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.
For forty years the public has been informed about the dangers of smoking tobacco. That is when the first warnings were placed on cigarette packs yet our current pack warnings are among the weakest in the world. Only last year was the FDA sufficiently concerned about tobacco to move to regulate the products. In a magnanimous statement, big tobacco said they welcomed regulation and oversight by the FDA. Of course they did. It was a smart move by a company that could influence the regulations and make it more difficult for competing products to reach the public.
With hints indicating a wish to ban electronic cigarettes, the FDA issued statements about safety concerns. Last year, the FDA claimed it had concerns that young people would be lured into nicotine addiction by the e-liquid used in e-cigs. The FDA then issued a ban on importation of electronic cigarettes aimed at China which is the main source of imports of the products.
The ban ended up in federal court on January 15, 2010 where a federal judge ruled the FDA could not ban the importation of electronic cigarettes. The judge strongly criticized the federal agency for aggressive tactics that seemed aimed at designating a particular recreational product as a drug or device in an attempt to make the product unavailable to the public.
Pointing to the newly established tobacco division created within the FDA to regulate tobacco, the judge stated that the same regulations could be applied to electronic cigarettes and supplies.
The FDA quickly released a statement opposing the court’s view and expressing concerns over health issues that might be posed by e-cigarettes. Critics have pointed out the tendency of the FDA to change focus from dangers of youthful smoking to general health concerns when it suits the agency. If the FDA appeals the court decision it will have full backing of tobacco manufacturers who would love nothing more than to see new competition banned.
The costs of electronic cigarettes would increase greatly should the FDA be allow to set standards and restrictions on the products. Big tobacco currently cannot compete with the lower cost of e-cigarettes.
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 an expert on all facets of e-cigarettes. Her articles “When where E-Cigarettes Invented?” or about the best electronic cigarette have become very popular.
Tags: Addiction, electronics, gadgets, Health, Inventions, Lifestyle, Medicine, Other, Products, Quit Smoking, Stop Smoking