This is what I've been talking about for a year now

[freakindahouse]

Hi all,

What a fascinating discussion! Just thought I'd wade in and officially let you all know that, in the UK at least, a small but growing group of suppliers (and our one UK-based eliquid manufacturer) HAS made a genuine commitment to compliance with the relevant regulatory requirements. ECITA has been making excellent progress in achieving good, communicative and co-operative relationships with our Trading Standards Officers, and we shall be taking this (and other arguments) back to the MHRA on the 28th of this month. At this meeting, we hope to demonstrate to the MHRA that ecigs are not medicines, and to reclassify them as such would be to do serious harm to public health. (We have had legal advice to suggest that the legal statutes and case law precedents from the European Court of Justice on which we rely are solid and well-reasoned.)

We hope to be able to show the MHRA that we already have a suitable, enforceable and SAFE set of regulations, fully enforceable by Trading Standards - who have offered an astonishing level of support for our program - and so they do not have any need or remit to interfere.

I shall post again (somewhere on this forum!) after the meeting, to provide further information.

BTW, since its inception, ECITA has hoped to become an international organisation at some point, but for now, we have been focussed exclusively on the UK situation with the MHRA, since that was the original reason for our formation.

The attempt to reclassify ecigs as a tobacco product is, I believe, also a mistake. I have discussed this at some length with Bill Godshall, Adrian Payne, Paul Bergen, Carl Phillips, James Dunworth (and many others!), and there just doesn't seem to be any justification for it. The ecig industry is entirely separate from Big Pharma AND from Big tobacco, but this does not mean that an entirely new regulatory framework needs to be invented, just for ecigs. The best analogy I can draw is this: everyone (well, nearly everyone!) has a bottle of household bleach in the cupboard under the sink in the kitchen. (I'm sure someone will jump in and point out that they don't, but realistically, most do! LOL) Household bleach contains dangerous chemicals and yet most of us still want to have it in our homes. How is this achieved with an acceptable level of safety? Bleach is supplied in a child-proof container, and is covered in hazard warnings and symbols, so that we all know the risks (as consumers), and can hopefully be trusted to use bleach responsibly.

I would venture to suggest that most countries in the world have an appropriate regulatory framework for bleach. That is where ecigs regulation belongs.

Just my humble....

Katherine Devlin
Operations Manager
ECITA

 

[lonercom]

Great point freakindahouse and thanks for sharing.

In the US, I think alot more of the future of ecigs hangs on the response to the FDA warning letters than the NJOY case. I can't wait to see how the parties involve respond and how the FDA feels about that response. I believe that it's possible that the FDA might more amenable to compromise than another loss with The US Supreme Court.

 

[GoodDog]

Oh..they took it down, maybe in light of the recent FDA crap rearing it's ugly head again.

It was a tour of the Puresmoker set-up.

There's a few pictures here.

 

[freakindahouse]

Well, let's just hope they're not stupid enough to want to keep on getting kicked around courtrooms. This industry is still in its infancy as yet, and can't really afford to be going through court proceedings ad nauseam!

I am sorry not to be turning my attentions to the US yet, but we really have to clean up our own house in the UK first. Rest assured, however, that once we have won here, we'll try to lend a helping hand to you guys too!

I wish more of the vendors - all over the world - would recognise the benefits of engaging with sensible regulation! It makes so much more sense than running cowboy outfits, making dodgy and unsubstantiated claims, and selling dangerously improperly-packaged products! Grrrrr - it makes my blood boil!

Cheers,

Katherine

 

[lonercom]

I did a little digging and found the video tour that Leaford from Vapor4Life did of the manufacturing facility in Shenzen, China. After I watched it a few times, I saw the Boge logo. Since Boge is a division of DeKang I think it's safe to assume that the facilities are the same. Big thanks to Leaford and Steve at Vapor4Life for the vid.

YouTube - dhenschel05's Channel

 

[Pav]

Thought I heard V4L will be adding or switching to USA made juice. Maybe easier to avoid customs that way, but will it be better for us consumers? Not sure.

 

[markarich159]

I did a little digging and found the video tour that Leaford from Vapor4Life did of the manufacturing facility in Shenzen, China. After I watched it a few times, I saw the Boge logo. Since Boge is a division of DeKang I think it's safe to assume that the facilities are the same. Big thanks to Leaford and Steve at Vapor4Life for the vid.

YouTube - dhenschel05's Channel

Yes, as I brought up earlier in the thread, that China video(which is excellent in showing the proper way to manufacture a product such as this) is Definitely Dekang/Boge. Since I saw that video several months ago, I've almost exclusively bought only what I could verify to be DK/Boge.

Thank you Katherine for your input. It seems the ECA could learn much from your industry advocacy group(ECITA). Although, since the legal/regulatory structure in the US is quite different from the UK's, the legal machinations would/will be much different, and probably more complex, here in the US. Good luck with you hearing on the 28th!!!! I wish you success. When you're successful, please continue your efforts to aasist us here on this side of the pond.

 

[freakindahouse]

Thanks for the well-wishes, Mark. Slogging through the meeting transcripts, strategy docs, Impact Assessments, etc., etc. and it's DOING MY HEAD IN!!!!!!!!!!

But it'll all be worth it in the end!

I shall certainly hope to be able to do something wider than just the UK when this one's kicked into touch....

Happy vaping!

 

[markarich159]

Happy Vaping to you as well Katherine and, once again, best wishes and good luck.

To continue beating a dead horse with respect to vendor irresponsibilty; here's a post(again from another similar thread concerning the recent RATH juice incident);

HawtAngel muses:

The way I see it this is no longer about Rath hes gone hiding no supplier is gonna buy his juice again the word is out. But now we have suppliers still selling this garbage and it is garbage my order made me vomit literally. If we know this juice is bad why hasn't it been recalled. There are still lots of vendors trying to unload this crap on us and its wrong. To say they will take a hit well I know as a business woman for over 20 yrs sometimes you take a hit and in the end its a tax write off so no loss in the end. Even now that we know the FDA is watching closely we are not willing to self police will leave them no choice but to step in and police us. So if you really care about us your customers please stop selling this garbage.

GREAT POINT Hawt. The 1st thing some, not all, RATH suppliers did when they found out the RATH juice was at the very least, not what people had paid for; at the worst possibly bad, tainted, or dangerous was not pull them off the shelves and recall what they had recently sold - NO, quite the opposite- While publicly bashing RATH on the forums and in videos they, with complete impunity, put their remaining RATH stock on CLEARANCE. CLEARANCE!!!! So they could sell even more of these, already established as bad, lot(s) of juice before people knew what was going on. That is just horrendous!!!! And more proof that some, not all, vendors are in this industry for the quick buck.

The funny thing is, some vapers, even knowing what had occured, thought this clearance was the greatest thing sinced sliced bread. Who do you blame(besides RATH), the irresponsible suppliers who didn't immediately recall and dump their remaining stock; or the knowing and willing vaping consumers who bought and vaped the junk.

 

[freakindahouse]

That's where the UK has got it sussed: if anyone in the UK - vendor, supplier, consumer, or non-vaper - found out that this was happening with a batch of eliquid, and distributors were being wilfully irresponsible about it, anyone of the aforementioned could simply pick up the phone and report it to Trading Standards who would enforce appropriate action against said irresponsible distributor.

Your FDA needs to get its house in order!

 

[markarich159]

That's where the UK has got it sussed: if anyone in the UK - vendor, supplier, consumer, or non-vaper - found out that this was happening with a batch of eliquid, and distributors were being wilfully irresponsible about it, anyone of the aforementioned could simply pick up the phone and report it to Trading Standards who would enforce appropriate action against said irresponsible distributor.

Your FDA needs to get its house in order!

I hear what you're saying, however, here's where the legal/regulatory differences between UK & US come into play. There currently is no analagous "Trading Standards" organization in the US for ecigs( which definitely would be nice), except maybe the Consumer Products Safety Commision(and they're worse then FDA). And since ecigs were initially marketed so deplorably in the US, there is no clear current category for them to fall into. The FDA is simply doing what it's mandated to do via the Food , drug & Cosmetic Act- ecigs initially were marketed in the US making overt health claims(without any scientific data to back it up) and FDA is, correctly, saying, in effect, "you claim these to have health benefits, therefore, they fall under the category of drugs, therefore, file the appropriate IND's , NDA's and show us the clinical study data as any other entity making health claims would. Also, since these are drugs, they have to be manufactured in strict accordance with our cGMP(current good manufacturing practices)." The initial marketers , unfortunately, made their bed and now must lie in it. I have expressed many times that I wished there was a time machine or do-over button I could press and go back 3 years; but my knowledge of General relativity and quantum mechanics is not quite up to the "building a time machine" level.

Anyway, time to go again, good night to all.

P.S. By the way Katherine, I've always Loved that word...Sussed (ever since I heard We're Not Gonna Take it by the Who)

 

[freakindahouse]

Presumably, your CPSC is responsible for the regulation of household bleach? To which end, according to my detailed understanding of European/UK law, and my (albeit somewhat limited, but fairly informed!) knowledge of US Law, the CPSC ought also to be responsible for the regulation of ecigs. (BTW, am I correct in thinking that the CPSC operates at the State level, rather than Federal?) If the CPSC doesn't know how to regulate these things properly, it is down to the industry to train them! This is what we have done with Trading Standards over here: I wrote a document, with an explanation of the history of ecigs, and annex listing the precise regulatory requirements which apply to these products, in terms of labelling, packaging, etc,etc., all linked to the original legal statutes/regulatory instruments, so that Trading Standards Officers could check for themselves, and a further annex detailing the evidence which could be gathered for enforcement officers to be able to enforce against breaches of the Smoking Ban, while leaving legal vapers well alone.

I have then taken this pack to each of ECITA's members, helped them to comply with the legal requirements, and then met with their TSO's, so that vendors and regulators can sing from the same hymn sheet.

What can I say? It works!

Someone needs to do that for you guys, and it would be best if it were the vendors. (Happy to advise, if anyone wants some help with it.)

Cheers,

Katherine

P.S. Who are you? Who? Who?, Who? Who? ROFL

 

[CJsKee]

Thanks for the information, Katherine! Ya know, I remember Kate (our smokin' nun) questioning why the e-cig had to be regulated in the U.S. as either a drug/delivery device or a tobacco product. Everyone in the discussion was adamant that those were the only two choices we had. I did wonder at the time if that was really the only way it could be. As far as I know, nicotine is not a controlled substance, and is only classified as a drug if it is used to treat nicotine addiction -- why then couldn't e-cigs be regulated as strictly consumer products? What you say makes so much sense, and would solve a lot of problems, too! I don't know--Mark may be right about it being too late, but maybe not. It sure would be something for our vendors to check into.

 

[lonercom]

freak, I'm not sure whether the CPSC, which BTW is a federal agency, The ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms), FDA or even the department of agriculture would have authority here. Of course, neither do they. Most likely the FDA Would still have jurisdiction as the juice is for human consumption. CPSC probably over the attys and batts, and lets not forget out Federal, State and Local Taxing authorities. Did I mention the US Postal Inspectors jurisdiction over articles sent through the mails?

CJsKee, I totally agree and that's what makes the most recent warning letters so intriguing. I don't think it's too late for anyone but NJOY and even that lawsuit can go away if things play out well on this front. We'll see what the lawyers and regulators come up with in the next few weeks.

 

[freakindahouse]

I don't see how nicotine could ever be made a controlled substance - Big Tobacco and Big Pharma would NEVER let that happen! Therefore, I fail to see how any agency can justify over-regulating it. It is on a par with caffeine, in terms of physiological effects on the body, and yet we don't see the regulators jumping up and down and insisting that those specially-designed 'stop-people-burning-their-hands' coffee cups are a 'drug-device combination', now do we? LOL And our bottles of eliquid are no more dangerous than household bleach unless they are not labelled properly, and supplied in child-proof containers.

Wake up and smell the vapour, US regulators! LOL

Cheers,

Katherine

 

[Vocalek]

I hear what you're saying, however, here's where the legal/regulatory differences between UK & US come into play. There currently is no analagous "Trading Standards" organization in the US for ecigs( which definitely would be nice), except maybe the Consumer Products Safety Commision(and they're worse then FDA). And since ecigs were initially marketed so deplorably in the US, there is no clear current category for them to fall into. The FDA is simply doing what it's mandated to do via the Food , drug & Cosmetic Act- ecigs initially were marketed in the US making overt health claims(without any scientific data to back it up) and FDA is, correctly, saying, in effect, "you claim these to have health benefits, therefore, they fall under the category of drugs, therefore, file the appropriate IND's , NDA's and show us the clinical study data as any other entity making health claims would. Also, since these are drugs, they have to be manufactured in strict accordance with our cGMP(current good manufacturing practices)." The initial marketers , unfortunately, made their bed and now must lie in it. I have expressed many times that I wished there was a time machine or do-over button I could press and go back 3 years; but my knowledge of General relativity and quantum mechanics is not quite up to the "building a time machine" level.

Anyway, time to go again, good night to all.

P.S. By the way Katherine, I've always Loved that word...Sussed (ever since I heard We're Not Gonna Take it by the Who)

Ironically, there is at least one e-cig company that never made any health claims whatsoever, that marketed their product as an alternative to smoking from day one.

Their product labels contained disclaimers such as "XX products are not a smoking cessation product and have not been tested as such."

The labels also contained a considerable number and types of warnings:
"XX products are intended for use by those of legal smoking age and older, not by nonsmokers or chldren, nuring or pregnant women or persons with or at risk of heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, or taking medicine fo rdepression or asthma. Consult a physician if you experience nicotine misuse symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, dizziness, ........, weakness or rapid heartbeat. If you smoke tobacco products, you are encouraged to stop. Please keep XX product out of reach of children and pets; ingestion of the certain pieces can present a choking hazard, and ingestion of the non-vaporized concentrated ingredients in the cartridges can be poisonous." Also on another panel: "Warning: Nicotine is addictive and habit forming." "Tested in the USA, globally distributed."

So there you have it: A company that played by the rules. No smoking cessation claims, no claims of improved health. Proper warnings.

The name of this company? NJOY

 

[markarich159]

Ironically, there is at least one e-cig company that never made any health claims whatsoever, that marketed their product as an alternative to smoking from day one.

Their product labels contained disclaimers such as "XX products are not a smoking cessation product and have not been tested as such."

The labels also contained a considerable number and types of warnings:
"XX products are intended for use by those of legal smoking age and older, not by nonsmokers or chldren, nuring or pregnant women or persons with or at risk of heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, or taking medicine fo rdepression or asthma. Consult a physician if you experience nicotine misuse symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, dizziness, ........, weakness or rapid heartbeat. If you smoke tobacco products, you are encouraged to stop. Please keep XX product out of reach of children and pets; ingestion of the certain pieces can present a choking hazard, and ingestion of the non-vaporized concentrated ingredients in the cartridges can be poisonous." Also on another panel: "Warning: Nicotine is addictive and habit forming." "Tested in the USA, globally distributed."

So there you have it: A company that played by the rules. No smoking cessation claims, no claims of improved health. Proper warnings.

The name of this company? NJOY

That is not exactly true: this is from a story from ABC15 in Arizona:

A Scottsdale company, Sottera, Inc. which sells NJOY has been accused of targeting minors.

In a settlement with the California Attorney General's Office, Sottera agreed not to sell e-cigs to minors, to not sell different flavors, and not advertise that it can help people quit smoking or that they are safer without any scientific proof.

Why would Sottera/NJOY settle/agree not to sell to minors and to discontinue advertising smoking cessation claims/health claims with the CA AG office(and pay $85,000 in fines) if they had not previously been caught doing so?? It makes no sense, obviously someone or several people witnessed them making health claims, etc... Just because they've whitewashed their labeling due to this settlement or other previous legal encounters only proves my point, that it takes someone MAKING these vendors do the right thing in order to make it so.

Here's another source on this:

Co. can’t claim e-cig’s a safe alternative - Healthy Living : The Orange County Register

ALL ecig distributors, at one point or another, have made overt health claims either verbally or in their written marketing literature(and some still are), that was the whole initial marketing tactic and the 1st thing I remember ever hearing about ecigs. And I'm sure there are forum members that can attest to seeing Njoy salesmen at kiosks making overt health claims at some point in the past 3 years(whether they want to admit to it or not). I have had the SE kiosk saleswoman at my Local Lehigh Valley Mall actually argue with me; claiming the ecig(s) she was selling were not only proven to be effective for smoking cessation, but had actually been APPROVED by the FDA(I have heard many other such stories on this and other forums)

The point is, it's got to stop and the manufacturers vendors must start respecting reasonable safety/QC measures.

 

[markarich159]

A very interesting article(pay particular attention to the diacetyl reference in the Do No Harm? section & the entire A Secretive Industry section):

Your Kids Buy E-Cigs; Do You Know What's in Them?

From the article:
"FDA is aware of reports of short-term side effects from the use of electronic cigarettes, including racing pulse, dizziness, slurred speech, mouth ulcers, heartburn, coughing, ........ and sore throat,"

The only way the FDA would be aware of these adverse reactions would be through Doctor or Consumer reporting via their MEDWATCH program. So vapers (whether on these forums or not) are troubled enough by symptoms to contact and inform the FDA. These , by definition, are "short term" adverse reactions. The question is, what are the "long term" adverse reactions??????? This is why longitudinal safety studies are usually indicated before a product is introduced to market. Now, again, are ecigs still safer then smoking?(most likely, without a doubt); But safe in and of themselves without making comparisons to smoking(unknown) and this is what the FDA is concerned about. We as vapers(and ex-smokers) always want to tout ecig safety AS COMPARED to smoking. The FDA is unconcerned with this comparison(as they are mandated to be); they simply want to know-are ecigs/eliquid safe in the short and long term(compared to breathing fresh air).

 

[kristin]

That is not exactly true: this is from a story from ABC15 in Arizona:

A Scottsdale company, Sottera, Inc. which sells NJOY has been accused of targeting minors.

In a settlement with the California Attorney General's Office, Sottera agreed not to sell e-cigs to minors, to not sell different flavors, and not advertise that it can help people quit smoking or that they are safer without any scientific proof.

Why would Sottera/NJOY settle/agree not to sell to minors and to discontinue advertising smoking cessation claims/health claims with the CA AG office(and pay $85,000 in fines) if they had not previously been caught doing so?? It makes no sense, obviously someone or several people witnessed them making health claims, etc... Just because they've whitewashed their labeling due to this settlement or other previous legal encounters only proves my point, that it takes someone MAKING these vendors do the right thing in order to make it so.

Here's another source on this:

Co. can’t claim e-cig’s a safe alternative - Healthy Living : The Orange County Register

ALL ecig distributors, at one point or another, have made overt health claims either verbally or in their written marketing literature(and some still are), that was the whole initial marketing tactic and the 1st thing I remember ever hearing about ecigs. And I'm sure there are forum members that can attest to seeing Njoy salesmen at kiosks making overt health claims at some point in the past 3 years(whether they want to admit to it or not).

The point is, it's got to stop and the manufacturers vendors must start respecting reasonable safety/QC measures.

They settled. That is not an admission of guilt, that is a way to avoid getting into another lawsuit when they are already in a lawsuit with the FDA. We've seen what these legislators consider "claims" and not all of us even agree that consumer testimonial constitute a claim of intended use.

The FDA considers claims of smoking cessation as proof that the product is treating or abating a disease or illness. Since when has smoking been considered a recognized illness or disease? Nicotine addiction is the recognised disease and a product which encourages the continued use of nicotine could hardly be considered a treatment for that disease. That's like saying Nyquil could be a treatment for alcoholism.

A very interesting article(pay particular attention to the diacetyl reference in the Do No Harm? section & the entire A Secretive Industry section):

Your Kids Buy E-Cigs; Do You Know What's in Them?

From the article:
"FDA is aware of reports of short-term side effects from the use of electronic cigarettes, including racing pulse, dizziness, slurred speech, mouth ulcers, heartburn, coughing, ........ and sore throat,"

The only way the FDA would be aware of these adverse reactions would be through Doctor or Consumer reporting via their MEDWATCH program. So vapers (whether on these forums or not) are troubled enough by symptoms to contact and inform the FDA. These , by definition, are "short term" adverse reactions. The question is, what are the "long term" adverse reactions??????? This is why longitudinal safety studies are usually indicated before a product is introduced to market. Now, again, are ecigs still safer then smoking?(most likely, without a doubt); But safe in and of themselves without making comparisons to smoking(unknown) and this is what the FDA is concerned about. We as vapers(and ex-smokers) always want to tout ecig safety AS COMPARED to smoking. The FDA is unconcerned with this comparison(as they are mandated to be); they simply want to know-are ecigs/eliquid safe in the short and long term(compared to breathing fresh air).

I've checked the MedWatch report from July 2009 (the time of the first FDA warning) through the most recent report and found only 2 reports on adverse health reactions to e-ciagrettes - one for blurry vision and the other for depression.

They seem to have seen the effects reported on e-cigarette forums and used those as a basis for their comment. Considering that a lot of newbs mistake the side effects of quitting smoking with possible side effects of vaping. According to the CASAA survey, all of those side effects are very rare, with the most frequent side effect being dry/sore throat.

Racing pulse: Never 89.5% Not Anymore 5.5% Rarely 6.5% Occasionally 1.8% Frequently 0.2% Always 0.1%
Dizziness: Never 90.4% Not Anymore 4.9% Rarely 3.7% Occasionally 0.8% Frequently 0.1% Always 0.1%
Slurred speech: Never 98.5% Not Anymore 0.6% Rarely 0.7% Occasionally 0.1% Frequently 0% Always 0%
Mouth ulcers/sores: Never 86.1% Not Anymore 6.0% Rarely 4.9% Occasionally 2.6% Frequently 0.2% Always 0%
Heartburn: Not asked
Coughing (also a side effect of quitting smoking): Never 63.6% Not Anymore 12.6% Rarely 18.1% Occasionally 5.2% Frequently 0.4% Always 0.1%
........: Never 91.0% Not Anymore 3.8% Rarely 3.5% Occasionally 1.4% Frequently 0.1% Always 0.1%
Dry/Sore throat: Never 41.8% Not Anymore 16.7% Rarely 22.3% Occasionally 16.1% Frequently 2.7% Always 0.3%

Looking at these figures, these are hardly "common" symptoms, even in the short-term. Once again, very misrepresented.

And it doesn't matter what the FDA wants to compare these to. The fact of the matter is that the intended use is for people who weren't breathing fresh air, they were breathing SMOKE. These products aren't meant for those breathing fresh any more than a Krispy Kreme is meant for someone with diabetes. The FDA is not authorized to ignore the intended use of a product. If they are concerned about these products getting into the hands of people who ARE just breathing fresh air, they need to use the law to regulate that, but don't deny a product to the people who are obviously benefitting from it.

And the effects of diacetyl are well known on the forums and have been discussed at length - which is why you won't see reputable merchants selling popcorn or butter-flavored liquids.

 

[markarich159]

They settled. That is not an admission of guilt, that is a way to avoid getting into another lawsuit when they are already in a lawsuit with the FDA. We've seen what these legislators consider "claims" and not all of us even agree that consumer testimonial constitute a claim of intended use.

The FDA considers claims of smoking cessation as proof that the product is treating or abating a disease or illness. Since when has smoking been considered a recognized illness or disease? Nicotine addiction is the recognised disease and a product which encourages the continued use of nicotine could hardly be considered a treatment for that disease. That's like saying Nyquil could be a treatment for alcoholism.



I've checked the MedWatch report from July 2009 (the time of the first FDA warning) through the most recent report and found only 2 reports on adverse health reactions to e-ciagrettes - one for blurry vision and the other for depression.

They seem to have seen the effects reported on e-cigarette forums and used those as a basis for their comment. Considering that a lot of newbs mistake the side effects of quitting smoking with possible side effects of vaping. According to the CASAA survey, all of those side effects are very rare, with the most frequent side effect being dry/sore throat.

Racing pulse: Never 89.5% Not Anymore 5.5% Rarely 6.5% Occasionally 1.8% Frequently 0.2% Always 0.1%
Dizziness: Never 90.4% Not Anymore 4.9% Rarely 3.7% Occasionally 0.8% Frequently 0.1% Always 0.1%
Slurred speech: Never 98.5% Not Anymore 0.6% Rarely 0.7% Occasionally 0.1% Frequently 0% Always 0%
Mouth ulcers/sores: Never 86.1% Not Anymore 6.0% Rarely 4.9% Occasionally 2.6% Frequently 0.2% Always 0%
Heartburn: Not asked
Coughing (also a side effect of quitting smoking): Never 63.6% Not Anymore 12.6% Rarely 18.1% Occasionally 5.2% Frequently 0.4% Always 0.1%
........: Never 91.0% Not Anymore 3.8% Rarely 3.5% Occasionally 1.4% Frequently 0.1% Always 0.1%
Dry/Sore throat: Never 41.8% Not Anymore 16.7% Rarely 22.3% Occasionally 16.1% Frequently 2.7% Always 0.3%

Looking at these figures, these are hardly "common" symptoms, even in the short-term. Once again, very misrepresented.

And it doesn't matter what the FDA wants to compare these to. The fact of the matter is that the intended use is for people who weren't breathing fresh air, they were breathing SMOKE. These products aren't meant for those breathing fresh any more than a Krispy Kreme is meant for someone with diabetes. The FDA is not authorized to ignore the intended use of a product. If they are concerned about these products getting into the hands of people who ARE just breathing fresh air, they need to use the law to regulate that, but don't deny a product to the people who are obviously benefitting from it. And your still touting that ecigs are to be used for Nicotine addiction(that's a medical/health claim)

And the effects of diacetyl are well known on the forums and have been discussed at length - which is why you won't see reputable merchants selling popcorn or butter-flavored liquids.

They settled. That is not an admission of guilt - that is SO something an attorney would say; the point is why were they in court to settle in the 1st place.

That article was from today, not July 2009(so MedWatch from a year ago would be dated - FDA also does not list online ALL of the reported Adverse Events especially for products that are unapproved or have no viable NDC#). And a CASAA survey is, how can I put this, a bit biased to say the least; completely non-randomized to say the worst. And yes it DOES matter what the FDA wants to compare ecigs to #1. because that's the law and ecigs get no special exemption #2. I , and others, want to know if ecigs are indeed safe, short and long term. Diacetly is used in ALOT more then just popcorn and butter flavor-it's 2-3 butanedione-and can be used in many formulations to add a buttery richness or consistency to a formulation, so who are the disreputable merchants using it? do you know?. And your still touting that ecigs can and are to be safely used for maintenance or cessation of Nicotine addiction(that's a medical/health claim regardless if smoking cessation is mentioned)- just as methadone is used for the maintenance of opiate addiction.

I think Katherine from ECITA may be able to offer you some better solutions to working through the current FDA and ecig industry issues, rather then lambasting any vaping consumer who may have a contrary opinion(and this hasn't been the 1st time) to how the industry has developed so far in the US; as well as a concern to the safety/QC issues grossly apparent in the industry(i.e. unqualified, untrained persons producing unregulated liquid intended for direct pulmonary inhalation in their home with no regard for any typical industry quality control standards). I would think to CASAA, being a consumer advocacy group, whose mission statement includes " to encourage the testing and development of products to achieve acceptable safety standards and reasonable regulation"; this would be a complete affront to the industry and something deserving of top PRIORITY in order to keep vaping consumers safe.

P.S. Here's the 2nd part to the previous article I posted(now although I don't agree with everything mentioned in either of these articles, I do think they illustrate some marketing tactics that ecig vendors have used-and they HAVE used them- which has gotten the whole industry in hot water) This article addresses the Vaping on airplanes myth:

http://www.aolnews.com/discuss/desp...tes-on-a-plane-and-they-wont-cure-ed/19633988