NOVA 2001 Search for a Safe Cigarette

[Linthorn]

Yesterday I saw an old episode of NOVA (PBS) from 2001 called Search for a Safe Cigarette. They showed the tobacco industry's efforts to try to make safer cigs since the 1950's. One of the things they discussed was PM and RJR's abortive attempts to make e'cigs and cigs based on glycerine. PM developed the Accord - Tobacco Products in 1998. It was a commercial failure. Of particular note is that big tobacco was trying to make an alternative that used the same model as smoking. Buy cartons or packs, use it once, throw it away, buy more. These cigs still worked by heating up tobacco.

What's interesting is that when the tobacco companies tried making these new alternative smoking devices, the FDA tried to block them with the same arguments and for the same reasons (although flavor wasn't an issue due to the way they worked).

Anyway, if you get a chance to see the program, it gives a little perspective on the e-cig controversy. I didn't know it went back so far.

 

[cassavetes]

Is the link for show clips? It didn't work. I'd really like to see that.

 

[cassavetes]

Just found the episode on YouTube. Thanks for the info.

 

[Linthorn]

I fixed the link. It's the NOVA episode page.

 

[sherid]

Yesterday I saw an old episode of NOVA (PBS) from 2001 called Search for a Safe Cigarette. They showed the tobacco industry's efforts to try to make safer cigs since the 1950's. One of the things they discussed was PM and RJR's abortive attempts to make e'cigs and cigs based on glycerine. PM developed the Accord - Tobacco Products in 1998. It was a commercial failure. Of particular note is that big tobacco was trying to make an alternative that used the same model as smoking. Buy cartons or packs, use it once, throw it away, buy more. These cigs still worked by heating up tobacco.

What's interesting is that when the tobacco companies tried making these new alternative smoking devices, the FDA tried to block them with the same arguments and for the same reasons (although flavor wasn't an issue due to the way they worked).

Anyway, if you get a chance to see the program, it gives a little perspective on the e-cig controversy. I didn't know it went back so far.

That link is mentioned several times in a discussion about Smokefree Innotec - Welcome To The Future on the forum. Look carefully at the Accord and compare it to the Stick at Janty USA - USA SHOP || Shipping in USA I searched for discussions here and got this, http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/search.php?searchid=2060062

 

[dragonpuff]

Just found the episode on YouTube. Thanks for the info.

I can't find it on youtube (i'm terrible at searching for things). Do you have a link?

 

[cassavetes]

I can't find it on youtube (i'm terrible at searching for things). Do you have a link?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEvvE6jv8Ao

 

[cassavetes]

PM sent, Dragonpuff

 

[cassavetes]

With the e-cig facing a possible ban, it seems we've learned nothing from the past efforts to create a safer cigarette.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

 

[dragonpuff]

PM sent, Dragonpuff

thank you cassavetes

The thing i find interesting is that tobacco companies have been working on vaporized nicotine for years. What's the big difference between what they're doing, which is classified as "tobacco product," and electronic cigarettes which the FDA wants to classify as "drug delivery devices?"

1) Is it because the tobacco company's version contains ground tobacco leaves, whereas e-cigs contain a tobacco extract? (that's a very fine line to draw)

2) Is it because these are produced by tobacco companies, whereas e-cigs are produced elsewhere? (sounds like classification based on bias)

3)Is it because a few e-cig companies have made medical claims? (still doesn't make sense why one company's mistake serves to classify everyone else's product as a drug)

This is confusing

 

[misterME]

Wow...that brings up a lot of stuff, and sheds light on the current FDA issues w/electronic cigarettes.

While I might agree that the FDA's current push to treat e-cigs as a medical delivery device is mostly a power play on their part, there certainly is precedent from that Nova episode on previous products that needed to be treated that way. And while e-cigs are different in all the important ways from those previous products (specifically, zero actual tobacco combustion), without testing to prove that they are in fact safe, the FDA is only doing its job mandating that testing be performed on these products prior to their introduction into the retail mainstream.

I really hate to admit this, but the FDA is right to be poking their nose into this; it's their job. Who's to say that we're not exposing ourselves to something highly dangerous, since no one can say empirically otherwise?

Common sense would say that we're reducing our risk by vaping, but science and common sense don't always go hand in hand. Look at the results from some of the "reduced risk" products developed by Big Tobacco: Many should have reduced their users' risks; but testing found that while it reduced some, it introduced others, or heightened existing ones.

 

[vt100]

I was a Salem smoker and on the PM mailing list. They offered me the Eclipse and I purchased a carton (still have the empty carton and instructions). Very few stores carried them, but you could order more from PM directly. It used some sort of heated rock like thing that slowly heated the tobacco, but not as hot as fire does. They claimed it reduced the amount of tar and many of the carcinogens in regular cigarettes by reducing the heat. They were kind of difficult to use and the taste was unusual and not all that pleasant. But, in contrast to e-cigs, they were filled with regular leaf tobacco.

