Rehberg amendment passes US House Approps Cmte, could prevent FDA from banning flavorings in tobacco products (including e-cigs)

[Bill Godshall]

CTFK/ACS/AHA/ALA go nuts over approval of Rehberg Amendment by US House Appropriations Committee to require FDA to base product (including tobacco) regulations that "restrict the use of a substance or a compound" upon sound science (i.e. the weight of toxicological evidence, epidemiological evidence, and risk assessments) instead of upon "cost or consumer behavior"; measure could benefit tobacco harm reduction, consumer and public health.
House Appropriations Amendment Would Weaken FDA's Authority over Tobacco, Unleash Big Tobacco on... -- WASHINGTON, June 1, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --
House GOP pushes back against health measures affecting school lunches, tobacco - The Washington Post

The full text of the Rehberg Amendment is:

"None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by the Food and Drug Administration to write, prepare, develop or publish a proposed, interim, or final rule, regulation or guidance that is intended to restrict the use of a substance or a compound unless the Secretary bases such rule, regulation or guidance on hard science (and not on such factors as cost and consumer behavior), and determines that the weight of toxicological evidence, epidemiological evidence, and risk assessments clearly justifies such action, including a demonstration that a product containing such substance or compound is more harmful to users than a product that does not contain such substance or compound, or in the case of pharmaceuticals, has been demonstrated by scientific study to have none of the purported benefits."

 

[Vocalek]

Wow! This puts the burden of proof on the FDA.

 

[PoliticallyIncorrect]

Something that surprises me is the use of subjective phrases like hard science or weight...of evidence. Who gets to decide precisely what they mean in what circumstances?

 

[Vocalek]

Well, at least it takes the issue out of the realm of "concerned that" or "might be" that is currently being used to determine policy. No wonder folks like Matt Myers are upset by this. Getting laws passed based on conjecture and baseless accusations are their bread and butter.

 

[D103]

Elaine, I also posted on Dr. Siegel's blog about this proposed amendment - if it passes it could serve to open the door to legal challenges to many of the current smoking bans based on "soft" (if not outright fraudulent) science re: SHS.

This amendment would also prove to be very helpful for vapers down the road as the FDA attempts to install strict regulations on e-cigs. It would totally remove the ability of the FDA to promulgate banning based on vaping "looking like smoking." And maybe it would help to muzzle some of the totally idiotic claims made by the anti-movement.

 

[Demarko]

Does this overturn things like, the ban on cloves?

 

[TomCatt]

Comment from article "House GOP pushes back against health measures affecting school lunches, tobacco":


"boblesch wrote:
and 40% of the nation believes in the GOP - no matter what.

just as bad - 40% believes the democrats - no matter what they say.

but even worse - more than 50% of what's being said doesn't contain a shred of truth.
6/2/2011 11:10:18 AM EDT"


I couldn't agree more!

 

[sqirl1]

holy crap am I dreaming?

 

[katydid]

wow that is great news

 

[sqirl1]

the question is: will it pass the senate, still with dems as the majority? the dems are usually more anti-tobacco while republicans are usually pro-tobacco. and another thing: will president Obama sign it?

 

[Critter Man]

In other words: this pleases me.

 

[sqirl1]

when does this go through the senate (or has it already?)

 

[dagnagan]

The Data Quality Act of 2001 was supposed to keep federal agencies from issuing information that is not based on sound science or statistics. I don't understand why they can't be forced to retract their press release on that bogus e-cigarette "study" under the DQA. And now we need more Congressional action to make them base regulations on sound science? How can anyone paying attention to this stuff not become a total cynic?
One of these days the FDA or the EPA is going to say something that's true; unfortunately I won't believe it.

 

[rothenbj]

I'm hearing you! Unfortunately, most people are so busy with trying to live there lives they don't have time to understand what's being taken away.

 

[sqirl1]

whats the status on this? did it go through the senate?

 

[Picklesworth.]

This makes me smile. Lets hear it for science and putting the burden of proof were it belongs!
Just say no to burning whitches!

 

[DC2]

Just say no to burning whitches!

You know what, that sound like a really good motto.

 

[Picklesworth.]

Thanks DC2. I surprise myself some times lol

 

[Bill Godshall]

Rehberg's amendment was dropped from the House AG Approps bill yesterday, but it had nothing to do with tobacco, and everything to do with antibiotics in animal food
Senators unveil bipartisan bill to restrict use of antibiotics in food animals - The Hill's Healthwatch