Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/05/05/feds-expected-announce-final-e-cigarette-rule-could-nearly-ban-them/83951786/

by minikites • 10 years ago

180 227 10 years ago

usatoday.com

throwaway_yy2Di• 10 years ago

The article neglects to mention that the Congressional Act which forces (?) the FDA's hand, was one that Phillip Morris sponsored and lobbied for. I think this is key to understanding why the FDA is acting like this, seemingly against public health, while benefiting incumbent cigarette makers.

    Passage, if it comes, may be politically impossible without
    the negotiated support of Philip Morris, whose Marlboro
    brand helps make it the American tobacco industry’s biggest
    player.
    
    The company’s central role, in fact, is a reason that some
    antismoking activists worry that the bill is a deal with the
    devil. Philip Morris’s support is also why other major
    tobacco companies — none of which back the legislation — see
    a cunning ploy by Marlboro’s maker to seal the company’s
    dominant position.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/business/01tobacco.html

Shivetya• 10 years ago

While their influence is obvious the outcome is still fine by me. Many insurance policies do not distinguish between smoking and vaping. Let alone the fact that anything you ingest or inhale that is sold should be proven safe. Where is the proof that they are safe than supports your statement its against the public health to do this?

Considering the amount of money cigarette manufacturers pay out to the government and states it makes sense that anything that takes their place needs to be proven safe or not safe and then handled accordingly.

spacemanmatt• 10 years ago

Like say, scary skull-and-crossbones labeling on the package? There are tons of ways they could have addressed the state of safety research available for the product without handing a giant regulatory favor to the tobacco lobby. But we're talking about the tobacco lobby -- your safety was only ever a giant farce to them.

sokoloff• 10 years ago

"Proven safe" is a very high bar.

Is alcohol, high-fructose corn syrup, or grilled red meat "proven safe"?

dTal3• 10 years ago

They don't have to be "safe" - I'm sure they're not. They just have to be safer than cigarettes, which they almost certainly are. Given this it is essential to encourage people to switch. A million bucks to the government for every flavor? A transparent attempt by established players to kill a disruptive nascent industry.

Beware status quo bias.

MBCook6• 10 years ago

How is it against public health to require all these inhaler devices to undergo some sort of real approval process?

Yeah the date chosen serves PM's needs, but I don't think it hurts public health.

dTal3• 10 years ago

Because they directly compete with, and are much safer than, cigarettes.

edit: Studies are continually being done, and so far the results are pretty clear: http://www.nhs.uk/news/2015/08August/Pages/E-cigarettes-95-p...

StanislavPetrov• 10 years ago

How is it against public health to require all these inhaler devices to undergo some sort of real approval process?

There are two issues here.

First, the government has absolutely no right to tell me what I can or can't do "for my own good" at the point of a gun (even though it does so already in many ways), and this is just another attack on my freedom.

Even if you buy into the government's "right" to control the personal behavior of consenting adults behind closed doors titularly because of "public health", this legislation isn't about that.

Each application could cost $1 million or more

Creating such an expensive and onerous application process insures that the vast majority of e-cigarettes won't ever make it to the "approval process". Only corporations with very deep pockets will have access to this market after this law is passed, and that access has absolutely nothing to do with public health.

That's the issue here

rayiner4• 10 years ago

This is a great example of what lobbying is and isn't. There are objectively good reasons to regulate e-cigarettes. And it's undeniable that tobacco companies are much more heavily regulated than e-cigarette companies. But it's also true that what hurts e-cigarette companies helps tobacco companies.

x5n1• 10 years ago

or the e-cig companies are a direct competitor to cigs. safer and cheaper competitive product that the cig companies want shut down or be heavily encumbered so they stay competitive.

Amezarak8• 10 years ago

But it's also true that what hurts e-cigarette companies helps tobacco companies.

Not really. The major tobacco manufacturers dominate e-cig marketshare in the US.

The way it benefits them is that smaller players can afford the regulation less, ensuring the tobacco manufacturers can get a total lock on the market.

fu9ar• 10 years ago

Corporate lobbying isn't the only kind of lobbying.

Symmetry• 10 years ago

Another bootleggers and baptists style coalition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists

snowwrestler6• 10 years ago

The bill, and today's new FDA regulation, are not against public health. As that same article says:

Philip Morris’s motives notwithstanding, the legislation has broad support from nearly 1,000 advocacy groups, including the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, which led the negotiations with the company, as well as the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society.

And today public health organizations like the American Lung Association and American Heart Association are welcoming the FDA rule:

http://www.lung.org/about-us/media/press-releases/fda-assert...

http://newsroom.heart.org/news/new-rule-gives-fda-tighter-gr...

Phillip Morris' involvement is not a form of corruption, or social proof the rule is secretly bad for everyone. It's the natural consequence of our system of government, which says that persons and companies subject to new laws are allowed to have a say in the process. Google fought SOPA, for example.

The benefit to Phillip Morris is to deny new entrants to the tobacco market. This is also a benefit to public health, plus health advocates hope that the regulations will help shrink the overall market for tobacco products in the U.S.

Edit: throwaway_yy2Di says the bill is bad for public health based on nothing, and is the top comment. 1,000 public health orgs say the bill is good for public health (in the same story!), and this comment is sitting at 0. I guess that's HN for ya...

all2well• 10 years ago

The issue is that tobacco cigarettes are _much_ worse for your health than e-cigarettes. This doesn't mean e-cigarettes aren't unhealthy, but between the two there's a clear winner in terms of health outcomes. Sure, it denies entry to the tobacco market, but it specifically denies entry to a more competitive, healthier alternative to tobacco cigarettes.

jonnathanson• 10 years ago

Also: pretty much every single tobacco manufacturer in the US sued over the constitutionality of the Act on various grounds (often free speech w/r/t restrictions on advertising).

Altria (Philip Morris parent company) was the only tobacco player not to say a word once the Act passed.

apercu• 10 years ago

It's kind of sad that the only answer to this type of thing we have seen in (relatively) recent times is Reagans disastrous deregulation, nothing like Northern Securities Co. v. United States or the Sherman Anti-trust act in over 100 years (unless you count NIRA or the Robinson-Patman Act), which I don't. The FTC just approves mergers, that's the only change, one more step.

nutmeg• 10 years ago

A perfect example of regulating your competitors out of business.

tmacro2• 10 years ago

Well this has, more or less, killed my ejuice business.

choko• 10 years ago

That may have been the intent. The million dollar a flavor fee isn't too large a hurdle for the likes of Phillip Morris, but will be ruinous for most of their competition.

excalibur• 10 years ago

On the bright side, you'll have a few months of insane profit while people like me try to stockpile for the vaping apocalypse while we can.

ikeboy• 10 years ago

What's up with the numbers in the title?

yebyen• 10 years ago

I believe those are supposed to represent votes for Yea, Nay, Abstain...

throwanem7• 10 years ago

No, they're the "social sharing" scores from the strip along the left hand side of the article page. If you're not very careful about how you highlight the title of the article, you'll get them too when you copy and paste. They aren't part of the title and will presumably be removed when a moderator notices.

pdq• 10 years ago

This is a prime example of Regulatory Capture [1].

"That means nearly all every e-cigarette on the market — and every different flavor and nicotine level — would require a separate application for federal approval. Each application could cost $1 million or more."

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

mtgx• 10 years ago

It reminds me of taxi medallions.

passivepinetree• 10 years ago

Does anyone know why each application would be so costly? That amount seems ridiculously large to me.

snuxoll9• 10 years ago

The FDA's position on tobacco products is such that they realize they will continue to exist, but they certainly don't want to incentivize their continued use and development. Of course, the high cost of the application results in regulatory capture, so this is more of a handout to the existing tobacco industry more than anything. Imperial Brands and Reynolds American both own products that are grandfathered in (Blu and Vuse respectively), and can afford the cost of the applications (especially when you consider they sell cartridges fro these products at $5 a piece for under 1ml of liquid, which is why the majority of "vapers" buy higher grade equipment and liquid in bottles - these devices are less cost effective than traditional cigarettes).

6stringmerc4• 10 years ago

Can anyone fill me in as to whether or not this will apply to any 'e-juice' products that do not contain nicotine?

I think the 'competitive vape' scene use nicotine-free substances, so I'm aware they exist. But that whole 'different formulations' thing sounds very troublesome, even on the basic level?

Many thanks in advance to any who might have closer tabs on this subject.

loeg• 10 years ago

In "VNP," the N stands for Nicotine.

tmacro2• 10 years ago

The general presumption is no it wouldn't effect ejuice containing no nicotine. The general formula for ejuice is vegetable glycerin, propylene glycol, flavor extracts, and liquid nicotine based in PG. Sine all these ingredients are generally available without regulation ( minus nicotine ) I feel that I would be hard to claim that these constitute a tobacco product.

6stringmerc4• 10 years ago

Thank you very much for the distinctions. This bodes well for a non-consumption idea I had somewhat based on the existing technology, though with no intention of including nicotine in the platform. I'll have to see what the local shops plan on doing to get a first-hand feel for potential supplier issues. Again, very much appreciate the shared perspective.

SmirkingRevenge• 10 years ago

Interesting, sounds like a potential loophole.

The juice makers could just sell the vape juice without any nicotine, which can be added later, by the consumer, or at your favorite shop I'm sure.

When I used to vape, the shopkeepers would sometimes do that, if they were out of a flavor at my nicotine level.

roel_v2• 10 years ago

"I think the 'competitive vape' scene use nicotine-free substances"

This is probably a ridiculous question, but you don't mean that there are vaping competitions, do you?

6stringmerc4• 10 years ago

Actually I do mean there are vaping competitions hehe. They call themselves 'cloud chasers' and they put on an event a few months ago at a local, rather large entertainment venue in Deep Ellum (The Bomb Factory). I've been wanting to use some of their findings and techniques in an offshoot project, so their interest, while not my interest, is useful.

halosghost• 10 years ago

I am confused. Most things in this article talk about tobacco products, but many e-juice and e-cig products actually do not contain tobacco, though they do contain nicotine. Is this just failure on the author's part, or is this bill not really going to affect e-cigs afterall?

pessimizer3• 10 years ago

It's representative of the equivocation being used by the anti-tobacco lobby to expand to a device that doesn't involve tobacco. The ultimate inversion of the tobacco industry helping them would be surprising to me if I weren't familiar with their efforts to keep Swedish snus out of the EU (where it is illegal.)

edit: "The widespread use of snus by Swedish men (estimated at 30% of Swedish male ex-smokers), displacing tobacco smoking and other varieties of snuff, is thought to be responsible for the incidence of tobacco-related mortality in men being significantly lower in Sweden than any other European country. In contrast, since women traditionally are less likely to use snus, their rate of tobacco-related deaths in Sweden can be compared to that of other European countries."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snus#Health_consequences

prodmerc• 10 years ago

Tobacco = nicotine in most people's minds. Total ignorance of all the other shit that actually makes cigarettes dangerous and addictive.

But hey, ban everything for the average schmucks, let only the rich and famous be able to use anything they way without repercussions.

snowwrestler6• 10 years ago

Nicotine is usually a tobacco extract.

esoteric_nonces• 10 years ago

E-liquid can be made at home using pharmaceutical grade glycerine. In fact, you can vape glycerine on its' own (possibly adding some distilled water to aid in wicking). It has a vaguely sweet flavour. Commercial e-liquid is made using vegetable glycerin, propylene glycol, or some mixture of the two.

In the UK glycerine is available in pharmacists for ~$2 per 200ml. https://www.boots.com/en/Value-Health-Glycerin-B-P-200ml_852...

The devices themselves can be bought from overseas - AliExpress has many variants, some for <$10.

At that stage, the 'safety of e-cigarettes' is equivalent to the safety of inhaling atomized glycerine. Stage smoke.

Flavourings - you can look for things which are used in aromatherapy (e.g. menthol crystals), but you'll probably want to study whether any chemical changes can occur under heating.

Pre-mixed nicotine is a difficult one. I don't use it so I'm not sure if you can acquire it from trustworthy sources.

I would not want to fall into the habit of using e-cigarettes produced by tobacco companies such as the 'vype' disposable (British American Tobacco). They have a history of producing methods to increase the addictive potential of cigarettes, ramping up nicotine levels, to cheating on tests, using ammonia to produce 'freebase' nicotine, etcetera. I wouldn't be surprised if the same bag of tricks comes out in the e-cigarette market.

theophrastus• 10 years ago

"atomized glycerine" drawn over a hot metal element. It's that heated element that biochemists find worrisome. We regularly use hot metal elements ("catalysts") in the lab to "activate" (typically to generate free radicals) small molecules along a synthetic pathway. If you draw glycerine, or any glycol, over a heated element you will generate products like formaldehyde. Inhaled formaldehyde is a health hazard; often associated with cancer. The flavorings are often aldehydes and ketones and are even more likely to generate free radicals, which are implicated to an even greater degree with triggering cancers. The real social health concern with vaping vs smoking is while we have a hundred years worth of statistical data on smoking - we only are just now guessing at the "well, it's better than smoking" conclusion with vaping.

Aelinsaar4• 10 years ago

It's a red hot element too, I've never seen a vaping device with anything like good control over more than some basic resistance parameters. Basically you can vape over a cherry red wire, or a dull red wire. IIRC that's well over 800 degrees, which is past "vaping" in any real sense.

petra• 10 years ago

If the only purpose is create a myst of nicotine, aren't there other chemicals what could do that without creating free radicals, at least theoretically, and it's just a matter of searching for them ?

revelation2• 10 years ago

Thank god we have established just how cancerous some things are, because otherwise we would be having these kind of discussions about bananas and apples, as there sure are a lot of things out there that can be trivially proven to be cancerous.

I take it you don't eat grilled stuff?

anexprogrammer• 10 years ago

Nicotine premix is available from many online vaping sites, so is going to be at least as trustworthy as their e-liquids.

I stopped thinking about mixing my own when I discovered Poundland carries branded eliquids. £1 for what seems to have a widely standard price of £3.33 or £4 in the vape shops and sites.

spriggan3• 10 years ago

So as usually kill the little guy and make big corporations even richer. The same big corporations who then complain that there is "too much regulation" on CNBC.

blakes2• 10 years ago

Here's the actual rule: https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.g...

From what I can tell it would regulate all nicotine containing juice and all hardware that is intended to be used with that. So a lot of small business that build these mod-boxes and things will not be in compliance.

It's too bad, this really hurts small business.

unprepare• 10 years ago

i suspect some will rebrand as marijuana focused vape companies, that will also happen to work as ecigs, especially as marijuana becomes more legalised across the nation.

Though i further suspect someone will try to get the FDA to pass similar rules for marijuana products, something i dont believe it can do until marijuana is legalized at the federal level (it would be hard to get federal approval for a device thats designed to break federal law)

snuxoll9• 10 years ago

The dispensaries in WA already sell the same devices as well as pre-filled cartridges containing oil extracted from cannabis. I don't think the FDA would buy it though.

GrinningFool• 10 years ago

Link to the announcement from FDA which contains more info:

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/uc...

jeffdavis2• 10 years ago

It seems like more and more of the legal system is based on "rules" issued by unelected officials, and less based on actual laws passed by Congress.

strommen• 10 years ago

The people that work in the FDA are experts in the safety of food and drugs. The representatives in Congress are...not.

Either group can be bought off by a tobacco company, which seems to be what happened in this case.

eplanit• 10 years ago

Perhaps it could have been phrased more clearly: It seems like more and more [the force (and consequence to the citizen) of the government's authority] is based on "rules" issued by unelected officials, and less based on actual laws passed by [elected members of] Congress.

dragonwriter5• 10 years ago

These rules were issued by the FDA under the provisions adopted in "actual laws passed by Congress", principally the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009.

jeffdavis2• 10 years ago

I'm not entirely comfortable with Congress delegating its authority to unelected people for unlimited periods of time.

The fact is, what was perfectly legal yesterday will be illegal shortly, despite no new laws being passed, and no members of Congress taking responsibility.

That's called rule of man, not rule of law.

dageshi• 10 years ago

They haven't just done this for e-cigarettes, they've done it for cigars as well. My understanding is that any new cigar released in the US will need approval from the FDA at a fairly exhorbitant cost.

This will of course massively favour the big producers who can afford to deal with it and destroy the boutique brands.

sandworm1012• 10 years ago

My only opinion on this: Nicotine vapour can be absorbed through skin. That, and the lack of any possible filtration, means it is a totally different beast in terms of bystanders. I don't want to be around nicotine vapour. Any and all legislation/regulation that keeps me from having to share a bus/plane/bar/ship/hallway with that cloud is a good thing.

Whether it's better or worse for current smokers is beside the point. That's their problem and they can solve it themselves. I care about my health and me remaining not influenced or even addicted to nicotine.

lottin• 10 years ago

What about the poisonous vapours that are released by car exhausts?

cjensen• 10 years ago

That is an orthogonal issue[1] which has no bearing on discussion of vaping regulation.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

adrusi2• 10 years ago

You're being entirely dogmatic; nicotine is hardly bad for you at all on its own. The consensus is that it probably doesn't have any role in causing cancer, although it might accelerate an existing metastasized cancer. There are some adverse effects on developing fetuses, but those are relatively minor even when the mother is smoking a pack a day.

Consuming nicotine yourself is somewhat bad for your health, and its irresponsible for a pregnant woman to smoke it because it will hurt their child. But in the doses that can be achieved through secondhand consumption are so terribly low as to be totally negligible. It's absolutely ridiculous to worry about being around someone who's vaping.

Second hand smoke is a problem not because of nicotine, its a problem because of other chemicals in smoke, and its only actually harmful if you live or work with a smoker. You have to be exposed to it constantly and live in an environment where the smoke has penetrated every porous object and seeps into your clothes and your food and your water.

And your comment about nicotine vapor being absorbed through skin is misleading, because you suggest that cigarette smoke isn't absorbed through the skin and that there's a significant amount absorbed through the skin relative to the amount inhaled. Perhaps the root of your confusion is that the nicotine/glycol liquid solution can be absorbed through the skin and spilling it on yourself is enough to get quite a high dose of nicotine if you don't quickly wash it off. Before ecigarette fluids standardized on glycol, they used other solvents which allowed faster absorption through skin, which made it realistic to give yourself lethal nicotine poisoning by spilling it on yourself.

If you want to avoid the ecig cloud for the sake of avoiding the smell, I can't disagree with you, and I'd support legislation prohibiting vaping in public indoor spaces.

Just please stop making up stupid shit. It is inconceivable that your health would be influenced by spending time in a public space with someone vaping. It would be even more absurd to conceive of developing an addiction that way.

snuxoll9• 10 years ago

It is certainly not absurd to not like being bombarded with a cloud of smoke or vapor, at the very least. The vast majority of people who use e-cigs follow the same etiquette as smokers, but there's always asshats in society who care about nobody but themselves.

sandworm1012• 10 years ago

"Just please stop making up stupid shit."

Lol. I was going to reply, then I came to that.

cmdrfred• 10 years ago

nicotine is hardly bad for you at all on its own.

Incorrect. It is also used as a pesticide and is highly poisonous to humans.[0] You don't get to make that decision for me, do whatever you want in your own home but on public property cut it out with the bullshit. If you can't go a few hours with that drug maybe you need to reevaluate your life.

