I've just finished reading FDA Commissioner Andrew Eschenbach's testimony to the House Commerce Committee last fall. I do understand his concern about the appearance of giving the Agency's imprimatur to tobacco products, were it to have regulatory authority over their content. Certainly, there's really no benefit vs. risk calculus to be done for cigarettes.

(It's a bit ironic, though, that in 1996, the FDA moved on their own volition to regulate tobacco and imposed a set of restrictive rules that held until 2000, when the Supremes ruled they'd overstepped their authority and needed a Congressional mandate. Well, the proposed act would give them that mandate and reinstate those rules verbatim.)

It's reasonable to think the FDA would have to separate its tobacco industry oversight from food, drug and cosmetics. Given that, my assumption would have been that the agency, once given the authority, would then require the removal of toxins, or at least setting maximum amount standards, and prohibit adding any nicotine and nicotine-delivery chemicals that don't occur naturally in tobacco leaves. And finally, to require listing all components of the cigarette on the label.

It would then be incumbent on the FDA to state, "The FDA does not have the legal authority to ban tobacco products. The agency has a Congressional mandate to attest only that the list of ingredients is accurate. The FDA does not in any way "approve" this product, and makes no warrant or claim that this product might be less harmful, or is less likely to cause cancer, heart disease or lung disease. We continue to warn that using this product is hazardous to your health."

Or words to that effect.

But whadda I know?

----------------------------------------------------

Well, Jack, your warning would be accurate but no one would get past the words FDA. Smokers will desperately fumble for excuses to smoke cigarettes but don't look for excuses to quit. The words FDA is all they'd need to see. Here's something that you might find ineresting. You wrote:
"...my assumption would have been that the agency, once given the authority, would then require the removal of toxins, or at least setting maximum amount standards, and prohibit adding any nicotine and nicotine-delivery chemicals that don't occur naturally in tobacco leaves."
Funny thing is, Alan Blum, director of the University of Alabama's Center for the Study of Tobacco and Society was shocked to find just the opposite. He stated in his testimony to the Senate:
"Although the bill specifically bans the use of strawberry, grape, chocolate, or similar flavoring additives, it does not require the FDA to eliminate, or even reduce, the levels of toxic gases, including hydrogen cyanide or more than 40 known cancer-causers in cigarette smoke such as benzene and radioactive polonium."
Funny, isn't it?, Which again, is why I say, the bill is seriously flawed and puts cigars in danger.
FDA seal of approval on cigarettes...It's kind of ironic. Big Tobacco is worth billions, nearly trillions, and they couldn't BUY that kind of approval, yet it looks like they'll be getting it for free.

I read Dr. Blum's statement, and I'm confused.

Section 3 of S.625, Purposes of the Act, paragraph (5) reads, "to vest the Food and Drug Administration with the authority to regulate the levels of tar, nicotine, and other harmful components of tobacco products;"

What the hell does that mean, then? That they have the authority to regulate it, but they don't have to??

The bill seems to be more concerned with the adddictive properties of cigarettes as well as curtailing cigarettes' allure to children than it is with the carcinogens. One of the bill's primary goals is to make cigarettes less addictive, and judging by the langauage of the bill, takes precedence over making the cigar less toxic. So, if my understanding of this convoluted bill is correct, the FDA will HAVE to reduce nicotine in order to make it less addictive and HAVE to ban flavors that could potentially attract children (goodbye CAO Moontrance, goodbye Torano Decadencia, goodbye Rocky Patel Java)...BUT...the FDA won't HAVE to reduce all the other toxins if they are not deemed to be addictive. They will have the authority to do so, it seems, but do you really think an overextended FDA is going to do something it is not legally mandated to do once it is plunged into an industry it wants no part of? Which brings us back to cigars. No additives, really, but tons of nicotine. Way more then cigarettes, making cigars an easy target for the FDA if this bill is passed in its present form. Like we've established, Jack, cigars are not the focus, but they could very well end up being the collateral damage of this crusade against Big Tobacco should certain legislators become overzealous with this irresponsible bill. I happen to be in complete agreement with the FDA commissioner. And the fact that no one finds Phillip Morris' acceptance of the bill to be the slightest bit suspect tells me that the senatorial supporters are concentrating more on the rhetorical aspects of the bill (keep cigarettes out of the mouths of children...make cigarettes less addictive...another step towards a healthier America, etc.) and not thinking critically enough section by section, marginalizing the bill's very legitimate criticisms.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Gregory Mottola,

Okay, Greg ... it's discourteous of me to be arguing with you on your own board, and I do understand your points.

I just wonder what's changed in the past twelve years that now, the FDA wants no part of tobacco regulatory authority but in 1996, they preemptively (and illegally) grabbed it and held it until 2000.

Based on some of the other exchanges I've seen on this board, I didn' think we were arguing at all. I thought we were discussing, but if the topic has grown tiresome, that is fine. You are probably far more familiar with the bill now (its proponents/opponenets, etc.) as a result of this thread.
As for your question about why the FDA has had a change of heart, I can only conjecture that the massive change of the pharmaceutical industry from medical-minded doctors to business-minded marketing people has given the FDA so much work that they are no longer interested in Big Tobacco...or perhaps someone in the FDA has deemed it to be futile, and figured that the FDA should not and cannot cause people to quit smoking. Could've been a philosophical change. I'm curious myself.

quote:

Based on some of the other exchanges I've seen on this board, I didn' think we were arguing at all. I thought we were discussing,

I agree, Greg ... I didn't mean 'arguing' in the confrontational sense. Discussing is a better choice of words.

Please don't stop discussing this now, I am very much enjoying it. I have learned quite a bit from this discussion.

I thought this thread was about Jacks mentor Ted Kennedy.

quote:

Originally posted by Gregory Mottola:
Is it not widely understood to mean holy war?

Yes. Widely understood in the American media.
But literally, Jihad means struggle.

quote:

Yes. Widely understood in the American media. But literally, Jihad means struggle.

It's my understanding that in Islam originally, the proper meaning of the term 'jihad' is an inner, spiritual struggle against the evil within oneself, a striving for self-perfection, to overcome any tendencies that are not in accordance with God's will.

quote:

Originally posted by Jack White:

quote:

Yes. Widely understood in the American media. But literally, Jihad means struggle.

It's my understanding that in Islam originally, the proper meaning of the term 'jihad' is an inner, spiritual struggle against the evil within oneself, a striving for self-perfection, to overcome any tendencies that are not in accordance with God's will.

True.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

quote:

Originally posted by Jack White:

quote:

Yes. Widely understood in the American media. But literally, Jihad means struggle.

It's my understanding that in Islam originally, the proper meaning of the term 'jihad' is an inner, spiritual struggle against the evil within oneself, a striving for self-perfection, to overcome any tendencies that are not in accordance with God's will.

I believe this is correct, and it is a far cry from the perversion of the term that is currently thrown around by US media.

quote:

Originally posted by SHEEPSHEAD BAY:
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

We are sincerely sorry for boring you. I must try to remember that you you choose to remain ignorant of everything about the world that seemingly has little to do with you. Carry on.