FDA The FDA Says E-Cigarettes Are Less Harmful Than Smoking!!!!!!!!!!

[Tedlee]

The FDA Says E-Cigarettes Are Less Harmful Than Smoking | Motherboard


OMG, is reality setting in?

 

[spaceballsrules]

At one point, Harkin picked up a mod (and its plug, which, shockingly, is the "electronic" part) and said, "They’re buying these fancy things here. Look, it goes in the wall—it looks like a computer plug. I don’t know what that costs, but these are all geared toward young people."

Apparently, Senator Harkin is still trying to get used to the idea of electricity and all of these crazy thingamajigs that use it.

 

[pamdis]

OMG, is reality setting in?

Nope. They concede this point, and then go on to arugue why it doesn't matter.

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

This thread is based on: The FDA Says E-Cigarettes Are Less Harmful Than Smoking | Motherboard

That piece in Motherboard overreads some tiny tea leaves, in an attempt to persuade the reader that there's some kind of rift between the CDC and the FDA.

The writer could've done more homework. (And that's about the nicest way I can put it.)

The [FDA] ... clearly believes there is room for e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid. Whether they think that vaping—and its culture of creating smokeless, flavored nicotine juice—should continue to flourish without strict regulation is another matter.

“We’ve been given an opportunity to make a serious dent in the death and disease toll, now that we can regulate these,” Zeller said. “Let’s not lose our focus on what the primary cause is for those 480,000 avoidable deaths each year—it’s primarily burning, combusting cigarettes.”

Zeller's comments were some of the first that suggest the FDA sees vaping as inherently less harmful than smoking. [bold added]

This context-free interpretation of a few uttered sentences completely ignores the history of what the FDA did under Zeller, as well as the entire framework of the FSPTCA. (It also makes no mention of Zeller's own history as a lobbyist for Glaxo, which makes NRT products and which has already been thoroughly "busted" by the Times of London for attempting to influence the EU's draft of Art 18 in the TPD.)

In short, this article is entirely unhelpful to our cause, because it's written by a reporter who evidently thinks that a little Googling is all that's needed to understand this topic. I'm reminded of another piece put out by Motherboard in whch writer Meghan Neal cited the reader to what she thought were three distinct pieces of academic research on nicotine and cancer - but which in fact lead back to the same source. (And which didn't say what she thought it did, because she was relying on other sources' characterizations.)

Motherboard has done some good work for vapers, but the current story is just going to sow confusion out there when it comes to what vapers can realistically expect from the FDA. In its own way, this article is little better than what a small-town cub reporter typically produces for a survey piece. It's similarly replete with the misconceptions and misunderstandings that inevitably result from an attempt to grasp a complex subject based on a few fragments of misleading facts and perhaps an hour or two of casual Googling.

We're all familiar with the term "junk science." This is junk journalism.

***

BTW, I think this thread might be more topical in the Media forum.

At the very least, it's a duplicate of the other thread here in this forum: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...y-lets-truth-slip-out-lets-pay-attention.html

 

[Stosh]

This slide from 20 Years Later: Returning to FDA to Regulate Tobacco..pretty well sums it up.

 

[Bobbilly]

Now it's a nicotine policy? It was about tobacco. When did they get the mandate for nicotine control?

 

[Stosh]

Now it's a nicotine policy? It was about tobacco. When did they get the mandate for nicotine control?

Tobacco or tobacco derivatives (made from tobacco),
and interpreted in the broadest sense they can get away with.....

 

[catilley1092]

Now it's a nicotine policy? It was about tobacco. When did they get the mandate for nicotine control?

I would guess that it's because nicotine is considered an addictive substance, a drug.

Cat

 

[Bobbilly]

Without getting into the derived from a plant debate. It's still a reach now that they are calling it nicotine control policy. They only get away with it if you let them. Btw there are only still deeming it under the tobacco act.

 

[Stosh]

It's the definitions in the tobacco act, combined with the deeming regulations that will make anything with nicotine a "tobacco product" under the FDA's definition. Never said it made a lick of sense, it's legal and bureaucratic horse-puckey.

 

[Bobbilly]

No it's because the nicotine is derived from tobacco. (Although I fundamentally disagree with it) they have no control of nicotine itself (Ie from other plants. Synthetic.)

And anyone believes there is room for options. Lol

 

[Stosh]

From the FAMILY SMOKING PREVENTION AND TOBACCO CONTROL ACT

(5) to vest the Food and Drug Administration with the authority to regulate the levels of tar, nicotine, and other
harmful components of tobacco products;

The deeming regulations make e-cigs tobacco products, under the act. Stupid, crazy, unnecessary, harmful to public health, a disservice to current smokers....without any doubt.