FDA Is the FDA open minded about e-cigarettes?

[Belushi]

Maybe I'm a-bit touchy on the subject, so I'll defer judgement... Does this sound like the FDA is going to be open minded?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/opinion/regulating-e-cigarettes-the-view-from-the-fda.html

The proposed rule is a critical first step to bring an end to the completely unregulated e-cigarette marketplace. When it is finalized, e-cigarette companies will be required to report the levels of harmful and potentially harmful chemicals or chemical compounds delivered by their products. But we cannot enact a rule on reporting or restricting e-cigarette emissions until this foundational rule-making is completed, which is one of our highest priorities.

 

[bacc.vap]

I don't think so, at least not unless they're forced to be. They have their agenda, ecigs are bad. Make no mistake about it, their science will prove it.

 

[Kent C]

Open mind....it is usually taken to mean an objective, unbiased approach to ideas, but it is used as a call for perpetual skepticism, for holding no firm convictions and granting plausibility to anything. Rand

FDA fails on both accounts. They are not objective, they are biased, and they have firm convictions and grant plausibility to nothing.

 

[Belushi]

Just getting the feeling that the FDA has this dark hidden agenda and they are going to slam the guillotine down as soon as they have the authority. Every once in a while they will slip with their comments. I wish there was some release form I could sign that would allow me to buy my vaping supplies from overseas, "I hear-by release the FDA of all responsibility of protecting me from the evil doers, anything I buy overseas and have shipped into the united states is the sole responsibility of me, the user of said product."

 

[2coils]

Maybe I'm a-bit touchy on the subject, so I'll defer judgement... Does this sound like the FDA is going to be open minded?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/opinion/regulating-e-cigarettes-the-view-from-the-fda.html

You picked one of the softer quotes! I have said it a million times, the FDA and Zeller have been quite vocal of their intentions! It baffles me, the misconceptions, flying around this forum. I do not get peoples rationale
I am in no way being hostile toward you, as you obviously know what the deal is. Just frustrated with the amount of BS flying around this forum. I am a bit disappointed with some vapers recently.

 

[Rickajho]

Is the FDA open minded about e-cigarettes?

Not when there are money, tax dollars and "...for the children!!!" involved.

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

The topic of this thread is a joke, right?

 

[aikanae1]

The topic of this thread is a joke, right?

LOL! Don't we wish. I think "science based" also has a different meaning too. Actually, I think the FDA has rewritten the entire dictionary.

The F.D.A. is committed to the science-based regulation of these products to better protect public health. Where the science does not exist, we are able to finance the research to answer key questions related to e-cigarette safety and consumer behavior, including four studies that will focus on the contents of e-cigarette vapor.

 

[Kent C]

LOL! Don't we wish. I think "science based" also has a different meaning too. Actually, I think the FDA has rewritten the entire dictionary.

Right.

Substantially - means not substantially.

Equivalent means very different.

 

[Nate760]

The FDA/Big Tobacco/Big Pharma triumvirate represents probably the most lucrative legalized racketeering operation in the history of the United States. The e-cig industry, if left to its own free-market devices, could potentially bring the whole arrangement crashing down. Cigarette smoking makes far too many people far too rich for them to allow that to happen.

 

[Gato del Jugo]

Actually, I think the FDA has rewritten the entire dictionary.

They may be dictionary authors..

But I also view them as judge, jury & executioner, as well...

 

[Jman8]

Maybe I'm a-bit touchy on the subject, so I'll defer judgement... Does this sound like the FDA is going to be open minded?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/opinion/regulating-e-cigarettes-the-view-from-the-fda.html

I don't get why anyone would think they would be with existence of FSPTCA. Are ex-smokers open-minded about smoking? Are all non-vapers open minded about vaping?

I still think the currently proposed regulations are tame, and likely will be tame (under final rule) for 2 years, at least. After that, it'll be a little like smoking is treated in mass culture. Perpetuate false science/misleading data, hype that up, shame users, curtail usage wherever possible (which is already occurring regardless of FDA) and seek excise taxes galore (which is not up to FDA).

Most people I know (vapers or otherwise) are not open minded about scientific data regarding traditional cigarettes. Either you buy into meme that it kills 400K annually, or you are branded something along lines of heretic. No debate to be had. And this is what has driven core regulations of TCA. I know of a few vocal ECF'ers who do challenge this meme, and who, from my perspective, seem open minded on that issue. But overwhelming majority are not, and as that is looking like the path that eCigs are headed on, it seems like that unwillingness to see things from other side is going to bite us in vaping community.

I know from my experience of chatting with person from ALA (lung association) that there is no open mindedness on eCigs and that their mind, as a whole organization, very much appears to be made up, aka prejudice against eCigs. I feel the same can be said about ACS (cancer) and CDC (disease). All very visibly biased against eCigs, and perpetuating misleading scientific data to bolster their claims regarding harm/danger. And yet, if I question meme of 400K deaths from smokes, it is these organization's data that will be cited, as if it is gospel.

Seriously, if they could do it against smoking, why would anyone think they'd have a problem, regardless of scientific data, with regards to vaping?

Did I ever mention how utterly unhelpful it is for vapers to perpetuate idea that vaping ought to only be done where smoking is allowed? And yet, we have many vapers among us who have rolled over on this key issue. I'm thinking that doesn't bode well for the community going forward (in the 2 to 10 year plan).

/rant

 

[Nate760]

Did I ever mention how utterly unhelpful it is for vapers to perpetuate idea that vaping ought to only be done where smoking is allowed? And yet, we have many vapers among us who have rolled over on this key issue. I'm thinking that doesn't bode well for the community going forward (in the 2 to 10 year plan).

