backtop


Print 38 comment(s) - last by Morawka.. on Apr 28 at 6:19 AM

Rules won't go into effect anytime soon

Regular tobacco-laced cigarettes have been regulated by the FDA for decades, are only sold to adults, and are plastered with numerous health warnings. On the other hand, electronic cigarettes (or e-cigarettes if you prefer) are unregulated. However, the FDA is pushing to ban sales of electronic cigarettes to minors and to require approval for new products.
 
The FDA also wants health warning labels to be required for the devices. The rules were proposed this week and the goal is to set a foundation for regulating the industry and products. Proposed rules won't immediately put a ban on the various flavors of e-cigs or on advertising, nor will the rules set product standards.
 
FDA commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg said future rules, "will have to be grounded in our growing body of knowledge and understanding about the use of e-cigarettes and their potential health risks or public health benefits."


[Image Source: Best Puff]
 
"When finalized (the proposal) would result in significant public health benefits, including through reducing sales to youth, helping to correct consumer misperceptions, preventing misleading health claims and preventing new products from entering the market without scientific review by FDA," said Mitch Zeller, the director of the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products.
 
The FDA is giving the public, industry members, and other organizations 75 days to comment on the proposal. Any comments offered will be considered before final rules are issued. At this time no time frame for when a final rule will be issued has been given.
 
Rules propose that the makers of these devices would have to disclose ingredients and warn that nicotine is an addictive chemical. Manufacturers would also not be allowed to claim their products are safer than other tobacco products.
 
A study of e-cigarettes from 2010 claimed that the devices fail at delivering nicotine to the body.

Source: AP



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Are they?
By Flunk on 4/24/2014 9:22:01 AM , Rating: 4
Are there actually enough studies that prove they're as dangerous as cigarettes? I the only study I've actually read said they failed to deliver an appreciable amount of nicotine.




RE: Are they?
By bah12 on 4/24/2014 9:35:29 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Rules propose that the makers of these devices would have to disclose ingredients and warn that nicotine is an addictive chemical. Manufacturers would also not be allowed to claim their products are safer than other tobacco products. -
Yah I don't get it either, I think they are jumping the gun a bit. Yes it is addictive, but in some aspects so are things like caffeine. So maybe a minor warning is ok, but still seems like an unnecessary burden. My big problem though is that they can't claim they are safer than cigarettes. It is true no one knows for sure yet, but that doesn't mean we should assume they are just as bad either.

Look most people using them are doing so in place of a cigarette, and simple logic says that if you can eliminate the tar and other crap from the normal cigarette you should. Ideally you wouldn't be inhaling anything, but no way are these worse than smoke.

Typical nanny state however, regulate before anyone knows if we even need it.


RE: Are they?
By asgallant on 4/24/2014 10:59:06 AM , Rating: 1
There is a difference between saying "these are as dangerous as cigarettes" and "you can't claim that they are safer than cigarettes". They haven't been extensively studied, so you can't make any claims one way or another.


RE: Are they?
By Reclaimer77 on 4/24/2014 1:09:18 PM , Rating: 5
Of course they are safer than cigarettes. We're talking water vapor with like a thousand times less chemical potency than smoking cigarettes.

The massive reductions in carcinogens alone should allow them to state, with utter truthfulness, the product being safer than cigarettes.


RE: Are they?
By bah12 on 4/24/2014 4:38:46 PM , Rating: 2
More importantly, and a point I expect you sir to make Reclaimer, is that if there is no definitive proof either way then WHY THE FFFFUU.... regulate it. Just more needless regulation without any actual proof it is necessary.

Layoff the dozens of government employees my tax dollars are spending to research and develop this warning, and let me decide what I put in my lungs. If and when actual science determines a need, sure make them slap a label on it, but until then hey how about you don't waste my tax dollars trying to protect me from me.


RE: Are they?
By makius on 4/25/2014 12:22:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
More importantly, and a point I expect you sir to make Reclaimer, is that if there is no definitive proof either way then WHY THE FFFFUU.... regulate it. Just more needless regulation without any actual proof it is necessary.

