Misinformation and proposed FDA ban

[SissySpike]

Not sure of why the wall street journal would report misinformation could of been as simple as not getting their fact right or some sort of hidden agenda.

I just recieved this email from CASSA

An article published Friday in the Wall Street Journal that stated that the "Food and Drug Administration has been in discussions with the e-cigarette industry about a possible online-sales ban of the product" was updated with a correction later in the day. The article was changed from its original version to reflect that the Food and Drug Administration did not actually initiate the idea of a proposed ban on online sales of e-cigarettes. It also clarified that the FDA did not make nonpublic information available in its discussions with e-cigarette makers.

According to the updated article:

"Mr. Zeller said the FDA didn't release any nonpublic information in the listening sessions and didn't weigh in "on potential regulatory options-including any potential restrictions on e-cigarettes or any other particular product category." He said that any proposed rules will be issued to all interested parties at the same time."​

Because CASAA will be meeting with an FDA panel for a listening session on Monday (to discuss the ramifications for its members with potential regulations), the organization asked its members via it's social media outlets to refrain from contacting the FDA regarding the Wall Street Journal article until more information was available.

CASAA has stated that it will issue a Call to Action regarding the deeming regulations once the FDA actually posts the proposed regulations for public comment. The FDA has announced that those proposed regulations should be made public in October.

 

[EmeraldLeo1982]

Nice catch buzz. I think primarily any time people see the FDA name they start to freak out, even though it's generally with good reason. I suppose that's not always the case.

 

[dr g]

I think it wasn't that far off. Apparently an online ban WAS discussed at this meeting, but the FDA didn't bring it up. That means big business/lobbyists did.

 

[crxess]

Well if my old eyes don't deceive me, the FDA will have to do very little to ruin it for us. BT doesn't even have to do much except show the local/State/Federal leaders how much money they will loose.

Just take a quick look at the $$$$ involved and if you still don't get it............well..........you will.

A pack of cigarettes will be slapped with a state tax of $2.70 in New Jersey and a whopping $4.35 in New York ($5.85 in New York City). Federal, state and local taxes now account for nearly half of the cost of the average pack of cigarettes.

Up In Flames: Cigarette Taxes Create Opportunity For Revenue And Crime - Forbes

And just how much will who make in taxes on a 10ml bottle of e-liquid?

 

[ScottM]

crxess, you are correct. It comes down to a revenue issue. Tax revenue.

Once e-cigs are thoroughly demonized, the doors will be opened to tax laws and regulation.

 

[dr g]

We should make a record of exactly who the players are and what they are doing at this stage of the game. IMO it's quite possible that ecigs are one of the best public health innovations in history, and here we have people actively trying to campaign against that despite strong evidence. It would be a shame for their role in this to disappear down the memory hole once the science proves beyond a doubt that ecigs are safe and effective, and these players change their tune and try to jump on the bandwagon to profit. They need to be made to pay for what they are doing.

 

[AttyPops]

What concerns me is....

Maybe they DID accidentally let slip what they were thinking and shouldn't have (since everyone is supposed to get the same info at the same time). Otherwise, why would the WSJ report it that way? Could have been a misunderstanding, but IDK.

Let's hope that any backtracking is a good sign...

Yes, I'm still in the "Let's see the verbiage" camp. However, I don't mind stocking up a bit anyway. I started stocking up before this story hit just due to BT playing in the field so much lately with pre-filled cartos.

 

[AttyPops]

The article was changed from its original version to reflect that the Food and Drug Administration did not actually initiate the idea of a proposed ban on online sales of e-cigarettes. It also clarified that the FDA did not make nonpublic information available in its discussions with e-cigarette makers.

That's interesting too. Gee Whiz ...if they didn't initiate the idea, who did? (BT, BP, others???)
If they didn't initiate it, that doesn't mean it isn't part of the discussion...... So it's part of the discussion, but we don't know their stance yet. Waiting game again.

Link to the article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323980604579028872575240180.html

 

[jstaubin]

This is the link to the "revised" WSJ article with "corrections". Evidently the e cig companies brought up the idea of banning internet sales:
FDA Discusses Banning Online Sales of E-Cigarettes - WSJ.com

 

[Robino1]

Umm my take on which ecig companies brought it up? BT and their affiliates. Think Blu and etc... Yeah, those would be the ecig companies that would love to see Internet sales go away.

 

[Butters78]

I blame Celine Dion.

 

[dr g]

Umm my take on which ecig companies brought it up? BT and their affiliates. Think Blu and etc... Yeah, those would be the ecig companies that would love to see Internet sales go away.

This. What US "ecig companies" are big enough to sit at a table with the FDA?

 

[AttyPops]

Will someone quote the part where it specifically says ecig companies initiated the discussion? Not that I'd be surprised...BT has distribution channels....but so does BP. There may be other parties involved too. So which "executives" discussed it?

Maybe the discussions were only with e-cig makers. IDK for sure. The article doesn't say for sure that only e-cig makers attended along with the FDA. Although that's a fair assumption I guess. So yeah, probably BT.

 

[AttyPops]

Maybe the FTC will chime in
A lot of the business is internet based....killing the competition and using existing tobacco distribution channels for e-cigs may not be considered "fair play".

 

[SnowDog]

We should make a record of exactly who the players are and what they are doing at this stage of the game. IMO it's quite possible that ecigs are one of the best public health innovations in history, and here we have people actively trying to campaign against that despite strong evidence. It would be a shame for their role in this to disappear down the memory hole once the science proves beyond a doubt that ecigs are safe and effective, and these players change their tune and try to jump on the bandwagon to profit. They need to be made to pay for what they are doing.

Excellent idea dr g!

 

[Robino1]

Maybe the FTC will chime in
A lot of the business is internet based....killing the competition and using existing tobacco distribution channels for e-cigs may not be considered "fair play".

Well if the 'rumor/leak' plays out to be true, you may just have handed Internet vendors something to fight back with!

 

[dr g]

Maybe the FTC will chime in
A lot of the business is internet based....killing the competition and using existing tobacco distribution channels for e-cigs may not be considered "fair play".

That would be the point of course.

 

[jstaubin]

Will someone quote the part where it specifically says ecig companies initiated the discussion? Not that I'd be surprised...BT has distribution channels....but so does BP. There may be other parties involved too. So which "executives" discussed it?

Maybe the discussions were only with e-cig makers. IDK for sure. The article doesn't say for sure that only e-cig makers attended along with the FDA. Although that's a fair assumption I guess. So yeah, probably BT.

Well, since the article specifically states that the discussions are with the e cig companies, and also states "As part of that effort, company executives have discussed with the FDA an online-sales ban to keep e-cigarettes out of the hands of minors and whether the minimum legal age for buying them should be 18 or 19, the people said. They said the agency is also reviewing television, radio and print advertising standards for the products. Overseeing the project is Mitch Zeller, who became director of the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products in March". And the FDA says they were not the ones to bring it up, I can't see any other explanation as to who brought it up....

 

[AttyPops]

That was my assumption too (see above post) but what it doesn't say is if the discussions were exclusively with e-cig companies. Interesting that/if they were. IDK if advertising companies were there, for example. Or e-juice vendors (no hardware).

I'm surprised we don't hear more from the companies themselves...

And what was the list of companies? And are there notes? Public information?

 

[AttyPops]

Well if the 'rumor/leak' plays out to be true, you may just have handed Internet vendors something to fight back with!

Willing to bet I'm not the 1st to think of it....