I also find it very disheartening when vapers mindlessly regurgitate ANTZ propaganda about cigarette smoking, while decrying the ANTZ propaganda campaign against e-cigs. Some of us seem to think that by joining in the wholesale demonization of smoking, we bolster the credibility of our pro-vaping arguments. This thinking is wrong. You either oppose lies or you don't. You either oppose junk science or you don't. If you openly support, or fail to challenge, certain lies and certain junk science just because you think doing so provides a rhetorical convenience, you make yourself part of the problem. The ANTZ have built a social orthodoxy out of lies, hysteria, and misinformation. They and it must be opposed in their entirety.

 

[JerryZ]

The FDA/Big Tobacco/Big Pharma triumvirate represents probably the most lucrative legalized racketeering operation in the history of the United States. The e-cig industry, if left to its own free-market devices, could potentially bring the whole arrangement crashing down. Cigarette smoking makes far too many people far too rich for them to allow that to happen.

+1 . . . IMO this is all about the money (period)! That is why we will be relegated to cigalikes and sealed carts - there is way more recurring revenue in those products than just juice. I also think BT is the main player in this, with BP trying to tag along and save market. I have a good friend that works for one of the BT players, and he told me about a year ago they were lobbying to have e-cig listed as a tobacco product. At the moment I thought he was crazy, "this isn't tobacco!". I now think I underestimated the steps these players are willing to take to protect their money.

 

[zoiDman]

Maybe I'm a-bit touchy on the subject, so I'll defer judgement... Does this sound like the FDA is going to be open minded?

...

I think it Really Depends on How you Define "Open Minded".

Open Minded meaning that e-Cigarettes hold a Huge Potential for Harm Reduction? Yes.

Open Minded meaning that e-Cigarettes are a Perfect Tax Vehicle? Yes.

Open Minded meaning that e-Cigarettes Profits should go to Big Business Only? Yes.

 

[Racehorse]

+1 . . . IMO this is all about the money (period)! <snip> now think I underestimated the steps these players are willing to take to protect their money.

The way the prevailing business model has operated for decades -- money ----- who has it, who gets it, and who gets a shot at getting it.

..... one of the reasons I never voted for Big Business or any party that supports it.

However, those that believe in trickle-down economics can wait and see what happens in the ecig industry.

If trickle-down works, then there will be more jobs, more $$, more products, and more innovation, and a generally better economic situation for all, right? or, so I'm told.

Can't get to have your cake and eat it too.

Now that Big Business happens to want to play in our sandbox. All of a sudden they are evil. Before this, they were the great benefactors who trickled down benevolently to all of us little people.

 

[Racehorse]

Some of us seem to think that by joining in the wholesale demonization of smoking, we bolster the credibility of our pro-vaping arguments. This thinking is wrong.

While I do not think smoking is healthy, I believe consenting adults should be able to do what they want with their own bodies...but they should also have enough information to make an informed decision.

In order to do that, they need honest information. Unfortunately, that is not what smokers received from BT. BT hid a lot of the information that people needed in order to safeguard their own personal health. Not all smokers were making "informed" decisions. They didn't know what was in their tobacco products.

I'm against regulating ecigs by the FDA....

....however, I also feel the manufacturers of liquid should spring for testing of their product, and be able to show their consumers exactly what they are inhaling. Otherwise, they are just leaving their consumer in the dark, like BT did, aren't they?

The best way to counter lies is to produce the information and put it on the table. Hard to argue with that.

I eat gluten free oatmeal, and the company I buy from was able to prove to me there was no gluten in there. As a result, I am a loyal life-long customer and I can also take care of my health, which means not injesting gluten.

 

[DrMA]

The FDA/Big Tobacco/Big Pharma triumvirate represents probably the most lucrative legalized racketeering operation in the history of the United States. The e-cig industry, if left to its own free-market devices, could potentially bring the whole arrangement crashing down. Cigarette smoking makes far too many people far too rich for them to allow that to happen.

^^^This^^^ +1

There can be no question whatsoever that FDA's intentions are misleading at best, but, more realistically, down right malicious. The Establishment will always act in a way that preserves the establishment, in this case the tobacco gravy train that pours billions into the pockets of government, BT, BP, and their pet alphabet-soup groups that form the TCI.

 

[Kent C]

Trickle down works in the context of a free market. Free market works only in free markets.... ...Not markets controlled, owned wholly or partially by gov't.

When you talk "Big Business" it depends a lot on the industry and even which companies in the industry. Soros has oil concerns as do Koch. Most billionaire silicone valley execs fully support the progressives and liberals. Much of Wall Street do as well, but many of those hedge their 'investments' in both.

RealClearMarkets - The Democratic Party Is Now The Party Of Big Business

http://retailindustry.about.com/od/famousretailers/a/retailpolitics.htm

 

[Bob Chill]

When I first read the proposed rule, there were definitely enough cookies dropped in the text specifically aimed at ecigs that left me feeling a bit optimistic. I suppose the rose colored glassed of not seeing an 800lb anvil being dropped directly on the industry's head skewed my take at first.

I've rethought it. The foundational aspect and "grey areas" littered throughout the document basically shift WAY too much power to the FDA and also leave WAY too much open for future additional regulation. Our Gov will almost never put the gear in reverse unless its putting politicians careers at stake. I'm not feeling this issue having that effect any time soon. Politicians will still get more votes being "hard" on the industry. We're a minority and will likely remain that way for quite some time if not forever.

In some ways I feel the overall softer than expected nature of the proposal was nothing but a ruse to limit resistance. I was guilty as were many others with "see, it's not as bad as we thought. Yay!" at first. Anything and everything must be fought tooth and nail. Anything left in the foundation that leaves the door open for future regulation will be used for just that. I'm sick of having {MODERATED} taken away from me. I may lose this battle in the end but I'm going to be a real pain in the a** during the process.