Layoff the dozens of government employees my tax dollars are spending to research and develop this warning, and let me decide what I put in my lungs. If and when actual science determines a need, sure make them slap a label on it, but until then hey how about you don't waste my tax dollars trying to protect me from me.


^This 100%... just this.


RE: Are they?
By Morawka on 4/28/2014 6:19:44 AM , Rating: 1
shit i wish the FCC would jump to regulation on Internet this fast. Its a shame, we need better internet faster than we need studies on e-cigs.


RE: Are they?
By lagomorpha on 4/24/2014 9:41:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Surgeon General's Warning: E-Cigarettes have been clinically proven to not deliver an appreciable amount of nicotine to the body.


^ The above would probably be a lot more effective a warning than all those giant warnings about death and impotence nicotine products have these days.


RE: Are they?
By TO on 4/24/2014 10:47:33 AM , Rating: 2
I did hear of a study which mentioned that the vapor has a similar effect on cells as smoke does. So they may not be much healthier. But, I prefer smoking them over cigarettes.


RE: Are they?
By Ammohunt on 4/24/2014 2:22:20 PM , Rating: 1
Kiwi Flavored Nicotine laced steam vs a Toasted Lucky Strike? I guess for metro-sexual millenials that makes sense.


RE: Are they?
By TO on 4/24/2014 4:24:10 PM , Rating: 2
I'm 86 years old, hardly a millennial.


RE: Are they?
By TO on 4/24/2014 4:34:45 PM , Rating: 3
And respect your elders son or I'll bend you over my knee and spank you until you cry.


RE: Are they?
By Manch on 4/24/2014 8:45:34 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Are they?
By NellyFromMA on 4/24/2014 1:40:32 PM , Rating: 5
No, there aren't enough studies. They are just capitulating to political pressure/lobbying efforts. That's all this is.

In the same article it states they want Health Warnings but future rules will be determined as a result of studies.

So, they want everyone to be WARNED, but have no current studies to actually cite danger to bolster reasoning behind a warning in the first place. There's more reason to believe cellphones can cause cancer than there is to suggest e-cigs are dangerous in any way at this time.

Frankly, it's an alarmingly ignorant decision based on opinion rather than fact, and I am not surprised one bit.


RE: Are they?
By hpglow on 4/24/2014 1:43:27 PM , Rating: 3
I don't think anyone is claiming they are as dangerous as cigarettes. I'm also fairly certin that these things wouldn't have drawn any attention if some of them werent marketing tward minors. Combine that with flavors like grape, watermellon, and cottoncandy and it isn't hard to see some of these e-cig companies are doing more than trying to offer a healthier alturnative to those addicted.

As a non smoker I would rather see people buy these then smell cigaretts at every intersection and city/state park I go to. So I hope they are just going to try regulations that will help keep youth from getting addicted to niccotene.


Just keep them outdoors
By 195 on 4/24/2014 11:58:16 AM , Rating: 1
The only thing I would like to see is to ban e-cigs where regular cigs are already banned. Last week at the indoor airport baggage claim, a dude was enjoying his e-cig right next to me and the other 200 passengers. Granted it doesn't smell, but the effect is nearly as discomforting as a real cig.

I don't care if the smoke is harmful or not. If common decency needs regulation then so be it.




RE: Just keep them outdoors
By rountad on 4/24/2014 12:07:59 PM , Rating: 3
Serious question... Why is it discomforting and why should it be banned?

You wrote that it doesn't smell...


RE: Just keep them outdoors
By M'n'M on 4/24/2014 12:22:25 PM , Rating: 2
Not only was he e-smoking, he wasn't very good looking. Next regulation - no ugly people in public, at least where I might see them.


RE: Just keep them outdoors
By hpglow on 4/25/2014 12:32:37 AM , Rating: 2
You can solve that by not going into Wal Mart. Every time I go in there I have to took at something uglier than the elephant man driving an electric cart around. Seems like the ugly are pretty well contained to me we have a private non government system for containment. All we need now is a law allowing us to beat people that block movement in both directions in a grocery store isle and we may well become a civilized society again.


RE: Just keep them outdoors
By lagomorpha on 4/24/2014 1:07:15 PM , Rating: 2
Discomforting in the same way that wifi signals are discomforting - idiots want an excuse to complain about anything their favorite tabloid wrote a scare story about. It's the same thought process as the anti-vaccination people.


RE: Just keep them outdoors
By thesaxophonist on 4/24/2014 6:36:04 PM , Rating: 2
It's discomforting because he was breathing in nicotine, an addictive stimulant, involuntarily. Sure, he could move to a different seat, but the vapor is still in the air. Harmful or not, it's disgusting. If you just can't wait for that fix, at least take the damn vaporizer outside.


RE: Just keep them outdoors
By Reclaimer77 on 4/24/2014 6:51:05 PM , Rating: 1
Aren't I breathing in caffeine, an addictive stimulant, when someone makes coffee? Oh god, the horror. If they can't wait for that damn coffee fix, at least take the machine outside!!!

Seriously will you nanny's grow a spine?


RE: Just keep them outdoors
By hpglow on 4/25/2014 12:50:38 AM , Rating: 1
No one stands around doors of resturants brewing coffee or brews fresh coffee at children's playground. Yes I have ripped people's asses for smoking cigarettes at a park. I don't take e-sigs as serious but the point still needs to be made that people are damn inconsiderate. I saw a grandma one time that had the bumper sticker "I listen to hip-hop...at every intersection I stop at." This is just as true for shitty music as it is for cigarettes. People should show other people kindness, not give me some BS excuse like "we are outside" wtf does that have to do with lighting up in a park? Next time you order a pizza imagine there is a big fat pile of human feces on it. You complain to the waiter and they take the pizza away, and it comes back the same pizza minus the crap. Do you eat the pizza? No, because you know that crap was previously on that same pizza. This is why it is so insulting for the rest of us to accept your "suck it up" statement. Yes, e-sigs are better than the former but they are still chemicals and other things we wouldn't have to inhale. We can choose not to eat the crap pizza but it is hard not to share air with people around us. Just like it is impossible to unread the stupidity that reclaimer writes.


RE: Just keep them outdoors
By NaughtyGeek on 4/25/2014 9:30:38 AM , Rating: 2
So you don't own a car? You grow your own food and eat only vegetables right? What's that, you buy groceries at the grocery store? You drive a car to and from work? You should stop being so damn inconsiderate of all the rest of us and quit spewing those poisons out your tailpipe and stop contributing to the problem by buying products that are produced/transported by burning fossil fuels you inconsiderate sod, your emissions are poisoning the rest of us.


RE: Just keep them outdoors
By Reclaimer77 on 4/25/2014 9:50:18 AM , Rating: 1
You are a psychopath.

Good day.


RE: Just keep them outdoors
By NellyFromMA on 4/24/2014 1:41:30 PM , Rating: 2
It's discomoforting because he's been trained to believe smoking is so gross and anything even resembling smoking is offensive and distasteful. -_-


RE: Just keep them outdoors
By Schrag4 on 4/25/2014 12:27:35 AM , Rating: 2
I don't ever think I'll buy a sports car so those should be banned too (who needs to accelerate quickly?). Oh, and subscription magazines, I don't read them so ban them. I'm not really into porn much either so please ban it. For the children, of course.

Stop liking what I don't like!

</sarcasm>


reasonable
By chromal on 4/24/2014 9:32:43 AM , Rating: 2
A warning seems reasonable. These probably ARE a lot less unhealthy that actual cigarettes, but you're still talking about tobacco products hitting your lungs.




RE: reasonable
By Vinny141 on 4/24/2014 9:41:25 AM , Rating: 2
its not a tobacco product its a nicotine product. im sure that's what you meant. Its just another nicotine delivery system.


RE: reasonable
By Griffinhart on 4/24/2014 10:09:00 AM , Rating: 2
The only "tobacco product" in it is Nicotine, which can also be found in other plants.

quote:
Liquid for producing vapor in electronic cigarettes, commonly known as e-juice or e-liquid, is a solution of propylene glycol (PG), vegetable glycerin (VG), and/or polyethylene glycol 400 (PEG400) mixed with concentrated flavors; and optionally, a variable concentration of nicotine


A lot of e-cigs don't even contain nicotine.


RE: reasonable
By JediJeb on 4/24/2014 2:27:02 PM , Rating: 2
The question is has anyone performed any studies on the effects of propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin or polyethylene glycol when it comes into contact with lung tissue?

While these have been studied and found non hazardous when ingested into the stomach as food additives, lung tissue is different from stomach tissue.


RE: reasonable
By Reclaimer77 on 4/24/14, Rating: 0
RE: reasonable
By Griffinhart on 4/25/2014 3:16:27 PM , Rating: 2
Not really relevant to the discussion at hand. Should it be regulated the same as Tobacco products?

Propylene glycol, Vegetable glycerin and Polyethylene have their own requirements to get through. I don't know how many, if any, studies have looked at them but they are pretty widely used in a number of applications including pharmaceuticals and things like fog machines.


Think of the children!!
By espaghetti on 4/25/2014 10:23:28 AM , Rating: 2
Unless you abort them, then we'll help you pay for that.
I want off of this planet.




RE: Think of the children!!
By dew111 on 4/25/2014 4:02:51 PM , Rating: 2
They are looking for volunteers to go to Mars. They need trolls on Mars, right?


I love them
By solarrocker on 4/24/2014 9:10:23 AM , Rating: 3
Say what you want about e-sigs, they are the only things that helped me quiet smoking. I had tried to quiet smoking in the course of 15 years through gum, carrots, patches, cold turkey, and so many other ways. I still use the e-sigs, so in some form I am still smoking. However I feel that I have way more energy, I no longer snore at night. I feel way healthier and lost weight because I am able to do more activities.

Again it just from my own experience, but I find them just wonderful. Ooh and also, no more smells in the house, car, clothing.




The Goal
By NaughtyGeek on 4/24/2014 4:47:08 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
the goal is to set a foundation for regulating the industry and products. - See more at: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=34786...


Horsepucky!

The goal is to deem the nicotine base used in the liquid a tobacco product so it can be taxed as such. Vaporizing nicotine is quickly catching on with smokers dwindling tax coffers that have been stuffed with tobacco taxes levied in the name of "health costs." If it gets linked with tobacco now, before there are more significant studies proving the health benefits of vaporizing nicotine over traditional smoking, taxing it the same as tobacco is easy. Let a couple more years pass, more studies to be conducted showing little or no negative health effects, taxing it to oblivion becomes much more difficult.




RE: The Goal
By M'n'M on 4/26/2014 10:39:16 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The goal is to deem the nicotine base used in the liquid a tobacco product so it can be taxed as such

I believe the goal is a bit more far reaching than that. Consider that the FDA is doing this on their own, claiming the power granted to them to regulate "tobacco products" gives then the authority to regulate e-cigs ... and hookahs. WTH ? Both of these are delivery mechanisms, not tobacco products. To follow the "logic" involved then the FDA can regulate tin cans because "chaw" is delivered in it. That the FDA can regulate plastic bottles because eLiquid is sold in it.

Regulate the actual "tobacco product" if they must, that would be legal, but that won't do. The call for this is someone has bitched that kids are smoking e-cigs and "something has to be done !" Even if the kids aren't doing liquid nicotine, or anything in actual tobacco, that isn't good enough for some people. Perhaps the eventual banning of sale to minors is a good thing ... or not, but the "logic" of this extension will set a precedent for the regulation of other things deemed in any way detrimental to the public health. We've already seen (in NYC) how far reaching such minded people can be. Give that power to someone in a Federal position, hidden behind a few layers of bureaucracy and just watch what gets banned or taxed into effective non-existence as the years roll on and the true costs of the ACA become apparent.


"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet.  A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki