Page 1 of 9 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 85

Thread: ALERT FROM BILL GODSHALL RE: FDA PETITION

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    6,145

    Exclamation ALERT FROM BILL GODSHALL RE: FDA PETITION

    Copying this and making it a sticky so it won't get lost

    Dockets now available to submit comments urging FDA to protect the health of smokers and vapers, not cigarettes

    The Citizens Petition by the American Association of Public Health Physicians (AAPHP) urging the FDA to reclassify and regulate electronic cigarettes (nicotine vaporizers) as tobacco products (instead of trying to ban the products by classifying them as drugs or devices) is at http://www.regulations.gov/search/Re...DA-2010-P-0095

    To submit a comment urging supportive action by the FDA, go to http://www.regulations.gov/search/Re...00006480aa84a7

    Suggested talking points:
    - since e-cigarettes (nicotine vaporizers) are derived from tobacco, the FDA can legally reclassify and regulate them as "tobacco products",
    - by choosing to classify e-cigarettes as "drugs" or "devices", the FDA was/is attempting to ban the products,
    - hundreds of thousands of smokers already have significantly reduced their health risks by switching to e-cigarettes,
    - by reclassifying e-cigarettes as tobacco products, the FDA would ban their sale to minors, can establish other reasonable and responsible product regulations, would help to reduce (instead of maintain) cigarette consumption, and would save taxpayers money that FDA continues to waste,
    - in SE vs FDA, federal Judge Richard Leon has ruled that the FDA can regulate e-cigarettes as "tobacco products", but not as "drugs" or "devices",
    - sales and use of e-cigarettes have continued to sharply increase despite the FDA's ongoing attempt to ban the products,
    - banning e-cigarettes would primarily protect cigarette markets at the expense of consumer and public health,
    - if applicable, describe your personal experience using e-cigarettes.

    - - - -

    The Citizens Petition by the American Association of Public Health Physicians (AAPHP) urging the FDA to clarify/correct inaccurate and misleading claims about electronic cigarettes (nicotine vaporizers) made at the FDA's July 22, 2009 press conference, and to truthfully inform the public of existing evidence about the products is now available at http://www.regulations.gov/search/Re...DA-2010-P-0093

    To submit a comment urging supportive action by the FDA, go to http://www.regulations.gov/search/Re...00006480aa7cac

    Suggested talking points:
    - the FDA http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Public.../ucm172906.htm grossly mispresented its own laboratory test findings on two brands of e-cigarettes http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/S.../UCM173250.pdf
    - in contrast to claims made at the FDA's press conference, there is no evidence that e-cigarettes have ever harmed any user or nonuser, and there is no evidence that e-cigarettes are marketed to youth,
    - the FDA failed to acknowledge any evidence (sent to the agency) that e-cigarettes are far less hazardous alternatives to tobacco cigarettes, and that thousands of e-cigarette users informed the agency they had quit smoking by switching to the products,
    - cigarette smokers have a human right to truthful information about, and legal access to, less hazardous alternatives,
    - FDA officials have an ethical duty to protect consumer health and to provide truthful health risk information,
    - if applicable, describe your personal experience using e-cigarettes.

    - - - -

    More than TWO YEARS have passed since NY State Health Commissioner Richard Daines submitted a Citizens Petition to the FDA at http://www.regulations.gov/search/Re...DA-2008-P-0116 to (1) allow FDA approved Over The Counter NRT products (i.e. nicotine gums, patches and lozenges) to be sold in all stores that sell cigarettes; (2) allow NRT products to be sold in less expensive daily dose units; and (3) change labels on NRT products to inform consumers of the health benefits of NRT compared to cigarettes, to eliminate unsubstantiated health warnings, and to encourage use of NRT if tobacco use continues.

    To submit a comment urging supportive action by the FDA, go to http://www.regulations.gov/search/Re...000064803ae224

    Please note that another petition very similar to Richard Daines' petition was recently submitted by SRNT and ATTUD, which is now awaiting docketing by the FDA.

    Suggested talking points:
    - many more smokers would try using NRT products if they are sold in $5-$10 packages instead of just in $35+ packages,
    - more smokers would try using NRT products if they are sold at more retail stores alongside cigarettes,
    - current warning labels on NRT products mislead many consumers to believe they pose far greater health/safety risks than is the case,
    - NRT products are far less hazardous than cigarettes, and are often used as temporary and/or long term substitutes for cigarettes,
    - smokers can reduce their health risks by concurrently using NRT products and cigarettes, with risk reduction proportionate to cigarette reduction,
    - many/most NRT products are consumed by people who have used the products longer than the twelve weeks currently approved by the FDA, and
    - although clinical trials find that just 7% of NRT users remain smokefree after six months, many NRT users consider them acceptable alternatives to cigarettes.


