The first statements about safety concerns of electronic cigarettes were issued by the FDA in a way that suggested a government agency bowing to pressure exerted by big tobacco. For the FDA to mention banning a product before testing had been conducted is not the way that government agency usually conducts its business.
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 various expressions of concern, the FDA banned importation of e-cigarette supplies from China. The ban was imposed in 2009 affecting the world’s biggest exporter of e-cig supplies. When announcing the ban, the FDA claimed concern that underage users would be tempted by flavored e-liquids and become addicted to nicotine. No proof or studies were offered as evidence for this concern.
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 brought a charge from the FDA about “health issues” surrounding e-cigarettes. It appears the youth argument didn’t sway the court so a new “reason” was presented. Tobacco companies stand firmly behind the FDA efforts to eliminate electronic cigarettes. What could be better than to have a government agency strike down your competition?
Allowing the FDA to set standards and restrictions on e-cigs that are not a requirement for tobacco would create an unfair market. There would be a significant increase in the cost of e-cigarettes which would benefit tobacco producers who can’t compete with the low cost of electronic alternatives.
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.
The unusual steps taken by the FDA have created their own controversy about the focus of this government agency. The FDA has never proposed banning tobacco products to protect the health of the public. Traditionally, the FDA issues statements and warnings and takes action only after conducting full scientific testing. In the case of the FDA vs electronic cigarette manufacturers, the FDA has ignored testing to develop standards and instead has focused on finding reasons to ban a product that is arguably safer than the product it may eventually replace.
Mary Kay Rivers is an acclaimed expert on all facets of e-cigarettes. Her publications the history of e-cigarettes and about the best electronic cigarette are well-known.
Tags: addiction, Electronics, Gadgets, Health, Inventions, lifestyle, Medicine, Other, Products, Quit Smoking, Stop Smoking