Finally! Be free from smoking

Accusations that the FDA was being influenced by big tobacco began to circulate with the first FDA statement questioning the safety of electronic cigarettes. The statement was based on an extremely small non-scientific test and claims made were that various problems “might” be encountered by users of e-cigarettes.

The danger of using tobacco has been scientifically documented for more than forty years. That is when warnings first appeared on cigarette packs advising users of the danger posed by smoking cigarettes. The warning language used in the U.S. is some of the weakest required in the world and only last year did the FDA decide to begin regulating tobacco products. Regulations applied to a single industry have the effect of making it harder for competitors to gain a foothold in the market. For this reason alone tobacco companies claimed to welcome new oversight by the FDA.

After hinting about banning electronic cigarettes several times, the FDA established a ban on e-cigarettes and electronic smoking supplies imported from China. The reasons offered by the FDA for this ban seemed to vary but then coalesced into a “fear” that e-liquids used to refill electronic cigarettes would lure underage people into smoking and addict them to nicotine.

In a decision handed down by a Federal Judge on January 15, 2010, the FDA was ordered to lift the import ban that affected electronic cigarettes. The FDA was criticized for aggressive efforts focused on turning a recreational product into one designated as a device or drug that could then be regulated out of existence.

The new tobacco division created last year within the FDA was formed to perform the new FDA duties of regulating the contents and marketing claims of tobacco products. The court stated the same legislation that created oversight of tobacco products would also apply to the alternative electronic cigarettes.

Responding to the court decision, the FDA seemed to change it’s reasoning about an import ban claiming concern over potential “health issues”. The previous concerns of underage smokers seemed to be forgotten. If the FDA appeals the court decision the agency will have full support of big tobacco.

One great outcome for tobacco companies would be allowing the FDA to set separate standards and restrictions for e-cigarettes. This would significantly increase the cost of buying e-cigs and refill supplies. Currently, tobacco products can’t compete in price with alternative electronic products.

The court decision defined a need to scrutinize the relationships that exist between tobacco companies, pharmaceutical concerns and the FDA. Taxes from the sales of tobacco products put billions of dollars in federal and state government coffers annually. Many of the attempts to create fear of electronic smoking alternatives seem to be more concerned with the financial bottom line than with the protection of public health the FDA is charged with. Had big tobacco been the industry that introduced and promoted electronic cigarettes it is doubtful a controversy would exist.

Is the FDA truly concerned with protecting the health of the public? If so, why has the FDA never proposed banning tobacco? Why is the FDA pushing for bans on an entire line of products popular with consumers without conducting scientific testing to prove or disprove these imagined fears? It seems the justice system may require the FDA to answer those questions in the future.

Mary Kay Rivers has become a true expert in the field of electronic cigarettes. Her articles “Since When do E-Cigarettes Exist?” and “What is the Best Electronic Cigarette?” have become very popular.

categories: Stop Smoking,Quit Smoking,Addiction,Health,Gadgets,Medicine,Inventions,Products,Lifestyle,Electronics,Other