    Bill Godshall
    Executive Director
    Smokefree Pennsylvania
    1926 Monongahela Avenue
    Pittsburgh, PA 15218
    412-351-5880
    smokefree@compuserve.com
    Last edited by Treece; 03-14-2010 at 12:11 PM. Reason: To fix links

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    6,242

    Default

    Does that man ever engage in proper debate and consider other positions than his narrow minded duality of medical and tobacco regulation?

    He presents you with a choice of a ban or a ban and pretends you don't already have adequate consumer protection.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    The Dollhouse of Debauchery
    Posts
    16,901

    Default

    but what if i don't want an nrt.. what if i want my PV?
    Stand for something or you will fall for anything...

    ********************


    Click me!
    ***

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    6,242

    Default

    PVs aren't therapy, they have no medical use, they sustain addiction.

    I can't believe you're being encouraged to have existing consumer laws removed in order to try to fit nicotine products into tobacco classification. If that fails then the logic is that medical classification is the only category left. Madness.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,106

    Default

    If they are not classified as tobacco products in the US, then they will be considered drugs or devices. That would be devastating.

    The US is a country in which tobacco is a very big business. And tobacco regulation is far less stringent than drug regulation. Also, although big tobacco has been slapped around as of late, that smack down is nothing compared to what the FDA will do if they classify these things as drugs. I see no problem with this petition. We want PVs to be classified as tobacco products...plain and simple. The alternative is fatal.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    6,242

    Default

    What evidence do you have that shows they'll be classed as medicine if they're not classed as tobacco?

    Why do you have to support tobacco classification in order to oppose medical?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    6,242

    Default

    If anybody is going to bother opposing the medical argument this might be of interest:



    ...

    Thank you very much for your response to my questions, your reply is very helpful. I'm still a bit confused by some aspects of the Public consultation (MLX 364): The regulation of nicotine containing products (NCPs) and would be grateful if you would clarify some points for me please.

    Your proposal is to remove the protection of current laws for unlicensed nicotine products (such as the Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 2009, the Poisons Act 1972, CE mark standards and the General Product Safety Regulations 2005) and to bring all nicotine products under the provisions of the Medicines Act 1968, with the exception of all tobacco products; so you can assess safety, quality and efficacy and subject them to license .... is that correct?

    You are doing this because the MHRA is responsible for the regulation of medicines and medical devices which are defined as:

    • (a) Any substance or combination of substances presented as having properties for treating or preventing disease in human beings;
      or
      (b) Any substance or combination of substances which may be used in or administered to human beings either with a view to restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions by exerting a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action, or to making a medical diagnosis.


    To my knowledge, nicotine has no proven effective medical purpose yet even though your current practice of granting licenses for some nicotine products implies that it does. The 'cessation' products you license prolong nicotine addiction but do not treat or correct any health condition; nor can they be used to make a medical diagnosis. So how is it appropriate or legal for you to regulate nicotine at all until/unless there is evidence that it can be used as a medical treatment?

    In a medical context, for what are you expecting nicotine to be proven effective? Some foods and plants contain nicotine, how will they be regulated and how will you determine effectiveness? I don't understand how proof of anything can be required by you for commercial nicotine products which are not brought under your jurisdiction by presentation. Surely coffee traders, alcohol sellers or people who sell solvents that can cause intoxication are not expected to license their products as medicines even though their pharmacological action may appreciably effect metabolism.

    How will it benefit consumers if you remove a product from the regulated open market and leave no satisfying or safe alternatives? Unregulated black market products are likely to carry a lot more risk than the ones covered by current trading regulations.

    Thanks again for your help, I look forward to hearing from you.

    Kate ***

    http://vapersnetwork.org/forum/showt...d=1468#pid1468

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kate View Post
    What evidence do you have that shows they'll be classed as medicine if they're not classed as tobacco?

    Why do you have to support tobacco classification in order to oppose medical?
    Taking into consideration the regulatory scheme here in the US, there are two boxes in which to put these devices: (1) tobacco product; (2) drug and device. Nicotene is derived from tobacco and it is a drug. So, where else would it be classified for purposes of regulation? If you have some sort of wisdom to impart as it pertains to Administrative Law in the US Federal Courts, please enlighten me.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    6,242

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,106

    Default

    OK, I worked a year for the Consumer Protection Division mediating consumer complaints. So, this is, by no means enlightening and, honestly, is not even ripe for discussion at this point. And, for the record, consumer protection laws in this country are a goddamn joke. Corporations still rule and consumers can kiss their asses for the most part.

    And, for some reason, you are missing my point. I was talking about administrative law as it pertains to the issue at hand which is, how do we classify these devices. In a perfect world, they would have their own little magical classification which is neither tobacco-related or medical. But, in the legal scheme of things (at least on this side of the pond), our choices of classification are basically reduced to two with minor variations within each classification.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •