(Massachusetts) Northampton Board of Health considering whether to regulate e-cigarettes
- Thread starter ezmoose
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Anyone close needs to attend this meeting!!!
Take plenty of printed out info with you.
Take plenty of printed out info with you.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
The proposed regulation is at:
http://www.northamptonma.gov/health...Regulations Proposed Amendments - 7-22-10.pdf
It would ban the usage of e-cigarettes in locations where smoking is banned, and would prohibit the sale of e-cigarettes to minors and would require e-cigarette suppliers to obtain a tobacco sales permit.
http://www.northamptonma.gov/health...Regulations Proposed Amendments - 7-22-10.pdf
It would ban the usage of e-cigarettes in locations where smoking is banned, and would prohibit the sale of e-cigarettes to minors and would require e-cigarette suppliers to obtain a tobacco sales permit.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
I suggest folks urge the Board of Health to eliminate the false statements in the firrst paragraph of the proposed change (and to provide them with accurate information) and to reject banning the use of e-cigarettes (by including it in their smokefree workplace regulation) because e-cigarettes emit no smoke.
I also urge folks to encourage the Board of Health to include e-cigarettes in their defiinition of tobacco products (instead of defining them as Nicotine Delivery devices), which would automatically ban their sale to minors.
I also urge folks to encourage the Board of Health to include e-cigarettes in their defiinition of tobacco products (instead of defining them as Nicotine Delivery devices), which would automatically ban their sale to minors.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
I sent the following letter to Mr. Wood and Mayor Higgins today, and Mr. Wood replied stating that the Board of Health would consider all comments.
Dear Mr. Wood,
While prohibiting the sale of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) to minors is a policy advocated by public health advocates and by e-cigarette suppliers and consumer groups, the proposed amendment to the Northampton Board of Health's Regulation Affecting Smoking in Public Places and Youth Access to Tobacco http://www.northamptonma.gov/health...Regulations Proposed Amendments - 7-22-10.pdf contains several grossly inaccurate and fearmongering statements, would inappropriately define e-cigarettes as Nicotine Delivery Products, and would unwarrantably and counterproductively ban the use of these lifesaving products in all locations where smoking is prohibited.
E-cigarettes emit ZERO smoke, and the growing body of evidence indicates that e-cigarettes are at least 99.5% less hazardous alternatives to combustible cigarettes, pose NO risks to nonusers, are NOT marketed to (or used by) minors or non tobacco users, and have helped about 500,000 smokers in the US quit smoking or sharply reduce cigarette consumption in the past several years. Recently published surveys http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-10-231.pdf THR2010. (tobaccoharmreduction.org) (chapter 9) have found that e-cigarettes are very effective for quitting smoking and improving respiratory health.
As such, the amendment's claims (in the Purpose section) that e-cigarettes "can lead minors into nicotine addiction that may result in their daily use of tobacco products," and "e-cigarettes seriously compromise current laws governing indoor smoking bans" are NOT BASED UPON SCIENTIFIC OR EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE (as public health regulations are supposed to be based upon) and appear to be FALSE AND INFLAMATORY.
Similarly, the amendment's claim (also in the Purpose section) "The FDA has conducted laboratory tests finding e-cigarettes contain toxic chemicals and carcinogens" GROSSLY MISREPRESENTS THE FDA'S LABORATORY TEST FINDING. In fact, the trace levels of several carcinogens found (in the FDA's lab test and in those conducted by e-cigarette companies) were nearly identical to levels of those same carcinogens found in FDA approved nicotine gums, lozenges and patches. The one so-called toxin (diethelyene glycol) that was found in just one of nineteen e-cigarette samples tested by the FDA also was found at a trace level that poses no toxic risk.
Please note that FDA Deputy Commissioner Josh Sharfstein similarly misrepresented evidence about e-cigarettes and the findings of the FDA's lab report during a press conference a year ago today (July 22, 2009), which prompted the American Association of Public Health Physicians (which represents medical directors of local and state health departments) to formally petition the FDA to correct its misrepresentations of fact Regulations.gov and to promulgate regulations for e-cigarettes as tobacco products Regulations.gov
As you may be aware, the FDA also attempted to ban the import of e-cigarettes (by claiming they are unapproved drug devices), and has been sued in federal court. In January, District Court Judge Richard Leon issued a ruling https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2009cv0771-54 denying FDA authority to regulate e-cigarettes as drug devices under the FDCA, and stipulating that the FDA can only regulate e-cigarettes as tobacco products under the FSPTCA. The DC Court of Appeals has scheduled oral arguments on the FDA's appeal in September, and a coalition of public health advocates (including Smokefree Pennsylvania) and e-cigarette consumer groups filed an amici curiae brief http://www................/Ouramicusbrief.pdf against the FDA and in support of Judge Leon's ruling that e-cigarettes can only be regulated by the FDA as tobacco products.
Therefore, instead of creating a new definition for e-cigarettes as "Nicotine Delivery Products", the Northampton BOH should simply include e-cigarettes in the existing regulation's definition of Tobacco Products, which also would ban their sale to minors and require e-cigarette retailers in Northampton to obtain a "Permit for Location and Sales of Tobacco Products".
Since e-cigarettes emit no smoke, the amendment's inclusion of e-cigarette usage in the Regulation's definition of "Smoking" is disingenuous and inappropriate. And since e-cigarette pose no known risks to nonusers Ecigarette mist harmless, inhaled or exhaled (similar to smokeless tobacco products and nicotine gums, lozenges, patches or inhalers), there is NO SCIENTIFIC OR RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION FOR BANNING THE USE OF AN E-CIGARETTE in indoor workplaces and public places in Northampton.
Finally, on an issue of probable concern to current tobacco sales permit holders in Northampton, the amendment would only allow "owners" of tobacco retail establishments in Northampton to apply for or obtain a permit to sell tobacco. It is likely that many/most current tobacco sales permit holders would be ineligible simply because they rent (instead of own) the establishment. This proposed regulatory change doesn't appear to be based on any scientific or empirical public health evidence, may conflict with state statutes, and may result in litigation.
Since 1990, Smokefree Pennsylvania has advocated public policies to protect people from tobacco smoke pollution, reduce tobacco marketing to youth, increase cigarette tax rates, preserve civil justice remedies for injured smokers, increase funding for smoking prevention and cessation programs, and inform smokers that smokefree tobacco/nicotine products are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes. For disclosure, neither Smokefree Pennsylvania or I have ever received any funding from tobacco, drug or e-cigarette companies or their trade associations.
Sincerely,
William T. Godshall, MPH
Executive Director
Smokefree Pennsylvania
1926 Monongahela Avenue
Pittsburgh PA 15218
412-351-5880
smokefree@compuserve.com
Dear Mr. Wood,
While prohibiting the sale of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) to minors is a policy advocated by public health advocates and by e-cigarette suppliers and consumer groups, the proposed amendment to the Northampton Board of Health's Regulation Affecting Smoking in Public Places and Youth Access to Tobacco http://www.northamptonma.gov/health...Regulations Proposed Amendments - 7-22-10.pdf contains several grossly inaccurate and fearmongering statements, would inappropriately define e-cigarettes as Nicotine Delivery Products, and would unwarrantably and counterproductively ban the use of these lifesaving products in all locations where smoking is prohibited.
E-cigarettes emit ZERO smoke, and the growing body of evidence indicates that e-cigarettes are at least 99.5% less hazardous alternatives to combustible cigarettes, pose NO risks to nonusers, are NOT marketed to (or used by) minors or non tobacco users, and have helped about 500,000 smokers in the US quit smoking or sharply reduce cigarette consumption in the past several years. Recently published surveys http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-10-231.pdf THR2010. (tobaccoharmreduction.org) (chapter 9) have found that e-cigarettes are very effective for quitting smoking and improving respiratory health.
As such, the amendment's claims (in the Purpose section) that e-cigarettes "can lead minors into nicotine addiction that may result in their daily use of tobacco products," and "e-cigarettes seriously compromise current laws governing indoor smoking bans" are NOT BASED UPON SCIENTIFIC OR EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE (as public health regulations are supposed to be based upon) and appear to be FALSE AND INFLAMATORY.
Similarly, the amendment's claim (also in the Purpose section) "The FDA has conducted laboratory tests finding e-cigarettes contain toxic chemicals and carcinogens" GROSSLY MISREPRESENTS THE FDA'S LABORATORY TEST FINDING. In fact, the trace levels of several carcinogens found (in the FDA's lab test and in those conducted by e-cigarette companies) were nearly identical to levels of those same carcinogens found in FDA approved nicotine gums, lozenges and patches. The one so-called toxin (diethelyene glycol) that was found in just one of nineteen e-cigarette samples tested by the FDA also was found at a trace level that poses no toxic risk.
Please note that FDA Deputy Commissioner Josh Sharfstein similarly misrepresented evidence about e-cigarettes and the findings of the FDA's lab report during a press conference a year ago today (July 22, 2009), which prompted the American Association of Public Health Physicians (which represents medical directors of local and state health departments) to formally petition the FDA to correct its misrepresentations of fact Regulations.gov and to promulgate regulations for e-cigarettes as tobacco products Regulations.gov
As you may be aware, the FDA also attempted to ban the import of e-cigarettes (by claiming they are unapproved drug devices), and has been sued in federal court. In January, District Court Judge Richard Leon issued a ruling https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2009cv0771-54 denying FDA authority to regulate e-cigarettes as drug devices under the FDCA, and stipulating that the FDA can only regulate e-cigarettes as tobacco products under the FSPTCA. The DC Court of Appeals has scheduled oral arguments on the FDA's appeal in September, and a coalition of public health advocates (including Smokefree Pennsylvania) and e-cigarette consumer groups filed an amici curiae brief http://www................/Ouramicusbrief.pdf against the FDA and in support of Judge Leon's ruling that e-cigarettes can only be regulated by the FDA as tobacco products.
Therefore, instead of creating a new definition for e-cigarettes as "Nicotine Delivery Products", the Northampton BOH should simply include e-cigarettes in the existing regulation's definition of Tobacco Products, which also would ban their sale to minors and require e-cigarette retailers in Northampton to obtain a "Permit for Location and Sales of Tobacco Products".
Since e-cigarettes emit no smoke, the amendment's inclusion of e-cigarette usage in the Regulation's definition of "Smoking" is disingenuous and inappropriate. And since e-cigarette pose no known risks to nonusers Ecigarette mist harmless, inhaled or exhaled (similar to smokeless tobacco products and nicotine gums, lozenges, patches or inhalers), there is NO SCIENTIFIC OR RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION FOR BANNING THE USE OF AN E-CIGARETTE in indoor workplaces and public places in Northampton.
Finally, on an issue of probable concern to current tobacco sales permit holders in Northampton, the amendment would only allow "owners" of tobacco retail establishments in Northampton to apply for or obtain a permit to sell tobacco. It is likely that many/most current tobacco sales permit holders would be ineligible simply because they rent (instead of own) the establishment. This proposed regulatory change doesn't appear to be based on any scientific or empirical public health evidence, may conflict with state statutes, and may result in litigation.
Since 1990, Smokefree Pennsylvania has advocated public policies to protect people from tobacco smoke pollution, reduce tobacco marketing to youth, increase cigarette tax rates, preserve civil justice remedies for injured smokers, increase funding for smoking prevention and cessation programs, and inform smokers that smokefree tobacco/nicotine products are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes. For disclosure, neither Smokefree Pennsylvania or I have ever received any funding from tobacco, drug or e-cigarette companies or their trade associations.
Sincerely,
William T. Godshall, MPH
Executive Director
Smokefree Pennsylvania
1926 Monongahela Avenue
Pittsburgh PA 15218
412-351-5880
smokefree@compuserve.com
Here's the text of CASAA's letter to Northampton officials, that just went out today:
Donna Salloom - Chairperson, Northampton Board of Health
Suzanne Smith, M.D., Northampton Board of Health
Joanne Levin, M.D., Northampton Board of Health
Ben Wood, Director, Northampton Health Department
Hon. Claire Higgins, Northampton Mayor
Re: Proposed changes to Northampton Tobacco Regulations
Dear Northampton Public Officials:
We urge you to strike the provisions of the proposed changes to the existing Northampton Tobacco Regulations that would ban the use of electronic cigarettes in public places, as such a move would actually be contrary to public health in Northampton. We support the prohibition on sales to minors, however, although there is no evidence that electronic cigarettes are either marketed to, or used by, young people.
The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association (CASAA) is a nationwide non-profit organization created last year by hundreds of e-cigarette consumers who recently quit smoking or sharply reduced cigarette consumption by switching to these life saving products. Our association (comprised solely of concerned volunteers) works to educate the public about these products, and to protect the rights of our members and of smokers who want to switch to significantly less hazardous smoke-free tobacco/nicotine alternatives.
Your public use ban proposal appears to be a direct result of misleading and skewed information released to the public and to the media by the FDA, information that is not even supported by the actual laboratory results obtained in the FDA's own study (also available on the very FDA web page cited to on Northampton's website, but often ignored and overlooked in favor of the sensationalized spin released to the public by the FDA).
Indeed, the study done by the FDA on e-cigarette liquid proved that (only) some of the products tested had the same levels of carcinogenic contaminants as do FDA approved nicotine replacement products, such as the Nicotrol inhaler. These non-toxic TSNA levels are several orders of magnitude less than the levels found in cigarette smoke. And some of the products had none.
The misinformation given out by the FDA is so troubling and counter to the potential public health benefits presented by the prospect of large numbers of committed long-term smokers switching to smoke-free electronic cigarettes that the American Association of Public Health Physicians has invested much time and effort in two well-researched and documented petitions to the FDA, one urging it to correct the misinformation disseminated (http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docketDetail?R=FDA-2010-P-0093), and one to drop its campaign to classify, and thus ban, e-cigarettes as unapproved "new drug products" (http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docketDetail?R=FDA-2010-P-0095).
The use of electronic cigarettes should be encouraged as a substitute for conventional cigarettes for cigarette smokers who are unable or unwilling to quit, but are sincerely interested in reducing their risk of tobacco-related illness. They deliver the nicotine desired by inveterate smokers, much as pharmaceutical NRT products do, but none of the CO, tar, and high concentrations of the thousands of other toxic chemicals found in cigarette smoke. And the visible vapor emitted by an electronic cigarette is produced by propylene glycol, which the FDA lists as Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS), and which is widely used in theatrical fog, in children's toys, in thousands of pharmaceutical, food, air sanitation, and cosmetic products, and whose exposure to humans has been extensively studied since the 1950s. (See e.g., the 2006 EPA re-approval of propylene glycol for use as an air and surface disinfectant, primarily in hospitals and restaurants http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/REDs/propylene_glycol_red.pdf).
Banning the de minimis, odorless, quickly disappearing and wholly inoffensive mist of propylene glycol from public places won't protect or benefit public health, but rather would harm public health by encouraging some electronic cigarette users to switch back to lethal cigarettes, and by discouraging other smokers from switching to these far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes. It would also subject those who have completely quit smoking by switching to electronic cigarettes to the involuntary exposure to second-hand smoke, as they are inappropriately herded into smoking areas.
Enclosed is a packet of further resource materials, that we hope will be useful to you as you educate yourselves about electronic cigarettes and the true consequences of your proposals for the citizens of Northampton and elsewhere in Massachusetts. Electronic cigarettes have been in use in the United States for more than three years, and there are currently hundreds of thousands of users. There are no reports of adverse effects, and innumerable reports of success in totally quitting conventional cigarettes, and improved health as a result.
As a final reference, we also urge you to read the heart-felt comments of thousands of users, who fear their very lives are being endangered by the misinformation and outright lies being promulgated throughout the US about electronic cigarettes to legislators and public officials such as yourselves. http://actsmoking.epetitions.net/signatures.php?petition_id=1206.
Thank you for your attention and consideration.
(Then signed by me and CASAA's Medical Director, Teritoo, and four other board members)
Donna Salloom - Chairperson, Northampton Board of Health
Suzanne Smith, M.D., Northampton Board of Health
Joanne Levin, M.D., Northampton Board of Health
Ben Wood, Director, Northampton Health Department
Hon. Claire Higgins, Northampton Mayor
Re: Proposed changes to Northampton Tobacco Regulations
Dear Northampton Public Officials:
We urge you to strike the provisions of the proposed changes to the existing Northampton Tobacco Regulations that would ban the use of electronic cigarettes in public places, as such a move would actually be contrary to public health in Northampton. We support the prohibition on sales to minors, however, although there is no evidence that electronic cigarettes are either marketed to, or used by, young people.
The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association (CASAA) is a nationwide non-profit organization created last year by hundreds of e-cigarette consumers who recently quit smoking or sharply reduced cigarette consumption by switching to these life saving products. Our association (comprised solely of concerned volunteers) works to educate the public about these products, and to protect the rights of our members and of smokers who want to switch to significantly less hazardous smoke-free tobacco/nicotine alternatives.
Your public use ban proposal appears to be a direct result of misleading and skewed information released to the public and to the media by the FDA, information that is not even supported by the actual laboratory results obtained in the FDA's own study (also available on the very FDA web page cited to on Northampton's website, but often ignored and overlooked in favor of the sensationalized spin released to the public by the FDA).
Indeed, the study done by the FDA on e-cigarette liquid proved that (only) some of the products tested had the same levels of carcinogenic contaminants as do FDA approved nicotine replacement products, such as the Nicotrol inhaler. These non-toxic TSNA levels are several orders of magnitude less than the levels found in cigarette smoke. And some of the products had none.
The misinformation given out by the FDA is so troubling and counter to the potential public health benefits presented by the prospect of large numbers of committed long-term smokers switching to smoke-free electronic cigarettes that the American Association of Public Health Physicians has invested much time and effort in two well-researched and documented petitions to the FDA, one urging it to correct the misinformation disseminated (http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docketDetail?R=FDA-2010-P-0093), and one to drop its campaign to classify, and thus ban, e-cigarettes as unapproved "new drug products" (http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docketDetail?R=FDA-2010-P-0095).
The use of electronic cigarettes should be encouraged as a substitute for conventional cigarettes for cigarette smokers who are unable or unwilling to quit, but are sincerely interested in reducing their risk of tobacco-related illness. They deliver the nicotine desired by inveterate smokers, much as pharmaceutical NRT products do, but none of the CO, tar, and high concentrations of the thousands of other toxic chemicals found in cigarette smoke. And the visible vapor emitted by an electronic cigarette is produced by propylene glycol, which the FDA lists as Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS), and which is widely used in theatrical fog, in children's toys, in thousands of pharmaceutical, food, air sanitation, and cosmetic products, and whose exposure to humans has been extensively studied since the 1950s. (See e.g., the 2006 EPA re-approval of propylene glycol for use as an air and surface disinfectant, primarily in hospitals and restaurants http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/REDs/propylene_glycol_red.pdf).
Banning the de minimis, odorless, quickly disappearing and wholly inoffensive mist of propylene glycol from public places won't protect or benefit public health, but rather would harm public health by encouraging some electronic cigarette users to switch back to lethal cigarettes, and by discouraging other smokers from switching to these far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes. It would also subject those who have completely quit smoking by switching to electronic cigarettes to the involuntary exposure to second-hand smoke, as they are inappropriately herded into smoking areas.
Enclosed is a packet of further resource materials, that we hope will be useful to you as you educate yourselves about electronic cigarettes and the true consequences of your proposals for the citizens of Northampton and elsewhere in Massachusetts. Electronic cigarettes have been in use in the United States for more than three years, and there are currently hundreds of thousands of users. There are no reports of adverse effects, and innumerable reports of success in totally quitting conventional cigarettes, and improved health as a result.
As a final reference, we also urge you to read the heart-felt comments of thousands of users, who fear their very lives are being endangered by the misinformation and outright lies being promulgated throughout the US about electronic cigarettes to legislators and public officials such as yourselves. http://actsmoking.epetitions.net/signatures.php?petition_id=1206.
Thank you for your attention and consideration.
(Then signed by me and CASAA's Medical Director, Teritoo, and four other board members)
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
