Thank you @Bill Godshall for always bringing these to our attention. I think there were actually a lot of positives to come out of this workshop. Whether or not those positives are acknowledged by the FDA/media.
But are you going to develop a labeled acrolein so we can figure out exactly how much of that not statistically significant exposure comes from e-cigs?
Is there a link to a Re-Broadcast of these Workshops?
Or am I Looking right at it?
It's amazing that it took this long for researchers to start figuring out what is basic common sense.
But I understand how science works, so I guess I gotta cut them some slack.
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/TobaccoProducts/NewsEvents/UCM456529.pdf
Right now the 'morning session' is viewable - very little on ecigs there. The 'afternoon session' is not yet available but I'm guessing that like the morning session, it will be.
Since those who vape 0mg wouldn't get flagged with a cotinine test, they have to devise some biomarkers specific to vaping PG and/or VG, so the insurance companies will know if you're vaping. Right?
(and it isn't like this war is over - just one battle went our way, imo, and some of those guys may lose their funding )
Yup, just one battle, on one front of the war. I feel a sense of the tide slowly beginning to turn, although it may take a long time for it to completely reverse. On the other hand, with momentum, change can happen quickly.
I've always been amazed how 'good' is more contagious than 'evil' - although it almost never appears to be that way (or is 'reported' that way).....
I am feeling very cynical as of late. In the next few days there will be headlines that e-juice contains carbon 13 isotopes AND OR that they found biomarkers in vapor AND OR that through testing they have confirmed that second hand vapor affects bystanders. Every time positive things come out some ANTZ twists it into being a negative and that is what the public perceives. Unfortunately for us perception is reality.
I cannot see (although I should know better :- ) how the FDA could possible go forward with the deeming as written, with these comments from basically - people on their side. (or who have in the past been on their side against ecigs).
Didn't they try that before? And wasn't the net result that people just smoked more cigarettes?Well, this may well be what they're thinking: A Glimpse into the Regulatory Future of Vaping | Vaping.com
FYI, I sat on a panel discussion with Dorothy Hatsukami and Eric Lindblom. It's quite clear to me that the overall desire on their part is for the FDA to be very light touch on e-cigs, while enacting the authority they have to reduce nicotine in smoked tobacco.
The idea being that cigarettes will become less addictive (leading to fewer new smokers), and those smokers who want or need nicotine will migrate to vaping.
Didn't they try that before? And wasn't the net result that people just smoked more cigarettes?
Didn't they try that before? And wasn't the net result that people just smoked more cigarettes?
@Lessifer Well, they're conducting studies right now at tcors centres.
It's true that low-tar/low-nicotine cigarettes are just as addictive and dangerous as full-strength. But we're talking about nicotine levels massively lower than found in the current smoking market.
The two questions are: would lowering nicotine in cigarettes to the extent allowed by FSPTCA prevent new users becoming addicted, and would the level be low enough that existing smokers would not be able to compensate by smoking more/inhaling more deeply and would instead chose alternative sources of nicotine?
If, for example, it's decided that the first is true (although it can't be empirically derived for obvious ethical reasons), but the net effect is that smoking becomes more dangerous for existing smokers, would they still push for it?
Here's a great, open access, article by Lynn Kozlowski on the current situation: Elsevier: Article Locator