Rising e-cigarette sales spur call for regulations

[Petrodus]

Rising e-cigarette sales spur call for regulations

The electronic cigarette industry is fighting back against the calls for increased regulations. In January, The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA) filed a petition with the White House to oppose the FDA’s regulatory efforts.

“The FDA should not propose or approve any regulation that would deny cigarette smokers legal or affordable access to less hazardous smoke-free alternatives,” Bill Godshall, an adviser with the CASAA, wrote in the petition. This month, the measure gained more than the necessary amount of signatures to warrant a reply from the White House.

“E-cigarettes and associated accessories and liquids are less hazardous than cigarettes and can reduce the risks of smoking. With the use of these devices millions have successfully reduced the use of cigarettes. Don't let the FDA deny us access to these alternatives to smoking,” the petition says.

 

[Dougiestyle]

What was the reply from The White House?

 

[rothenbj]

I commented-

"The electronic cigarette industry is fighting back against the calls for increased regulations. In January, The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA) filed a petition with the White House to oppose the FDA’s regulatory efforts."

It would be good if the author understood what CASAA was. It is not the electronic cigarette industry fighting back, but former smokers who have found E Cigarettes and other smokeless tobacco products as a way to stop inhaling smoke or seriously reducing their smoking habits.

This is an underfunded organization led my some very well read, volunteers. That is very different than the ?non-profit?"health" associations that act as the unofficial marketing arms for the Pharma industry.

 

[Petrodus]

What was the reply from The White House?

 

[Berylanna]

My comment:

This is so weird. The contents of e-cigs are well-known and consist mostly of things the FDA has already approved in nicotine inhalers, plus some FDA-approved (though not for inhaling) food flavorings. There ARE studies showing e-cigs help people quit smoking, the most-famous on in Italy. It is perjury to state that "There is no evidence" on that.

An FDA-approved medicine for quitting smoking has been linked to 200 confirmed suicides and 18 homicides, but the FDA says that risk is worth it to stop smoking, but says that electronic cigarettes are not a safe alternative to smoking. That's like saying Pepsi is not a safe alternative to whiskey. It's Public Health malpractice.

See what the American Association of Public Health Physicians has to say about ecigs (and take note that they are the only big organization commenting on e-cigs that is neither funded by tobacco profits from court settlements nor by companies that make huge profits on nicotine patches.)

American Association of Public Health Physicians - Tobacco

 

[Bill Godshall]

I posted a comment on this article in The Hill, which a very influential news outlet in DC read by members of Congress and their staff.

 

[Petrodus]

I posted a comment on this article in The Hill, which a very influential news outlet in DC read by members of Congress and their staff.

GREAT Comment !!!!

Loved the last 3 paragraphs

There is no public health justification for the FDA to impose any regulations on e-cigarettes, as doing so would only kill millions of more smokers and protect cigarette markets.

The Obama administration's lies and fearmongering about smokefree tobacco/nicotine products (including e-cigarettes, smokeless tobacco and dissolvables), all of which are .99% less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes, is the most egregious case of public health malpractice in US history.

Unfortunately, the news media (like the Obama administration) also seems to be far more interested in misleading and scaring the public then in doing their job of reporting facts.

 

[Bill Godshall]

This article in The Hill was generated by the CDC's press release on e-cigarettes that I cited on another thread.

 

[sonicdsl]

This article in The Hill was generated by the CDC's press release on e-cigarettes that I cited on another thread.

Excellent post Bill (as usual)! I upvoted it, FWIW; wish I could upvote 1000 times!

 

[jlew]

Yeah... this seems to be correct... I haven't heard anything at all on it yet either and usually, a response
comes in a fair amount of time after the closing of the polls.

Hmmmmm....

 

[Renolizzie]

You know I had to go over there and comment

 

[NatashaR]

What was the reply from The White House?

Ah yes... their normal response. No surprise there.

 

[woden57]

I would think that Obama should be fairly receptive to ecigs, he is/was a smoker. Blaming the Obama administration is probably counter productive. They do not take kindly to criticism. Better to blame the other side and let Obama be our knight in shining armor.

"There are people who just can't sleep at night worrying with the haunting fear that someone somewhere out there might be having a good time."
Exert from the definition of Puritanism by Anonymous

 

[Berylanna]

I would think that Obama should be fairly receptive to ecigs, he is/was a smoker. Blaming the Obama administration is probably counter productive. They do not take kindly to criticism. Better to blame the other side and let Obama be our knight in shining armor.

