Discussion in 'FDA Regulations' started by Rathamar, Jul 28, 2017.
Image has been removed.
URL has been removed.
Email address has been removed.
Media has been removed.
Nice summary. Well said.
That's what I mean. It's impossible to tell, and I don't want to speculate, due to the fact that I don't want my speculations going anywhere they might not or should not.
As far as civil disobedience.... That's up to each individual member. IMO. I have practiced my share, now I'm older and do it more cautiously. But, I wouldn't hesitate to buy a new mod from anywhere, at this point in time.
For a product that is manufactured outside the USA, I'm reasonably sure it responsible party is the "importer of record". If a vape shop orders hardware directly from China, they are the responsible party. But if they order from a US distributor or warehouse, then the responsibility lies somewhere up the supply chain, with whomever imported it into the US to begin with.
Personally, if I were running a vape shop, I would not be ordering things directly from China unless I was darn sure (and had evidence to prove) that the exact goods I'm importing were available on the US market before 8/8/16.
I basically agree.
But regarding enforcement, it could be much more difficult for FDA to monitor and enforce sales of e-liquid products (that weren't on the market by August 8, 2016) since tens of thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of different e-liquid products have already been registered with FDA (and since the vapor products on the market on August 8, 2016 can still be registered with FDA).
Note that CTFK and other extremists have previously informed FDA of several different new cigarette sub brands that were introduced since 2007, but FDA has not yet ordered them to be removed from the market.
I don't think the changes that the new FDA Commissioner announced can be seen as any kind of negative for vaping in the U.S. but I am confused by one aspect.
The FDA has said that one of the reasons for the change to the deadline for the pmta applications is to encourage innovation in non combustibles yet they still freeze the market at 8/2016.
How can the vape industry innovate in the U.S.?
The California Lottery should have easily funded school reform.
If only that money had been used for what we were told it would be used for.
I want to know what CA spends its money on? They tax everything all the time and then go bankrupt? It's very confusing and I don't understand it at all. Who is actually gaining from all those taxes (I thought I was in another country , after we visited one time.)
I mean, it's fun, beautiful (except for parts of LA) they have tons of natural attractions for tourism, they hog much water to grow crops, I.do.not.understand. Also, the housing prices. (???)
I could easily answer that if this were the OUTSIDE! subforum.
Only if it were a particular party statement....
It most certainly would be.
I was gonna say, "Let's start a 'California' thread there. But Anna is kinda new to ECF. I don't think it would be fair to bring her into that dark, shadowy place. Probably best if she never goes there.
I saw in a recent SUck My Mod Video on this new FDA announcement that the reason we are still seeing new gear is that before the cutoff date for new products many Chinese companys did the bare minimum they needed to do to get a ton of products listed as on the market before the date. Those same companys are slowly releasing them to the public now and those are the new mods, tanks etc we are seeing now.
I didn't watch most/all of that SMM fda vlog but feel free to show me how anything released in 2017 from china was somehow on the market in July/Aug 2016........
Basically they did all the paperwork and shipped a few to the US before the 2016 date. THey established it way ahead of time. Then they just delayed releasing it to vendors. Or so SMM suggested. Do I think they all did this? No probably not but I do expect the BIG Chinese companys did. It just makes good business sense. All they have to do is show the paper trail.
Thanks for the clarification! Suspected as much and this is why this is a (very nice) reprieve and not a true victory.
Now have 4 more years to stock up!
One might take this as a signal that the FDA does not intend to enforce the the "No new products" portion of the Deeming with any enthusiasm.
Then there's also the fact that most of the industry (and innovation) is now outside the US anyway.
thanks for not showing me any proof..... i could give 2 ....s about the deeming regs or the 2007/2016 dates at this point.
I Think "Reprieve" is a Very Good word to describe what has happened. It is Also a Reprieve that spans into the Next Presidency.
And just like This President has placed his HHS Secretary/FDA Commissionaire into their respective positions, so can/will the Next. What we Need is a Permanent Congressional Solution.
Look I was clear about my source. It is the best logical explanation I have seen so far. There is no reason to be snarky because it does not meet your personal burden of proof.
Separate names with a comma.