren't using them, teens who were smokers did (the horror!). Next, she complained that some Marlboro Snus intended for the Indianapolis market actually ended up being sent -- not by the tobacco companies -- to troops in Iraq (keep on smoking soliders!). Last, she briefly brought up e-cigarettes, and said that they may complicate smoking laws and lead to people lighting up, which literally made me laugh out loud.
At the end of the panel, she had a closing statement in which she told the panel to remember that their duty is to "do no harm." Considering this is a panel on MODIFIED RISK TOBACCO PRODUCTS, this struck me as silly. So I went up to her and asked why she'd say that. She blew me off within 10 seconds, telling me, "Well, that's the message I wanted to convey."
Scott Ballin's opening speech was excellent. He really should've been the moderator. The journalist who handled it did an acceptable job, but he didn't know the topic enough to challenge people when they made ridiculous statements.
As per the usual, the most well-informed and honest panel speakers were affiliated with the tobacco companies.
There were 13 comments during the public comment period, all of which were from harm reduction advocates or those affiliated with tobacco companies. Bill Godshall was fired up and did a great job, as did Jeff, Elaine, Spike from NVC, Dr. Gilbert Ross from ACHS, and a speaker from the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness.
In general, all the talk about modified risk cigarettes was unbelievably boring, and basically centered on explaining over and over again that we don't know enough about the thousands of chemicals in cigarettes to believe that modified risk classification for cigarettes will be possible.
However, the discussions about smokeless tobacco products were extremely interesting. Bill noted that there seemed to be no dispute, even from the antis, that any modern smokeless product is significantly less hazardous than smoking.
Towards the end, a professor from California was talking about how there are no tobacco products that are comparable in toxicity to NRTs. I literally took out my e-cigarette and waved it a little bit.
Most of the attendees were affiliated with the tobacco industry, so it was great to have someone make an idiotic comment and look around the room and see that it wasn't just the vapers that were shaking their heads.
I managed to have 2 twenty second conversations with two antis.
1) Dr. Peter Shields did a presentation at the beginning of the day. One slide said that the only known method of tobacco harm reduction is to quit smoking entirely. Later in the day, after he'd made some other comments that were not truthful, I went up to him with the PowerPoint slide, introduced myself, pointed to the sentence, and said, "Can you explain how you justify this sentence?" He asked me what I meant, and I brought up the Swedish experience with snus. He scoffed, told me didn't have the time to waste talking to me, and walked away. Classy guy.
2) Some crazy woman who is in tobacco control in Indiana was on the final panel of the day. Bill revealed that she's a long-time prohibitionist, and that was the tone of her speech. She brought up how when Marlboro Snus was test-marketed in Indianapolis, surveys revealed that while non-smoking teens weren't using them, teens who were smokers did (the horror!). Next, she complained that some Marlboro Snus intended for the Indianapolis market actually ended up being sent -- not by the tobacco companies -- to troops in Iraq (keep on smoking soliders!). Last, she briefly brought up e-cigarettes, and said that they may complicate smoking laws and lead to people lighting up, which literally made me laugh out loud.
At the end of the panel, she had a closing statement in which she told the panel to remember that their duty is to "do no harm." Considering this is a panel on MODIFIED RISK TOBACCO PRODUCTS, this struck me as silly. So I went up to her and asked why she'd say that. She blew me off within 10 seconds, telling me, "Well, that's the message I wanted to convey."
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked