I didnt see this posted, thought I'd share SFATA Inaugural E-Cig Summit Sums Up Current State of E-Law with Help of Former FDA Chief Counsel, Ralph Tyler, Esq. | Feb 4, 2013
Found this About SFATA Summit
- Thread starter 2coils
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Thanks for sharing. Found this little point very important to remember...
"He [Mr. Tyler] continued by clarifying that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the Sottera case did not determine that electronic cigarettes are to be classified as tobacco products. Rather, the issue before the court was limited to whether or not electronic cigarettes could be classified as “drugs,” “devices,” or “combination products” not whether or not e-cigarettes could be classified as tobacco products.
Mr. Tyler noted that while the Court in Sottera held that the FDA could not classify electronic cigarettes as “drugs,” “devices” or “combination products” absent therapeutic health claims, the FDA may [not shall], deem electronic cigarettes as tobacco products under the Act if, and only if, the FDA were to issue proper deeming regulations. To date, the FDA has not attempted to deem electronic cigarettes as tobacco products and as such, electronic cigarettes are not deemed as tobacco products."
"He [Mr. Tyler] continued by clarifying that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the Sottera case did not determine that electronic cigarettes are to be classified as tobacco products. Rather, the issue before the court was limited to whether or not electronic cigarettes could be classified as “drugs,” “devices,” or “combination products” not whether or not e-cigarettes could be classified as tobacco products.
Mr. Tyler noted that while the Court in Sottera held that the FDA could not classify electronic cigarettes as “drugs,” “devices” or “combination products” absent therapeutic health claims, the FDA may [not shall], deem electronic cigarettes as tobacco products under the Act if, and only if, the FDA were to issue proper deeming regulations. To date, the FDA has not attempted to deem electronic cigarettes as tobacco products and as such, electronic cigarettes are not deemed as tobacco products."
This is the same organization that invited Bill Godshall to present and then heavily censored his presentation without his consent. He did not deliver the presentation. http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...sfatas-e-cig-summit-2013-wasnt-presented.html
I sent an email to them over a week ago asking for an explanation. I have received no reply.
True, but they are expected to do so in April.
Yes, it does appear that way, and the ground work for that to happen does seem finished. Do you actually think it will occur?
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
Please note that FDA informed US Senate staffers in the summer of 2011 that the FDA would officially propose the "deeming" regulation in October 2011. And in the spring of 2012, the FDA stated that it intended to propose the "deeming" regulation in the summer of 2012 (which I insisted would not occur before the election).
Its pretty clear to me that the reason why FDA hasn't proposed the "deeming" regulations to date (and may or may not in the future) has been due to our collective efforts to expose and educate the FDA about the health benefits e-cigarettes have provided to millions of smokers, and to expose and oppose the FDA's false and misleading claims about e-cigarettes and the disasterous ramifications "deeming" regulation would have on e-cigarette consumers and smokers.
Its pretty clear to me that the reason why FDA hasn't proposed the "deeming" regulations to date (and may or may not in the future) has been due to our collective efforts to expose and educate the FDA about the health benefits e-cigarettes have provided to millions of smokers, and to expose and oppose the FDA's false and misleading claims about e-cigarettes and the disasterous ramifications "deeming" regulation would have on e-cigarette consumers and smokers.
I hope you're right Bill (and you usually are, so I'm optimistic)!
In the meantime, we all sit here in limbo, with half the vapers in a near-panic (as noted by so many threads about hoarding, stocking up, etc., around the forum). They need to make a decision of some sort already, and one based on yours & CASAA's suggestions would be great. My wish for worst-case is that they decide to follow a sensible path and regulate similar to foods, in that labels are required to have full disclosure (ingredients list, % nicotine, etc.), and sensible paper trails are required for the nic and other liquids/ingredients used. Of course that's just a wish, and since I've no genie lamps around...
So true, I have only been vaping a little over a month but I can see the tide turning ever so slightly. With our community actively questioning and correcting media reports I think that they are slowly realizing that they can no longer pull the wool over our eyes.
I think that this endorsement by Dr. Ablow will go a long way as well. It doesn't require researching and pouring over studies. People will look to this as very positive!
Psychiatrist Dr. Keith Ablow endorses E Cigs
Would You Use E-Cigarettes to Help You Stop Smoking? | Fox Business Video
E-Cigs Now Recommended by Renowned Doctor | Feb 21, 2013
Last edited:
I hope you're right Bill (and you usually are, so I'm optimistic)!
In the meantime, we all sit here in limbo, with half the vapers in a near-panic (as noted by so many threads about hoarding, stocking up, etc., around the forum). They need to make a decision of some sort already, and one based on yours & CASAA's suggestions would be great. My wish for worst-case is that they decide to follow a sensible path and regulate similar to foods, in that labels are required to have full disclosure (ingredients list, % nicotine, etc.), and sensible paper trails are required for the nic and other liquids/ingredients used. Of course that's just a wish, and since I've no genie lamps around...
Precisely what AEMSA is trying to do, and then some, and why we are trying to do it.
Well, not quite.
AEMSA is specifically calling out WTA and caffeine as not allowed, regardless of whether or not they are safe and clean. So, I am trying to avoid buying from amy AEMSA members, since they're trying to send me back to combustibles, same as the FDA.
If the AEMSA was REALLY trying to promote a safe alternative to smoking, their safety terms would be generic rather than specifically forbidding things they think might not be as safe as not smoking, maybe, even when those things are in coffee and cigarettes.
IMO, AEMSA is 10% FDA/ANTZ mentality, 90% pro-vaper.
I truely dont know how I feel in regard to AEMSA, I would think that AEMSA's opinion in regard to ingredients is to keep it simple. If we decide to deviate from the core ingredients where does it stop? Though it is hard not to recognize those who cant seem to make it without WTA. I dont know. I DO know, I applaud anyone who joins, as It is an expensive proposition and most vendors arent exactly inviting us into their labs. Most dont even mention where they mix their solutions. I have googled e-liquid vendors addresses and found some are just residential. The trade and craft does deserve better.
They could keep it simple by having criteria related to safety and purity, and only approving things that meet the criteria. No need to forbid something ahead of time.
The ANTZ people are saying "If we let them introduce new ways to use tobacco, where does it stop?"
I get where you are comming from with ANTZ. An e-cig selling point to all parties involved.....E-cigs dont have the 4000 chemicals of a tobacco cigarette. I dont know if I am comfortable adding any ingredients back in if they dont have to be. Just my
Im sure we will be told rather soon what is supposed to be put in our e-liquid. ugh
I get where you are comming from with ANTZ. An e-cig selling point to all parties involved.....E-cigs dont have the 4000 chemicals of a tobacco cigarette. I dont know if I am comfortable adding any ingredients back in if they dont have to be. Just my
As long as they require truth in labeling, why should you not being comfortable with an ingredient deny it to me? I'm not comfortable with cinnamon. Others might not be comfortable with nuts or sugar or whatever. None of those are specifically listed as forbidden by AEMSA.
The ingredients you just mentioned are flavorings....I'm speaking of chemicals. I don't want to give the opposition any extra stones to throw at us. It is a good debate and one that will probably get more attention in the coming months.
If I was forced to bet on it, my money would be on the other tobacco alkaloids being a lot safer to inhale than some flavorings.
But the one thing I couldn't get past was the idea that WTA was not allowed but coloring agents were.
Try as I might, I couldn't find any way for that to make any sense to me.
OK, then let's leave out nicotine! Just because you need it does not mean it's not a chemical. It is a chemical extracted from tobacco, just like WTA's. It's amount can be measured in tobacco or ejuice and compared, just like WTA's. Why should I support you getting yours if you don't think I should be able to get mine?
I am NOT suggesting you have to buy WTA, or that WTA should be allowed without being specifically labeled as such including BEFORE hitting "buy.' I am suggesting that WTA liquids be considered on their own merits and proof, individually, like all other components, before certification, instead of being specifically forbidden.
I dont dispute your statement. Below is a statement from their standards:
AEMSA members will not add any artificial coloring or dyes during the e-liquid manufacturing process. Non vendor
manufactured flavorings containing artificial food coloring will identify food coloring information to include coloring
number in advertising and product descriptions
I dont find this to be unreasonable. We ARE facing regulations. My only point is that AEMSA standards aren't that bad. After the dust settles, if we are still allowed to vape and E- Liquid vendors are allowed to make e-liquid, FDA regulation similar to AEMSA, wouldnt be terrible. No matter what the regulations proposed are, there are going to be some if not MANY who aren't going to be happy.
There is going to have to be some give and take. I sure as heck dont know where to draw the line?? I do know the more we put back into eliquid may work against us.
To be clear, I do not advocate or speak for AEMSA. I have also said I truely dont know how I feel about them. I will stand right next to you for our right to vape. My only point is that this subject is delicate in regard to ingredients. If I felt I needed WTA's maybe my opinion would be different.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
