FDA Ruling and the public

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pamdane

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 10, 2011
2,519
2,399
Cleveland area, Ohio
Why are we not printing copies of this and sending it to companies that lump e-cigs in with smokers?

Regulation of E-Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products

Now, I put into itallics what I believe is a major block on the FDA even wanting to regulate e-juice. All that needs to be done is proving even one person or company had any type of patent or copy right of any recipe or device that existed prior to the given date, and currently remains unchanged. IF this is so, and such items are on the market, they are grandfathered, and safe from any future regulation.

Why is everyone in such a tizzy over FDA and the e-cig?
*************************************************************

Regulation of E-Cigarettes and Other tobacco Products
April 25, 2011

Dear Stakeholder:

The purpose of this letter is to provide stakeholders and the public with information, in light of a recent court decision, regarding the regulation of products made or derived from tobacco.

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 (Tobacco Control Act), which amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), was enacted on June 22, 2009, and it provides the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with authority to regulate “tobacco products.” The FD&C Act, as amended by the Tobacco Control Act, defines the term “tobacco product,” in part, as any product “made or derived from tobacco” that is not a “drug,” “device,” or combination product under the FD&C Act.

Under the FD&C Act, the definition of “drug” includes articles intended: (1) for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease, or (2) to affect the structure or any function of the body. Similarly, “device” is defined to include articles intended: (1) for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, or (2) to affect the structure or any function of the body.

Between 2008 and 2010, the FDA determined that certain electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) were unapproved drug/device combination products and detained and/or refused admission to those offered for import by Sottera, Inc. and other manufacturers. Sottera, Inc. challenged that determination in court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in Sottera, Inc. v. Food & Drug Administration, 627 F.3d 891 (D.C. Cir. 2010), recently issued a decision with regard to e-cigarettes and other products “made or derived from tobacco” and the jurisdictional line that should be drawn between “tobacco products” and “drugs,” “devices,” and combination products, as those terms are defined in the FD&C Act. The court held that e-cigarettes and other products made or derived from tobacco can be regulated as “tobacco products” under the Act and are not drugs/devices unless they are marketed for therapeutic purposes.

The government has decided not to seek further review of this decision, and FDA will comply with the jurisdictional lines established by Sottera.

Under the Tobacco Control Act, “tobacco products” are subject to a number of controls. Section 201(rr)(4), for example, prohibits the marketing of a “tobacco product” in combination with any other article or product regulated under the FD&C Act (including a drug, biologic, food, cosmetic, medical device, or a dietary supplement). FDA has already issued a draft guidance that addresses the status of such products.

Moreover, Chapter IX of the FD&C Act subjects “tobacco products” to general controls, such as registration, product listing, ingredient listing, good manufacturing practice requirements, user fees for certain products, and adulteration and misbranding provisions. Chapter IX also subjects “new tobacco products” (i.e., products that are first marketed or modified after February 15, 2007) and “modified risk tobacco products” (i.e., products that are “sold or distributed for use to reduce harm or the risk of tobacco-related disease associated with commercially marketed tobacco products”) to premarket review. Although the statute places certain “tobacco products” immediately under the general controls and premarket review requirements in Chapter IX (i.e., cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco), it also permits FDA, by regulation, to extend those controls to other categories of “tobacco products.”
FDA plans to take the following steps to ensure that appropriate regulatory mechanisms govern all “tobacco products” and all other products made or derived from tobacco after the Sottera decision:

The Agency intends to propose a regulation that would extend the Agency’s “tobacco product” authorities in Chapter IX of the FD&C Act, which currently only apply to certain specifically enumerated “tobacco products,” to other categories of tobacco products that meet the statutory definition of “tobacco product” in Section 201(rr) of the Act. The additional tobacco product categories would be subject to general controls, such as registration, product listing, ingredient listing, good manufacturing practice requirements, user fees for certain products, and the adulteration and misbranding provisions, as well as to the premarket review requirements for “new tobacco products” and “modified risk tobacco products.”
The Sottera decision states that products made or derived from tobacco can be regulated under the Tobacco Control Act unless they are “marketed for therapeutic purposes,” in which case they are regulated as drugs and/or devices. The Agency is considering whether to issue a guidance and/or a regulation on “therapeutic” claims.
Section 201(rr)(4) of the Tobacco Control Act prohibits the marketing of “tobacco products” in combination with other FDA-regulated products. As mentioned, FDA has already issued a draft guidance on this provision, which it intends to finalize.
“Tobacco products” marketed as of February 15, 2007, which have not been modified since then are considered “grandfathered” and are not subject to premarket review as “new tobacco products.” A “tobacco product” that is not “grandfathered” is considered a “new” tobacco product, and it is adulterated and misbranded under the FD&C Act, and therefore, subject to enforcement action, unless it has received premarket authorization or been found substantially equivalent. FDA has already developed draft guidance explaining how manufacturers can request a determination from FDA that a “tobacco product” is “grandfathered.”
We look forward to working with all stakeholders to ensure that the existing authorities granted the Agency are harnessed to best protect and promote the public health.

Sincerely,


Lawrence R. Deyton, M.S.P.H., M.D.
Director
Center for Tobacco Products


Janet Woodcock, M.D.
Director
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
 

rolygate

Vaping Master
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Sep 24, 2009
8,354
12,402
ECF Towers
Various interpretations are that all e-cigs are considered 'pre-existing'; or that just the regular models are; or that only specific brands marketed in 2006 are grandfathered in. Whatever the result, there will be some court actions over it (unless the FDA suddenly decide to be nice to e-cigs and allow everything. That is certainly not in their orders from pharma, though - the opposite is.

It's open to interpretation, on several different levels. The best person to explain it may be Bill Godshall. In the end they will most likely tighten the screw as hard as they can get away with, as that is their mission. It won't be this year, and it may not even be next year - but some day they will try to restrict e-cigs, in as many ways they can, according to what they can get away with at law.
 

rustybikes

Super Member
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 30, 2011
326
549
Concord, NC
There's a couple bits of that letter that bother me. In this paragraph (emphasis mine):

The additional tobacco product categories would be subject to general controls, such as registration, product listing, ingredient listing, good manufacturing practice requirements, user fees for certain products, and the adulteration and misbranding provisions, as well as to the premarket review requirements for “new tobacco products” and “modified risk tobacco products.”

I have some experience working for BP (as an IT staffer), so I'm intimately familiar with the "good manufacturing practice", or GMP, ethos. Part of the GMP doctrine is GDP - Good Documentation Practice. This covers absolutely everything that is done within the company, dictating that it all be documented, in specific ways, so that the auditors can track what's been done vs. what is documented as having been done. This is probably as unclear as it was the first time I encountered the GxP requirements as they applied to me in my day-to-day, so allow me to present a (barely) hypothetical situation..

I'm an SA, responsible for provisioning and deploying servers, as well as affecting resource increases on existing VMs running in our environment. A customer files a request (paperwork) to increase the memory on his VM from 4GB to 8GB. Because it's a Production system, I have to file an RFC (paperwork) to document the work that I've been asked to perform. Assuming that everything goes perfectly, there's still more paperwork to do, documenting that the change has been made, peer review of the work (and the accompanying paperwork), and so on. Bear in mind, the actual change to be made takes less than 5 minutes. However, the paperwork (documentation) required by GxP to perform this work takes around an hour to complete. Now for BP, this is just part of doing business. They take the inefficiencies involved as being a necessary evil in order to be a government-sanctioned drug-dealer.

My fear is that the inefficiencies imposed by the FDA, in my "worst-case" reading of this letter, would destroy many (most?) of the small businesses involved in the eCig scene. The overhead (and oversight) imposed by this would simply be too high to be able to continue doing business.

And then there's "Premarket Review Requirements". I'm not entirely certain of what this embodies, but I suspect that it's a reference to clinical trials. I don't have the link handy, but I remember reading a discussion recently about what it takes to get a drug on the market in the US. The striking thing about it was that to get started required a capital investment of around $85M. That's just to get the FDA to say hello; the $85M does not cover actual product costs, staff salaries, etc. involved - simply filing the paperwork to start the process. Again, I doubt that the industry would withstand these costs. At all.

.. or am I being alarmist?

Edit: Addressing the OP's point about eCigs (and paraphernalia) being grandfathered in... Forget it - The industry has evolved a lot since 2006. I'm vaping on a CE2 with a Darwin. I don't think these were around "back then".
 
Last edited:

madjack

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Aug 17, 2011
2,394
1,027
70
Central Louisiana
Various interpretations are that all e-cigs are considered 'pre-existing'; or that just the regular models are; or that only specific brands marketed in 2006 are grandfathered in. Whatever the result, there will be some court actions over it (unless the FDA suddenly decide to be nice to e-cigs and allow everything. That is certainly not in their orders from pharma, though - the opposite is.

It's open to interpretation, on several different levels. The best person to explain it may be Bill Godshall. In the end they will most likely tighten the screw as hard as they can get away with, as that is their mission. It won't be this year, and it may not even be next year - but some day they will try to restrict e-cigs, in as many ways they can, according to what they can get away with at law.

...yep, that is a bureaucrats mission in life(control others by fiat)...that is how they justify their jobs/salary/existence...it is coming...................
madjack:2cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread