"It's all coming to a crescendo at the same time,
and in two years njoy will be a household term."
Article: Click Here
and in two years njoy will be a household term."
Article: Click Here
Matt Salmon (Sottera CEO)
- Thread starter Petrodus
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 68
Good article, and smart comments by Salmon.
Unfortunately, the comments made by the FDA's Jeff Ventura (who recently replaced Siobhan DeLancey as the FDA's public affairs spokesperson on drug and tobacco regulatory issues) indicate that the FDA still isn't interested in complying with Judge Leon's ruling (that was upheld by the DC Court of Appeals) by promulgating tobacco regulations for e-cigarette products.
Unfortunately, the comments made by the FDA's Jeff Ventura (who recently replaced Siobhan DeLancey as the FDA's public affairs spokesperson on drug and tobacco regulatory issues) indicate that the FDA still isn't interested in complying with Judge Leon's ruling (that was upheld by the DC Court of Appeals) by promulgating tobacco regulations for e-cigarette products.
It's nice to see e-cigarettes making CSP news more often. Indicates they are being taken seriously as a product.
If Njoy plans to "work with" the FDA in the same way the tobacco companies worked with regulators to keep products which fit their business model and ban those which didn't, vapers should be very concerned about the future of non-tobacco/menthol flavors and bottled refill liquids. Njoy exclusively sells pre-filled, tobacco/menthol-flavored cartridges.
I hope Njoy and the TVECA don't throw us under the bus. As a vaper who uses liquid refills and non-tobacco flavors, I plan to write both Njoy and the TVECA encouraging them to support my choices as a consumer and not just their own business model.
If Njoy plans to "work with" the FDA in the same way the tobacco companies worked with regulators to keep products which fit their business model and ban those which didn't, vapers should be very concerned about the future of non-tobacco/menthol flavors and bottled refill liquids. Njoy exclusively sells pre-filled, tobacco/menthol-flavored cartridges.
I hope Njoy and the TVECA don't throw us under the bus. As a vaper who uses liquid refills and non-tobacco flavors, I plan to write both Njoy and the TVECA encouraging them to support my choices as a consumer and not just their own business model.
so far, this "industry" has regulated ITSELF quite nicely, thank you. i wonder why so many vapers are so comfortable with the idea of the FDA regulating it? what is there to regulate? the "what if..."? what if WHAT? what on earth IS THERE to regulate?
Well, I've long said I would prefer to see the industry self-regulate, as I think the government has it's hands in way too much of our lives.
However, (playing devil's advocate here) many vapers have expressed that they would like to know more about what is in the liquid they are buying, but most vendors still don't provide even a basic ingredient list. How can a consumer make a personal choice when no one will print ingredients? And even for those vendors who disclose ingredients, who is going to check to make sure that a vendor isn't taking dangerous short cuts and using non-USP grade PG or nicotine? (A low-grade PG is suspected to have caused the finding of diethylene glycol in that infamous Smoking Everywhere cartridge.) Who is going to make sure that the amount of nicotine listed is accurate? (There's already been one vendor caught selling 0mg carts as containing nicotine.) Who is going to pay for the testing of products for quality control? Basically, who is going to keep vendors honest about the quality of what we are being sold?
I would love to see a UL-type organization for e-cigs, but absent that, just who will be looking out for the consumers once e-cigarettes become mainstream? We all know e-cigarettes aren't 100% safe, but do we really want to give the vendors free reign to put whatever they want in the liquid (like the tobacco companies do with cigarettes) and not be required to tell us about it? Most of us trust our vendors, but as e-cigarettes get more popular, there are going to be a lot more unscrupulous folks jumping in to make a quick buck and they won't care about their reputation or consumer safety.
Many people have been warning vendors to step up, organize and set quality standards themselves or the government was going to step in or worse yet, a company will conspire with the government to set standards which only support their products and throw everyone else under the bus. People don't want the FDA regulating our e-cigarettes, but the industry just left the door wide open for them. They should have followed the example of the e-cigarette association in Europe and set reasonable quality standards instead of leaving it to the FDA to step in, as they've done.
I'd rather the FDA wasn't involved at all, but we will eventually need someone to make sure that unscrupulous vendors aren't putting more dangerous, low-quality stuff in the e-cigarette products that we buy.
Personally, I don't want to see government regulation, but I would like to see the industry form an organization which supports ALL business models and certifies and/or rewards companies for using quality ingredients and transparency. That way consumers know they can feel confident buying from certified vendors. Unfortunately, the industry has failed to organize and step up to protect themselves from government regulation and here we are. For me, it's not a matter of "being comfortable" with FDA regulation, it's resignation that it's now going to happen whether we like it or not.
So, I'd much rather have an organization working with the FDA that is also looking out for the consumers and the "boutique" vendors we know and love and not just their own business model.
However, (playing devil's advocate here) many vapers have expressed that they would like to know more about what is in the liquid they are buying, but most vendors still don't provide even a basic ingredient list. How can a consumer make a personal choice when no one will print ingredients? And even for those vendors who disclose ingredients, who is going to check to make sure that a vendor isn't taking dangerous short cuts and using non-USP grade PG or nicotine? (A low-grade PG is suspected to have caused the finding of diethylene glycol in that infamous Smoking Everywhere cartridge.) Who is going to make sure that the amount of nicotine listed is accurate? (There's already been one vendor caught selling 0mg carts as containing nicotine.) Who is going to pay for the testing of products for quality control? Basically, who is going to keep vendors honest about the quality of what we are being sold?
I would love to see a UL-type organization for e-cigs, but absent that, just who will be looking out for the consumers once e-cigarettes become mainstream? We all know e-cigarettes aren't 100% safe, but do we really want to give the vendors free reign to put whatever they want in the liquid (like the tobacco companies do with cigarettes) and not be required to tell us about it? Most of us trust our vendors, but as e-cigarettes get more popular, there are going to be a lot more unscrupulous folks jumping in to make a quick buck and they won't care about their reputation or consumer safety.
Many people have been warning vendors to step up, organize and set quality standards themselves or the government was going to step in or worse yet, a company will conspire with the government to set standards which only support their products and throw everyone else under the bus. People don't want the FDA regulating our e-cigarettes, but the industry just left the door wide open for them. They should have followed the example of the e-cigarette association in Europe and set reasonable quality standards instead of leaving it to the FDA to step in, as they've done.
I'd rather the FDA wasn't involved at all, but we will eventually need someone to make sure that unscrupulous vendors aren't putting more dangerous, low-quality stuff in the e-cigarette products that we buy.
Personally, I don't want to see government regulation, but I would like to see the industry form an organization which supports ALL business models and certifies and/or rewards companies for using quality ingredients and transparency. That way consumers know they can feel confident buying from certified vendors. Unfortunately, the industry has failed to organize and step up to protect themselves from government regulation and here we are. For me, it's not a matter of "being comfortable" with FDA regulation, it's resignation that it's now going to happen whether we like it or not.
So, I'd much rather have an organization working with the FDA that is also looking out for the consumers and the "boutique" vendors we know and love and not just their own business model.
Last edited:
You've got that right Kristin. Part of the disassociation with smoking comes from the realization that other flavors taste better that the tobacco flavors. The liquid liquids also make sense in that you aren't wasting anything, especially if you drip. I don't believe I've used a quarter of a bottle of 48mg nic juice in the last three months. I mix that with the same flavor 0 nic juice to drop the final content to anywhere between 4 and 8mg depending on my mood the day I mix. Actually I don't think I'm getting much if any nic from those mixes, other that the psychological effect.
Not only that, but the ability to refill reduces cost and waste. With prefilled cartomizers, you are often throwing away a perfectly good atomizer when the cartiridge is empty or tossing perfectly good liquid when an atomizer dies prematurely!
As Kristin says, if you don't have self-regulation and a strong trade association to negotiate on your behalf, an autonomous regulatory agency can make the rules for you.
So far all we've seen have been trade associations trying to start up with unrealistic agendas - that is, run by people who have no experience of running an association, or by those who have a commercial interest in limiting the industry to 5% of its product lines - and an almost universal lack of interest from vendors in trying to do something about this situation.
If you don't make rules for yourself, somebody else will make them for you. Why is that the trade seem to think the current totally open market without the slightest restrictions will last for ever? A collective death wish is the best way to describe it.
What's going to happen when the FDA restrict products to cartos only? Or to 18mg max? Or ban all flavors? Or stop all postage of e-cigarettes and related materials as they are tobacco products? When they start to raid the premises of vendors who don't comply?
Only a trade association with centralized funding for legal defense and lobbying can stop this form of attack.
So far all we've seen have been trade associations trying to start up with unrealistic agendas - that is, run by people who have no experience of running an association, or by those who have a commercial interest in limiting the industry to 5% of its product lines - and an almost universal lack of interest from vendors in trying to do something about this situation.
If you don't make rules for yourself, somebody else will make them for you. Why is that the trade seem to think the current totally open market without the slightest restrictions will last for ever? A collective death wish is the best way to describe it.
What's going to happen when the FDA restrict products to cartos only? Or to 18mg max? Or ban all flavors? Or stop all postage of e-cigarettes and related materials as they are tobacco products? When they start to raid the premises of vendors who don't comply?
Only a trade association with centralized funding for legal defense and lobbying can stop this form of attack.
Last edited:
E-Cigarettes: An Issue for Employers Worldwide
Although Sottera, Inc. v. FDA applies to the regulation by the U. S. government of e-cigarettes, the issue of the legal sale and use of e-cigarettes poses an issue for international employers and business owners as well. This article will provide general information and advice to employers worldwide who may find it necessary to address the use of e-cigarettes in their workplaces to the extent they have not done so already.
Article: Click Here
Although Sottera, Inc. v. FDA applies to the regulation by the U. S. government of e-cigarettes, the issue of the legal sale and use of e-cigarettes poses an issue for international employers and business owners as well. This article will provide general information and advice to employers worldwide who may find it necessary to address the use of e-cigarettes in their workplaces to the extent they have not done so already.
Article: Click Here
Interesting article, thanks for posting!
It is also possible to use an e-cigarette completely undetected making usage restrictions impossible to enforce.
The FDA is welcome to address any safety or usage concerns by promulgating regulations for electronic cigarettes under the FSPTCA they've been ignoring for the 2+ years they've been trying to ban e-cigarettes.
And...what? So is caffeine--should employers consider banning coffee too?
All of the components of e-cigarettes are found in products that are approved by the FDA (the same flavorings are used in foods, the same nicotine is used in drugs, and the same propylene glycol is used in cosmetics) as well as products that are not under FDA control (flavoring/scents are burned in candles, nicotine is in many consumer and industrial pesticides, PG and rechargeable batteries are in just about everything) The only "environmental and practical issue" surrounding e-cigs is the use of the same battery technology used in cell phones and digital cameras. Radio waves eminating from a cell phone could be hazardous to users as well as bystanders--should the FDA regulate those under the FDCA as well?
In other words, "Follow the law, even if it is dumb." Whatever.
Employees may try to question why they cannot smoke in the workplace even if they don't see co-workers use e-cigarettes, at least they can be directed to the existing body of research that points to the harms of secondhand smoke. What about the former smokers who question why they cannot use smoke-free tobacco products.
Yes, it is possible to annoy people with a puff of vapor. It is also possible to use common courtesy and vape elsewhere.
It is also possible to use an e-cigarette completely undetected making usage restrictions impossible to enforce.
The FDA is welcome to address any safety or usage concerns by promulgating regulations for electronic cigarettes under the FSPTCA they've been ignoring for the 2+ years they've been trying to ban e-cigarettes.
And...what? So is caffeine--should employers consider banning coffee too?
All of the components of e-cigarettes are found in products that are approved by the FDA (the same flavorings are used in foods, the same nicotine is used in drugs, and the same propylene glycol is used in cosmetics) as well as products that are not under FDA control (flavoring/scents are burned in candles, nicotine is in many consumer and industrial pesticides, PG and rechargeable batteries are in just about everything) The only "environmental and practical issue" surrounding e-cigs is the use of the same battery technology used in cell phones and digital cameras. Radio waves eminating from a cell phone could be hazardous to users as well as bystanders--should the FDA regulate those under the FDCA as well?
Well, if exhaled vapor contained oodles more nicotine than smoke, this might present a problem. But the opposite is true, and we have never heard of research proving that inhaling second-hand smoke creates an addiction to nicotine.
The fact that this is included in their "con" list shows how far the myth has traveled that exhaled vapor contains vast amounts of nicotine. I read one article recently that stated that we don't know the health effects yet of "inhaling pure nicotine."
The educational challenge here is to let the public know:
- Cartridges are not filled with pure nicotine. The vast majority of the content consists of PG or VG.
- Most e-cigarette users consume an average of 1 ml per day (I'm including the retail customers here)
- A ml of liquid contains a miniscule quantity of nicotine -- ranging from 0.006 ml to 0.036 ml.
- To put that into perspective 1.00 ml is apporoximately a quarter of a teaspoon.
Health New Zealand (Dr. Murray Laugesen) conducted head-to-head testing of vapor from a Ruyan e-cigarette to smoke from 4 brands of cigarettes. He found that a puff of vapor contains 10% of the nicotine found in a puff of smoke.
My guess is that many of them are in it for the quick money while they can get it.
I doubt very many intend to carry on when the going gets tough.
And most probably realize that yes, the going is going to get tough, one way or another.
Last edited:
@DC2
No doubt you are right, about a proportion of them. But surely this does not apply to all.
What about the large, successful businesses? Investing one percent of turnover in making sure you are still in business next year doesn't seem too onerous to me. If I had a business that turned over $0.5m a year I think I'd try and protect it. Any trader knows the only way to protect yourself is join up with others and self-regulate - the government, States, cities, counties and everyone and their dog will walk all over you if you don't do that. Everyone needs a union of some sort.
No doubt you are right, about a proportion of them. But surely this does not apply to all.
What about the large, successful businesses? Investing one percent of turnover in making sure you are still in business next year doesn't seem too onerous to me. If I had a business that turned over $0.5m a year I think I'd try and protect it. Any trader knows the only way to protect yourself is join up with others and self-regulate - the government, States, cities, counties and everyone and their dog will walk all over you if you don't do that. Everyone needs a union of some sort.
I'm with you Roly.
I actually head up an industry association here in Australia. The individual businesses are constantly facing some new regulation and it's only that we have combined and self regulated in areas of health, food safety and trade that we have been successful in preventing draconian legislations being imposed.
Only this week we stopped the state Department of Health doing something stupid that would affect our members trade.
Individual businesses will get knocked off every time, but when you speak as a whole industry they will usually listen. We don't always win but we do pretty well.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
