FDA URGENT - US Senate HELP Committee - Thursday 2:30pm
- Thread starter rolygate
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Yup, because that makes A LOT OF sense! Kids LOVE flavors!!!!
/sarcasm off?
LOL
Good find Aik! (I'm poking fun at the article you found... not you!)
In the first few minutes, Harkins also refers to an "investigative report" and then he says "just go and read it" which was his base for 'marketing towards kids' - What report is he talking about?
Also what video game is there to win Facebook coupons to redeem for ecigs? I want some.
Also what video game is there to win Facebook coupons to redeem for ecigs? I want some.
OK, now that I have calmed down and have some pizza in me, I can give a bit better post on my thoughts. Sen. Harkin proved that he knew very little about the subject matter at hand. Now, I don't mind if someone is misinformed, there is nothing wrong with it, it happens, we've all been there, but this isn't that case. Sen. Harkin proved that he had some sort of agenda and it was completely misplaced.
Just because some has a nice picture of a Popsicle on their juice bottle, doesn't mean it's marketed at kids. Still, time and time again, this Senator would go back to this, as if it were fact. Yes, I'm sure there are kids getting e-cigs and yes I'm sure they can get the juice, but that doesn't mean it's marketed towards them. Kids are able to get Grey Goose Vanilla Vodka, doesn't mean Grey Goose is marketing it's Vodka to children because it says Vanilla and has a nice Goose on it.
Just because some has a nice picture of a Popsicle on their juice bottle, doesn't mean it's marketed at kids. Still, time and time again, this Senator would go back to this, as if it were fact. Yes, I'm sure there are kids getting e-cigs and yes I'm sure they can get the juice, but that doesn't mean it's marketed towards them. Kids are able to get Grey Goose Vanilla Vodka, doesn't mean Grey Goose is marketing it's Vodka to children because it says Vanilla and has a nice Goose on it.
I just had to watch the first 4 minutes... and have already decided that Harkin is a {{insert choice descriptive comments here}}. That REALLY riles me up, the sheer willful ignorance. I shouldn't have watched that right before going to sleep... NOW I'm upset 
Gonna have a hard time going to sleep now.
Stupid makes me angry.
Gonna have a hard time going to sleep now.
Stupid makes me angry.
If you turn up the volume to max you can make it out...
"You're making yourself into a complete laughing stock, you doofus"
Pink Spot just released Creamed Spinach e-liquid just for him?
Here's another that I don't know if I simply don't have enough information, but....
Sen. Burr made some good points on harm reduction and how 'innovation' and new electronics has helped in other area and could be in this. I just love the 'wait, what if this gets people off cigarettes' type line.
However, this 'innovation argument was countered by both Harkin and McAfee. McAfee brought it up (again without transcripts) that innovation in cigarettes made things worse - citing the higher lung cancer stats with the smoking stats going down. He mentions how 'newer cigarettes' had better draws, therefore... blah, blah, blah... Now perhaps that 'newer cig' was in the last 5 years but before that, draw was restricted with holes and filters - Carlton being the first to go out in the ashtray, iirc and then it wasn't intended
The point here and the reason for my first line above - these 'new innovations' such as low tar and lower nicotine were their own regulations weren't they? A bit like the CAFE standards, you can still have the 'unfiltered Camel' (Hummer) but you have to have some low tars/low nics (fiestas/volts/hybrids) as part of the whole line up. BTW, again, unless I've missed something in the last 5 years, unfiltered Camels having no filter at all, had a better draw than any other cig, imo. How McAfee can say that with a straight face (wait his face is always straight.. anyway) I don't know. It goes against all people who have ever smoked cigarettes over a decade or two.
So it wasn't innovation that didn't work, it was regulation that didn't work and one of the reasons that have been stated on other threads is that when they went with the low tar and low nic, people were smoking more to get the nic blood levels back to 'normal' (for them). I don't suppose it couldn't be that, instead of innovation. That argument, as far as I'm concerned doesn't have a kernel of truth or any weight to anyone who has ever smoked.
Sen. Burr made some good points on harm reduction and how 'innovation' and new electronics has helped in other area and could be in this. I just love the 'wait, what if this gets people off cigarettes' type line.
However, this 'innovation argument was countered by both Harkin and McAfee. McAfee brought it up (again without transcripts) that innovation in cigarettes made things worse - citing the higher lung cancer stats with the smoking stats going down. He mentions how 'newer cigarettes' had better draws, therefore... blah, blah, blah... Now perhaps that 'newer cig' was in the last 5 years but before that, draw was restricted with holes and filters - Carlton being the first to go out in the ashtray, iirc and then it wasn't intended
The point here and the reason for my first line above - these 'new innovations' such as low tar and lower nicotine were their own regulations weren't they? A bit like the CAFE standards, you can still have the 'unfiltered Camel' (Hummer) but you have to have some low tars/low nics (fiestas/volts/hybrids) as part of the whole line up. BTW, again, unless I've missed something in the last 5 years, unfiltered Camels having no filter at all, had a better draw than any other cig, imo. How McAfee can say that with a straight face (wait his face is always straight.. anyway) I don't know. It goes against all people who have ever smoked cigarettes over a decade or two.
So it wasn't innovation that didn't work, it was regulation that didn't work and one of the reasons that have been stated on other threads is that when they went with the low tar and low nic, people were smoking more to get the nic blood levels back to 'normal' (for them). I don't suppose it couldn't be that, instead of innovation. That argument, as far as I'm concerned doesn't have a kernel of truth or any weight to anyone who has ever smoked.
Last edited:
As I posted on Tuesday, in the first thread on this topic, here is the letter I sent to Senator Isakson on Tuesday of this week:
To: Senator Isakson
From: ****** ******,Lawrenceville, GA
RE: Committee Hearing on Tobacco (and E-cigarette) Regulation, May 15, 2014
Senator Isakson,
I am seriously concerned that this hearing, as constituted by Senator Harkin, will not provide you with an accurate and unbiased analysis of the use of electronic cigarettes in America, today. We, who have broken free of smoking by using this product, do not even like the term “electronic cigarette” as it is an extreme misnomer as to the product’s functionality. We use the term “personal vaporizer” or “vaping” since a safe vapor, produced primarily by propylene glycol, is what this product produces. Propylene glycol is used in theatrical “fog” at concerts, asthma inhalers, toothpaste and many other consumed products and is deemed safe by the FDA for human consumption/exposure.
Briefly, my personal story is that I was a 30 year, pack a day smoker, who tried numerous times to quit smoking using the recommended pharmaceutical NRT products, nicotine gum, patches, inhalers and the horrible Chantix. It wasn't until I tried vaping in 2009 that I was successful in breaking free from tobacco use. I also found at this time, that the Big Pharmaceutical company products have a 93% failure rate. So my feelings of being a weak failure for years, was significantly misplaced.
The two individuals appearing before this panel, Mitch Zeller and Tim McAfee, have clearly demonstrated a strong bias against the use of personal vaporizers as a proven, much safer alternative to smoking. If this bias was supported by scientific evidence, I would not be writing to you. Instead, the scientific evidence to date clearly shows that “Vaping” is “orders of magnitude” safer than smoking for the user and completely safe for those near by the user. I will provide you references to these studies to support this fact. Mr. Zeller’s and Mr. McAfee’s published “concerns” are predicated on “perceived possible” harm that is not supported by scientific research, even by their own agencies. Yet, there are actual facts that “Vaping” has allowed at least hundreds of thousands and more probably millions of former smokers to break free of tobacco use, which any rational adult would support.
I could go on for pages, in support of “Vaping” as a safe alternative to smoking, which should not be mostly regulated out of existence by the FDA’s proposed Deeming Regulation. Instead, I am asking you to do the following as one of your constituents:
1. Request that the following Tobacco Control experts be asked to testify before your committee:
Dr. Michael B. Siegel, MD, Professor, Boston University
Mr. Bill Godshall, President Smokefree Pennsylvania
Dr. Carl V. Phillips, Professor of Public Health, Epidemiological Consultant, Scientific Director of CASAA (Consumer Advocates for Smokefree Alternative Association) – Non-profit, non-industry aligned, consumer advocacy organization.
Ms. Julie Woessner, JD, President CASAA
2. Understand that the two industries that have the most to gain, monetarily, from the FDA’s proposed Deeming Regulations, are the Big Pharmaceutical Industry and the Big Tobacco Industry. Question Mr. Zeller as to his past association as a lobbyist for the Pharmaceutical industry and the influence it has on his current position on the use of personal vaporizers.
3. Question Mr. Zeller on the FDA’s past attempt to ban “Vaping” nationwide in 2009-2010 based on their false interpretation of their study of 18 e-liquid cartridges during that time frame. They reported at that time that their study found TSNA’s (known to cause cancer) in several of these cartridges which supported their action to ban and seize these products.
What they failed to reveal until they published their results months later, was that the TSNA’s found was at “trace levels”, not considered harmful to humans AND were the same levels found in nicotine gum, patches and inhalers that they have approved for indefinite use. This disingenuous and dishonest use of their own data, calls into serious question their current drive to fairly regulate the Vaping industry.
4. Question Mr. Zellar on the economic impact of their Deeming Regulations on small businesses in the state of Georgia, as well as across the country. These regulations, due to the millions of dollars required to meet the regulations, will allow only the large tobacco companies to provide the required documentation. The large tobacco company’s vaping products are considered by the majority of the Vaping community to be significantly ineffective in providing a viable alternative to cigarettes. Is the destroying of thousands of small businesses across the county, in these difficult economic times, a direction that Congress wants to support?
5. Ask Mr. McAfee about his misrepresentation of the CDC’s survey on the use of electronic cigarettes as it pertains to teenagers. Mr. McAfee insinuated that the teenagers who have tried an electronic cigarette might use it as a gateway to smoking. But the results of the survey instead indicate that the majority of teenagers who have tried electronic cigarettes were already smokers and that instead, the results more likely indicated that the trying of electronic cigarettes by teenagers was a means to break free from smoking.
6. Regulation that the majority of the Vaping community could support is:
a. Listing of ingredients in e-liquid
b. Child-proof packaging
c. Sale to adults, 18 or older only
Here are online avenues to the scientific studies that support the fact that “Vaping” is “orders of magnitude” safer than smoking and that logically support the premise that our government should be encouraging further analysis of this invention and NOT trying to destroy this life saving invention through the passing of the FDA’s Deeming regulation.
CASAA - The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association
BMC Public Health | Full text | Peering through the mist: systematic review of what the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tells us about health risks
The Ultimate List of E-Cig Studies: Are E-Cigs Actually Safe? *Updated 2/16/14 » onVaping
I sincerely request that you study this issue thoroughly and understand that a significant number of Americans are tired of our government reaching into our personal lives and regulating activities that are not harmful to themselves or others and in the case of Vaping are actually saving/prolonging lives.
Thank you,
******* *******
According to his phone staff, they did not have this meeting listed, which seemed odd. They did confirm that he was going to be attending the hearing on the VA, today. I was given the name of his legislative assistant for the "health" part of this committee. I was told that I would be contacted by this legislative aid. I will report back what I find out, if and when he follows up with me.
My hope is that there will be follow-up hearings where Senator Isakson is present and hopefully willing to ask some of my questions and see if my recommended attendees will be asked to provide input to the committee.
To: Senator Isakson
From: ****** ******,Lawrenceville, GA
RE: Committee Hearing on Tobacco (and E-cigarette) Regulation, May 15, 2014
Senator Isakson,
I am seriously concerned that this hearing, as constituted by Senator Harkin, will not provide you with an accurate and unbiased analysis of the use of electronic cigarettes in America, today. We, who have broken free of smoking by using this product, do not even like the term “electronic cigarette” as it is an extreme misnomer as to the product’s functionality. We use the term “personal vaporizer” or “vaping” since a safe vapor, produced primarily by propylene glycol, is what this product produces. Propylene glycol is used in theatrical “fog” at concerts, asthma inhalers, toothpaste and many other consumed products and is deemed safe by the FDA for human consumption/exposure.
Briefly, my personal story is that I was a 30 year, pack a day smoker, who tried numerous times to quit smoking using the recommended pharmaceutical NRT products, nicotine gum, patches, inhalers and the horrible Chantix. It wasn't until I tried vaping in 2009 that I was successful in breaking free from tobacco use. I also found at this time, that the Big Pharmaceutical company products have a 93% failure rate. So my feelings of being a weak failure for years, was significantly misplaced.
The two individuals appearing before this panel, Mitch Zeller and Tim McAfee, have clearly demonstrated a strong bias against the use of personal vaporizers as a proven, much safer alternative to smoking. If this bias was supported by scientific evidence, I would not be writing to you. Instead, the scientific evidence to date clearly shows that “Vaping” is “orders of magnitude” safer than smoking for the user and completely safe for those near by the user. I will provide you references to these studies to support this fact. Mr. Zeller’s and Mr. McAfee’s published “concerns” are predicated on “perceived possible” harm that is not supported by scientific research, even by their own agencies. Yet, there are actual facts that “Vaping” has allowed at least hundreds of thousands and more probably millions of former smokers to break free of tobacco use, which any rational adult would support.
I could go on for pages, in support of “Vaping” as a safe alternative to smoking, which should not be mostly regulated out of existence by the FDA’s proposed Deeming Regulation. Instead, I am asking you to do the following as one of your constituents:
1. Request that the following Tobacco Control experts be asked to testify before your committee:
Dr. Michael B. Siegel, MD, Professor, Boston University
Mr. Bill Godshall, President Smokefree Pennsylvania
Dr. Carl V. Phillips, Professor of Public Health, Epidemiological Consultant, Scientific Director of CASAA (Consumer Advocates for Smokefree Alternative Association) – Non-profit, non-industry aligned, consumer advocacy organization.
Ms. Julie Woessner, JD, President CASAA
2. Understand that the two industries that have the most to gain, monetarily, from the FDA’s proposed Deeming Regulations, are the Big Pharmaceutical Industry and the Big Tobacco Industry. Question Mr. Zeller as to his past association as a lobbyist for the Pharmaceutical industry and the influence it has on his current position on the use of personal vaporizers.
3. Question Mr. Zeller on the FDA’s past attempt to ban “Vaping” nationwide in 2009-2010 based on their false interpretation of their study of 18 e-liquid cartridges during that time frame. They reported at that time that their study found TSNA’s (known to cause cancer) in several of these cartridges which supported their action to ban and seize these products.
What they failed to reveal until they published their results months later, was that the TSNA’s found was at “trace levels”, not considered harmful to humans AND were the same levels found in nicotine gum, patches and inhalers that they have approved for indefinite use. This disingenuous and dishonest use of their own data, calls into serious question their current drive to fairly regulate the Vaping industry.
4. Question Mr. Zellar on the economic impact of their Deeming Regulations on small businesses in the state of Georgia, as well as across the country. These regulations, due to the millions of dollars required to meet the regulations, will allow only the large tobacco companies to provide the required documentation. The large tobacco company’s vaping products are considered by the majority of the Vaping community to be significantly ineffective in providing a viable alternative to cigarettes. Is the destroying of thousands of small businesses across the county, in these difficult economic times, a direction that Congress wants to support?
5. Ask Mr. McAfee about his misrepresentation of the CDC’s survey on the use of electronic cigarettes as it pertains to teenagers. Mr. McAfee insinuated that the teenagers who have tried an electronic cigarette might use it as a gateway to smoking. But the results of the survey instead indicate that the majority of teenagers who have tried electronic cigarettes were already smokers and that instead, the results more likely indicated that the trying of electronic cigarettes by teenagers was a means to break free from smoking.
6. Regulation that the majority of the Vaping community could support is:
a. Listing of ingredients in e-liquid
b. Child-proof packaging
c. Sale to adults, 18 or older only
Here are online avenues to the scientific studies that support the fact that “Vaping” is “orders of magnitude” safer than smoking and that logically support the premise that our government should be encouraging further analysis of this invention and NOT trying to destroy this life saving invention through the passing of the FDA’s Deeming regulation.
CASAA - The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association
BMC Public Health | Full text | Peering through the mist: systematic review of what the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tells us about health risks
The Ultimate List of E-Cig Studies: Are E-Cigs Actually Safe? *Updated 2/16/14 » onVaping
I sincerely request that you study this issue thoroughly and understand that a significant number of Americans are tired of our government reaching into our personal lives and regulating activities that are not harmful to themselves or others and in the case of Vaping are actually saving/prolonging lives.
Thank you,
******* *******
According to his phone staff, they did not have this meeting listed, which seemed odd. They did confirm that he was going to be attending the hearing on the VA, today. I was given the name of his legislative assistant for the "health" part of this committee. I was told that I would be contacted by this legislative aid. I will report back what I find out, if and when he follows up with me.
My hope is that there will be follow-up hearings where Senator Isakson is present and hopefully willing to ask some of my questions and see if my recommended attendees will be asked to provide input to the committee.
Last edited:
Maybe we should take up a collection of old juices we didn't like, mix them all up, then sell the bottles as "Harkin's BS" (no nic mg on the label because it's so bad and who needs proof anyway). Call it "The unvapable vape". You know someone will buy it. Then donate 100% of the proceeds to CASAA. I can almost see the labeling now; gavel in one hand, squinting at the USB charger that he's holding in the other, saying "adults don't like flavors". My only regret is not having cash for a billboard near his house in Iowa.
Last edited:
And the 'wait, what if this (ecigs) gets people off smoking/combustible products' line was also taken up by Zeller in no uncertain terms. They know that's a killer (well a 'not killer') and so he went on with squinted eyes as if it was really hard to get across but, kind of a 'you have to know Senator... that something that may get the hard core smokers off cigarettes, also entices the fence sitters into continuing to smoke and of course the absolute necessary part - that they'll just go back to smoking cigarettes, or as he suggests become 'dual users'.
That and the flavor only for kids are really the only arguments they brought to the table. Harkin did it all with ridicule (read Alinsky) and McAfee and Zeller brought out the kids stats doubling BS.
I did like the part where Harkin read the warning label on the one cigalikes - I can imagine after, a headbanging and 'What! was I thinking!' ....but the label read just like what Zeller was 'proposing' so of course the vendor did it on his own. Harkin then had to mention 'It's not on the bottles!!'
That and the flavor only for kids are really the only arguments they brought to the table. Harkin did it all with ridicule (read Alinsky) and McAfee and Zeller brought out the kids stats doubling BS.
I did like the part where Harkin read the warning label on the one cigalikes - I can imagine after, a headbanging and 'What! was I thinking!' ....but the label read just like what Zeller was 'proposing' so of course the vendor did it on his own. Harkin then had to mention 'It's not on the bottles!!'
Last edited:
Harkin then had to mention 'It's not on the bottles!!'
And this is what gets me; I tend to buy a ton of different liquids, and all of them have their ingredients and all of them say "Not for sale to minors". There are very, very, VERY, few companies that don't have something like that on their bottles, so the industry is already regulating itself.
I wonder if the scheduling of this hearing was strategic on Harkins part? The staffer I spoke to on Senator Isakson's staff stated that the hearing on the issues with the VA are a much bigger concern right now and that is why the Senator is attending that hearing which conflicts with this hearing.
The problem with both those assertions is the fact "WE" don't exist as an industry seperate from Tobacco companies. I think that's a huge elephant in the room.
I can point to a NYT interview where Weiss says they intend on making cigalikes more addictive to "help smokers" get off the real thing. I had an arguement on FB with Dr. F when he said that cigalikes had to do something to attract smokers (i.e. addictives that will make them more addictive). It was the same day he posted comments about developing EU regulations and wondered where the venders were. I've done some patent research (very casually) and there's quite a list of applications for things like nano-particles belonging to Tobacco companies, stuff I don't want.
That is a very different focus than the way vaping has developed and evolved. We are focused on eliminating anything "extra" in eliquids, burning more effectively and reliably. On and on. Just the diacetyl confustion - the FDA isn't concerned about that, they've already approved it added to regular cigarettes.
There are two very different types of vaping - not unlike cigars. The FDA is essentially banning the handicrafted vaping world.
Maybe we should call them "Premium Electronic Cigars" from now on.
I can point to a NYT interview where Weiss says they intend on making cigalikes more addictive to "help smokers" get off the real thing. I had an arguement on FB with Dr. F when he said that cigalikes had to do something to attract smokers (i.e. addictives that will make them more addictive). It was the same day he posted comments about developing EU regulations and wondered where the venders were. I've done some patent research (very casually) and there's quite a list of applications for things like nano-particles belonging to Tobacco companies, stuff I don't want.
That is a very different focus than the way vaping has developed and evolved. We are focused on eliminating anything "extra" in eliquids, burning more effectively and reliably. On and on. Just the diacetyl confustion - the FDA isn't concerned about that, they've already approved it added to regular cigarettes.
There are two very different types of vaping - not unlike cigars. The FDA is essentially banning the handicrafted vaping world.
Maybe we should call them "Premium Electronic Cigars" from now on.
Here's another that I don't know if I simply don't have enough information, but....
Sen. Burr made some good points on harm reduction and how 'innovation' and new electronics has helped in other area and could be in this. I just love the 'wait, what if this gets people off cigarettes' type line.
However, this 'innovation argument was countered by both Harkin and McAfee. McAfee brought it up (again without transcripts) that innovation in cigarettes made things worse - citing the higher lung cancer stats with the smoking stats going down. He mentions how 'newer cigarettes' had better draws, therefore... blah, blah, blah... Now perhaps that 'newer cig' was in the last 5 years but before that, draw was restricted with holes and filters - Carlton being the first to go out in the ashtray, iirc and then it wasn't intended
The point here and the reason for my first line above - these 'new innovations' such as low tar and lower nicotine were regulations weren't they? A bit like the CAFE standards, you can still have the 'unfiltered Camel' (Hummer) but you have to have some low tars/low nics (fiestas/volts/hybrids) as part of the whole line up. BTW, again, unless I've missed something in the last 5 years, unfiltered Camels having no filter at all, had a better draw than any other cig, imo. How McAfee can say that with a straight face (wait his face is always straight.. anyway) I don't know. It goes against all people who have ever smoked cigarettes over a decade or two.
So it wasn't innovation that didn't work, it was regulation that didn't work and one of the reasons that have been stated on other threads is that when they went with the low tar and low nic, people were smoking more to get the nic blood levels back to 'normal' (for them). I don't suppose it couldn't be that, instead of innovation. That argument, as far as I'm concerned doesn't have a kernel of truth or any weight to anyone who has ever smoked.
Last edited:
There's no ingredient listing on a pack of cigarettes either.
I'd like to know what brand of eliquids he had because I bet there was an ingredient listing, the amount of nic, date, warning not for minors and probably pg/vg ratio; stuff consumers want to know and Harkin didn't want to read them, wasn't interested in that stuff, didn't want to make the same mistake that he'd just made.
I've got a short article from Jelly Belly about how adult flavors are different than kids flavors (adults like complicated flavors, like gummy bear and kids like simple flavors like cherry). But I bet there is a lot of research out there on the differences between adults vs. kids.
Last edited:
Plus it normalizes alcohol for them too. Wonder how many will drive home after
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked