FDA Deeming Order 'Table of Contents ' published by TVECA

This is very disturbing. The worst part is that any tobacco product can be added can be added by regulation. The FDA will be able to declare any product as being tobacco related, and do what it wants without any input from the House or Senate.

Here is a link to the Table of Contents
Comments
  • 8 Comments sorted by Votes Date Added
  • Thank you for sharing this information.So terrible information.
  • Sure why not they can do whatever they want without any input. They do that for everything.
  • @watkijw I added some updated information from CASAA to the Forum Thread you referenced.

    ● Additional action that cane be taken today, Thursday 10.29.2015, for anyone who wasn't able to contact the White House because of the phone lines being busy. I also added an alternative phone number for the White House and Key Talk Points to mention when speaking with the White House. All this information was courtesy of CASAA.

    --------

    ● The Updated Information Including: Talking Points, Alternate White House Phone #, Link to CASAA Website for sending Emails to State Senators and Congressional Representatives, & Details about Supporting and Co-sponsor HR 2058, a bill that would stop the FDA from banning 99%-plus of vapor products.

    PLEASE CLICK ON THE FOLLOWING THREAD (for all the key information listed above): https://forums.aspirecig.com/discussion/27286/the-future-of-vaping-could-be-non-existent#latest
  • Thank you for the additional info @Southy321 ! :)>-
  • Regarding all members currently or now in the Vaping Community. Please take 30 mins out of your day to help protect our rights to Vape. Follow the current National Call to Action and additionally support Issues that relate to your State of Residence under "Calls To Action by State" (http://blog.casaa.org/p/calls-to-action-by-state.html?m=1)

    ■ The following could or might be changed by the FDA’s Ruling. Mainly, the following things would be affecht:

    ● availability of current Vaping Equipment,
    ● keeping the many flavor choices regarding E-Liquids,
    ● different options of Nic Level,
    ● future vaping equipment that can be developed,
    ● and making sure that anything vaping related isn't unfairly Taxed (since Vaping Products already have State Sales Tax applied to B&M or Online Purchases from Retailer's located in that State).

    Voice your support and positive vaping story through ~ CASAA (Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives association)

    "Once the FDA has released its proposed regulations for e-cigarettes and other tobacco products to the public for comment, CASAA will review the legal and scientific implications of the proposal and identify points of concern and agreement. We will then issue a Call to Action (CTA) asking members to submit comments to the FDA. The CTA will include recommended talking points and a link to the FDA comment form. It's extremely important that as many members as possible of CASAA and the e-cigarette community submit comments to the FDA when the time comes."

    This page will be updated as more information becomes known but take action in the meantime through: http://cqrcengage.com/casaa/app/write-a-letter?9&engagementId=101154

    \m/ \m/
  • @watkijw I'm hoping all residence of the United States, will take action with supporting HR2058 and voicing their personal story. I normally don'tcomment on Politics but this is such an important role that everyone that befits from Vaping needs to take part in every way possible. :D \m/ :-bd
  • edited October 2015 Vote Up0Vote Down
    Our freedom to vape, and buy the supplies needed is something we need to fight for. This fight must be fought wherever a country or organization attempts to limit our freedom. Action taken by any jurisdiction to limit our freedom will be used as a legal precedent elsewhere.

    One significant bit of evidence than folks should mention is Public Health England's August 19, 2015 release of "E-cigarettes: an evidence update." The UK government website states "This review explains the relative risks and benefits of e-cigarettes, in terms of harm reduction when compared with cigarettes and as an aid to quitting." It concludes "E-cigarettes are 95% less harmful to your health than normal cigarettes. When supported by a smoking cessation service, they help most smokers to quit tobacco altogether."


    The following executive summary of this report has been prepared for your consideration. This summary consists solely of direct quotes from the full document found here.

    Executive Summary: E-cigarettes: an evidence update

    As detailed elsewhere in the report, the information we present does not indicate widespread problems as a result of EC. New regulations currently planned should be implemented to maximise the benefits of EC whilst minimising these risks.

    The ASH survey indicates that about 60% of current EC users are current smokers, and about 40% are ex-smokers. The proportion of EC users among never smokers remains negligible.

    Although the concept of the gateway theory is often treated as a straightforward scientific theory, its emergence is rather more complicated. In effect, it is a hybrid of popular, academic and media accounts - a construct retroactively assembled rather than one initially articulated as a coherent theory.

    Since EC were introduced to the market, smoking prevalence among adults and youth has declined. Hence there is no evidence to date that EC are renormalising smoking, instead it's possible that their presence has contributed to further declines in smoking, or denormalisation of smoking. The gateway theory is ill defined and we suggest its use be abandoned until it is clear how it can be tested in this field. Whilst never smokers are experimenting with EC, the vast majority of youth who regularly use EC are smokers. Regular EC use in youth is rare.

    EC should not routinely be treated in the same way as smoking. It is not appropriate to prohibit EC use in health trusts and prisons as part of smokefree policies unless there is a strong rationale to do so.

    Although the majority of adults and youth still correctly perceive EC to be less harmful than tobacco cigarettes, there has been an overall shift towards the inaccurate perception of EC being at least as harmful as cigarettes over the last year, for both groups. Intriguingly, there is also some evidence that people believe EC to be less harmful than medicinal nicotine replacement therapy (NRT).

    Regulatory interventions should ensure optimal product safety but make sure EC are not regulated more strictly than cigarettes and can continue to evolve and improve their competitiveness against cigarettes.

    There is no indication that EC users are exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes." "The mice model has little relevance for estimating human risk and it does not raise any new safety concerns.

    Encouraging smokers who cannot or do not want to stop smoking to switch to EC could be adopted as one of the key strategies to reduce smoking related disease and death.

    There is a need to publicise the current best estimate that using EC is around 95% safer than smoking.
© 2017 Powered by Aspire