GTNF Tobacco industry conference on FDA and FCTC regulations, THR and vapor products going on in WV

[Bill Godshall]

Global tobacco Networking Forum conference in West Virginia (going on now) includes many presentations on FDA regulations, THR and vapor products;
Vast majority of presenters work for Big tobacco companies worldwide, with several THR/vaping advocates and e-cig companies invited.
http://www.gtnf-2014.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/V43_GTNF2014_AgendaFIN.pdf
Look Who’s Talking : GTNF 2014


Looks like the Big Tobacco companies are far more interested in taking over the e-cig industry (with help from the US FDA, UK MHRA, EU and FCTC regulation) than in collaborating or coalescing with THR/vaping advocates, vape shops and PV/e-liquid companies to keep all e-cig products legal to manufacture, market and use.

As one who knows most of the GTNF speakers (who are on my weekly e-mail list), I was disappointed to only find out about this conference this morning.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Here's a news article from the GTNF conference. Big Tobacco CEOs are now lying to lobby the FDA to ban >99.9% of less expensive premium vapor products and e-liquid products, and give the e-cig industry to Big Tobacco.

Tobacco CEOs Push FDA to Adopt E-Cig Rules More Quickly
Tobacco CEOs Push FDA to Adopt E-Cig Rules More Quickly - Bloomberg

Reynolds American Inc. (RAI) and Lorillard Inc. (LO) urged U.S. health officials to move more quickly on regulating e-cigarettes, saying the lack of clear rules makes it harder for smokers to switch to the less-hazardous products.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration needs to establish guidelines for the industry and create a level playing field for e-cig competitors, Reynolds Chief Executive Officer Susan Cameron said yesterday at the Global Tobacco Networking Forum. Lorillard CEO Murray Kessler, speaking at the same conference, echoed those remarks. If the agency fails to act in time, it could jeopardize the huge potential health benefits from converting smokers to the newer technology, he said.

The two companies, which agreed this year to merge in a $25 billion deal, are fighting to protect the nascent e-cig industry. The new products are touted as a healthier alternative to traditional cigarettes because they emit vapor rather than tar, ash and smoke. Still, they’ve come under increasing scrutiny from both local and federal officials, who say the health effects of the vapor aren’t fully known.

“The opportunity that is before us calls for a sense of urgency, particularly in the development of policies regarding vapor,” Cameron told a group of about 250 industry leaders gathered at the Greenbrier, a resort in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia. “The future is still ours to shape.”

Reynolds rose 0.7 percent to $59.03 at 9:54 a.m. in New York, while Lorillard climbed 0.6 percent to $60.17.

 

[pamdis]

..................................

 

[DrMA]

I think they're genuinely pushing for a level playing field. However, they want this flat conceptual surface to be placed at such high financial elevation that it would be out of reach for all but BT.

The uncommon nonsense and lies are in statements such as "the lack of clear rules makes it harder for smokers to switch." This is not only demonstrably false, but also an insult to the 6.24 million American vapers, 2.1 million UK vapers, and countless millions elsewhere who obviously don't need any govt rules in order to switch to vaping, and in spite of false fear mongering propaganda from govt and the ANTZ terrorist network.

Other than that, I've already written to FDA that their deeming is plying straight into the hands of BT, and that FDA would become an integral part in the foundation of the BT business model.

 

[DC2]

Nothing to see here... just the usual doom and gloom that many wish to ignore.

 

[Jman8]

Nothing to see here... just the usual doom and gloom.

Agreed
_______

 

[DC2]

Agreed
_______

You left off the "that many wish to ignore" part of my post.
Which doesn't surprise me in the least.

But hey, that Black Market is always your fallback position, right?
Tell that to someone's grandmother.

 

[Jman8]

You left off the "that many wish to ignore" part of my post.
Which doesn't surprise me in the least.

But hey, that Black Market is always your fallback position, right?
Tell that to someone's grandmother.

Be glad to.

What's your (proper) response to the doom and gloom provided to us in this thread?

 

[DC2]

Be glad to.

What's your (proper) response to the doom and gloom provided to us in this thread?

My response to someone's grandmother is most certainly not to plan to rely on a black market.

As for what my response would be, nobody here wants to hear it, as I have pretty much given up most of the hope I once had.
But I'll be damned if I'm going to let that keep me from continuing to fight.

 

[Jman8]

My response to someone's grandmother is most certainly not to plan to rely on a black market.

As for what my response would be, nobody here wants to hear it, as I have pretty much given up most of the hope I once had.
But I'll be damned if I'm going to let that keep me from continuing to fight.

So, like the OP, you have no response. But doom and gloom is always good to bring up?

 

[DC2]

So, like the OP, you have no response. But doom and gloom is always good to bring up?

My response would be to stock up, join CASAA and the Vaping Militia, write your representatives, and do whatever else you can to fight for what is right.
And coincidentally, that's exactly what I am doing, and have been doing for the last three or four years.

 

[Jman8]

My response would be to stock up, join CASAA and the Vaping Militia, write your representatives, and do whatever else you can to fight for what is right.
And coincidentally, that's exactly what I am doing, and have been doing for the last three or four years.

