The requirement to prove effectiveness BEFORE you can sell something makes all of our products too expensive to market for all but the top 3 tobacco companies and 2 ecig companies.
And it's silly -- IMO a purposeful attempt to get rid of ecigs.
The FDA also regulates hair spray, and can require ingredients we should not inhale off the market. But, I'd really like to know what kind of "efficacy" tests the FDA requires for hairspray. Efficacy tests are for PHARMACEUTICALS. They are bowing to pressure from the patch sellers to protect their market -- which in turn requires people to keep smoking. The patch makers went through the pharma hoops and now they are saying it's "not fair" for them to have competition that does not go though the same hoops, and the FDA is so interbred with BP that that sounds reasonable to them.
But it also would have been logical for buggy-whip makers to argue that the fact that automobiles don't need buggy whips and can't provide breeding records means there should be no cars. There comes a time when your product is obsolete and asking the gov't to regulate away the competition is simply corporate oppression. BTW, I came across a reference to preventing cheaper products from competing with those that did the expensive development within the first 12% of the FDA deeming regulation. (I converted it to .mobi format so I'm reading it on my Kindle, so I don't know what page. You can get the converted document from the 'files' section at the top of the We Are CASAA fb page.)
And it's silly -- IMO a purposeful attempt to get rid of ecigs.
The FDA also regulates hair spray, and can require ingredients we should not inhale off the market. But, I'd really like to know what kind of "efficacy" tests the FDA requires for hairspray. Efficacy tests are for PHARMACEUTICALS. They are bowing to pressure from the patch sellers to protect their market -- which in turn requires people to keep smoking. The patch makers went through the pharma hoops and now they are saying it's "not fair" for them to have competition that does not go though the same hoops, and the FDA is so interbred with BP that that sounds reasonable to them.
But it also would have been logical for buggy-whip makers to argue that the fact that automobiles don't need buggy whips and can't provide breeding records means there should be no cars. There comes a time when your product is obsolete and asking the gov't to regulate away the competition is simply corporate oppression. BTW, I came across a reference to preventing cheaper products from competing with those that did the expensive development within the first 12% of the FDA deeming regulation. (I converted it to .mobi format so I'm reading it on my Kindle, so I don't know what page. You can get the converted document from the 'files' section at the top of the We Are CASAA fb page.)