 

[misterME]

thank you cassavetes

The thing i find interesting is that tobacco companies have been working on vaporized nicotine for years. What's the big difference between what they're doing, which is classified as "tobacco product," and electronic cigarettes which the FDA wants to classify as "drug delivery devices?"

1) Is it because the tobacco company's version contains ground tobacco leaves, whereas e-cigs contain a tobacco extract? (that's a very fine line to draw)

2) Is it because these are produced by tobacco companies, whereas e-cigs are produced elsewhere? (sounds like classification based on bias)

3)Is it because a few e-cig companies have made medical claims? (still doesn't make sense why one company's mistake serves to classify everyone else's product as a drug)

This is confusing

Actually, it's none of the above. The AMA classified the Premier, released in 1988, as a drug-delivery device, using pretty much the same argument that the FDA is using now.

According the The Boston Globe on November 3, 1988:

"CHICAGO - The nation's largest medical association yesterday sought to halt distribution of a 'smokeless cigarette,' saying it should be removed from shelves until it is judged 'safe for human consumption.'

The American Medical Association filed legal petitions with state health authorities in Arizona and Missouri -- where the product is being test marketed --contending that the smokeless cigarette is a 'new, hazardous' drug that needs further testing."

I can't read the rest of the article, but these facts are referenced in the Nova episode (Part 5, about 3 1/2 minutes in).

All in all, what we're facing now is not a new argument.

 

[dragonpuff]

Actually, it's none of the above. The AMA classified the Premier, released in 1988, as a drug-delivery device, using pretty much the same argument that the FDA is using now.

According the The Boston Globe on November 3, 1988:

"CHICAGO - The nation's largest medical association yesterday sought to halt distribution of a 'smokeless cigarette,' saying it should be removed from shelves until it is judged 'safe for human consumption.'

The American Medical Association filed legal petitions with state health authorities in Arizona and Missouri -- where the product is being test marketed --contending that the smokeless cigarette is a 'new, hazardous' drug that needs further testing."

I can't read the rest of the article, but these facts are referenced in the Nova episode (Part 5, about 3 1/2 minutes in).

All in all, what we're facing now is not a new argument.

The AMA does not have any legal authority; i.e. they are not a government agency. It sounds to me like they only were making a recommendation backed by their medical understanding. As far as i can tell, the FDA did not interfere here one way or another.

Therein lies the difference.

 

[HaploVoss]

I used to smoke Eclipse cigarettes -> They still stank to a degree, you could only get them mostly at QT gas stations so when I was relocated down south I switched back to pall malls. They REALLY stank once they were done. Even worse than regular ciggies so you had to dispose of them quickly or your car/house would still stink.

They actually were not too bad, lasted about 2/3 as long as a regular smoke, cost about 1/2 again as much as regular smokes, and were not a half bad idea as I have to admit that I did for sure lose my smokers cough after a while and feel better overall. I did not know that they had taken them off the market. I thought they were just fine??

Take care - Hap

 

[misterME]

The AMA does not have any legal authority; i.e. they are not a government agency. It sounds to me like they only were making a recommendation backed by their medical understanding. As far as i can tell, the FDA did not interfere here one way or another.

Therein lies the difference.

You're right. I can't find any evidence that the FDA intervened in this at all. But it's also a product that died out of the gates; it was not a popular product. I don't think it ever got out of its initial test-marketing phase because consumers weren't interested in it.

E-cigs, on the other hand, are gaining popularity in this country, especially over the last year. So the FDA would have a vested interest in examining and, if necessary, regulating them, whereas it did not need to expend the resources for a product that was never going to gain wide acceptance in the 80's.

Again I'm not saying the FDA's motives are pure. But I do believe they would be taking the same actions at this point even if they were.

Here is a video from CBS This Morning in 1988 with reps form the American Lung Association and R.J. Reynolds. Sounds very much like the argument we're seeing today over e-cigs.

Internet Archive: Free Download: Interview with Richard Kampe

 

[dragonpuff]

You're right. I can't find any evidence that the FDA intervened in this at all. But it's also a product that died out of the gates; it was not a popular product. I don't think it ever got out of its initial test-marketing phase because consumers weren't interested in it.

E-cigs, on the other hand, are gaining popularity in this country, especially over the last year. So the FDA would have a vested interest in examining and, if necessary, regulating them, whereas it did not need to expend the resources for a product that was never going to gain wide acceptance in the 80's.

Again I'm not saying the FDA's motives are pure. But I do believe they would be taking the same actions at this point even if they were.

Here is a video from CBS This Morning in 1988 with reps form the American Lung Association and R.J. Reynolds. Sounds very much like the argument we're seeing today over e-cigs.

Internet Archive: Free Download: Interview with Richard Kampe

Believe me, i'm not arguing over the newness of the argument, or lack thereof, just over why the FDA suddenly decided to get involved. Popularity aside, The FDA's usual stance is that a drug must be approved before it goes to market; that did not happen with any of the tobacco companies' products because they are/were "tobacco products," outside the FDA's jurisdiction.

If the Premier cigarette or other alternatives ever became popular, do you really think that the FDA would suddenly decide one day that these are "drug delivery devices" in need of approval or ban and not "tobacco products" even though they clearly are?

To reiterate my original theories on why these devices are "tobacco" and e-cigs are "drugs":

1) Is it because the tobacco company's version contains ground tobacco leaves, whereas e-cigs contain a tobacco extract? (that's a very fine line to draw)

2) Is it because these are produced by tobacco companies, whereas e-cigs are produced elsewhere? (sounds like classification based on bias)

3)Is it because a few e-cig companies have made medical claims? (still doesn't make sense why one company's mistake serves to classify everyone else's product as a drug)

I'm really banking on #3, but i do think #'s 1 and 2 play a role.

Popularity does come into play with regards to recognizing that there is a product on the market that needs to be classified legally and perhaps regulated, but why not classify it as a "tobacco product" with all the requisite health warnings and such, since it is clearly an alternative to smoking? What in the world makes something that is a smoking alternative which contains and delivers a tobacco extract NOT a tobacco product?

Phew. This is getting tough indeed.

 

[misterME]

Believe me, i'm not arguing over the newness of the argument, or lack thereof, just over why the FDA suddenly decided to get involved. Popularity aside, The FDA's usual stance is that a drug must be approved before it goes to market; that did not happen with any of the tobacco companies' products because they are/were "tobacco products," outside the FDA's jurisdiction.

If the Premier cigarette or other alternatives ever became popular, do you really think that the FDA would suddenly decide one day that these are "drug delivery devices" in need of approval or ban and not "tobacco products" even though they clearly are?

To reiterate my original theories on why these devices are "tobacco" and e-cigs are "drugs":



I'm really banking on #3, but i do think #'s 1 and 2 play a role.

Popularity does come into play with regards to recognizing that there is a product on the market that needs to be classified legally and perhaps regulated, but why not classify it as a "tobacco product" with all the requisite health warnings and such, since it is clearly an alternative to smoking? What in the world makes something that is a smoking alternative which contains and delivers a tobacco extract NOT a tobacco product?

Phew. This is getting tough indeed.

I still say it's a matter of precedent.

All NRTs that contain nicotine are regulated by the FDA, whether that nicotine is tobacco-derived, other-derived, or synthetic. The FDA considers nicotine a "drug" for regulatory purposes (stupid, I know; caffeine should be as well under that reasoning).

Tobacco, speficially, is exempt becasue of the legislation that has passed. But any other substance used for the purpose of delivering nicotine to the body is, as far as they're concerned, under their jurisdiction as a drug. And e-cigs, by definition, would be "drug delivery devices" designed to deliver the drug contained in the e-liquid.

Under that reasoning, since the FDA knew it couldn't touch tobacco products, that may have been more the reason for them staying out of the Premiere/Eclipse releases more so than its unpopularity. E-cigs are often touted as "not being produced from tobacco", and don't classify themselves as tobacco products per se, unlike the Premiere/Eclipse.

 

[ckc]

I was wondering if tobacco's efforts of trying to make a 'safe cig' had come up against anything and found this :-

"Premier also ran into regulatory problems. In 1988 the American Medical Association and others petitioned the FDA to regulate the new product as a drug, specifically a nicotine delivery device, which thereby would not be as freely available as cigarettes. US Surgeon General C Everett Koop also pressed for FDA regulation. The regulatory controversy was not resolved by the time Premier was withdrawn from the market due to lack of consumer acceptance. The fate of Premier shows just how hard it is to develop an alternative smoking article, or other innovative product, which is acceptable to both consumers and the regulatory authorities.
"

So if the FDA are now residing over cigarettes surely making them 'safer' makes them a new (nicotine delivery device) drug that makes them need approval?

 

[RoyBoy]

Hi, I'm new here and just started vaping. This was an interesting episode on Nova. I seen an episode on the history channel one time that showed how they make ciggarettes. A lot of them are made with recycled tobacco where they add more chemicals to them.
What I find ironic is, that the FDA and other health organizations are making such a big deal about the few chemicals that are in ecigs, but I didn't hear any of them complain about the deadly chemcals that are put in the analogs. Especially the new ones in the FSC analogs.

Sorry if I'm a little off topic here, but I just wanted to put in my .02.
I was watching my local tv channel Sunday night and seen a commercial for the EZSmoker. This is the first commercial that I've seen on tv for an e-cig. I was wondering, if it's legal for them to advertise on tv and if so why doesn't other e-cig companies advertise on tv ? This would really get the word out about them. It was on digital channel 27.2 out of Harrisburg, Pa.
I can"t post a link but if you google search EZSmoke, you'll find they're site. The video on there is what was on they're commercial.