• Activists Take The FDA Regs To Trump, Congress

    Posted on by Keegan Wozniak

    As more discoveries in the positive health benefits of using electronic cigarettes are made, the federal government is running out of reasons to defend the recent industry regulations.

    The FDA’s "deeming regulations" included liquid nicotine products into the federal Tobacco Control Act this past August. This action received harsh criticism due to the fact that no vapor products actually contain tobacco. The FDA and public health advocates are insisting that vaping is a gateway to the use of real tobacco products, particularly amongst teenagers and young adults.

    Vape advocates are claiming that the FDA and other agencies are ignoring multiple studies that show e-cigarettes are 95 percent less harmful than cigarette smoking and other natural tobacco products. 

    These studies also prove that pharmaceutical smoking cessation aids fail to help tobacco users kick the habit 90% of the time.

    By regulating the vape industry, products that have helped thousands of smokers quit will be pulled from the market - further increasing the public health and economic burden of tobacco related illnesses.

    Recently, two reports aim to bring President Trump and the U.S Congress into the battle.

    The first report is by Clive Bates of Counterfactual, R Street Institute's President Eli Lehrer and David Sweanor, a University of Ottawa law professor. “Reshaping American Tobacco Policy” challenges the new tobacco policy and says the regulations will shut down thousands businesses across the country, as well as destroy chances of an effective smoking alternative for the American public.

    The report lays out eight strategies to fight smoking and “ignite a public health revolution.” The strategies include cancelling the FDA deeming rule before it destroys the U.S. vaping market, using new labels to inform consumers about relative risk, restoring honesty and candor to public health campaigns and refocusing tobacco science on public interest and not bureaucratic expansion. (Kathy Hoekstra, Read more