22 ms·
Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them
- pdq 11y agoThis 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
- mtgx 11y agoIt reminds me of taxi medallions.
- passivepinetree 11y agoDoes anyone know why each application would be so costly? That amount seems ridiculously large to me.
- snuxoll 11y agoThe 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).
- 6stringmerc 11y agoCan 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 11y agoIn "VNP," the N stands for Nicotine.
- tmacro 11y agoThe 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.
- 6stringmerc 11y agoThank 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 11y agoInteresting, 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_v 11y 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?
- throwaway_yy2Di 11y agoThe 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 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/business/01tobacco.html
- MBCook 11y agoHow 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.
- dTal 11y agoBecause 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-per-cent-less-harmful-than-smoking-says-report.aspx http://www.nhs.uk/news/2015/08August/Pages/E-cigarettes-95-p...
- apercu 11y agoIt'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 11y agoA perfect example of regulating your competitors out of business.
- tmacro 11y agoWell this has, more or less, killed my ejuice business.
- choko 11y agoThat 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 11y agoOn 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 11y agoWhat's up with the numbers in the title?
- yebyen 11y agoI believe those are supposed to represent votes for Yea, Nay, Abstain...
- throwanem 11y agoNo, 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.
- minikites 11y agoYep, my mistake, didn't notice until after I submitted.
- halosghost 11y agoI 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?
- pessimizer 11y agoIt'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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snus#Health_consequences
- prodmerc 11y agoTobacco = 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.
- snowwrestler 11y agoNicotine is usually a tobacco extract.
- esoteric_nonces 11y agoE-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_852418/ 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 11y 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.
- Aelinsaar 11y agoIt'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.
- spriggan3 11y agoSo 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.
- blakes 11y agoHere's the actual rule: https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2016-10685.pdf 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 11y agoi 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)
- snuxoll 11y agoThe 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.
- blakes 11y agoWhich are awesome by the way.
- snuxoll 11y agoAgreed, combustion of any kind produces things you really shouldn't be inhaling. Inhalation of anything that isn't clean air (not much of that anymore these days, though) is potentially hazardous, but the cannabis vape cartridges are certainly a better way to go about it (and less smelly too). It will be unfortunate if these FDA regulations hurt these too, not that the FDA is particularly fond of cannabis either (and I can easily foresee similar regulations being passed when it is eventually legalized at a federal level).
- GrinningFool 11y agoLink to the announcement from FDA which contains more info: http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm499234.htm http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/uc...
- jeffdavis 11y agoIt 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 11y agoThe 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 11y agoPerhaps 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.
- dragonwriter 11y agoThese 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.
- jeffdavis 11y agoI'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 11y agoThey 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.
- sandworm101 11y agoMy 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 11y agoWhat about the poisonous vapours that are released by car exhausts?
- cjensen 11y agoThat is an orthogonal issue[1] which has no bearing on discussion of vaping regulation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
- adrusi 11y agoYou'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.
- leephillips 11y agoThis report from the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm6514a1.htm 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 11y agoBut AFAIK selling both cigarettes and e-cigarettes to minors was already illegal, so how does this law change anything?
- awqrre 11y agoI don't think that you need to use nicotine during adolescence for it to be addictive... at least not in my personal experience.
- revelation 11y agoThat'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.
- saticmotion 11y agoThis 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 11y ago(Just a small note: "draconic" means "dragon-like". You mean "draconian".)
- saticmotion 11y agoThanks. It's "draconisch" in dutch. And words with -isch are typically translated to -ic in english, hence the confusion.
- zodPod 11y agoWtf is with the max of 10mL? That's asinine. God forbid anyone get a bulk discount..?
- Zigurd 11y agoThere 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 11y agoNicotine 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 11y agoNearly bans them...for children.
- mccoolman 11y agoThey 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 11y agoVΛ
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- washadjeffmad 11y agoGwern compiled an excellent assessment of nicotine as a supplement. https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine 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.