FDA e-cig regulations ‘ignore harm reduction’ says New York Times
The New York times is never afraid to enter the controversial waters of American politics, and the recent announcement of the FDA e-cig regulations has its journalists asking some very strong questions. In a recent article by Kenneth E. Warner, who also happens to be the University of Michigan’s Dean of the School of Public Health, Warner suggests that the FDA should use their authority more wisely.
Warner is not the first expert in the field of public health to voice an opposing opinion to the FDA e-cig regulations. Since their announcement on May 5, several scientific experts, foreign governments, and even notable Law Professors are making statements that the agency’s actions are questionable, at best. Some have even gone so far as to say they are illegal.
(Related Article: DEPAUL UNIVERSITY: FDA E-CIG REGULATIONS ARE ‘HASTY AND IRRESPONSIBLE’)
But Warner tends to focus on the common sense approach, while also attempting to paint a picture of an FDA/CDC partnership that is squandering a great opportunity to substantially reduce tobacco use in the United States. At the center of the debate over the new FDA e-cig regulations is the million-dollar approval process that will essentially wipe out the entire vaping industry.
“The government’s current approach to e-cigarettes, as voiced by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and now the F.D.A., is hugely unbalanced, emphasizing the hypothetical risk to children while ignoring the potential harm reduction benefits for adult smokers. Even if products like e-cigarettes prove to impose a lasting risk on a small subset of kids – there is no good evidence to that effect to date – those kids will not experience the adverse consequences for the next four decades. During that period, more than 10 million adults will die prematurely from smoking, each losing on average 20 years.”
Warner suggests that instead of simply regulating the vaping industry out of business, the agency should be welcoming these manufacturers with open arms. The FDA should be spending their time and money on developing basic standards for prohibiting toxic e-juice ingredients rather than prohibiting the e-juices themselves. Warner even suggests that the FDA should be implementing packaging and advertising requirements, but he believes the wording should be more focused on the significant harm reduction benefits of e-cigs rather than the traditional “warning labels” that are currently being discussed.
(Related Article: U.S. PLOT TO ‘DESTROY VAPING’ SAYS THE NEW YORK POST)