iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Electronic Cigarettes: E-Cigarettes Should Fall Under FDA Regulation, Says Court

MICHAEL FELBERBAUM   12/ 7/10 03:03 PM ET   AP

Electronic Cigarettes

RICHMOND, Va. — A federal appeals court says electronic cigarettes should be regulated as tobacco products by the Food and Drug Administration rather than as drug-delivery devices, which have more stringent requirements.

The ruling means their makers won't have to conduct expensive clinical trials to prove to the FDA that the products are safe and effective as a stop-smoking aid.

The decision is a setback to the FDA and other public health organizations, which had argued e-cigarettes should be regulated like nicotine replacement gum or patches. They also have warned that e-cigarettes contain dangerous chemicals and are being marketed to children.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington backed a lower court ruling that the devices should be considered under the agency's authority over tobacco, which means they would follow the same restrictions as traditional cigarettes and tobacco products.

Some sellers of e-cigarettes sued the FDA last year after the agency told customs officials to refuse entry of shipments into the U.S. A federal judge ruled in January that the FDA can't stop those shipments, saying the agency had overstepped its authority.

E-cigarettes are plastic and metal devices that heat a liquid nicotine solution in a disposable cartridge, creating vapor that the "smoker" inhales. A tiny light on the tip even glows like a real cigarette.

Nearly 46 million Americans smoke traditional cigarettes. About 40 percent try to quit cold turkey or with other nicotine replacements each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But unlike patches or gums, e-smokes have operated in a legal gray area.

Users and distributors say e-cigarettes address both the nicotine addiction and the behavioral aspects of smoking – the holding of the cigarette, the puffing, seeing the smoke come out and the hand motion – without the more than 4,000 chemicals found in a traditional cigarette.

First marketed worldwide in 2002 as an alternative to regular cigarettes, e-cigarettes didn't become easily available in the U.S. until late 2006. Now, the industry has grown from the thousands in 2006 to several million worldwide, with estimated 20,000 to 30,000 new e-smokers every week, according to Jason Healy, the president of e-cigarette maker Blu Cigs.

The FDA said the agency is reviewing the opinion and considering its next steps.

"We can now market our product the way we always should have been able to," Matt Salmon, the newly tapped CEO of Sottera Inc., which markets NJOY-branded electronic cigarettes, said in an interview with The Associated Press. "This is plain and simple an alternative to smoking for committed, longtime smokers."

Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids said in a statement that the decision will allow "any manufacturer to put any level of nicotine in any product and sell it to anybody, including children, with no government regulation or oversight at the present time."

"This ruling invites the creation of a wild west of products containing highly addictive nicotine," Myers said, urging the FDA to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

American Heart Association CEO Nancy Brown also voiced concern over the ruling.

"There is no scientific evidence that e-cigarettes are effective smoking cessation devices and, until they undergo rigorous evaluation by the Food and Drug Administration, they should be pulled from the marketplace," she said in a statement.

In September, the FDA issued warning letters to several makers of electronic cigarettes or its components, saying the companies are violating the law with unsubstantiated health claims and poor manufacturing practices.

The FDA also has said that its tests found the liquid in some electronic cigarettes contained toxic substances – besides nicotine, which is itself toxic in large doses – as well as carcinogens that occur naturally in tobacco. Most e-cigarettes are imported from overseas.

However, some public health experts say the level of those carcinogens was comparable to those found in nicotine replacement therapy, because the nicotine in all of the products is extracted from tobacco.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST HEALTH

RICHMOND, Va. — A federal appeals court says electronic cigarettes should be regulated as tobacco products by the Food and Drug Administration rather than as drug-delivery devices, which have more s...
RICHMOND, Va. — A federal appeals court says electronic cigarettes should be regulated as tobacco products by the Food and Drug Administration rather than as drug-delivery devices, which have more s...
Filed by Nicholas Miriello  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 73
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
05:32 AM on 01/10/2011
#ecigs #ecigarette I was at first open-minded to the possibility of a safer #smokeless cigarettes but as I dug deeper, I found out that a substance in smokeless cigarettes is listed in some chemical material data sheet (what I can't really remember). But "safer" does not mean "lack of harm".

Moreover the only gas you need is oxygen. Other gases breathed in simply takes away from your body cells the optimal level of oxygen you need.

Smokeless cigarettes should be regulated like any other cigarettes and probably taxed. Now I no longer believe the hype that smokeless cigarettes are "better".
12:45 PM on 12/10/2010
On the subject of the quote:

"There is no scientific evidence that e-cigarettes are effective smoking cessation devices and, until they undergo rigorous evaluation by the Food and Drug Administration, they should be pulled from the marketplace,"

No reputable company is claiming they are smoking cessation devices, in fact they are marketed as quite the opposite.

On the subject of the quote:

The FDA also has said that its tests found the liquid in some electronic cigarettes contained toxic substances – besides nicotine, which is itself toxic in large doses – as well as carcinogens that occur naturally in tobacco. Most e-cigarettes are imported from overseas.

TOXIC IN LARGE DOSES is the key phrase here, the so called ones they found are toxic in doses larger than even a chain smoker could achieve in one sitting - unless they were injecting whole bottles into their veins. The other thing is that they allow cigarettes to be sold in the mainstream whilst making these comments about e-cigs, can any see any flaws in their comments? HYPOCRITS.
04:46 AM on 12/10/2010
breathing is bad for you, stop breathing everyone, we age because our internal organs are oxidised through breathing.
http://www.articlesmoz.com/electronic-cigarette
09:00 PM on 12/09/2010
hey everyone i doubt theyll allow this comment but read this pay attention to the emboldened bit, shame they didnt include their own stories in this statement

(III) We are also committed to maintaining a non-toxic atmosphere.

As such, we do not allow hate speech, nor do we allow speech that advocates or supports hatred or unlawful violence. We do not allow racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, or other intolerance. Likewise, threats of violence or threats to anyone or any group's personal safety are not acceptable. WE ALSO DO NOT ALLOW FALSE CLAIMS OR MISLEADING IMPLICATIONS that any individual or group perpetuates hate or unlawful violence.

WELL IF THAT AINT HYPOCRITICAL - I DONT KNOW WHAT IS!
photo
Artos
Down with Tyrants
11:37 AM on 12/09/2010
I realize these guys are creating these e-cigarettes in hopes that it will help smokers give up on real Cigarettes, but I really think that it's the wrong idea. All oral fixations stem from lack of proper weaning as a  child, therefore the concept of weaning is largely responsible for all oral fixations. What would be best for those who have an oral fixation is to have an artificial Breast to feed from daily. This artificial Breast should be as nearly like a real one as is possible to make them. Then those who are addicted to Oral sedatives could exchange them for the artificial Breast thereby curing their lack of having been properly weaned.
11:41 AM on 12/09/2010
how funny, wow are you a stand up comedian! can i tell you what's wrong with your argument? What happens when a child is weaned off the breast? is it not replaced with another substance? I:E baby food. so when a child comes off the breast they should go cold turkey eh, dont feed them with an alternative. do you still feel so clever?
photo
Artos
Down with Tyrants
11:51 AM on 12/09/2010
Proper Weaning? Do you know what proper weaning is? There are a lot of factors that go into proper weaning. To start with, a healthy mother free of alchohol, drugs, nicotine, stress etc. A child that is fed regularly and doesn't have to scream for it's feeding. A child that doesn't grow up in an environment filled with stress and fighting parents. A supportive and loving environment. A period of weaning that is not overly prolonged, and yet, not prematurely stopped because of artificial reasons. Also, I doubt that feeding a child out of a plastic bottle with a rubber nipple will ever be a reasonable alternative to that which was intended by nature. We live in a world of artificiality, of stress and disquiet. It is no wonder that our society is increasingly filled with sick people.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
beyondliberal
Forward, never straight.
04:59 PM on 12/10/2010
Freud's ideas have been debunked. I guess you haven't heard.
photo
Artos
Down with Tyrants
05:05 PM on 12/10/2010
Freuds perhaps, but not Portnoys.
10:36 PM on 12/08/2010
Simply put, this device is the most ingenious method to stop smoking real cigarettes ever invented. 80% success rate. That scares the Big Tobacco and Big Pharma companies to no end. It's pretty simple: they want to shut it down because THEY didn't invent it themselves. If Phillip Morris or Pfizer had invented it, you'd see articles in every newspaper and media outlet praising them as a miracle. FDA's stance is no surprise either, because we all know the U.S. Government is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Pharmaceutical Industry, and Tobacco Settlement money is a gravy train they don't want to end.
WonderingNThinking
Think Before We Sink
03:56 AM on 01/27/2011
And the government would hate to lose the tax revenue from tobacco cigarettes or the kickbacks from Big Pharma. (I think eventually ecigs will be taxed like regular cigs).
09:39 PM on 12/08/2010
Lets see...
warm tubes of tea mist...
oxygen infusions...
vitamin infusions...
anything that is good for your lungs and has a scientifically calming flavour or association.
I've always wondered about smoking
make it worth my while
its a look I haven't tried yet.
08:20 PM on 12/08/2010
come to think of it - breathing is bad for you, stop breathing everyone, we age because our internal organs are oxidised through breathing.
08:16 PM on 12/08/2010
caffeine is bad for you, so is - e-numbers, fat, fast foods, etc, ban everything then!
photo
Artos
Down with Tyrants
11:38 AM on 12/09/2010
Thinking is obviously bad for you too.
04:58 PM on 12/08/2010
Both the author and the Heart Association's CEO Nancy Brown demonstrate that they do not understand the legal issue involved in this case. Any product that claims to have therapeutic effects--such as being an effective "smoking cessation" aid--can be regulated by the FDA as a drug or drug-device under the FDCA. As long as no health claims are made, any product that contains or is derived from tobacco can be regulated by the FDA under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. The question is, why is Matt Myers urging the FDA to appeal the ruling, instead of proceeding with establishing standards and regulations for e-cigarettes as aurhorized by the Tobacco Act? Mr. Myers makes a lot of noise about product safety and then recommends action that will prolong the period during which the products remain unregulated.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
onionboy
Blessed are the Cheese Makers
04:29 PM on 12/08/2010
This is kind of a no-brainer. Cigarettes are nicotine-delivery systems, and regulated as such. Cigarette makers fought hard against that notion, but they lost the argument. These devices are the same thing, nicotine-delivery systems. They're not the same products as cigarettes, granted, but they serve the same function.
01:10 PM on 12/09/2010
cigarettes could essentially be called a nicotine delivery system - they are the killers, not e-cigs, why aren't you asking for them to be classed as medical products?
01:14 PM on 12/09/2010
sorry didnt fully explain that one, vapers have no problem with e-cigs being classed as tobbacco related. what they have a rpoblem with is them being classed as NRT and then only available in pharmacies at a riduculous cost that makes them less appealing for a smoker to try as an alternative
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
onionboy
Blessed are the Cheese Makers
02:41 PM on 12/09/2010
I hear your argument, but I don't think you can solely blame the FDA. The e-cig companies claim to be a healthier alternative to smoking. That may be true, but you can't make that claim without doing the research. That's what the regulations say.

I've always thought e-cigs might get in trouble if they ever got successful (ie, big enough to get attention) because they make medical claims (saying something is healthier is medical claim, as far as FDA regs go). This is not unique to e-cigs. The FDA goes after all of the "male enhancement" products as well. If you go on the FDAs website and look at Warning Letters, you'll see they treat everyone this way, even big pharma companies who market beyond their labeled approval. I'm not saying they do a perfectly equitable job of it, just that they don't spare any industry.

While putting e-cigs in with cigarettes would be better for e-cig users, I'd be surprised if it was supported by the companies. It would prevent them from advertising as an alternative to smoking. They'd essentially be just another cigarette. Being a healthy alternative is their marketing tag, so I don't know that it's better for their bottom line to go that route. Bear in mind it still might end up as over-the-counter, just as with many other FDA-regulated products. Good luck.
03:17 PM on 12/08/2010
As a parent this device scares me. It is quite simply a nicotine delivery vehicle. Nicotine as we all know is a highly addictive drug.

My worry is that kids who have been convinced that smoking is bad for them will say that this isn't "smoking" and that there is no harm in trying these faux cigarettes that are designed to walk and quack like the real sticks (smoke vapor, light on the end, etc.).

Then before long they are hooked on nicotine, many of them for life, and they will migrate to tobacco products when they grow bored of these faux sticks.

It they are meant to help people quit smoking or to get them to switch to a less harmful addictive drug delivery mechanism, then treat this product like a cessation product and not the glitzy marketed at children at a vulnerable age product that is available at every convenience store (they are called convenience stores for a reason).

To me this product the way it is being marketed to children is evil. It is designed to hook a new generation on a highly addictive drug for financial gain. If that isn't evil I don't know what is.
04:20 PM on 12/08/2010
How would your child get a hold of the $50.00-$100.00 To purchase an electronic cigarette? That's the cost of these starter kits you know. These devices have to be cleaned and maintained, they aren't like traditional cigarettes where you can just light up and go. The have multiple parts. An atomizer, a battery, a charger and the cartridges, I have 3 kids myself and I don't any teen with the patience to deal with something like that.

Another point is that Personal Vaporizers can also be used with e-liquid which contains no nicotine at all, just flavoring. And if it's the flavoring that concerns you maybe you should go after all the alcohol company's he use flavoring in their drinks, as well as the people who create nicorette because their gum contains nicotine as well as flavoring.

Personal Vaporizers are not meant to help people quit smoking, they are a reduced harm smoking alternative. Meaning you have less risk because there is no smoke which causes most of the problems with cigarette smoking.
JStading
"Shall NOT be infringed" means what it says.
04:26 PM on 12/08/2010
Nope - easier just to yell "think of the children" and ban products entirely from the market.
04:50 PM on 12/08/2010
OK. So for the sake of argument, let's say a child does get the $50.00 to $100.00 to purchase an electronic cigarette without the parents' knowledge. And then those parents admit to worrying that their child would be able to recharge, refill, and maintain that device without their knowledge as well? That seems to me like quite a bit of uninvolved parenting going on there. So, yeah. Like JStading said, it's just easier to ban them entirely than take a note on what our own children are up to.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
JScott
John Galt's last name is McGuffin-Smithee
01:35 PM on 12/08/2010
I think Syd Mead showed these in some of his past illustrations as 'social appliances' in the future.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:06 PM on 12/08/2010
I normally have a lot of respect for your publication, but I am extremely disappointed in how one sided and biased this article is... Might I suggest your staff do a little more research on the subject?
Most of the suppliers of these devices, and the liquid that is used in them, are responsible enough to have disclaimers on their websites saying that they are NOT intended as a smoking cessation device, and should only be used by responsible smokers over the legal age in their state.
There are groups, including suppliers, that are raising the funding to have a study done on the air quality of the second-hand "vapor" that is released into the air (see: Indoor Vapor Air Quality Study @ http://www.ivaqs.com/ ) because we are all well aware that it is not just 'water vapor' as some of these other companies claim it is...
The only reason the FDA went after the electronic components is because they know they can't regulate the liquid, most of the ingredients of which can easily be bought at your local supermarket (except for the nicotine) and by refilling them yourself, you can actually save money over the cost of buying cigarettes. I am sure that this is one of the main reasons the Tobacco Industry wants to see these off the market, because once they catch on with the mainstream, it will cut into their revenue!!
WonderingNThinking
Think Before We Sink
04:07 AM on 01/27/2011
I think it's the tax revenue, more than the tobacco industry revenue. Three groups would fight against this: Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, and government. It's possible that the health insurance industry would be against it too, since people die sooner when they smoke (not sure if this is enough incentive, but they do tend to work hand in hand with Big Pharma).
12:48 PM on 12/08/2010
Mr. Myers is throwing a temper tantrum in the form of a press release. Is it because children are in danger? Hardly. That argument insults everyone's intelligence, and he knows it. But it's the only argument these organizations have left. If these devices are regulated as tobacco products, the age restrictions currently in place automatically apply. But even if not, whatever happened to parents doing their job instead of relying on the State to serve as nanny?

So if it's not the children, then who or what is in danger? Look at these organizations' biggest benefactors: The Pharmaceutical Companies. These companies fear for their bottom line if they don't gain complete control over the nicotine market. The success rate of their products is abysmal; it hovers around 5%. Yet they keep raking in the money from smokers who are desperate to quit but have no alternatives. So they use these products, fail, smoke, repeat. It's a money-generating circle.

Yet thousands of committed adult smokers have broken free of that circle. The body of evidence keeps growing that these devices are a far better alternative to smoking. Switchers everywhere are reporting increased lung function, better sleep, and regained senses of smell and taste. And since there is no combustion, there is no second-hand smoke or smell. At least for now, Americans still realize certain freedoms. One of those freedoms is the choice (as adults) to use tobacco products. This court's ruling has reaffirmed that freedom. At least for now.
WonderingNThinking
Think Before We Sink
04:09 AM on 01/27/2011
Tax revenue from the sale of cigarettes is an even bigger loss.