"There are people who just can't sleep at night worrying with the haunting fear that someone somewhere out there might be having a good time."
Exert from the definition of Puritanism by Anonymous

Chantix was approved in 2006. The corruption thingy about the FDA was already going on for decades....it is the natural outcome of the way they are funded, plus the difficulty of firing gov't employees. Even when you replace the heads, the bodies keep doing what they did before.

Face it, common sense is rare AT BEST inside or near the Beltway, doesn't matter which decade.

 

[LycanFury]

The FDA is in bed with big pharma and Big tobacco, allegedly, if you get my dirft. The main question is for the Non profits who have lobbied against the tobbaco smoke and tobacco cigarettes, I don't inderstand why are they blind to the individual testimonials which show a considerable change in health of an individual (for the better) after quiting tobbaco cigarette and choosing e-cigs.

Only answer that comes to my head is, they cannot fathom the fact that smokers are not having their cake and eating it too. We humans and our BIG Egos (not the ecig one)
Many countries including India have a tendency to follow United States, when it comes to rulings like these, I sincerly hope Obama admistration sees the big picture and takes side with the right side.

 

[LycanFury]

The FDA is in bed with big pharma and Big tobacco, allegedly, if you get my dirft. The main question is for the Non profits who have lobbied against the tobbaco smoke and tobacco cigarettes, I don't inderstand why are they blind to the individual testimonials which show a considerable change in health of an individual (for the better) after quiting tobbaco cigarette and choosing e-cigs.

Only answer that comes to my head is, they cannot fathom the fact that smokers are not having their cake and eating it too. We humans and our BIG Egos (not the ecig one)
Many countries including India have a tendency to follow United States, when it comes to rulings like these, I sincerly hope Obama admistration sees the big picture and takes side with the right side.

 

[metropolitan]

here to be the devil's advocate again...
regulation doesn't necessarily mean banning of e-cgis or the other doomsday scenarios that people assume. regulation can also mean standardizing products and making sure that the stuff we are inhaling actually has the nicotine content it says it does, is made in a clean environment, does not contain heavy metals, etc. pretty much the same type of things the FDA does for all over the counter medications.
regulation will also bring in big investments to the e-cig industry. until the vagueness is over regarding its status, not too many big pocket investors want to drop money on it in the USA. the buying of Blu has more to do with the international market than the domestic one. after things settle down you might find a lot of the mom and pop e-liquid makers turning into overnight millionaires as investors fund the established ones so they can expand.
i know not many people here will agree with me, but regulation is not always a bad thing. it brings stability and safety which are essential for growth.

 

[Vocalek]

here to be the devil's advocate again...
regulation doesn't necessarily mean banning of e-cgis or the other doomsday scenarios that people assume. regulation can also mean standardizing products and making sure that the stuff we are inhaling actually has the nicotine content it says it does, is made in a clean environment, does not contain heavy metals, etc. pretty much the same type of things the FDA does for all over the counter medications.
regulation will also bring in big investments to the e-cig industry. until the vagueness is over regarding its status, not too many big pocket investors want to drop money on it in the USA. the buying of Blu has more to do with the international market than the domestic one. after things settle down you might find a lot of the mom and pop e-liquid makers turning into overnight millionaires as investors fund the established ones so they can expand.
i know not many people here will agree with me, but regulation is not always a bad thing. it brings stability and safety which are essential for growth.

You described the way regulation should be, but we have seen no signs whatsoever that the FDA intends to be reasonable. This is a quote from the AP story as reported in Yahoo News and in the Washington Post:

"The Food and Drug Administration says e-cigarettes have not been fully studied. The federal agency is expected to assert regulatory authority over e-cigarettes later this year to treat them the same as traditional cigarettes and other tobacco products."

Isn't that rather like treating Hires Root Beer the same as traditional beer and other alcoholic products?

Maybe AP reporter Michael Felberbaum didn't get the quote right? Well, read for yourself what the FDA said regarding how they plan to regulate the products. Regulation of E-Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products

Under the Tobacco Control Act, “tobacco products” are subject to a number of controls. Section 201(rr)(4), for example, prohibits the marketing of a “tobacco product” in combination with any other article or product regulated under the FD&C Act (including a drug, biologic, food, cosmetic, medical device, or a dietary supplement). FDA has already issued a draft guidance that addresses the status of such products.

Chapter IX also subjects “new tobacco products” (i.e., products that are first marketed or modified after February 15, 2007) and “modified risk tobacco products” (i.e., products that are “sold or distributed for use to reduce harm or the risk of tobacco-related disease associated with commercially marketed tobacco products”) to premarket review. Although the statute places certain “tobacco products” immediately under the general controls and premarket review requirements in Chapter IX (i.e., cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco), it also permits FDA, by regulation, to extend those controls to other categories of “tobacco products.”
FDA plans to take the following steps to ensure that appropriate regulatory mechanisms govern all “tobacco products” and all other products made or derived from tobacco after the Sottera decision:

The Agency intends to propose a regulation that would extend the Agency’s “tobacco product” authorities in Chapter IX of the FD&C Act, which currently only apply to certain specifically enumerated “tobacco products,” to other categories of tobacco products that meet the statutory definition of “tobacco product” in Section 201(rr) of the Act. The additional tobacco product categories would be subject to general controls, such as registration, product listing, ingredient listing, good manufacturing practice requirements, user fees for certain products, and the adulteration and misbranding provisions, as well as to the premarket review requirements for “new tobacco products” and “modified risk tobacco products.”
The Sottera decision states that products made or derived from tobacco can be regulated under the Tobacco Control Act unless they are “marketed for therapeutic purposes,” in which case they are regulated as drugs and/or devices. The Agency is considering whether to issue a guidance and/or a regulation on “therapeutic” claims.
Section 201(rr)(4) of the Tobacco Control Act prohibits the marketing of “tobacco products” in combination with other FDA-regulated products. As mentioned, FDA has already issued a draft guidance on this provision, which it intends to finalize.
“Tobacco products” marketed as of February 15, 2007, which have not been modified since then are considered “grandfathered” and are not subject to premarket review as “new tobacco products.” A “tobacco product” that is not “grandfathered” is considered a “new” tobacco product, and it is adulterated and misbranded under the FD&C Act, and therefore, subject to enforcement action, unless it has received premarket authorization or been found substantially equivalent. FDA has already developed draft guidance explaining how manufacturers can request a determination from FDA that a “tobacco product” is “grandfathered.”

Here is the full text of the law. Pay particular attention to sections 905 and 910. Full Text of H.R. 1256 (111th): Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act - GovTrack.us

 

[metropolitan]

with all due respect, nothing that you quoted contradicts my statements. i said regulation did not mean banning, but standardizing and greater transparency regarding ingredients and quite possibly investment money for the industry.

i read sections 905 and 910 you pointed out and that has to do with manufacturers and owners being registered, it has to do with facilities being on record and open to health inspections, with new products being registered and marketing being subjected for review. i fail to see how that is a going to destroy e-cigs as we know it today. these are all regulations that cigarettes follow already and obviously the cigarette market has not been destroyed.

if a maker of something we ingest is not willing to put their name to it, not wiling to list the ingredients they used and not willing to have the facility of manufacture checked for safety, that would make me very cautious to use any of their products or to invest in their company.

are we going to wait until the first unexperienced person uses diethylene glycol instead of glycerin and people die to see the need for some sort of regulations? diethylene glycol is a poison that has a long history of being used instead of glycerin --either because it was sold to someone masking it as glycerin and they did not test it or because a manufacturer wanted to cut costs.

i realize the specter of regulations can sound daunting, but there are reasons for them. until recently the FDA could not shut down a food production factory even if found many health violations. this changed after 9 people died from eating tainted peanut butter. i don't know about you, but i feel safer to eat peanut butter now because of that.

 

[RochVap]

here to be the devil's advocate again...
regulation doesn't necessarily mean banning of e-cgis or the other doomsday scenarios that people assume. regulation can also mean standardizing products and making sure that the stuff we are inhaling actually has the nicotine content it says it does, is made in a clean environment, does not contain heavy metals, etc. pretty much the same type of things the FDA does for all over the counter medications.
regulation will also bring in big investments to the e-cig industry. until the vagueness is over regarding its status, not too many big pocket investors want to drop money on it in the USA. the buying of Blu has more to do with the international market than the domestic one. after things settle down you might find a lot of the mom and pop e-liquid makers turning into overnight millionaires as investors fund the established ones so they can expand.
i know not many people here will agree with me, but regulation is not always a bad thing. it brings stability and safety which are essential for growth.

I'm with metro on this one. I'm new to the game but did a lot of reading up on it b4 diving in. I didn't want to substitute one killing machine for another. As it stands now I can't see what exactly the FDA could ban. Strip out the nic and all the chemicals found in e-cigs are already approved and in use in other products.

Nicotine is a drug but not a controlled substance (Schedule A). So no go there and not all e-liquids have nic in them.

I don't trust the Communist Chinese gov't at anything. There I said it. They'll sell anything to anyone to make money and they will cut any corner they can to do it. So if some type of reg's are but in place to keep everything on the up and up I have no issues with that.

Trying to remove the product's from the market, restrictions and or taxation would however get my dander up.