FDA website giving battery safety tips for ecigs.
- Thread starter Bonskibon
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
On second thought...seems they want to make sure that any 'vape explosions' do get reported to them.
vape battery or all batteries ?
Now let's figure out how anything without a battery in it is going to 'explode'...
Guess they've been fast asleep during chemistry and physics lessons - glycerin and nitroglycerin ARE different...
vape battery or all batteries ?
Now let's figure out how anything without a battery in it is going to 'explode'...
Guess they've been fast asleep during chemistry and physics lessons - glycerin and nitroglycerin ARE different...
Given they have no authority (yet) over phones, tablets, laptops, or cordless drills, I'd bet it's just vape batteries they want to hear about. Besides, it's not the gathering of data that's really an issue. It could be pretty interesting when assembled. It's what you with the data after that matters.
I mean, if 90% of battery shorts are from loose change in your pocket, they can always ban coin production by the US Mint, That, or label a nickel as a tobacco product. There, they now have jurisdiction.
Public reporting to the FDA is hardly new. They collect all that data on drugs sold in the US. As most side effects are non-specific and not necessarily from the medication itself. Still, it builds a database that might show patterns otherwise unrecognized. It doesn't mean those reports will pull the drug off the market, but if a dozen people in a row report their toes fell off, there's a chance someone might notice. Eventually.
Assuming a product or sets of products do get PMTA approvals (hey, this is just hypothetical), there will still be post-market surveillance for issues that might arise across broad populations. Same with everything else they're responsible for.
@Eskie
No sweat with them gathering data per se.
Feedback what's it all about. And I think in the past ( and perhaps the present ) FDA's been sitting more than once on their hands on some drugs and their KNOWN averse side effects. Chantix comes to mind, for instance.
But in the lobbying landscape, vapers are but a blade of grass...
Mods with fixed batteries - guess with the deeming they've got that.
But mods with removable batteries - easn't it Sony that put up a letter saying that their 18650's aren't meant for vaping ?
Smart move, I'd say: Vapers gonna use them anyway, but if they go 'poof' Sony can thumb their nose at the FDA and at any lawyer that happens to look for some juicy bits.
No sweat with them gathering data per se.
Feedback what's it all about. And I think in the past ( and perhaps the present ) FDA's been sitting more than once on their hands on some drugs and their KNOWN averse side effects. Chantix comes to mind, for instance.
But in the lobbying landscape, vapers are but a blade of grass...
Mods with fixed batteries - guess with the deeming they've got that.
But mods with removable batteries - easn't it Sony that put up a letter saying that their 18650's aren't meant for vaping ?
Smart move, I'd say: Vapers gonna use them anyway, but if they go 'poof' Sony can thumb their nose at the FDA and at any lawyer that happens to look for some juicy bits.
thing is, if the data collected shows it's almost always from replaceable batteries and not with internal batteries, guess what they will allow to be sold?
Does anyone know of a vaping injury accident caused by a wet battery? Deliberately plugging vent holes? What accidents did that cause?
That is so true. Actually, doesn't that sort of happen these days in medical care, too? Everything is so fragmented. I prefer an integrated approach myself. Not just the individual parts, but the sum of the parts as a whole.
Here is an Interesting Article I just read from Bill G's Tobacco Harm Reduction Update e-Mail.
"Analysis of London Fire Brigade figures found that in the last three years, only 14 fires were attributable to e-cigarettes. In comparison, smoking-related fires topped 3,500. These were fires cause by tobacco smoking, and not extinguishing cigarettes properly."
Fire death risk cut by vaping rather than smoking, study finds
It's Funny how sometimes Perspective can be Lost when Events are viewed thru the Hyperbolic Lens of Media.
Nice to see someone comparing Fires from e-Cigarettes to Fires from Cigarettes for a change.
"Analysis of London Fire Brigade figures found that in the last three years, only 14 fires were attributable to e-cigarettes. In comparison, smoking-related fires topped 3,500. These were fires cause by tobacco smoking, and not extinguishing cigarettes properly."
Fire death risk cut by vaping rather than smoking, study finds
It's Funny how sometimes Perspective can be Lost when Events are viewed thru the Hyperbolic Lens of Media.
Nice to see someone comparing Fires from e-Cigarettes to Fires from Cigarettes for a change.
Actually... Yes they generally do. The problem is that the processes used to write regulations is so politicized, bureaucratized, and infiltrated by corporate special interests that the primary goals get hijacked.
In order to get a PMTA for anything we consider a "mod" approved under the current regulatory guidance, the manufacturer would have to show that it's "safe" with any atty that could be attached, running any juice that could be put in that atty. Thus, I think it's effectively impossible for any mod to get approved, no matter whether its battery is fixed or removable.
Of course they could come to their senses and recognize that a fancy battery holder with a switch and optionally, a regulator circuit in it really isn't a tobacco product, right?
I don't think it's going to be an issue of testing every mod with every atty, as that's not a safety issue by itself, other than maybe a standard 510 connector standard finally being established. There will be guidelines for safety protection circuits in mods to avoid battery problems. While it might seem a stretch to regulated that as a "tobacco" product, it is in keeping with other devices they do regulate such as medical devices. I'll be interested in how they handle the juice/atty issue. That's a tough one to approach.
We shall see. But the way the regs and associated guidance stand right now, I predict nothing we consider to be a "mod" will get PMTA approval. In fact I'm skeptical that any mod manufacturers will even bother submitting an application. Heck, the one US manufacturer that everyone thought had the best shot at this has already folded. What US manufacturer is left who's willing and able to invest a six or seven figure sum into preparing an application? I don't think the Chinese will bother either. Their product cycles are too short, and their margins are too slim.
I do however see this page on the FDA's website as an indication that they've come to realize that mods aren't going away. Even if their regulations and guidance stands as currently written, the devices currently out in consumers' possession don't become illegal, and trying to stem the flow of "electronic gadgets" from China is a Sisyphean task.
Evolv already explicitly stated they will be filing PMTAs on their boards. Will the Joyetech, Smok, iJoy crowd file? Unknown, but if some clarity comes to the process, I expect they will take advantage of it. They are already pursuing TPD compliance on their tanks. The issue will really be on juice. If the requirements revolve around preparation and working off and approved ingredient list, then the larger, and even some smaller firms will be OK. If every single juice requires a full PMTA then it won't matter what's left on the market as there will be nothing to vape in it other than the DIYers.
I do have a feeling with the new FDA Commissioner recognizing harm reduction does matter the process will be shaken up over the original view of "1% of applications will ever be approved", and those will only be BT offerings.
Does anyone know whatever happened with that lawsuit Nicopure brought? Did I miss some decision, one way or the other?
They are just batteries, used in flashlights before vapes.
I wonder if the fda visits candlepower.com to see how many flashlight batteries explode
I'm scratching my head over that because a regulator board is not a finished product and doesn't need a PMTA. Of course, I understand that Evolv wishes to make it easy for mod makers who use their boards, but that doesn't mean the FDA will go along with this plan.
Let's hope so.
Vaping represents about .0001% of consumer battery use.
The FDA cant regulate batteries.
They do not have any authority to regulate batteries.
Its illogical to even think could.
The FDA cant regulate batteries.
They do not have any authority to regulate batteries.
Its illogical to even think could.
Battery circumstances would seem to be appropriate for the Consumer Products Safety Commission. They may not have the incentive to go there.
In a quick search, "U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) staff is participating in voluntary standard activities involving batteries in consumer products, including the development of Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 1725, Draft Standard for Rechargeable Batteries ..." - Google
and...
"Nov 27, 2016 - As Batteries Keep Catching Fire, U.S. Safety Agency Prepares For Change. ... Kaye is the chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. ... Lithium-ion batteries are a known troublemaker — and a subject of numerous standards and international regulations." - Google
Compared to the FDA, I'd think that overall ecig circumstances ought to be under the eye of something along the lines of the CPSC.
Unless of course Congress gives them that authority.
And a Federal Court Upholds such Authority.
Unless of course Congress gives them that authority.
I'll take that bet.
What kinda odds you giving?
- Status
Similar threads
