Please note that Lorillard's comments repeatedly (but stealthily) endorsed provisions in FDA's proposed deeming regulation (and in the TCA) that would ban all e-cig products unless the FDA approves either an SE report or New
tobacco Product application.
So much untruth. "Lorillard repeatedly endorsed FDA's proposed regulations" with one cited example to back up the alleged repetition.
On p. 2 of Lorillard's document, they write:
Aspects of the existing regulatory system for conventional tobacco products are not well-suited for electronic cigarettes. FDA should reconsider the current regulatory system and the manner in which the Agency should apply certain elements of that system to electronic cigarettes specifically. Moreover, before certain aspects of the FDCA can be implemented, there needs to be further development of key scientific and regulatory tools.
So, here they are saying existing regulatory system is NOT well suited for eCigs. FDA should reconsider.... needs to be further development.
Why did you subjectively quote only part of what the Lorillard document said about adulteration. It says:
Application of the adulteration and misbranding provisions: Lorillard fully supports FDAs enforcement of the adulteration and misbranding provisions of the FDCA against electronic cigarettes.For example, Lorillard fully supports enforcement of the FDCA against unlawful labeling and promotion claims regarding cessation and health claims, including against claims that include modified-use descriptors without appropriate regulatory clearance.
You left off the example they provided and instead chose to go with own bias on what this means. You don't cite the FSPTCA where it brings this point up and again just choose to have your understanding be seen as only possibly correct way to understand what Lorillard is 'really up to.'
Lorillard did, however, urge the FDA to move the February 15, 2007 grandfather date (for e-cigs) up to the date FDA issues the Final Rule for the Deeming Regulation. While doing so would allow manufacturers of the 100,000 e-cig products currently on the market (and those introduced to the market prior to the Final Rule) to keep their products on the market by submitting Substantial Equivalence Reports, it would basically halt the development of new e-cig products after the Final Rule is issued.
Again, there are millions of products currently on the market, not 100K. You see this as legit criticism when the alternative that you seem to imply as zero chance of occurring (that the FDA will not regulate at all). Lorillard, like anyone sane looking at the deeming regulations, is saying if you are going to regulate, at least allow all existing products a fair chance to be allowed on the market. Thus countering your ongoing schtick of 99+% will be banned (unless they do what makes sense to do in a regulatory system).
Realistically, FDA strongly prefers regulating a dozen e-cig products manufactured by a half dozen large tobacco companies (and perhpas NJOY) than responding to and processing several thousand SE applications filed by several hundred vape shop owners and other small e-cig manufacturers and/or importers.
Correct, FDA would clearly prefer this. Lorillard, seeing the great potential for this industry given the current market, is advocating against FDA stated preference by suggesting the grandfather date be moved.
Lorillard's comments presented an accurate analysis of the scientific evidence on e-cigs.
Which appears central to what they are going for.
Lorillard is in favor of reasonable, science-based regulation of electronic cigarettes and supports marketing restrictions that mirror the continuum of risk among nicotine-containing products. In the absence of current regulations, blu has voluntarily implemented and follows responsible practices, including the prohibition of sales and marketing of electronic cigarettes to youth.
p. 82
