Lawsuits mount against FDA regs on e-cigarettes

[Hightech Redneck]

No, it applies to label changes only - not to product size differences

Federal judge rules label change does not make for new tobacco product

Nice find, couldn't find it anywhere. At a glance it would be easy to misread the volume portion. Oh well, guess it's a little bit smaller victory.

 

[Hulamoon]

Yeah they are pretty mired in the "Congress gave the FDA" this task stuff.

But the tobacco companies did so much damage, so much.....there is no way to put that genie back into the bottle and henceforth, everything will be judged on the basis of just how much they lied, about everything and anything.

There is no way anybody is going to let that happen again.......so they will have to be convinced, little by little, with research, studies, and LOTS OF PROOF.

I hear what you're saying, but if that IS the case, why have they structured the laws to allow ONLY BT the opportunity to sell their nasty little 2007 e-cigarettes? I'll guarantee they had some sort of corny patent in place back then.

 

[somdcomputerguy]

I don't know if people are as unhealthy as the ones I see in arkansas, but I can't believe how big everybody is here. When I first moved here I found it very......startling......never having been around so much obesity. Then I lived here for 10 years and watched the eating patterns.......

funy pics - Part 2

 

[Shekinahsgroom]

I don't know if people are as unhealthy as the ones I see in arkansas, but I can't believe how big everybody is here. When I first moved here I found it very......startling......never having been around so much obesity. Then I lived here for 10 years and watched the eating patterns.......

look, trans fats kills people just as sure as cigarettes kill people.

What....you never heard of Crisco Ice Cream?

C'mon...

I had a flashback reading your post, cuz I had an identical experience visiting family in Cincinnati 10 years back. For the first time in my life I felt like a minority walking through a Kroger's. I didn't see a single person, staff included, that wasn't significantly overweight or morbidly obese.

It's an epidemic and nobody seems to care.

In my meager opinion, this is the single DEADLIEST addiction that the modern world has ever seen! (Poisoned food)

vaping pales in comparison...

 

[skoony]

Altria Group, Inc. v. Goode, 555 U.S. 70, 90 n.14 (2008).

{{meta.pageTitle}}
Altria Group, Inc. v. Good - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Correct if I am wrong. Did the cigarette companies actually advertise their products
that were 'light' or 'low tar' were safer than than their regular (full strength brands).
(post regulatory restrictions)
I can see why anti-smoking proponents would claim as much for all the obvious reasons.
However the link to out right deception is nebulous at best. ( Altria lost to a 5/4 decision)
Even 'health' related descriptors such as mild are taboo. Any smoker can tell you that depending
on the brand,blend or,specific type of tobacco one uses it can and does taste mild,harsh or in between.
How many products now say,gluten,sugar,caffeine or,salt free while not making health claims
never had the ingredients in the first place.

Certainly even before a case was presented to the courts anti-smoking organizations
et al were screaming at the top of their lungs that that 'light' or 'low tar' did not mean
safer. How the courts determined that Alteria was deceitful (lying?) is beyond me.
I certainly can see why this case is an important milestone of the ANTZ's mantra
portraying BT as deceitful,lying and,deliberate killers of unsuspecting smokers.
Well people who drink light beer think it's healthier than regular beer. Go figure.
So much for who gets to be a liar and deceiver and who does not.

Regards
Mike

 

[Kent C]

Correct if I am wrong. Did the cigarette companies actually advertise their products
that were 'light' or 'low tar' were safer than than their regular (full strength brands).
(post regulatory restrictions)

Actually it was the Public Health Service (along with the FTC methods) that made that assertion:

S. Rept. 110-512 - TRUTH IN CIGARETTE LABELING ACT

In 1964, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
issued the first Surgeon General's report on the health risks
of smoking. The report concluded that cigarette smoking was a
cause of lung cancer in men. Two years later, the Public Health
Service announced that most scientific evidence suggested that
lower levels of tar and nicotine would produce a less harmful
effect on consumers. In 1966, the FTC initiated two actions to
encourage manufacturers to disclose comparative tar and
nicotine yield information to consumers. First, the Commission
lifted the ban on nicotine and tar advertising but made future
industry factual statements conditional: Statements would be
required to support tests conducted in keeping with the
Cambridge Filter method, and they could not include assertions
of reduced health hazards. Second, the Commission authorized
the creation of a laboratory designed to analyze cigarette
smoke and sought public comment on suggested changes to the
Cambridge Filter method. Analysts often refer to the modified
Cambridge Filter method adopted by the Commission as the ``FTC
method.''

So some of the companies started to include tar ratings in their ads and labels, but no 'assertions of reduced health hazards' as above. It was the gov't that promoted that low tar was less harmful, not the cigarette companies. That changed...

When it was found that light cig smokers smoked more, then the hammer came down on lights and ultralights and the claim that the cigarette companies were "lying" when in fact it was the Public Health Service and the FTC who encouraged the cigarette companies to post the low tar figures.

The other thing was that while lowering tar, they also suggested lowering nicotine, which ended up being the cause of people smoking more, so when the cigarette companies maintained the low tar but increased the nicotine to prior levels, they were accused of making cigarettes "more addictive" ...when they were actually losing sales by returning to the original level of nicotine - meaning people smoked less cigarettes than they did with light and ultralight cigarettes.

I replied to you a while back:

22nd Century Launches New RED SUN® Extremely Nicotine Website

...on this citing this link:

http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/tcrb/monographs/13/m13_1.pdf

"Faced with the continuing exposure of large numbers of
smokers to the cancer-causing substances in tobacco smoke, public health
authorities made the valid conclusion that cigarettes that delivered less tar
to smokers would be likely to produce less cancer as well (U.S. Congress,
1967), and the effort to produce and market low-tar cigarettes began to
gather momentum."

"With the endorsement of lower tar cigarettes by public health authorities
in the 1960s (U.S. Congress, 1967), cigarette marketing began to focus
on machine-measured tar deliveries. Tobacco industry research and engineering
efforts recognized that at least two directions were possible with the
development of either a health-image (health reassurance) cigarette or a cigarette
with minimal biological activity (one that would actually produce
less disease) (Green, 1968)."

All that said, you are not going to stop some people from saying that the tobacco companies "lied" and "made cigs more addictive", and convince them those steps were started by gov't entities, which the tobacco companies followed, then were attacked for following them. lol....

 

[skoony]

@Kent C ,thank you.
All this time I had thought that I had imagined a time where one waited for the
proof instead of making it up as you go.
For the life of me I do not understand where all this rewriting of historical fact comes from.
(rhetorical response)
Regards
Mike

 

[Kent C]

For the life of me I do not understand where all this rewriting of historical fact comes from.
(rhetorical response)
Regards
Mike

[COLOR=#000000](non rhetorical response :- ) It comes from people who want to make business the bad guy and gov't the good guy. Why? Politics.[/COLOR]