FDA demands review of newer tobacco products

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • stubby2
    Member
    • Jun 2009
    • 436

    #1

    FDA demands review of newer tobacco products

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40926509...th-addictions/

    RICHMOND, Va. — The Food and Drug Administration says it must review tobacco products that were introduced or changed after February 2007 in order for companies to keep selling them.
    The agency on Wednesday issued guidance to the tobacco industry outlining how to apply for review.
    Tobacco makers have until March 22 to prove that the cigarettes or other tobacco products are "substantially equivalent" to ones commercially available before Feb. 15, 2007. That mean the ingredients and design are similar and do not raise different public health concerns -- otherwise they may be prohibited from sale.
    The FDA won the authority in 2009 to regulate tobacco products.
    "This specific part of the law is meant to ensure that new tobacco products are evaluated by the FDA before they are cleared to enter the marketplace," Dr. Lawrence Deyton, head of the FDA's tobacco center, said in a statement.
    I vaguely remember this coming up for discussion before as to if General snus was available before Feb 15 2007 so as to be grandfathered. Looks like the FDA is going to start enforcing this part of the Family Protection tobacco act (Malboro protection act of 2009 as some people have called it).
  • Jwalker
    Member
    • May 2010
    • 1067

    #2
    What a stupid rule. How can you "prove" the health effects of something in anyway when you haven't had long enough to observe the effects. I think that's targeted more at e-cigs, swedish match shouldn't have a hard time arguing there's no substantial difference between snus and dip, snus just uses air cured tobacco instead of a mix dark air and fire cured tobacco and it's ground finer. I can only imagine what level of nightmare this is for pipe tobacco and cigar manufacturers though. What "substantially equivalent" similar means I have no idea. This off topic but what the hell happened to theory of common law that you can't retroactively commit a crime if it's not illegal at the time you committed it.

    Comment

    • visiON
      Member
      • Mar 2010
      • 308

      #3
      Yes, ban the snus, let people smoke.

      Comment

      • G_Jones
        Member
        • Oct 2009
        • 69

        #4
        How about the FDA start by telling us what's in the older tobacco products before worrying about the new ones. I'd like to hear a reasonable explanation for why those are allowed, yet they are putting so much time and effort into prohibiting the obvious safer alternatives.

        Comment

        • snusgetter
          Member
          • May 2010
          • 10903

          #5
          Originally posted by G_Jones View Post
          How about the FDA start by telling us what's in the older tobacco products before worrying about the new ones. I'd like to hear a reasonable explanation for why those are allowed, yet they are putting so much time and effort into prohibiting the obvious safer alternatives.
          Proprietary formulas/recipes?
          Grandfathered?
          Graft?




          AND THE #1 REASON:
          "Asshole tobacco nazis at work."

          Comment

          • CoderGuy
            Member
            • Jul 2009
            • 2679

            #6
            Originally posted by snusgetter View Post
            Proprietary formulas/recipes?
            Grandfathered?
            Graft?




            AND THE #1 REASON:
            "Asshole tobacco nazis at work."

            Sounds like a great new signature:

            ~~ Death is grandfathered in... Reducing Death needs further scrutiny ~~

            Comment

            • Mykislt
              Member
              • Sep 2010
              • 677

              #7
              does this mean, that they didn't check if the "new" products were more unhealthy? who did then?

              Comment

              • lxskllr
                Member
                • Sep 2007
                • 13435

                #8
                Originally posted by Mykislt View Post
                does this mean, that they didn't check if the "new" products were more unhealthy? who did then?
                No one. Tobacco wasn't regulated at all. It was up to the companies to do the right thing. Honestly, I prefer that approach. I'm for labeling the ingredients like they do in Sweden, and making the precise ingredients available for anyone to see online, or via mail. Screw their trade secrets. Gas spectrometry voids any kind of possible trade secret, and people can evaluate the ingredients themselves, and decide whether or not to use a product. Otherwise, the government shouldn't have a say in the matter.

                Comment

                • Snus Boost
                  Member
                  • Jan 2011
                  • 640

                  #9
                  This whole thing has me Pi$#ed off. Not that anyone here isn't completely aware of it but this is a benefit to big tobacco. The worst part is even smokers are unaware of what is going on here let alone those who don't smoke. I smoked for 17 years and had no clue what PACT was until the day I picked up Swedish snus. I think some of the people that have been on this forum for a while forget that most people didn't order anything online and know absolutlely nothing about any of the changes. I know I didn't. It's just a shame to see all these laws created and enforced that are supposed to "protecting" the public when the only thing they are protecting is Big Tobacco. I am a little more outraged about all this than some of you because I only started snus about 7 weeks ago. Therefore I only found out about PACT about 2 months ago. It haven't had time to cool off yet.

                  Comment

                  • Snusdog
                    Member
                    • Jun 2008
                    • 6752

                    #10
                    Originally posted by CoderGuy View Post
                    Sounds like a great new signature:

                    ~~ Death is grandfathered in... Reducing Death needs further scrutiny ~~
                    Spot on CG!!!

                    Best line I have seen in quite some time!!!

                    Sums it all up right there.

                    THAT SHOULD BE THE SNUS ON T-SHIRT AND BUMPER STICKER



                    PACT ACT

                    Death is grandfathered in... Reducing Death needs further scrutiny
                    When it's my time to go, I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like my uncle did....... Not screaming in terror like his passengers

                    Comment

                    • CoderGuy
                      Member
                      • Jul 2009
                      • 2679

                      #11
                      Originally posted by Snusdog View Post
                      Spot on CG!!!

                      Best line I have seen in quite some time!!!

                      Sums it all up right there.

                      THAT SHOULD BE THE SNUS ON T-SHIRT AND BUMPER STICKER



                      PACT ACT

                      Death is grandfathered in... Reducing Death needs further scrutiny
                      lol I officially release all claims to the phrase to SnusOn

                      Comment

                      Related Topics

                      Collapse

                      Working...
                      X