So, I have 3 of the 5 covered, and believe black market is part of 'stock up' or 'fight for what is right.'

At least you offered something more than what OP did in face of what is perceived to likely be coming.

 

[dragonpuff]

Can't we all just get along??

 

[readeuler]

I think they're genuinely pushing for a level playing field. However, they want this flat conceptual surface to be placed at such high financial elevation that it would be out of reach for all but BT.

The uncommon nonsense and lies are in statements such as "the lack of clear rules makes it harder for smokers to switch." This is not only demonstrably false, but also an insult to the 6.24 million American vapers, 2.1 million UK vapers, and countless millions elsewhere who obviously don't need any govt rules in order to switch to vaping, and in spite of false fear mongering propaganda from govt and the ANTZ terrorist network.

Other than that, I've already written to FDA that their deeming is plying straight into the hands of BT, and that FDA would become an integral part in the foundation of the BT business model.

The Bloomberg article focused predictably on publicly traded companies, namely RAI and LO. Their comments are indeed confusing, although not surprising. It's an interesting point that they may want a level playing field in a sense deeper than "Hey, they got there first! Please, FDA, give us a little push and hold them back, won't you?"

I do believe that large tobacco companies getting into the vapor market will be held to a higher standard. I can't precisely say in what sense I believe this, but given all the attention they've received for years, I just can't see how this would be false. It really creates an interesting catch 22: If ecigs are regulated as little as I personally would like, then of course PM et al. should be subject to the same mild restrictions as everyone else, as far as e-cigarettes are concerned. This feels somehow wrong, but it's clearly right.

They, however, prefer to be more heavily-regulated than they currently are. That's fishy.

On the main topic of the thread, it seems like an interesting conference. The biggest 'advanced' vape company represented seems to be Evolv, which is honestly more participation than I'd expected. I'd love to see more information other than "a bunch of people got together". Do you think we'll get to see any presentations, or is that not the way these things are covered?

 

[Nate760]

I do believe that large tobacco companies getting into the vapor market will be held to a higher standard.

If the tobacco companies have their way, there won't be any such thing as a "vapor market." They want e-cigs to be seen, both legally and colloquially, as an extension of the cigarette market, as evidenced by how far out of their way they go to use the words "tobacco" and "cigarette" when describing their vapor products.

 

[Jman8]

I do believe that large tobacco companies getting into the vapor market will be held to a higher standard. I can't precisely say in what sense I believe this, but given all the attention they've received for years, I just can't see how this would be false. It really creates an interesting catch 22: If ecigs are regulated as little as I personally would like, then of course PM et al. should be subject to the same mild restrictions as everyone else, as far as e-cigarettes are concerned. This feels somehow wrong, but it's clearly right.

They, however, prefer to be more heavily-regulated than they currently are. That's fishy.

The way I see it is that BT's entrance into vaping market is around 30% desire to capitalize on sales to nic addicts/users, hopefully recouping losses from less sales of combustibles. I believe they do desire to dominate the market and have the ability to do so. I do not think they have the ability to eliminate all competition. I believe any vaping company (and I mean any vaping company) if given the opportunity to dominate the vaping market, would do so in a second and not think twice about what that would do to the market.

But 70% of me believes BT is reacting as a company that has had to deal with ANTZ regulation/regulators for 50 years. OP of this thread is proud of MSA and if anything thinks it didn't go far enough. I am certain he is not alone and shows what BT has been up against in terms of ANTZ tactics and propaganda. This isn't to say BT hasn't had their own share of propaganda, but if I had to pick a side, I know which one I'd rather be on. Anyway, I believe BT has been humbled to some degree and realizes that lying to the public and trying to get around regulators will not work. So, if you can't beat the regulators, why not join them in what is perceived by general public as 'right thing to do' (i.e. not market to children, use proper labeling, and be honest about business goals)? Yet, because of BT's track record, I understand that a whole bunch of people (likely the overwhelming majority) will not give BT even a sliver of respect and instead will filter everything through ANTZ propaganda (BT is out to kill people, lie about it, and take over markets). I truly believe that people (who are okay with regulations of some sort) would very much like BT to be heavily regulated while rest of vaping industry is either not regulated at all or faces very little regulation). In a world where ANTZ doesn't exist, I think that would actually be possible. With a world where ANTZ exists, hatred of BT means you just done joined in the ANTZ camp. How special of you.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Altria began urging the FDA to impose the deeming regulation back in 2010 because it wanted to gain control of the cigar industry, and began urging FDA to impose the deeming reg on e-cig in 2011.

In contrast, none of the other tobacco companies began supporting the deeming regulation until last year.

Now, the largest tobacco company executives are urging the FDA to quickly implement the deeming regulation on e-cigs (and to ban PVs and e-liquids) because they know:
- PVs and e-liquids pose a huge threat to future cigarette sales and to future cigalike e-cig sales,
- PVs and e-liquids are far more effective than cigalikes for quitting smoking and reducing cigarette consumption,
- PVs and e-liquids cost about 33% of the price of cigalikes, and about 25% of the price of cigarettes,
- their cigarettes and cigalike e-cigs won't be able to compete in a free market against PVs and e-liquid,
- they can afford the $10-$40 million it would cost to submit new tobacco product applications for each of their several cigalike brands,
- 99% of PV and e-liquid manufacturers cannot afford the $10-$40 million to submit a new product application,
- FDA is very unlikely to approve any new tobacco product application for a PV or e-liquid even if applications are submitted,
- FDA would need to approve several new tobacco product applications for cigalike brands before sending cease-and-desist letters to PV and e-liquid manufacturers, and
- FDA will be facing increasing pressure from vapers to approve new product applications for PVs and e-liquid as their sales continue to skyrocket.

The best ways to prevent the FDA from imposing the deeming regulation on e-cigs include exposing how it would:
- protect cigarettes from market competition by far less hazardous PVs and e-liquid,
- ban >99.9% of all e-cig products on the market (including those most effective for quitting smoking and reducing cigarette consumption),
- threaten the lives of most vapers, smokers and secondhand smokers,
- give the e-cig industry to Big Tobacco companies and allow sales of only more expensive and inferior cigalike brands, and
- create a huge black market for PVs and e-liquids, which would increase product risks and reduce quality control.

 

[Jman8]

Now, the largest tobacco company executives are urging the FDA to quickly implement the deeming regulation on e-cigs (and to ban PVs and e-liquids) because they know:
- PVs and e-liquids pose a huge threat to future cigarette sales and to future cigalike e-cig sales,
- PVs and e-liquids are far more effective than cigalikes for quitting smoking and reducing cigarette consumption,
- PVs and e-liquids cost about 33% of the price of cigalikes, and about 25% of the price of cigarettes,
- their cigarettes and cigalike e-cigs won't be able to compete in a free market against PVs and e-liquid,
- they can afford the $10-$40 million it would cost to submit new tobacco product applications for each of their several cigalike brands,
- 99% of PV and e-liquid manufacturers cannot afford the $10-$40 million to submit a new product application,
- FDA is very unlikely to approve any new tobacco product application for a PV or e-liquid even if applications are submitted,
- FDA would need to approve several new tobacco product applications for cigalike brands before sending cease-and-desist letters to PV and e-liquid manufacturers, and
- FDA will be facing increasing pressure from vapers to approve new product applications for PVs and e-liquid as their sales continue to skyrocket.

Be this as it may, it does seem to neglect the rather obvious reason that a business would want to know what the playing field will entail once regulations are in effect, especially if that business is or has invested millions of dollars in that industry.

PV and eLiquids are big business and will continue to be (via black market if need be), but there is perception of 'reasonable concern' that these type of systems could be tampered with. So regulators are going to try and rein that in. I believe they will try and fail. But if they were to try, and allow for it, thus providing some avenue for non-cigalike market, I believe BT would move in that direction.

The best ways to prevent the FDA from imposing the deeming regulation on e-cigs include exposing how it would:
- protect cigarettes from market competition by far less hazardous PVs and e-liquid,
- ban >99.9% of all e-cig products on the market (including those most effective for quitting smoking and reducing cigarette consumption),
- threaten the lives of most vapers, smokers and secondhand smokers,
- give the e-cig industry to Big Tobacco companies and allow sales of only more expensive and inferior cigalike brands, and
- create a huge black market for PVs and e-liquids, which would increase product risks and reduce quality control.

Seems like exposing these things is incredibly tough when BT has the money and power to outweigh the little guy, not to mention that ANTZ and BP have the motivation, and media, to keep the little guy sitting on the sidelines like a good little kid. All these things you write about have already been exposed, and been ignored, as you well know. Plus they are all debatable, and I am up for having that debate. I observe you are not, and stick to notion that exposing is the way to go. I don't think exposing them alone is the way to go. I think new tactics ought to be tried, and that includes putting ANTZ on the defense around smoking rights. If not, then I think reality will be that these things need to play out to whatever degree they do (I disagree with your numbers, but doesn't really matter) and that perhaps the public needs to have a huge black market go into effect to realize that a more reasonable regulatory framework may be better for all involved.

 

[csardaz]

Did they deem tobacco pipes? are they components for pipe tobacco? Thats about as close as you can get to a mod and topper. Pipes and RYO papers are open systems and people can and do alter the mix of whats smoked in them.

This whole 'you don't know whats in them' should be a weak point for cigarette makers who use all sorts of additives and never list ingredients.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Jman wrote:

All these things you write about have already been exposed, and been ignored, as you well know.

Virtually every public scandal was first exposed, then covered up and ignored before becoming a much bigger public scandal. The only reason that occurred was because dedicated and bold people continued to expose the scandal.

Jman wrote

I think new tactics ought to be tried, and that includes putting ANTZ on the defense around smoking rights.

Claiming ANTZ are wrong about e-cigs because they were wrong about cigarette smoking is to concede victory to the ANTZ on e-cigs. That's what FORCES attempted to do for the past five years (and why right to smoke activists post far more notes on ECF than on FORCES website).