U.S. Senators Demand Stricter Warning Labels on E Cigarettes

Posted by Chris | E-Cig News | Monday 13 October 2014 11:57 am

You might have heard that many electronic cigarette manufacturers are now affixing warning labels to product packaging. This is being done by companies who know that regulations from the Food and Drug Administration are on the way. They are making moves to get ahead of the curve, and show that they are willing to play ball with regulations. This seems logical to most vapers, but it is apparently not enough for a group of U.S. Senators. Last week six Senators delivered a letter to Margaret Hamburg, The Commissioner of the FDA. In the letter they urged the FDA to move forward with regulations, and to adopt a unified warning label that would be required on all electronic cigarette and juice packaging.

U.S. Senators Demand Stricter Warning Labels on E Cigarettes Apparently the preemptive efforts of some of the current manufacturers are not enough. Pictured here we have a warning label that is being applied to Mark Ten electronic cigarettes. The verbiage warns of the addictive quality of nicotine, and lists potential effects. It also states that the products are not intended for children, nor should they be used by pregnant women. They finish the warning off by reminding users not to ingest e juice in any form but vapor. It looks pretty well thought out to us. The Senators disagree. They specifically take issue with the fact that the warning labels do not address the risks to adolescent brain development that may occur when pregnant women take in nicotine, and the risks associated with chemicals including benzene and formaldehyde, which are included in some juice blends. The Senators want to see a longer warning label applied to each and every e cigarette package that hits the shelves.

The FDA already had verbiage for a warning label planned. In their proposal they included a clause that would require that the following be printed on vapor packaging; “WARNING: This product contains nicotine derived from tobacco. Nicotine is an addictive chemical.” The way that this warning label was crafted intended to not only warn consumers, but to solidify that e cigarettes should be included in the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, as they contain a derivative of the tobacco plant. While many vapers disagree with lumping e cigarettes in with tobacco, the FDA thinks that they should be and addressed this opinion in as many ways as they could, including the potential warning label. Still, this warning is not enough to satisfy these Senators. They want a longer waning, that includes more potential issues. They also want the exact same warning on every vapor product. One of their complaints in the letter was that currently manufacturers who are applying warning labels by choice are not sending a uniform message to consumers. The Senators did not draft a warning of their own, which seems strange considering that they are urging for a very specific message to be applied.

While taking issue with warning labels might seem small, this letter shows that government officials of all levels are calling for e cigarette regulation to move forward. It also shows that there will likely be changes to the FDA’s proposal before the final draft is approved and made law. As for warnings, we don’t think that the FDA needs to require that all e cigarette packaging contain an essay-sized warning label. Tobacco cigarettes do not even have to include such lengthy warnings, and most Senators would probably agree that vapor is far safer for the body than smoke. The mainstream media has even been pointing out that current e cigarette warning labels are “absurd” in length. A warning label will be a part of future packaging. However, there is little benefit in requiring that a laundry list of side effects be applied to each and every package. Enacting a stricter standard for vapor than actual tobacco sounds more like a witch hunt than common sense regulation.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Totally Wicked Argues E Cigarettes’ Role in the EU Tobacco Products Directive

Posted by Chris | E-Cig News | Monday 6 October 2014 2:25 pm

Totally Wicked has established themselves as a big name in electronic cigarettes and e juices throughout the world. They provide vapers in numerous countries with the supplies that they need to ditch tobacco. The fact that they help smokers to remove tobacco from their lives has become the central point of an argument that Totally Wicked is bringing to the Court of Justice of the EU. Just this week, Totally Wicked’s European branch was awarded the right to formally challenge the EU Tobacco Products Directive. Under this piece of legislation electronic cigarettes would be subject to the same restrictions and limitations that tobacco burning cigarettes must bow to in the European Union. According to the team at Totally Wicked, e cigarettes might actually be subject to more strict treatment than some tobacco products, if the law comes to pass.

Totally Wicked Argues E Cigarettes’ Role in the EU Tobacco Products DirectiveThe EU Tobacco Products Directive lays out the specifics for how all tobacco products will be regulated in every country in the European Union. It contains specific provisions for electronic cigarettes; how they would be introduced, marketed, sold, taxed and more in one specific section, Article 20. It is this Article that Totally Wicked is taking issue with. While their hope is that the EU will scratch e cigarettes from its list of tobacco products altogether before laws come to pass, they would like to see changes made to this section of the legislation even if vapor is to be included. Their Managing Director, Fraser Cropper, released the following statement along with the announcement of their ability to take up the fight against the impending regulation:

“Today marks an important step in our legal challenge. Article 20 of the TPD would result in electronic cigarettes being subjected to a stricter regulatory regime than some tobacco products. Not only is this article therefore disproportionate, we believe it is also contrary to established EU law. It is therefore vitally important that the UK court has decided that the CJEU should make a ruling on the lawfulness of Article 20.

For the sake of e-cigarette users and potential users, it is vital that our industry is allowed to mature within a proportionate regulatory framework, which supports appropriate controls and safety requirements, and necessary social responsibility and continues to provide consumer choice to maximise the enormous potential of these products. Article 20 of this Directive patently will not deliver this environment.”

It looks as if their argument will take two positions. First, they intend to make a case that e cigarettes should not be included in the tobacco category, period. After all, e juices do not actually contain tobacco. Unfortunately there is not a very good chance that they will win this portion of their challenge. Where they hopefully will have success is with their fight to change the language that limits how e cigarettes will be introduced, distributed and sold throughout the European Union. If the Directive is to pass, with Article 20 reading as it currently does, it would be considerably more difficult to distribute electronic cigarettes in some of the world’s largest markets. While this is obviously unfair, giving tobacco products a competitive advantage over e cigarettes could also take a toll on public health. Anything that makes it more difficult for smokers to find and purchase a well-made vapor device is clearly bad for public health.

This marks the first time that an electronic cigarette manufacturer has been granted legal authority to challenge the EU Tobacco Products Directive. The growth of the vapor community has produced several companies with the resources to take on such a fight. It is good to see that one of them is using these resources to do just that. The particulars of electronic cigarette laws can literally make or break the industry. If more money is not allotted to ensuring that the verbiage that comes to pass gives the vapor industry a fair shake, it will be detrimental to vapers everywhere. Lower quality products and higher prices will all but certainly result. Stay tuned for updates on Totally Wicked’s progress in Europe.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Reynolds American Submits Arguably Anti-Vapor Document to FDA

Posted by Chris | E-Cig News | Tuesday 9 September 2014 3:57 pm

One of the dangers of Big Tobacco entering the electronic cigarette world has always been the likelihood of their using their stacks of cash, and Rolodex’s full of contacts to take over the vapor industry. Once they have control they will gut it, scale it, mark up the price and count our money. While we have known this for some time now there haven’t been many instances that we have been able to point to that prove these intentions. Until now, that is. An article published over the weekend in the Winston-Salem Journalreports that representatives from the Reynolds American Corporation, makers of Vuse e cigarettes, have written a 119 page document intended for the Food and Drug Administration. In this document the company makes some suggestions for how the FDA should treat certain types of vapor products.

No Open-System Vapor Products

Reynolds American Submits Arguably Anti Vapor Document to FDAThe document suggests that the FDA ban open-system vapor devices. In essence this means everything that isn’t a cig-a-like or similar device that takes replacement cartomizers. Yes, that is correct. Reynolds is suggesting that your personal vaporizers and mechanical mods should be outlawed. Why, you ask. According to Reynolds American these devices are just plain unsafe. They are claiming that as not all e juices are created equally consumers may be opening themselves up to taking in unnecessary toxins, which is of course unsafe. Quite a claim from a company that collects billions annually from tobacco sales. They didn’t stop there with their love of public safety, apparently they are also concerned that some people may use such vaporizers for illegal drugs. The cherry on top is that they suggest that open-system vapes allow for users to vape flavored juices, which may appeal to children. You see, Reynolds American just wants to help fight crime and increase public safety.

All of these claims are ridiculous. They are clearly put together to spin an argument that favors Reynolds’ product line of cig-a-likes with limited flavors. If they can work with the FDA to draft legislation that best matches their goals and products, then they get a check in the “win’ column. Simultaneously sounding like they care about the general public, and putting the competition out of business don’t hurt either. It’s called lobbying, and it’s not always for elected officials. As they have done in the past, Reynolds wants to use their war chest to control the market, whether it is good for consumers or not.

While there is no sign that this tactic will work, it gives us a clear view of how Big Tobacco thinks. Vapers are not people, they are customers. They should be told what to buy, not given the option to buy the products that they prefer. Clearly what we should buy are devices that require us to stick to one brand of liquid, which will eventually cost us more as we have to purchase replaceable atomizers over time. The fact that they are willing to throw flavors under the bus makes it appear as if they are looking to meet in the middle when it comes to gaining support from legislators who are stuck on the “save the children” argument. At the end of the day it is nothing more than political scheming. A plan with a similar intended result was hatched in Europe last year. Lobbyists, likely from Big Pharma or Big Tobacco, suggested that taxes should be based on the amount of nicotine per container. Meaning that replacement cartomizers would be subject to lower taxes than your standard bottle of refillable juice, as they contain less juice. It was shot down overseas, hopefully the same happens here. It is important to note that Reynolds is releasing this document well after the period for public comment has closed. Both Altria and Lorillard submitted comments while the topic was officially up for discussion. Reynolds does not seem to care about scheduling.

What To Do

Every individual is capable of making their own decisions. For us, we will likely be avoiding spending money on any of Reynolds’ products. We had plans to make Vuse the subject of an upcoming electronic cigarette review. Now that they have drawn a line in the sand we are not so sure that will happen. How will you respond to a corporation suggesting that your vapor rights be limited?

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)

The American Heart Association Officially Addresses E Cigarettes

Posted by Chris | E-Cig News | Monday 25 August 2014 4:13 pm

The American Heart Association has released a policy statement concerning electronic cigarettes. In this 20 page document the AHA’s team addresses their definition of e cigarettes, provides feedback on how they feel that the products should be regulated, and draws conclusions from a variety of studies and past research. This development is important, as the opinion of a group such as the American Hear t Association will surely be taken into account by federal lawmakers and the public at large.

The American Heart Association Officially Addresses E Cigarettes All in all the American Heart Association does not take a definitive stance on e cigarettes. They do state that they agree with the FDA’s plan to regulate vapor products the same way that they approach tobacco products. Specifically they mention guidelines for: age limitations, advertising restrictions, quality control protocols, and standards for contaminants that exist in e juice or are produced by the vaporization process. They also propose that vapor products and e juices be taxed at the same rate as tobacco cigarettes. They even suggest taxing vapor at this rate, and increasing the tax on traditional smokes. In their opinion all tax proceeds should be applied to anti-smoking, and eventually anti-vaping, campaigns. While this opinion is heavily touted in the document, the authors also point out that vapor does have positives. They specifically state that regulated e cigarettes should be available to current smokers: “Even if there are some intrinsic adverse health effects of e-cigarettes there would be a public health benefit if e-cigarettes proved to be much less hazardous than combustible cigarettes and if smokers could switch entirely from conventional cigarettes to e-cigarettes.”

While at certain points in the document they  suggest that smokers first try FDA approved smoking cessation aids like gum or the patch, they point out early in the release that “Spontaneous reports and clinical trial data have reported common minor side effects of throat and mouth irritation, dry cough, nausea, and vomiting. No serious adverse effects have been reported in clinical trials of >6 months of use compared with nicotine patches, with no difference between groups.” This somewhat shaky approach is taken throughout the policy statement. First they say that e cigarettes can be dangerous, likely contain some level of toxins (trace levels is what they cite), and may potentially glamorize smoking and lead to further nicotine dependency. Then in the next breathe they point out the positives of the devices and share facts from studies that place the nicotine level in a person’s blood to be lower after vaping than after smoking an analog on average. They address that it would be beneficial overall if smokers turned to vaping, but then hypothesize that the availability of e cigarettes may lead to more nicotine dependency. They do look at e cigarettes as quitting tools, effective ones at that, but they do not always seem to like doing it.

The American Heart Association Officially Addresses E Cigarettes An emphasis on more research is promoted throughout the statement. While we wholeheartedly agree, the document does share some very interesting facts. For instance, they paint a portrait of your average vaper as being “Generally non-Hispanic whites, current smokers, and those with a higher education and higher income perceive e-cigarettes as being less harmful than combustible tobacco products and are more likely to use them.” This statement is made as a result of reviewing survey and research subjects. While it may be moving in the right direction, it also shows that much of the research that has been done may not account for all populations that exist in the United States. The number of vapers grows every day. With this growth comes a more diverse user base. Did the researchers not target enough non-white vapers? Did they ignore users that do not command high incomes? The point of bringing this up is not to stir up a political debate. The point is to highlight that future research needs to target every segment of society. Smokers are among the ranks of every segment that anyone may care to divide out. Vapers are also, and the numbers are rising as this article is being written. More research is a necessity, but this research must address our society as a whole, and focus on e cigarettes as individual items. If they are likened tobacco cigarettes, even unofficially, it is hard to believe that research will be unbiased.

The document goes on to state that more research on the actual health effects of vaping be performed. This is key in our opinion as well. We want to know if vaping is actually a relatively harmless pastime, or if it just represents a reduction in risk and exposure to carcinogens. This data is what will truly define vaping, and should be the number one consideration when regulations are concerned. In either case we are still on team e cig. So far the major media outlets seem to be interpreting this policy statement on their own. Some outlets are reading it and reporting that the American Heart Association is in fact in favor of vapor. Others are saying that they are not. If you are interested in the future of vaing, we suggest you take the time to read the document. It will likely be used as evidence in future hearings and policy meetings, starting now.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Michigan’s E Cig Ban Claims Children But Targets Money

Posted by Chris | E-Cig News | Wednesday 20 August 2014 4:35 pm

Bans on vaping indoors, bans on vaping on college campuses, and of course bans on e cigarettes being sold to minors are all the rage these days. While the last form of ban makes a whole lot of sense, actually watching the regulation process happen shows us the ugly reality of many regulations. The talks always start out with safety and health concerns, and then at some point verbiage that would introduce a tax comes into play. Sometimes the politicians are at least honest enough simply call it a tax. In many cases, like the latest example out of Michigan, they defer to an umbrella term. You’ve probably heard a lot about this term lately, it is usually worded in manner like “tobacco category.”

Michigans E Cig Ban Claims Children But Targets MoneyJust like the FDA, Michigan’s Governor Rick Snyder, is ready to apply regulation to vapor products but wants them to be lumped in with tobacco. The Michigan State Senate and House have both already debated and passed a bill to Snyder’s office to be signed. This was done months ago, yet the bill sat stagnant until recently. The bill addresses minimum age for use and purchase of electronic cigarettes in the State of Michigan, setting the legal age at 18. What the bill did not do was classify vapor products as being tobacco products or enact a tax on them. The lack of a tax is widely viewed as the reason that Snyder refused to sign the bill. He agrees that minors shouldn’t have access to vapor, but is willing to prolong good legislation in favor of increased tax revenues. He is on record as saying that he would be happy adding vapor products to the tobacco category, and even hinted at vetoing a bill that did not include a tax.

So is this just another example of “politics as usual?” Unfortunately it seems as if it is. As much as we here at CR disagree with “save the children” tactics we do agree with banning minors from purchasing and using the devices. A bill that cuts off access to minors while leaving adults to make their own decisions and limiting taxes sounds perfect. We literally didn’t think that we would see such common-sense legislation introduced anywhere. Lo and behold it actually happened. This exact type of legislation made it through both a State House and State Senate, and came out without additional taxes. The children were to be saved and vapers were to be left alone, that’s as win-win as it gets. Until money came into play that is.

In the end the truth really did come out. Tax revenue is equally, if not more, important to many politicians than public safety, health, or the children. While politicians will boost themselves up on a platform that they know sounds good and will garner public support, they will willingly thwart good legislation if it doesn’t pay out. Initially talks in Michigan suggested that the bill should be re-written to include e cigarettes in the tobacco category for regulation and taxation purposes. The silver lining is that many in the Wolverine State disagreed. It now appears that a tax will be added, but that the percentage will be lower than that applied to actual cigarettes. The bill is being sent back to the House and Senate for discussion and is expected to be agreed upon shortly.  This is just another example of an illogical political process that serves to highlight the fact that the e cigarette debate is just as much about money as it is about children or public health. It’s sad to see, but is a reality that all vapers need to be aware of.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)

Attorney Generals Take Last Minute Anti-E Cigarette Stance

Posted by Chris | E-Cig News | Friday 8 August 2014 2:14 pm

Attorney Generals Take Last Minute Anti E Cigarette StanceAs the public comment period allowing citizens who want to weigh in on the FDA’s proposal to include electronic cigarettes in the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act is quickly coming to a close a group of 29 State Attorney Generals have spoken up. These state officials have joined together to ask the FDA to add in a number of specific restrictions to any legislation that they move forward with regarding e cigarettes. They have made their request in the form of an official letter submitted to the Food and Drug Administration earlier today.

The letter makes a series of very specific requests as to how these Attorney Generals would like to see electronic cigarettes regulated. The group has requested that the FDA:

 

 

Prohibit characterizing flavors other than tobacco and menthol in e-cigarettes and
other tobacco products;

Restrict the advertising, marketing, and promotion of e-cigarettes in the same respects
it has restricted the advertising, marketing and promotion of cigarettes and smokeless
tobacco, as well as strengthening and updating those restrictions;

Strengthen the health warnings for the deemed tobacco products;

Restrict the advertising, promotion, and sale of all tobacco products over the Internet;

Define e-cigarette components and parts and apply the proposed restrictions on age
verification, vending machine sales, and health warnings, regardless of whether such
components and parts contain nicotine;

Include “premium” cigars in the deeming rule; and

Regulate pipe tobacco to prevent avoidance of regulations applicable to tobacco
actually used as roll-your-own tobacco.

 

While the final two requests target products that include actual tobacco, the remainders are aimed directly at vapor products. Flavors are once again brought into question. The letter itself cites surveys of youth that use numbers that make it seem as if flavors are being targeted specifically at children. Utilizing the same argument the letter goes on to cite surveys that insinuate that electronic cigarette advertising is seen by more minors than adults. In both cases the Attorney Generals fall back on the “save the children” stance that so many opponents of vapor have taken. At no point in the letter do the Attorney Generals address the tens of thousands of smokers who have broken their habit with the aid of electronic cigarettes. They also do not point out the significant numbers and percentages of adult vapers who choose flavored juices. Neither do they at any point show any signs of understanding that there are two sides to every argument. The letter is entirely anti-vapor, positioning electronic cigarettes as being the exact same product as analog cigarettes, and hence suggesting that they be regulated in the exact same manner.

The lack of ability to see two sides of the argument continues with the Attorney Generals suggesting that if flavors are to be allowed that they be limited to options that do not appeal to children. As that is obviously a vague limitation the letter goes on to suggest that the burden of proving that the flavors are not appealing to children be placed on the manufacturer. This comes not too far after the letter states that if flavors are outlawed that packaging and marketing practices should be limited to straight forward identification of flavors, of either tobacco or menthol, and that the law should be passed quickly so that no time or money is wasted in identifying what exact constitutes the concept of “being appealing to children.” In essence if flavors are allowed they want manufacturers to be tied up in red tape, however if they are outlawed the Attorney Generals suddenly support a swift and less bureaucratic approach. While some of this verbiage was aimed at cigars the goal is to lump vapor products, cigars, and pipe and rolling tobacco into the same category as tobacco cigarettes.

The last point that is worth considering is that the letter asks the FDA to limit the marketing and distribution of electronic cigarettes. While we, and nearly every vaper and manufacturer out there support age restrictions, we do not support marketing or distribution restrictions to the extent suggested in the letter. The White House came out at the end of June and supported online sales. Online sales give consumers access to more brands and better selection. Vapers in rural areas will be most affected, as a lack of online sales would limit many to cheap gas station brands and offerings from Big Tobacco. Consumers can currently join wine of the month clubs and have alcohol delivered to their doorstep, yet for some reason having a personal vaporizer and bottle of delicious juice delivered is crossing the line. It simply does not add up.

Based on the requests it seems as if perhaps lobbyists from Big Tobacco and Big Pharma may have gotten to a select group of Attorney Generals. Their requests support a market that is best navigated by large corporations that are already entrenched as opposed to the hundreds of smaller yet emerging vapor brands. The fact that these politicians joined forces and made their opinions known at the end of the public comment period also speaks to well-planned timing. Let the actual consumers talk, to date reports put the number of public comments at over 70,000, and then come in at the end and get the last word. While we are obviously pro-vapor we feel that this tactic is cheap and that Attorney Generals have requested too many limitations. It is hard to believe a group that cites uncertain effects on health as a reason to apply restrictions and in the next breathe asks for health warning labels to be applied to packaging. If one is not certain of the effects then how can one apply restrictions and labels that speak to the effects? Once again, it just doesn’t add up. If you are reading this on the date of publishing and haven’t left a comment for the FDA yet, please do so here.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Reynolds American Will Buy Lorillard, But Not Blu

Posted by Chris | E-Cig News | Thursday 24 July 2014 1:46 pm

We recently reported on a potential Big Tobacco buyout whereby Reynolds American would buy out Lorillard. While on the surface this seems like an issue that would primarily affect tobacco smokers, vapers who want to stay in the know do need to watch this sale. The offer and negotiations between Reynolds and Lorillard have come a long way as Reynolds offered up $27.4 million for the buyout last week. While a final sale will not likely occur until 2015 due to a need for federal oversight and final negotiations, the deal is on the table.

Reynolds American Will Buy Lorillard, But Not BluVapers will be interested to learn that as a part of the deal Blu e cigs will have a new owner. Reynolds is proposing that they buy every brand that Lorillard owns, including Blu e cigs, and then sell a few lower level tobacco brands as well as the Blu brand to the UK based Imperial Tobacco. Initially it would have made a lot of sense for Reynolds to keep Blu, as Blu has the largest share of the e cig market in the U.S., estimated to be up to 45%. However, it seems that including Blu in the brands that they are willing to unload is being used strategically to avoid as many antitrust arguments from government officials as possible. If this deal becomes reality it will put Reynolds American right next to Altria (the makers of Marlboro among other brands) as the largest Tobacco Company in the United States. If they also owned Blu they would be the biggest player the e cigarette market in the United States as well, which would raise alarms with many federal regulators who will provide oversight before the deal goes through. Other reports indicate that Blu had to be a part of the offer in order to reach a deal with Imperial Tobacco. This makes sense as moving forward Blu is worth more than any of the individual tobacco brands that Imperial Tobacco will be assuming control of via the agreement. As for looking ahead vapor has more than established itself as a force that competes with the tobacco industry making Blu’s inclusion in the deal a must for Imperial Tobacco.

The future of Blu is hard to predict at this point. By no means would Imperial Tobacco want to do anything but grow the brand. Which may mean more innovative, or at least new, products. We can’t be the only ones wondering why Blu hasn’t released a PV yet. Yes, their cig-a-like is among the best available, but vapers’ tastes are changing. Perhaps a new parent company will provide Blu with the push it needs to branch out and prepare for the future of vaping. New ownership always shakes things up, even in huge companies that operate their divisions separately. Blu is accustomed to operating as its own company, with guidance, logistical support, and financial help from parent Lorillard. The European owned Imperial Tobacco will likely treat Blu much the same. They already own a few smaller tobacco brands in the United States, but Blu will represent their first vapor brand on this side of the pond.

Once the deal goes through Reynolds American will immediately begin to compete with Blu. As of now they are reporting that Reynolds current U.S. based e cigarette Vuse will get all of Reynolds Americans’ attention in the United States. They are promoting that the hardware is made right here in the United States and implying that domestic manufacturing allows them to make a “better” and “safer” e cig. A side note, Lorrillard bought up Europe’s SkyCig last October to expand their presence in the European e cig market. The brand has been targeting additional markets throughout Europe ever since. Reynolds American is opting to keep ownership of SkyCig even though they are letting go of Blu.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

There’s Still Time To Respond to CASAA’s Third Call to Action

Posted by Chris | E-Cig News | Wednesday 16 July 2014 3:28 pm

The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA) has issued a third call to action in their effort to prevent the FDA from taking over the e-cigarette industry. CASAA has been releasing these calls in order to draw attention to some of the tactics used by the FDA and CDC, as well as to promote the idea that FDA regulation is not necessary. They also promote more in-depth research, though not necessarily at the hands of the FDA and/or CDC, both of which have their own agendas in mind and not necessarily the best interests of the consumer.

Theres Still Time To Respond to CASAAs Third Call to ActionThe third call to action concerns a request for Congressional hearings to investigate the methods employed by the FDA and the CDC concerning the blatant smear campaign they have undertaken. One instance involves dismissing true stories about using e-cigs to quit smoking and instead, trying to find people who have not been successful or who have suffered health issues after cutting back on tobacco cigarettes while using e-cigs

CASAA has created a template that includes a formal request for vapers to fill out and submit. All you need to do is add your personal information or insight. Some suggestions of things you might want to offer in your letter are:

Information about your personal experience using e-cigs to effectively stop smoking. Include details like how long it took you to quit once you started using e-cigs.

If your journey to quitting smoking was assisted by e cigarettes you should share information about your current health. No one is saying that e-cigs make you healthier, but stopping smoking tobacco cigarettes most certainly will.

Mention that you are well aware that smoking tobacco cigarettes put you in a high risk category for health issues ranging from cardiovascular disease to lung cancer and that you don’t expect e-cigs to prevent future health problems which may be the result of your former tobaccos smoking years.

Be as honest and detailed as you can.

Keep in mind that the CDC director, Dr. Frieden, is trying to dismiss these personal stories as anecdotal. It’s easy to dismiss information that doesn’t contain numbers like dates and financial figures. If you want to keep e-cigs out of the hands of the FDA, now is the time to offer details that are presented in compelling factual form so that they are not easily dismissed by the FDA, CDC, or anyone else. In other words, since false information is being used to guide the proposed regulation, it’s time to flood the FDA with accurate, usable facts and figures coupled with the human experience.

Be sure to come back here to learn more and pay special attention to CASAA’s calls to action if you want to have your voice heard. There is little good that can result from the FDA’s regulation of e-cigs, unless you are Big Tobacco or interested in cultivating new, excessive tax dollars.

You can also contact your representative directly. Simply click on this list of representatives and then search for your state using the alphabetical tabs at the top of the page. You can also just scroll down the page until you find your state and representatives.

Hopefully you’ll respond to the third call to action and contact your local representative. Remember, now is the time to make your voice be heard!

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
Next Page »