Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Comment on FDA's proposed deeming regulations on e-cigs. 75 days public comment period has started.

Posted on 04/25/2014 12:29:18 PM PDT by 1_Inch_Group

Regulation of Electronic Cigarettes by the FDA

By Mitch Zeller, the Director of the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Tobacco Products.

Thank you for

http://click.mail.whitehouse.gov/?qs=23150e34359d1e932f1289742b953a8f8e720edd2808049ece878ad77ece739c

your petition on electronic cigarettes .

First things first: While we are seeking to regulate products like electronic cigarettes, the proposed regulation would not ban them.

Some background, which you may already know: The

http://click.mail.whitehouse.gov/?qs=415c7a37f7f49244144907eba0707664a199c6968e1eda7adcc80fc526afbde7

Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act that Congress passed in 2009 gave the FDA immediate authority to regulate certain tobacco products -- cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco -- under the

http://click.mail.whitehouse.gov/?qs=8b835bfd0f3ef363fa53fcef37ebc441c01a390924a58f216c1aae96f51dadc2

Federal Food, Drug, & Cosmetic Act . And while it didn't apply right away to other tobacco products, such as electronic cigarettes, the law gave the FDA authority to cover those products through regulation.

We've

http://click.mail.whitehouse.gov/?qs=86201c36f37724d284af2f4d7472171d24d4c5832eefc3904945566acc57a78b

issued a proposed rule to allow the FDA to regulate those products in the April 25, 2014 issue of the Federal Register. Electronic cigarettes containing nicotine derived from tobacco would meet the statutory definition of "tobacco product" and so they'd be subject to the FD&C Act when the proposed rule is finalized.

Now the petition states that

http://click.mail.whitehouse.gov/?qs=47471c71dc0457a635b1ffa08f5fe29c871bab5005cf69d36e0b6c41c1399f27

sections 905 and

http://click.mail.whitehouse.gov/?qs=b6981800ac9720ac9bb21c0957747b51c4b420097d82f3d28a6c9961e3c278de

910 of the FD&C Act would "ban all e-cigarettes," and that's not true.

If the FDA finalizes the rule in its current form, electronic cigarettes manufacturers will need authorization to sell products not commercially marketed as of February 15, 2007 -- but this doesn't mean these products would be banned. Sections 905 and 910 describe the applications and reports manufacturers will need to submit to sell their products.

There will be two primary ways for tobacco products to obtain that authorization: either an application for "substantial equivalence," or an application for premarket approval.

"Substantial equivalence" would ask manufacturers to compare their products to another product that was already commercially marketed by February 15, 2007 or that was previously found by FDA to be substantially equivalent -- though we acknowledge this may be challenging for electronic cigarettes. Second would be the premarket tobacco application, where a manufacturer submits information to the FDA establishing it would be "appropriate for the protection of public health" to allow the product to be marketed.

We know that those applications may require time and resources to develop. That's why the FDA does not intend to take legal action against manufacturers for marketing their products without prior authorization until the FDA issues its decision on the application -- so long as the manufacturer gets its application in within two years and thirty days after the final rule is published. Our hope is to provide manufacturers flexibility as the FDA completes its review.

So why are we seeking to regulate these products in the first place? As we discuss in the proposed rule, though all tobacco products are potentially harmful and potentially addictive, different categories of tobacco products may have the potential for varying effects on public health. There's still a lot we don't know about these products, and this rule will expand the amount of information available to the FDA and the public -- that's good for everyone.

Some people believe that e-cigarettes may help smokers quit smoking and that switching from regular cigarettes to e-cigarettes may reduce exposure to harmful components and constituents in cigarette smoke. But again, we don't know enough to make that call. This rule would help us to continue to analyze the potential benefits and risks of e-cigarettes, including their impact on nonusers and on the population as a whole.

It's important to remember that this rule isn't final yet, though. We're seeking comments on the proposed rule as to how e-cigarettes should be regulated based on the continuum of nicotine-delivering products, and the potential benefits and risks associated with e-cigarettes.

The

http://click.mail.whitehouse.gov/?qs=be603c00e07eae5dfb3a4ed2f082e931d5e8fe15512f7a16aba58055c65bd37a

opportunity to comment on FDA's proposed rule is now open and comments are due on July 9, 2014. We encourage you to do so, and to provide any data and information you may have to support your comments.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: deeming; ecigs; fda; legislation
I run an ecig shop online, and have been doing so for more than 5 years. We've been waiting for this to raise it's ugly head, and now we have 75 days to comment on it.

Please share your experiences, your knowledge, and counter their incorrect thought processes. Link to comment is at the bottom of the email I received today from whitehouse.gov

(SORRY for the links showing up as they did. Perhaps someone with a little HTML-fu can create actual clickable links from that mess?)

1 posted on 04/25/2014 12:29:18 PM PDT by 1_Inch_Group
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 1_Inch_Group

It’s about the money... If e-cigs prove to be innocuous, or at least far less harmful than tobacco, they’re a relative benefit. Tax it!


2 posted on 04/25/2014 12:31:15 PM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1_Inch_Group

Anyone who thinks this is being done for any reason other than money is deluded. This is the camel’s nose under the tent, by which e-cigs will be regulated until they are as ineffective at helping people quit smoking as the existing pharmaceutical approaches, whose performance barely outdoes placebos, but which are 100% effective at generating hundreds of millions of dollars for the politically connected.


3 posted on 04/25/2014 12:35:34 PM PDT by jjsheridan5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1_Inch_Group

I think E-cigs are great, but should be limited to 18 and older.
Nothing more.


4 posted on 04/25/2014 12:36:58 PM PDT by mylife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1_Inch_Group

I do not understand the people that want to BAN E-cigs on the basis that flavors will entice children.
Just make it 18 and older.

They have been selling peach schnapps for hundreds of years.


5 posted on 04/25/2014 12:43:15 PM PDT by mylife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mylife
I think E-cigs are great, but should be limited to 18 and older. Nothing more.

That could certainly be accomplished at a state level: no need to involve the feds.

6 posted on 04/25/2014 12:45:09 PM PDT by j. earl carter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: j. earl carter

I agree, but the FDA does not.


7 posted on 04/25/2014 12:45:48 PM PDT by mylife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 1_Inch_Group

This really doesn’t have a damn thing to do with the FDA wanting to regulate E-cigs, that is just an excuse to change what they did in 2009.

Not mentioned here is the fact that they plan to add the 2500% tobacco tax on pipe tobacco and cigars.

They were losing to much in taxes on roll your own tobacco, and want another bite at the apple to correct their mistake.

They are using E-cigs as an excuse to slip that in.


8 posted on 04/25/2014 12:46:31 PM PDT by Beagle8U (Unions are an Affirmative Action program for Slackers! .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mylife

It’s about some people loving the idea of power and control over others. It has nothing to do with health or safety, and has a LOT to do with money.


9 posted on 04/25/2014 1:00:07 PM PDT by RandallFlagg (Uninstall Fascist Firefox. Get Pale Moon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 1_Inch_Group

I think you’ll agree it’s a matter of when, not if. And the extent to which the gov’t overreaches. They should ban sales to <18 yr olds, implement the same advertising limits as tobacco products, and implement severe penalties for offering anything other than nicotine-based products. And there should be ongoing testing because it’s a drug delivery device and the long term effects are unknown.


10 posted on 04/25/2014 1:12:49 PM PDT by bigbob (The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly. Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigbob
They should follow the Constitution and leave it to the States.

/johnny

11 posted on 04/25/2014 1:21:40 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
The FDA doesn't handle taxes. The BATF does, since it's part of Treasury.

Where did your information come from?

/johnny

12 posted on 04/25/2014 1:29:41 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jjsheridan5

How does one make an effective product ineffective? Are you proposing that they’ll force manufacturers to remove the nicotine?

My mother, father, brother, his girlfriend, my mother in law and my wife have all kicked the habit thanks to e-cigarettes. This is completely and totally about money. The government sees these as a threat to their tobacco tax revenues and now they want to regulate them to get in on the action.

What a farce!


13 posted on 04/25/2014 1:40:26 PM PDT by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 1_Inch_Group

e-cigs are a threat to Big Government, Big Tobacco, and Big Pharma. They will be crushed by regulations.


14 posted on 04/25/2014 1:42:56 PM PDT by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1_Inch_Group

If the left wants to ban E-cigs because it looks too much like real cigs then they must hate all long, slender things in their mouths.

I guess they’ll ban homosexuality next! /s


15 posted on 04/25/2014 1:43:22 PM PDT by Fledermaus (Conseravtives are all that's left to defend the Constitution. Dems hate it, and Repubs don't care.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1_Inch_Group

They are NOT a tobacco product, so by what reason can/should they be regulated under any tobacco law?


16 posted on 04/25/2014 1:43:38 PM PDT by Gabz (Democrats for Voldemort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1_Inch_Group

What is the significance of February 15, 2007 for the substantial equivalence test? Is this an arbitrary baseline date, or was there a landmark ruling? I don’t get it.


17 posted on 04/25/2014 1:51:30 PM PDT by NautiNurse (Obama sends U.S. Marines to pick up his dog & basketballs. Benghazi? Nope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

They are NOT a tobacco product and considering them as such makes no sense whatsoever. Also, many of the mixes you can use in them contain no nicotine at all.

Nicotine gums and patches are drug delivery devices and advertise all over the TV and radio and the long term effects are unknown.

BTW, I’ve never used an e-cig or any pharmaceutical nicotine delivery device and the majority of my nicotine consumption nowadays comes from my roasted or mashed potatoes, roasted pepper laden pizza, and eggplant parmigiana.


18 posted on 04/25/2014 1:53:08 PM PDT by Gabz (Democrats for Voldemort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper; Beagle8U
The FDA doesn't handle taxes. The BATF does, since it's part of Treasury.

The FDA pushes them - at the behest of their overlords in the pharmaceutical industry and the pharma puppets in congress go along with them.

19 posted on 04/25/2014 1:56:34 PM PDT by Gabz (Democrats for Voldemort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
But this proposed rule change shouldn't affect any tax rates. And that's what was said.

/johnny

20 posted on 04/25/2014 2:02:06 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

This wasn’t the first time it has been brought up, it’s been going around for a couple of weeks, at least. And it’s not the first time it has been discussed.

Shortly after the ‘09 tax increase went into effect it was known pipe tobacco was going to be next on the list because of the changes made in the roll/stuff your own supplies to avoid the huge increase.


21 posted on 04/25/2014 2:07:08 PM PDT by Gabz (Democrats for Voldemort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
I'd like to see that they intend to raise taxes on the pipe tobacco somewhere in the proposal. I'm hearing a lot of rumor, but not seeing any facts.

/johnny

22 posted on 04/25/2014 2:11:01 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

When it comes to tobacco the FDA does not deal in fact and never has and that goes for the rest of the federal government (and most state government.)


23 posted on 04/25/2014 2:49:52 PM PDT by Gabz (Democrats for Voldemort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
Is there a section in this specific proposed rulemaking to increase taxes on pipe tobacco?

/johnny

24 posted on 04/25/2014 2:51:27 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: rarestia
How does one make an effective product ineffective? Are you proposing that they’ll force manufacturers to remove the nicotine?

The nicotine has little to do with it. Ecigs are notoriously fragile, and the ones found at 7-11s are all but useless. Their performance starts out lousy, and deteriorates quickly. They also generally have poor battery life, compared to the performance of ecigs created by smaller vendors. Flavors play a big role. Once again, the ones found at 7-11 usually only come in a few flavors, whereas mods (ecigs made by much smaller mom-and-pop companies) give you access to thousands of different flavors. One of the many supposed proposals is to limit the flavors to "adult" flavors, thus doing away with the ones that actually help people quit smoking (like my current favorite Churro, which would probably be regulated out as appealing to children). There would probably also be some kind of voltage restrictions (under the guise of safety), to make sure that people don't have access to things like variable voltage, which helps maximize performance for different flavors, as well as different ratios of propyline glycol/vegetable glycol. But there are no end of more subtle things that they can do, as well.
25 posted on 04/25/2014 3:00:35 PM PDT by jjsheridan5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
Is there a section in this specific proposed rulemaking to increase taxes on pipe tobacco?

/johnny

26 posted on 04/25/2014 4:43:39 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jjsheridan5

*scratches head*

My wife and mother-in-law use Lizard Juice brand equipment and juice. They both have the device on a lanyard that they keep around their neck. I’ve seen the batteries and the tanks used as cat toys, and one of the batteries has visible teeth marks from where one of our big boys turned it into a chew toy. It still works great.

My brother, his girlfriend, and my mom all use a special e-cig with a special wick. They’re built like tanks and quite heavy. My brother is in construction and has dropped his device from the balcony of a 4-story condo, and it still worked.

I’m not sure what e-cigs you’re using or to which you’re referring, but the ones I’ve seen are quite hardy.

The only “regulation” I would get behind would be to put an age limit on them. I’ve seen high school kids puffing on them at the beach like they’re candy. They’re not supposed to be a recreational toy, they’re intended to be smoking cessation devices. Make it illegal to purchase or use under the age of 18, fine, but don’t tax the devices and liquids. That’s just dumb.

Nicotine, as of right now, is not a controlled substance. You can buy 5 gallon drums of liquid nicotine with cash out the door. The flavoring is added later, and many people have made a boatload of money concocting custom flavors. My brother was a “tester” for a guy developing flavors that are now available online.

Full disclosure: I don’t use e-cigs. I’ve never smoked a cigarette in my life. I enjoy an occasional cigar or pipe, but they’re very rare occasions. I am happy these things work as well as they do. I’ve heard resounding praise for them, as people everywhere are kicking the cigarette habit. I think that’s the real threat here. The government is watching their cash cow wither away, yet, isn’t this what they wanted? They’ve been pushing anti-smoking for decades. Now that people are quitting, they’re freaking out.

Government is more proud than they are smart.


27 posted on 04/26/2014 5:29:16 AM PDT by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

My point somehow got lost. You are correct. Ecigs, especially those produced by small vendors, are reasonably hardy. Mine has even been run over by my car, and is still functioning. The ones they sell at 7-11 aren’t, however. One of the goals of regulation will be to drive the smaller vendors out of business. This will leave only a handful of large companies left, and their business model is based around disposable devices.

The goal of regulation is to leave the industry in which ecigs are as ineffective as NRTs, and where ecigs are taxable (industry standardization, only pre-filled cartridges, etc).


28 posted on 04/26/2014 6:44:34 AM PDT by jjsheridan5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: j. earl carter

Essentially that’s already done. I don’t know any vendors that will knowingly sell to minors. I’ve asked for photo ID to be sent to me before filling orders at times. The most telling is when someone asks for non-descript packaging (to possibly hide it from their parents).


29 posted on 04/26/2014 9:42:21 AM PDT by 1_Inch_Group (Country Before Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

They are going to slip that in after they rally support for E-cig regulation.

They will attach it to what will have little opposition, when that huge tax increase was their real goal.


30 posted on 04/27/2014 5:09:11 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Unions are an Affirmative Action program for Slackers! .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper; All

“Two bills recently introduced in Congress would substantially increase federal excise taxes on tobacco products, and probably allow the imposition of new federal excise taxes on e-cigarettes.”

http://www.tobaccolawblog.com/2013/02/federal-bills-would-subtantially-increase-tobacco-taxes-and-allow-new-taxes-on-electronic-cigarettes/


31 posted on 04/27/2014 5:25:27 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Unions are an Affirmative Action program for Slackers! .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson