Retracting My Support (?) for ECA

[Bill Godshall]

Following up on my previous posting (I wanted to get it posted before I became logged off of this website), it is very likely that either the Waxman (or Kennedy) FDA tobacco bill will be enacted by this Congress.

But it is still possible (and has been my goal for the past five years) to amend the FDA tobacco legislation (in the Senate) so that it:
- allows e-cigarettes to remain on the market, create a new tobacco/nicotine category for smokefree nicotine products, and reasonably regulate e-cigarette (similar to tobacco products),
- allows recently introduced smokefree tobacco products to remain on the market,
- eliminates the misleading mandatory warning on smokefree tobacco products that states "This product is not a safe alternative to cigarettes,"
- requires the FDA to research/rank/publish the comparable health risks for each category of tobacco product (i.e. cigarettes, little cigars, large cigars, chewing tobacco, moist snuff, dry snuff) and for e-cigarettes, which would be another category of tobacco/nicotine products.

This can be accomplished by amending several sound tobacco harm reduction provisions (that are in the Burr/Hagan bill and the Buyer bill) to the Waxman/Kennedy legislation.

I anticipate that Republican Senators will offer another amendment to the Waxman/Kennedy legislation to create a new Tobacco Regulatory Agency (instead of authorizing the FDA to regulate tobacco products).

If the entire Burr/Hagan bill is offered as a substitute amendment to the Waxman/Kennedy legislation (as Buyer did in the House E&C Cmte and again on the House floor), it too will be soundly rejected.

 

[WillPower]

Had I realized my postings (on other threads) and me would be the subject of postings on this thread, I would have responded earlier to clarify any confusion. I'm also having trouble with this website, as several of my previous postings disappeared when I tried posting them, and I was instead prompted to login again.

If the Waxman (or Kennedy) FDA tobacco bills are enacted, all new and recently introduced (in past two years) smokefree tobacco products will be banned from the market unless/until FDA approves the products (which anti tobacco groups will staunchly oppose).

If/when that occurs, the FDA (if it hasn't done so already) is even more likely to ban e-cigarettes from the market.

While Mike Siegel and I disagree about other tobacco policy issues, we are in almost total agreement on the ramifications of the Waxman/Kennedy FDA tobacco legislation (as well as a ban on e-cigarettes), and we have been collaborating in opposing the FDA tobacco legislation as well as keeping e-cigarettes on the market.

I think your statement like this is making us (or at least me) suspicious about your motive and intent.

FDA has already asserted their jurisdiction over e-cigs, pursuant to 201 (g)(1) of FDCA. They publicly and through communication to suppliers made it clear e-cigs are illegal. Valid or not, they think they don't need another legistration to assert their jurisdiction. Why don't you know this if you are in the tobacco lobbying? I am sure you have seen FDCA.

In addition, you claim to be anti-tobacco, but you want smokeless tobacco like chewing tobacco on the market? Support Burr/Hagan bill? Just doesn't sound right to me. Do you receive any financial support from tobacco industry (not suggesting you shouldn't, just curious)?

I am not even sure what you are trying to do for e-cigs. Keep them on the market, without any approval process (FDA NDA, Waxman, or something else), without any regulations? Isn't this what you saying above: if Waxman passes, e-cigs are going to be banned?

To me (just my personal view as consumer), it just sounds like you are trying to get us to help you pursue your legistrative agenda, promising not-sure-what other than "keep e-cigs on the market" (not even sure about that either).

 

[Boston George]

What about your agenda willpower? First you start a firestorm about shutting down vendors. Which undermined the ECA. Then you make this thread which claims to retract your 'support' but your discussion has had almost nothing to do with the ECA.

It frankly seems that you are trying to sow distrust and fan the flames when you can.

 

[WillPower]

What about your agenda willpower? First you start a firestorm about shutting down vendors. Which undermined the ECA. Then you make this thread which claims to retract your 'support' but your discussion has had almost nothing to do with the ECA.

It frankly seems that you are trying to sow distrust and fan the flames when you can.

Nope. I don't have any agenda--not asking for money (dues), not asking you to write letters to anyone.

I thought ECA was working with "Godshall" using his name as big hitter? Building legitimacy, etc. No?

If Godshall and ECA are working on no-regulation no approval for e-cigs or at least if that's what they are promising, people should know. You don't have to, just I don't support that at all. And I assume some people won't support either, if that's what they are promising. Not very likely and even if they could, not a good thing, once again, in my view.

 

[TropicalBob]

I think all of Bill's points are valid, and I'd certainly welcome them as part of Waxman/Kennedy. Our e-cig interests and harm reduction interests go hand-in-hand. If we can't support smokeless alternatives, then what are the odds that a majority of senators are going to say, "Oh, wait, let's be sure to insert a special exclusion for electronic cigarettes." Never in a million years.

Good luck, Bill, in getting your concerns written into the bill. They should be our concerns, as well. They're surely mine.

 

[yvilla]

And I too, am very glad to see from Bill's last post just above, that what I thought I gleaned from his briefer post on the other thread is in fact true: That there are forces working to amend Waxman to include real harm reduction provisions, that would include ecigarettes along with other smokeless tobacco products.

I too believe that such amendments are critical to the continued availabitlity of ecigs in the US market if Waxman is passed.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Here is the letter Smokefree Pennsylvania sent to all members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee before they marked up Waxman's legislation (HR 1256), but I had to remove the weblink for the tobacco harm reduction report I coauthored in 2005/06 (as this website won't let me post weblinks) . Please note that this letter was sent before Lautenberg/CTFK/ACS/AHA/ALa urged the FDA to ban e-cigarettes, although I've previously urged Congress to include smokefree nicotine products (that are marketed as alternatives to cigarettes) in the legislation and to treat them similar to smokefree tobacco products.


March 2, 2009

Dear Representative

Smokefree Pennsylvania urges you to oppose Rep. Waxman's FDA tobacco
legislation, and to support Rep. Steve Buyer's common sense tobacco harm
reduction alternative.

We oppose Rep. Waxman's legislation, a deal negotiated by Philip Morris and
the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids in 2004, because it protects the most
hazardous tobacco product (cigarettes) from market competition by the least
hazardous smokefree (i.e. smokeless) tobacco products, as it:

- fails to inform cigarette smokers that smokefree tobacco products are far
lower risk alternatives,
- deceives the public to believe that smokefree tobacco products are just
as hazardous as cigarettes,
- prohibits companies from informing smokers that smokefree products are
less hazardous,
- discourages and may halt development/marketing of new lower risk
smokefree tobacco products,

Sound product regulations truthfully inform consumers (and the public)
about risks of different products. Although cigarettes are about 100 times
deadlier than smokefree tobacco products, nearly 90% of smokers incorrectly
believe that smokefree tobacco products are just as hazardous as
cigarettes, and Rep. Waxman's legislation would perpetuate this health
myth/fraud.

By switching to smokefree tobacco/nicotine products, smokers reduce their
health risks by nearly as much as by quitting all tobacco/nicotine, and
millions have already done so. Besides, smokers have a human right to be
informed that smokefree tobacco/nicotine products are less hazardous
alternatives to cigarettes, and public health agencies have an ethical duty
to inform smokers of this potentially life saving fact. I coauthored a
report "Tobacco harm reduction: an alternative cessation strategy for
addicted smokers" at

Since 1990, Smokefree Pennsylvania has advocated policies to reduce tobacco
smoke pollution indoors, increase cigarette taxes, reduce tobacco marketing
to youth, preserve civil justice remedies for tobacco victims, expand
smoking cessation services, and inform smokers that smokefree
tobacco/nicotine products are far less hazardous alternatives to
cigarettes.

Thank you for your consideration, and feel free to contact me anytime.

Sincerely,


William T. Godshall, MPH
Executive Director

 

[strayling]

Here is the letter Smokefree Pennsylvania sent to all members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee before they marked up Waxman's legislation (HR 1256), but I had to remove the weblink for the tobacco harm reduction report I coauthored in 2005/06 (as this website won't let me post weblinks) .

You should be able to post links when you've clocked up 15 posts or so. In the meantime, is this the report?

Anyway, thanks for posting the letter and please let us know if you get a response to it.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Yes, that's the weblink for the tobacco harm reduction report (which was the first article in a public health journal that an anti smoking activist coauthored with a recipient of tobacco industry funds).

Below is an article I wrote for the May 2008 edition of World Tobacco, and industry trade publication (the first and only tobacco industry trade journal that published an article written by an anti smoking activist). Note that the title and subtitles were chosen by the publisher, not me. I removed the weblink for the article to post it here.

I also gave similar presentations at the Tobacco Merchants Association conferences in 2007 and 2008. Ruyan will be presenting about the e-cigarette at next month's TMA conference.


Industry and public health should partner

Bill Godshall, Executive Director of Smokefree Pennsylvania, discusses the
postive health aspects of swapping cigarettes for smokeless tobacco
products

World Tobacco
Smokeless Special: Harm Reduction
May 2008

As commonly used, different tobacco/nicotine products confer vastly
different health and safety risks for users and others. Truthfully
informing tobacco consumers about the relative and comparable health risks
of various tobacco products can reduce the morbidity and mortality risks of
tobacco use, which should be a common goal for public health and the
tobacco industry.

Unfortunately for consumer and public health, the overwhelming majority
(about 85%) of smokers (and nonsmokers) inaccurately believe that smokefree
tobacco products are just as, if not more, hazardous than cigarettes.

Although reduced ignition propensity (RIP) cigarettes reduce fire and burn
risks (compared to other cigarettes), there is no evidence that any type of
combustible cigarette (including filtered) poses fewer health risks than
any other type of cigarette. Additionally, many (perhaps most) smokers
inaccurately believe that nicotine in tobacco/nicotine products causes
cancer.

Is nicotine a health risk?

Nicotine is what makes cigarettes and most smokeless tobacco products
highly addictive, whereas cigars are less addictive because most cigar
smokers don't directly inhale the smoke (as occurs with cigarettes). But
cigar smokers who inhale similar to cigarette smokers face similar health
risks, which is why cigars are not less hazardous alternatives for
cigarette smokers.

On a mortality risk scale from one to 10, on which nicotine products sold
as smoking cessation aids are a one and cigarettes are a 10, smokefree
tobacco products commonly used in the U.S. and Sweden are a two or less.

In essence, combustible tobacco products, smokefree tobacco products,
nicotine products sold as smoking cessation aids, and other nicotine
delivery devices all compete against each other in the nicotine products
market, and all of these products rely upon the tobacco plant for their
nicotine.

Smokefree tobacco products account for about half of all nicotine
consumption in Sweden, where more men use snus than cigarettes. In the
rest of the E.U., Australia and New Zealand, where most smokefree tobacco
products are banned, cigarettes account for virtually all nicotine
consumption. In the U.S., smokefree tobacco products account for about 10%
of nicotine consumption, while cigarettes account for the most of the rest.
Meanwhile, nicotine products sold for smoking cessation account for less
than 1% of nicotine consumption in all countries.

Even if overall nicotine consumption remains the same, the health of
tobacco users and the public can improve as the percentage of nicotine
consumed from smokefree tobacco/nicotine products increases.

Education, not legislation

Survey data indicate that about two million male ex-smokers in the U.S.,
and several hundred thousand ex-smokers in Sweden, have already quit
smoking by switching to smokefree tobacco products. This appears to be a
recently growing trend in the U.S., as consumption of moist snuff has
increased to an estimated 1.2 bn cans this year.

Public health agencies have an ethical duty to provide accurate health risk
information, and tobacco users have a human right to be provided accurate
health risk information. But instead of educating tobacco users about the
comparable health risks of different tobacco products, government health
agencies and many health organisations have been misleading tobacco users
(and the public) into believing that all tobacco products pose similar
health risks.

A 1986 law requires all smokeless tobacco products sold in the U.S. to
include a misleading warning that states 'this product is not a safe
alternative to cigarettes,' and 'this product may cause mouth cancer,'
which has been widely adopted by many health agencies and
organisations as a talking point against smokeless tobacco products.

Despite the overwhelming evidence that cigarettes are more hazardous than
commonly used smokefree tobacco products in the U.S. and Sweden, this
author is unaware of any government health agency websites or educational
materials that inform cigarette smokers (or the public) that smokefree
tobacco/nicotine products are less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes.

But a growing number of public health advocates are challenging the
abstinence-only anti-tobacco goal and mindset of those who oppose tobacco
harm reduction. Educating smokers about the comparable health risks of
smokefree tobacco/nicotine products can and should be embraced by the
public health community and the tobacco industry.

 

[Caesarea]

Bill,
May I copy this to send to a legislator in my government?

 

[Kate]

Hi Bill, thanks for joining us.

Is there a chance you could have a look at this discussion and maybe leave your thoughts if they haven't already been expressed - http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ing/12317-how-valid-vaping-health-claims.html

I know you might be too busy but there's no harm in asking, hey

 

[Bill Godshall]

Per previous inquiry, anything I post here is in the public domain, and may be copied or plagerized by anyone who desires. I would, however, suggest making a few changes to any of my previous letters to members of Congress (e.g. urging them to keep e-cigarettes on the market and reasonably regulated) before sending them to US Senators.

In this regard, I'll be sending a letter (and probably several) to all 100 US Senators in the near future, and urging others to do so as well.

 

[Caesarea]

Per previous inquiry, anything I post here is in the public domain, and may be copied or plagerized by anyone who desires. I would, however, suggest making a few changes to any of my previous letters to members of Congress (e.g. urging them to keep e-cigarettes on the market and reasonably regulated) before sending them to US Senators.

In this regard, I'll be sending a letter (and probably several) to all 100 US Senators in the near future, and urging others to do so as well.

Thanks, Bill - it's for pre-emptive UK use!


Shall not attribute then, in view of your next post. Many thanks.

 

[Bill Godshall]

I meant to say that anyone may (and everyone is encouraged to) utilize anything I post for his/her own advocacy in defense and support of e-cigarettes. No attributions please, as this isn't a proprietary issue, but rather a critically important public health policy issue.

Also, when writing letters to members of Congress (or state or local officials), it is best to keep letters to one page.

 

[Finster]

Bottom line the fda didn't say it's ok or decide to look the other way (not enough money flowing back in to the right people the big wigs not seeing or getting a bit of the action) we must have a lawyer among us can we actually put something legit together this group may be the start of something on this front.

 

[WillPower]

Bill, you are a funny guy.. I guess you live long enough you get to see a lot of things.

I will provide some background info, especially for the international crowd who may not be familiar with the US.

North Carolina (NC) is one of the states in the US, which happens to be a major tobacco producing state (a large portion of NC revenue comes from tobacco). Each state in the US elects two senators. Two senators from NC are Richard Burr and Kay Hagan. Gee... I wonder who bankrolls these two senators? Let's just say Burr lives in a city named Winston-Salem (I kid you not), where RJR Tobacco Company has its world headquarter. Burr happens to be up for reelection next year (US senator's term = 6 years).

The Burr/Hagan is loaded with pro-tobacco provisions. For example, one of the most asinine idea (or brilliant, depending on which side of tobacco battle you are on) is the Tobacco Regulating Agency that Bill is talking about. If established, it won't have the experience and knowledge of FDA and it is easier to "choke" their funding and make it ineffective, etc.

Bill is advocating lumping e-cigs with "modified risk tobacco products" and make modified risk product less regulated (than what FDA would). Sounds okay to you? Not to me. For example, MRTP includes light and ultralight cigarettes.

Just in case you don't know, these are evil (or ingenious, depending on..) invention of big cig companies. Among other things, they put little holes in the filter so that when a lab smoking simulating machine "smoke" these, they takes less tar and other toxic susbstance. When a real person smokes these holes get covered by finger or lip, taking in all bad stuff in full strength. But, cig company can give people the impression that somehow they are "safer."

For Burr/Hagan, giving the impression of safety is not enough (no, no, no!). They want to allow cig companies to openly advertise them as safe. So, we are being offered to be included in this category and we help them make the regulation easier. The "easy" regulations keep e-cig on the market and benefit cig companies peddle any crap they come up with as safe alternative.

Bill is peddling smokefree tobacco, like chewing tobacco. Lumping us with "safe" cig crap and his chewing tobacco. Chewing tobacco is loaded with cancer causing agents and it is known to cause oral cancer. You search the web, you will find a lot of pictures of people having part of their face removed due to oral cancer from the use of chewing tobacco. Yes. They may not have as much bad stuff as smoking, but a lot more nicotine (more addictive) and lots of other health problems.

Another problem is that they hide the danger of smokefree tobacco and focus their marketing to younger male. I believe about 75% of users begining by 9th grade. I guess having smokefree crap aligning with e-cig, something that actually have not killed anyone yet could benefit smokefree peddlers.

More directly related to us is smokefree people got enemy of their own. I for one am not known for my outstanding moral character. But I wouldn't associate myself with people peddling this crap. I certainly wouldn't buy or support any e-cig vendors working with these greedy tobacco peddlers. However, you should make your own decision.

Bottomline (in my view):

1) It's a longshot to make what Bill suggests happen in the senate. Burr/Hagan was defeated in the House.

2) Bill and Madam Acting President of ECA might get some $$ out of this deal. But, you are going to end up alienating a lot of people (customers and other supporters). Remember Billy Buddy is not the only one with a decent fax machine and 100 senators' fax number. Some people have a mailing list of eager volunteers (unpaid but some of them, their loved ones got hurt by smokefree and other tobacco) and FDA on speed dial.

I just don't understand though--don't nJoy, TrueVapor, JuicyLiquid have a lawyer or a friend who went to a law school? They should know if they work with Bill and try to reduce the regulatory requirements, it can substantially increase civil and criminal liabilities later on. Claiming "didn't know" the danger of e-cig labelling problems, etc is one thing, but actively supporing to remove regulations is an entirely different matter.

Just expressing my opinions.

 

[Kate]

I don't know what Bill's agenda is but he has made unrealistic claims about vaping and that's bound to be used by antis to show that we are deluded.

 

[WillPower]

I don't know what Bill's agenda is but he has made unrealistic claims about vaping and that's bound to be used by antis to show that we are deluded.

People should read what Bill is saying. This guy is saying smokefree tobacco doesn't cause oral cancer and such claim is a myth or fraud by people who want to protect cig companies.

FACT: U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC), American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute, U.S. Surgeon General, and many other reputable medical establishments state that smokefree tobacco cause oral (mouth) cancer and other serious health problems. You look them up for yourself. They all claim that smokefree tobacco is NOT safe alternative to cigarettes.

All these people suddenly developed a warm feeling for the cigarette company? So they are protecting cig company by claim the danger of smokefree tobacco?

The real sad story is many parents bought into propaganda of people like Bill. They thought "well at least he [their kid] is not smoking" and some overlook the use of smokefree tobacco.

Yes. I understand some people might say if they are dumb enough to buy into misinformation from people like Bill, their kids deserve what they get. I am not one of those SOB's. Some parents have to see their kid's deformed face everyday because part of their jaw and cheek was removed due to oral cancer from smokefree tobacco. If you see the anquish and pain in the eyes of these parents, you would see Bill Godshall in different eyes.

Anyway, if we begin saying things like: we are with smokeless tobacco, smokefree tobacco doesn't cause cancer (this claim is fraud), and God forbid, e-cigs are just as safe as smokefree tobacco, our credibility will be in the toilette.

In addition, many people, including myself, would wonder this. JuicyLiquid, nJoy, TrueVapor are selling what FDA considers unapproved drugs. They are using the "proceed" from these "illicit trades" to lobby and promote smokefree tobacco, another major public health problem for the U.S.

Do you see why some people might have a problem with this?

 

[Kate]

I'm not really informed enough to say WillPower.

I do believe that honest, reliable information should be available or people can't make intelligent choices. Anyone who peddles false facts should be stopped.

 

[Oliver]

Willpower, there are many forms of oral tobacco. Chewing tobacco is indeed highly carcinogenic due to (from memory) the nitrosamines caused by the curing process.

Swedish Snuss, and other forms of oral tobacco, do not undergo the same heat-curing processes (and by extension contain no, or vastly lower, levels of nitrosamines) and are, as demonstrated by the Swedish example, vastly safer than cigarettes & chewing tobacco.

And remember, again, that harm reduction is exactly that - harm-reduction, not risk elimination. It is a pragmatic policy that demands safer alternatives given the failures of current policy.

Now, you may have a moral, philosophical or, indeed, pragmatic debate with that, but please at least argue on those terms, rather than mischaracterizing Bill's position.


Snus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tobacco harm reduction: an alternative cessation strategy for inveterate smokers

Oral use of Swedish moist snuff (snus) and risk for cancer of the mouth, lung, and pancreas in male construction workers: a retrospective cohort study : The Lancet

Cancer and mortality among users and nonusers of s...[Int J Cancer. 2008] - PubMed Result