4 ms·

The thing I find interesting is the FDA's blatant hostility towards electronic cigarettes despite their demonstrated health benefits over ordinary cigarettes (l

by splat 16y ago

The thing I find interesting is the FDA's blatant hostility towards electronic cigarettes despite their demonstrated health benefits over ordinary cigarettes (light or otherwise). [1] [2] Electronic cigarettes simply vaporize nicotine and deliver the nicotine straight to the user with at most trace amounts of tar and carcinogens. A number of studies and at least one meta-study [3] have all found that electronic cigarettes are much safer (for real humans, not smoking machines), and that smokers can quit more easily using electronic cigarettes than with nicotine patches or gum. Why this agency, which is entrusted with protecting the public health, is hell-bent on keeping smokers on regular cigarettes rather than their safer alternative is beyond me. [1] http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/10/science/la-sci-e-cigs-20100910 http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/10/science/la-sci-e-cig... [2] www.hsph.harvard.edu/centers-institutes/population-development/files/article.jphp.pdf [3] http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/36/abstract http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/36/abstract

Groxx 16y ago
There's definite unfounded, likely highly-funded, hostility towards them. There is a single legitimate cause for concern that I've heard them occasionally mention, however: there haven't been any / many health studies on inhaling nicotine, and what it does to your lungs. Only smoking things which contain it. It's essentially an unknown, so there's definite reason for pause before they approve it... but yes, phenomenally excessive.
- Lost_BiomedE 16y ago
  There has been a lot of studies confirming the safety of snus, and they are just as hostile to it as anything. I don't think they would change their tune even if there were plenty of studies.
xiaoma 16y ago
The article didn't mention either the FDA or electronic cigarettes.
- abalashov 16y ago
  It didn't have to for the parent's comment to be worthwhile.
  - wtfffr 16y ago
    A serious question: if the FDA is hostile towards electronic cigarettes, why are they widely available, with nicotine juice sold in every corner store?
rdtsc 16y ago
> The thing I find interesting is the FDA's blatant hostility towards electronic cigarettes despite their demonstrated health benefits It is only surprising if you assume that FDA is a consumer-friendly agency, which exists to protect consumers and keep them safe. In reality I think they are heavily lobbied and influenced otherwise (via a revolving personnel door for ex.) by large drug companies, agro-businesses and big tobacco.
JulianMorrison 16y ago
If they were as hostile to all tobacco/nicotine products as they deserved, then for whatever value of illegal heroin is, tobacco/nicotine should be about equally illegal. Cigarettes, cigars and pipes got grandfathered in. Gum and patches are medical. But I suspect their reflexive "no drugs for fun" attitude is applying to anything else.
hammock 16y ago
If you wonder whether the FDA is in bed with Big Tobacco or not look no further than the landmark, but largely ignored, FDA Tobacco Bill passed in June 2009. This bill was reported in the media as an anti-smoking bill, but believe it or not, it is a pro-Big Tobacco bill. What this bill does is grandfather in the major cigarette manufacturers and protect them from all future lawsuits, since their cigarettes are now "approved by the FDA." Meanwhile, it puts up huge barriers to entry for any other competing companies, thereby guaranteeing government-supported oligopolistic profits for 100 years to come - the alternative of course is to not pass this bill, and instead watch the tobacco companies slowly die into oblivion, as they have been for the past twenty years. Instead, we are propping them up. This bill is unnecessary, does not punish tobacco companies, and gives the FDA powers that it should never have. This bill has been a long time coming, though, and had a lot of support in both houses of Congress before passage. Read this editorial, it is short and very informative if you really want to know what this bill is all about. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120882121714933013.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120882121714933013.html

by splat 16y ago

Groxx 16y ago

There's definite unfounded, likely highly-funded, hostility towards them. There is a single legitimate cause for concern that I've heard them occasionally mention, however: there haven't been any / many health studies on inhaling nicotine, and what it does to your lungs. Only smoking things which contain it. It's essentially an unknown, so there's definite reason for pause before they approve it... but yes, phenomenally excessive.

Lost_BiomedE 16y ago
There has been a lot of studies confirming the safety of snus, and they are just as hostile to it as anything. I don't think they would change their tune even if there were plenty of studies.

xiaoma 16y ago

The article didn't mention either the FDA or electronic cigarettes.

abalashov 16y ago
It didn't have to for the parent's comment to be worthwhile.
- wtfffr 16y ago
  A serious question: if the FDA is hostile towards electronic cigarettes, why are they widely available, with nicotine juice sold in every corner store?

rdtsc 16y ago

> The thing I find interesting is the FDA's blatant hostility towards electronic cigarettes despite their demonstrated health benefits It is only surprising if you assume that FDA is a consumer-friendly agency, which exists to protect consumers and keep them safe. In reality I think they are heavily lobbied and influenced otherwise (via a revolving personnel door for ex.) by large drug companies, agro-businesses and big tobacco.

JulianMorrison 16y ago

If they were as hostile to all tobacco/nicotine products as they deserved, then for whatever value of illegal heroin is, tobacco/nicotine should be about equally illegal. Cigarettes, cigars and pipes got grandfathered in. Gum and patches are medical. But I suspect their reflexive "no drugs for fun" attitude is applying to anything else.

hammock 16y ago

If you wonder whether the FDA is in bed with Big Tobacco or not look no further than the landmark, but largely ignored, FDA Tobacco Bill passed in June 2009. This bill was reported in the media as an anti-smoking bill, but believe it or not, it is a pro-Big Tobacco bill. What this bill does is grandfather in the major cigarette manufacturers and protect them from all future lawsuits, since their cigarettes are now "approved by the FDA." Meanwhile, it puts up huge barriers to entry for any other competing companies, thereby guaranteeing government-supported oligopolistic profits for 100 years to come - the alternative of course is to not pass this bill, and instead watch the tobacco companies slowly die into oblivion, as they have been for the past twenty years. Instead, we are propping them up. This bill is unnecessary, does not punish tobacco companies, and gives the FDA powers that it should never have. This bill has been a long time coming, though, and had a lot of support in both houses of Congress before passage. Read this editorial, it is short and very informative if you really want to know what this bill is all about. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120882121714933013.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120882121714933013.html