"In December 2002, approximately 250 lbs. of ground beef was adulterated with nicotine sulfate by a supermarket employee and subsequently sold to the public. Soon afterward, reports of illness associated with ground beef purchased at a single store were identified. Authorities suspected the ground beef was tainted with Black Leaf 40, a banned pesticide containing approximately 40% nicotine as nicotine sulfate"

[0] http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/a?dbs+hsdb:@ter...

mistermann16• 10 years ago

Lots of people are opposed to WiFi and cell phone signals, so those should also be banned. Whether that is inconvenient or not or has any basis in science is beside the point, that's the problem of Wifi users to figure out. I care about my health and do not want carcinogenic waves passing through my skin. Using similar logic from this thread, I in no way have to show there is any genuine risk involved, the burden is on you to prove that there is not risk.

Wow, throwing one's legislative weight around with no concern for facts or reality is fun.

MBCook6• 10 years ago

No, those (are you ready for it?) actually have been studied my medical professionals, the FCC, and tons of others so we know they are safe.

leephillips2• 10 years ago

This report from the CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm6514a1.htm

shows that a good part of the middle- and high-school student population replaced their cigarette consumption by electronic cigarettes. But this is another nicotine-delivery system, and, as the report says, "Nicotine exposure during adolescence, a critical period for brain development, can cause addiction, might harm brain development, and could lead to sustained tobacco product use".

AlexandrB• 10 years ago

But AFAIK selling both cigarettes and e-cigarettes to minors was already illegal, so how does this law change anything?

voxic11• 10 years ago

It's not illegal federally and most states are only just now getting around to banning ecig sales to minors.

awqrre• 10 years ago

I don't think that you need to use nicotine during adolescence for it to be addictive... at least not in my personal experience.

revelation2• 10 years ago

That's hilarious. The one thing nobody is concerned about with smoking (e- or otherwise) is the nicotine, because it has been established countless times that it is no more harmful or indeed addictive than e.g. caffeine.

leephillips2• 10 years ago

Caffeine should also be avoided by adolescents, for the same reasons.

saticmotion2• 10 years ago

This seems pretty draconic. To compare with a recent law passed here, in Belgium:

- A fee of 4.000 Euro to bring a product to market.

- Juice bottles of maximum 10ml

- No remote selling of e-cigarettes (but liquids are for some reason allowed)

- No advertising (with some exceptions)

mratzloff• 10 years ago

(Just a small note: "draconic" means "dragon-like". You mean "draconian".)

saticmotion2• 10 years ago

Thanks. It's "draconisch" in dutch. And words with -isch are typically translated to -ic in english, hence the confusion.

zodPod• 10 years ago

Wtf is with the max of 10mL? That's asinine. God forbid anyone get a bulk discount..?

Zigurd5• 10 years ago

There are a lot of posts on this threat that assume nicotine is bad. "Bad" badly needs to be defined. Worse than other stimulants? If not, why not accept a choice people make to vape?

Being a bluenose is bad. It's bad for everyone's freedom of choice. It's bad because it introduces social costs for no supportable reason. Don't be a bluenose.

Lastly, this is transparently a rearguard action by cigarette makers, who have been shown to be selling a deadly product. That's really bad.

donatj• 10 years ago

Nicotine in and of itself is a wonderful drug, far better and less harmful than caffeine. The problem is not nicotine, it's tobacco and the other things that come with it.

northisup• 10 years ago

Nearly bans them...for children.

mccoolman• 10 years ago

They are regulating the hardware as well? What is to differentiate between an ecig battery and a flashlight battery? Are Tesla vehicles now going to be considered nicotine devices? That's absolutely ridiculous.

Exuma• 10 years ago

VΛ

washadjeffmad• 10 years ago

Gwern compiled an excellent assessment of nicotine as a supplement.

https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine

This regulation is disingenuous and misinformed, if only because vaping solutions don't contain nicotine as a necessary component any more than bubble gum or throat lozenges do. The regulation seems to try to cover for this by including new rules for only other optional ingredients: its flavorings.

Conflating it with tobacco smoking is their basis for passing as a protection measure for children, but it bears little in common, chemically or medically, with it. When ultrasonic models appear, they'll piggyback off of existing regulation to include them, but it'll be a bankrupt argument.

Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them

Related Stories