July 22, 2013
The FDA has finally released its long-awaited menthol report and invited public comment and submission of additional information during the next 60 days.
Based on a quick reading it seems to essentially be agreeing with TPSAC's conclusions over two years ago. Based on these conclusions, if the FDA proceeds based on the science and the standard in the law, they need to ban menthol and its analogs.
A consequence of the FDA's conclusion that menthol -- and not just menthol as a "characterizing flavor" -- encourages initiation and deters cessation is that every month of delay means thousands of new smokers and thousands few quitters.
Here are the key conclusions (with some nonsubstantive bureaucratic language deleted):
From a nonclinical toxicity standpoint, menthol in cigarettes is not associated with increased or decreased smoke toxicity.
Menthol in cigarettes is likely associated with altered physiological responses to tobacco smoke.
Menthol in cigarettes is likely not associated with increased or decreased levels of biomarkers of exposure [CO, COHb and TSNAs].
July 22, 2013
July 20, 2013
California's landmark Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, was enacted as a ballot initiative in November 1986. The Proposition was intended by its authors to protect California citizens and the State's drinking water sources from chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm, and to inform citizens about exposures to such chemicals. Proposition 65 requires the Governor to publish, at least annually, a list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. Products containing chemicals on the Proposition 65 list are required to carry the following warning in California: "WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm."
July 17, 2013
At the same time that the the e-cig companies (which are increasingly the conventional cigarette companies) are vigorously fighting FDA regulation of e-cigarettes, they are telling state and local officials they should not act to protect people from secondhand e-cig "smoke" because the FDA will take care of it.
The fact is that, while the FDA could and should regulate the e-cigarette product and how they are marketed, the fact is that the FDA has no authority to regulate where e-cigarettes are smoked.
The e-cig companies know this and are hypocritical in using the FDA's inaction on e-cigs to justify fighting sensible laws, such as California's SB648, to prohibit the use of e-ciagrettes anywhere that you cannot smoke conventional cigarettes.
This argument reminds me of when the cigarette companies were telling local and state officials that they should not enact smokefree laws because OHSA was working on doing so at the same time that they were aggressively (and successfully) fighting to block OSHA action.
In this case the hypocracy is even greater, since the FDA has no authority to regulate where e-cigs are used.