7 ms·

The article neglects to mention that the Congressional Act which forces (?) the FDA's hand, was one that Phillip Morris sponsored and lobbied for. I think this

The article neglects to mention that the Congressional Act which forces (?) the FDA's hand, was one that Phillip Morris sponsored and lobbied for. I think this is key to understanding why the FDA is acting like this, seemingly against public health, while benefiting incumbent cigarette makers. Passage, if it comes, may be politically impossible without the negotiated support of Philip Morris, whose Marlboro brand helps make it the American tobacco industry’s biggest player. The company’s central role, in fact, is a reason that some antismoking activists worry that the bill is a deal with the devil. Philip Morris’s support is also why other major tobacco companies — none of which back the legislation — see a cunning ploy by Marlboro’s maker to seal the company’s dominant position. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/business/01tobacco.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/business/01tobacco.html

Shivetya 10y ago
While their influence is obvious the outcome is still fine by me. Many insurance policies do not distinguish between smoking and vaping. Let alone the fact that anything you ingest or inhale that is sold should be proven safe. Where is the proof that they are safe than supports your statement its against the public health to do this? Considering the amount of money cigarette manufacturers pay out to the government and states it makes sense that anything that takes their place needs to be proven safe or not safe and then handled accordingly.
- spacemanmatt 10y ago
  Like say, scary skull-and-crossbones labeling on the package? There are tons of ways they could have addressed the state of safety research available for the product without handing a giant regulatory favor to the tobacco lobby. But we're talking about the tobacco lobby -- your safety was only ever a giant farce to them.
- sokoloff 10y ago
  "Proven safe" is a very high bar. Is alcohol, high-fructose corn syrup, or grilled red meat "proven safe"?
  - falcolas 10y ago
    Agreed, "proven safe" would fail even with water, which is toxic to humans above certain quantities.
    - Karunamon 10y ago
      What about "generally recognized as safe", which is a category I think most foods fall into unless evidence directly to the contrary surfaces?
      - kolinko 10y ago
        Sugar is generally recognised as unsafe, addictive and unhealthy. Tens of millions of people suffer from it.
        yaks_hairbrush 10y ago
        You're not speaking the same language as your parent commenter. "Generally Recognized As Safe" (GRAS) is an FDA designation, and not a literal phrase. High Fructose Corn Syrup, for example, is GRAS.
        Karunamon 10y ago
        And yet, we need it to survive.
  - gcb0 10y ago
    but I don't put any of those things inside my body if I'm simply walking behind you on the sidewalk while you consume them.
    - unethical_ban 10y ago
      That's not a distinction the parent commenter made.
    - oldmanjay 10y ago
- dTal 10y ago
  They don't have to be "safe" - I'm sure they're not. They just have to be safer than cigarettes, which they almost certainly are. Given this it is essential to encourage people to switch. A million bucks to the government for every flavor? A transparent attempt by established players to kill a disruptive nascent industry. Beware status quo bias.
  - ethbro 10y ago
    Where "flavor" == "additive mixture that's being aerosolized and inhaled", I think some sort of FDA approval is reasonable.
MBCook 10y ago
How is it against public health to require all these inhaler devices to undergo some sort of real approval process? Yeah the date chosen serves PM's needs, but I don't think it hurts public health.
- dTal 10y ago
  Because they directly compete with, and are much safer than, cigarettes. edit: Studies are continually being done, and so far the results are pretty clear: http://www.nhs.uk/news/2015/08August/Pages/E-cigarettes-95-per-cent-less-harmful-than-smoking-says-report.aspx http://www.nhs.uk/news/2015/08August/Pages/E-cigarettes-95-p...
  - MBCook 10y ago
    On a relative scale they may be safer, but that doesn't mean they're safe in general.
    - BurningFrog 10y ago
      In a sane world the vastly safer alternative would be less regulated than the vastly more lethal one. We seem to be leaving that world.
    - itp 10y ago
      Right. But if the availability of these devices leads to lower levels of smoking (and my understanding is that it does), safer is what matters, no?
      - scott_s 10y ago
        Agreed. But I think they should still be regulated. (I'm not certain they should be regulated the same as cigarettes, though.)
        smokeyj 10y ago
        To make sure e-cigs properly induce cancer and life long addiction? Does regulation serve an actual purpose, or just a silly exercise in obedience directed by their corporate overlords..
rayiner 10y ago
This is a great example of what lobbying is and isn't. There are objectively good reasons to regulate e-cigarettes. And it's undeniable that tobacco companies are much more heavily regulated than e-cigarette companies. But it's also true that what hurts e-cigarette companies helps tobacco companies.
- x5n1 10y ago
  or the e-cig companies are a direct competitor to cigs. safer and cheaper competitive product that the cig companies want shut down or be heavily encumbered so they stay competitive.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    So? It's a fact that the safety of e-cigarettes is not well-understood. That's a helpful fact to the cigarette industry. Pushing that fact to Congress is not bad just because it is self-motivated.
    - sbov 10y ago
      This is true for many, many things in the United States. The big category that comes to mind is cosmetics. I'm aware of at least one component - styrene - which has been linked to cancer and is commonly present in fragrances.
    - jessriedel 10y ago
      This could be said about any new product, and is the basis of FUD. Characterising this merely as "honest even if self-interest" is a mistake. The balance of evidence is clearly that the known health benefits of switching from cigarettes to ecigs greatly outweigh the hypothetical unknown risks.
      - rayiner 10y ago
        But that's not the question. The question is: are e-cigarettes safe enough to be unregulated? Moreover, the vast majority of products don't involve inhaling chemicals so I'm not sure what you're point is bringing that up.
Symmetry 10y ago
Another bootleggers and baptists style coalition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists
snowwrestler 10y ago
The bill, and today's new FDA regulation, are not against public health. As that same article says: > Philip Morris’s motives notwithstanding, the legislation has broad support from nearly 1,000 advocacy groups, including the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, which led the negotiations with the company, as well as the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society. And today public health organizations like the American Lung Association and American Heart Association are welcoming the FDA rule: http://www.lung.org/about-us/media/press-releases/fda-asserts-oversight-tobacco-products-deeming.html http://www.lung.org/about-us/media/press-releases/fda-assert... http://newsroom.heart.org/news/new-rule-gives-fda-tighter-grip-on-tobacco-says-american-heart-association http://newsroom.heart.org/news/new-rule-gives-fda-tighter-gr... Phillip Morris' involvement is not a form of corruption, or social proof the rule is secretly bad for everyone. It's the natural consequence of our system of government, which says that persons and companies subject to new laws are allowed to have a say in the process. Google fought SOPA, for example. The benefit to Phillip Morris is to deny new entrants to the tobacco market. This is also a benefit to public health, plus health advocates hope that the regulations will help shrink the overall market for tobacco products in the U.S. Edit: throwaway_yy2Di says the bill is bad for public health based on nothing, and is the top comment. 1,000 public health orgs say the bill is good for public health (in the same story!), and this comment is sitting at 0. I guess that's HN for ya...
- all2well 10y ago
  The issue is that tobacco cigarettes are _much_ worse for your health than e-cigarettes. This doesn't mean e-cigarettes aren't unhealthy, but between the two there's a clear winner in terms of health outcomes. Sure, it denies entry to the tobacco market, but it specifically denies entry to a more competitive, healthier alternative to tobacco cigarettes.
  - snowwrestler 10y ago
    > The issue is that tobacco cigarettes are _much_ worse for your health than e-cigarettes. No one knows if that is true yet, which is one reason the regulation was created. Again, from the American Lung Association: > Absent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation, there is no way for the public health and medical community or consumers to know what chemicals are contained in e-cigarettes (also known as electronic nicotine delivery systems or ENDS) or what the short- and long-term health implications might be. http://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/tobacco/oversight-and-regulation/statement-on-e-cigarettes.html http://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/tobacco/oversight-and-re... In addition, e-cig vs. tobacco cig is not a zero sum. E-cig use is growing among youth who have never smoked before. If the e-cig market was all smokers switching to e-cigs, your comment would make sense, but that's not the market.
jonnathanson 10y ago
Also: pretty much every single tobacco manufacturer in the US sued over the constitutionality of the Act on various grounds (often free speech w/r/t restrictions on advertising). Altria (Philip Morris parent company) was the only tobacco player not to say a word once the Act passed.

Shivetya 10y ago

While their influence is obvious the outcome is still fine by me. Many insurance policies do not distinguish between smoking and vaping. Let alone the fact that anything you ingest or inhale that is sold should be proven safe. Where is the proof that they are safe than supports your statement its against the public health to do this? Considering the amount of money cigarette manufacturers pay out to the government and states it makes sense that anything that takes their place needs to be proven safe or not safe and then handled accordingly.

spacemanmatt 10y ago
Like say, scary skull-and-crossbones labeling on the package? There are tons of ways they could have addressed the state of safety research available for the product without handing a giant regulatory favor to the tobacco lobby. But we're talking about the tobacco lobby -- your safety was only ever a giant farce to them.
sokoloff 10y ago
"Proven safe" is a very high bar. Is alcohol, high-fructose corn syrup, or grilled red meat "proven safe"?
- falcolas 10y ago
  Agreed, "proven safe" would fail even with water, which is toxic to humans above certain quantities.
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    What about "generally recognized as safe", which is a category I think most foods fall into unless evidence directly to the contrary surfaces?
    - kolinko 10y ago
      Sugar is generally recognised as unsafe, addictive and unhealthy. Tens of millions of people suffer from it.
      - yaks_hairbrush 10y ago
        You're not speaking the same language as your parent commenter. "Generally Recognized As Safe" (GRAS) is an FDA designation, and not a literal phrase. High Fructose Corn Syrup, for example, is GRAS.
      - Karunamon 10y ago
        And yet, we need it to survive.
- gcb0 10y ago
  but I don't put any of those things inside my body if I'm simply walking behind you on the sidewalk while you consume them.
  - unethical_ban 10y ago
    That's not a distinction the parent commenter made.
  - oldmanjay 10y ago
dTal 10y ago
They don't have to be "safe" - I'm sure they're not. They just have to be safer than cigarettes, which they almost certainly are. Given this it is essential to encourage people to switch. A million bucks to the government for every flavor? A transparent attempt by established players to kill a disruptive nascent industry. Beware status quo bias.
- ethbro 10y ago
  Where "flavor" == "additive mixture that's being aerosolized and inhaled", I think some sort of FDA approval is reasonable.

MBCook 10y ago

How is it against public health to require all these inhaler devices to undergo some sort of real approval process? Yeah the date chosen serves PM's needs, but I don't think it hurts public health.

dTal 10y ago
Because they directly compete with, and are much safer than, cigarettes. edit: Studies are continually being done, and so far the results are pretty clear: http://www.nhs.uk/news/2015/08August/Pages/E-cigarettes-95-per-cent-less-harmful-than-smoking-says-report.aspx http://www.nhs.uk/news/2015/08August/Pages/E-cigarettes-95-p...
- MBCook 10y ago
  On a relative scale they may be safer, but that doesn't mean they're safe in general.
  - BurningFrog 10y ago
    In a sane world the vastly safer alternative would be less regulated than the vastly more lethal one. We seem to be leaving that world.
  - itp 10y ago
    Right. But if the availability of these devices leads to lower levels of smoking (and my understanding is that it does), safer is what matters, no?
    - scott_s 10y ago
      Agreed. But I think they should still be regulated. (I'm not certain they should be regulated the same as cigarettes, though.)
      - smokeyj 10y ago
        To make sure e-cigs properly induce cancer and life long addiction? Does regulation serve an actual purpose, or just a silly exercise in obedience directed by their corporate overlords..

rayiner 10y ago

This is a great example of what lobbying is and isn't. There are objectively good reasons to regulate e-cigarettes. And it's undeniable that tobacco companies are much more heavily regulated than e-cigarette companies. But it's also true that what hurts e-cigarette companies helps tobacco companies.

x5n1 10y ago
or the e-cig companies are a direct competitor to cigs. safer and cheaper competitive product that the cig companies want shut down or be heavily encumbered so they stay competitive.
- rayiner 10y ago
  So? It's a fact that the safety of e-cigarettes is not well-understood. That's a helpful fact to the cigarette industry. Pushing that fact to Congress is not bad just because it is self-motivated.
  - sbov 10y ago
    This is true for many, many things in the United States. The big category that comes to mind is cosmetics. I'm aware of at least one component - styrene - which has been linked to cancer and is commonly present in fragrances.
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    This could be said about any new product, and is the basis of FUD. Characterising this merely as "honest even if self-interest" is a mistake. The balance of evidence is clearly that the known health benefits of switching from cigarettes to ecigs greatly outweigh the hypothetical unknown risks.
    - rayiner 10y ago
      But that's not the question. The question is: are e-cigarettes safe enough to be unregulated? Moreover, the vast majority of products don't involve inhaling chemicals so I'm not sure what you're point is bringing that up.

Symmetry 10y ago

Another bootleggers and baptists style coalition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists

snowwrestler 10y ago

The bill, and today's new FDA regulation, are not against public health. As that same article says: > Philip Morris’s motives notwithstanding, the legislation has broad support from nearly 1,000 advocacy groups, including the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, which led the negotiations with the company, as well as the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society. And today public health organizations like the American Lung Association and American Heart Association are welcoming the FDA rule: http://www.lung.org/about-us/media/press-releases/fda-asserts-oversight-tobacco-products-deeming.html http://www.lung.org/about-us/media/press-releases/fda-assert... http://newsroom.heart.org/news/new-rule-gives-fda-tighter-grip-on-tobacco-says-american-heart-association http://newsroom.heart.org/news/new-rule-gives-fda-tighter-gr... Phillip Morris' involvement is not a form of corruption, or social proof the rule is secretly bad for everyone. It's the natural consequence of our system of government, which says that persons and companies subject to new laws are allowed to have a say in the process. Google fought SOPA, for example. The benefit to Phillip Morris is to deny new entrants to the tobacco market. This is also a benefit to public health, plus health advocates hope that the regulations will help shrink the overall market for tobacco products in the U.S. Edit: throwaway_yy2Di says the bill is bad for public health based on nothing, and is the top comment. 1,000 public health orgs say the bill is good for public health (in the same story!), and this comment is sitting at 0. I guess that's HN for ya...

all2well 10y ago
The issue is that tobacco cigarettes are _much_ worse for your health than e-cigarettes. This doesn't mean e-cigarettes aren't unhealthy, but between the two there's a clear winner in terms of health outcomes. Sure, it denies entry to the tobacco market, but it specifically denies entry to a more competitive, healthier alternative to tobacco cigarettes.
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  > The issue is that tobacco cigarettes are _much_ worse for your health than e-cigarettes. No one knows if that is true yet, which is one reason the regulation was created. Again, from the American Lung Association: > Absent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation, there is no way for the public health and medical community or consumers to know what chemicals are contained in e-cigarettes (also known as electronic nicotine delivery systems or ENDS) or what the short- and long-term health implications might be. http://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/tobacco/oversight-and-regulation/statement-on-e-cigarettes.html http://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/tobacco/oversight-and-re... In addition, e-cig vs. tobacco cig is not a zero sum. E-cig use is growing among youth who have never smoked before. If the e-cig market was all smokers switching to e-cigs, your comment would make sense, but that's not the market.

jonnathanson 10y ago

Also: pretty much every single tobacco manufacturer in the US sued over the constitutionality of the Act on various grounds (often free speech w/r/t restrictions on advertising). Altria (Philip Morris parent company) was the only tobacco player not to say a word once the Act passed.