3 ms·

Did you even read the article? The main example that broke the news about this was when the FDA announced regulations about e-cigarettes. The tobacco interest

Did you even read the article? The main example that broke the news about this was when the FDA announced regulations about e-cigarettes. The tobacco interests were staunchly opposed to the regulations, and the FDA wanted to prevent NPR + other journalists from getting comment from them. Try to actually read before injecting your politics.

spdustin 10y ago
Yes, and that proves the GP's point. The tobacco industry are the ones who'll remain largely unaffected by that ruling because they are grandfathered in from certification requirements. Oh, and also, they own a considerable size of the disposal e-cig market, so the relevant ruling effectively extinguishes the smaller players who sell re-usable kit. So the interested media (who cover tobacco legislation) were kept out. So... The companies pulling the strings of the FDA were able to control the messaging of the ruling to make it about "we're in support of this" rather than "we're removing all our competition by employing the FDA as our market enforcer"
SparkyMcUnicorn 10y ago
But finid still isn't wrong and you aren't either. The FDA definitely seems to be controlled by the pharmaceutical industry. I guess sometimes these industries step on each others toes getting things done, and in the e-cig case pharma won over tobacco. P.s. friendly note that your first sentence is against HN rules.
finid 10y ago
Sorry, I don't depend on breaking news before I become familiar with something that affects me. How the FDA operates, or how it is operated, is no news for those who have been following the FDA. So the e-cig regulation was no news. I wish how food companies where allowed to market a particular type of cereal as good for you made the breaking news reel. And before you say there's solid science behind it, wasn't there an article the other day about how food companies control(led) food and nutritional scientists? I always try to look at the big picture, not just a breaking news item.

spdustin 10y ago

Yes, and that proves the GP's point. The tobacco industry are the ones who'll remain largely unaffected by that ruling because they are grandfathered in from certification requirements. Oh, and also, they own a considerable size of the disposal e-cig market, so the relevant ruling effectively extinguishes the smaller players who sell re-usable kit. So the interested media (who cover tobacco legislation) were kept out. So... The companies pulling the strings of the FDA were able to control the messaging of the ruling to make it about "we're in support of this" rather than "we're removing all our competition by employing the FDA as our market enforcer"

SparkyMcUnicorn 10y ago

But finid still isn't wrong and you aren't either. The FDA definitely seems to be controlled by the pharmaceutical industry. I guess sometimes these industries step on each others toes getting things done, and in the e-cig case pharma won over tobacco. P.s. friendly note that your first sentence is against HN rules.

finid 10y ago

Sorry, I don't depend on breaking news before I become familiar with something that affects me. How the FDA operates, or how it is operated, is no news for those who have been following the FDA. So the e-cig regulation was no news. I wish how food companies where allowed to market a particular type of cereal as good for you made the breaking news reel. And before you say there's solid science behind it, wasn't there an article the other day about how food companies control(led) food and nutritional scientists? I always try to look at the big picture, not just a breaking news item.