Credit: AP/Frank Franklin II
The Food and Drug Administration announced plans to extend its regulatory oversight to cover the increasingly popular e-cigarette. The outline includes plans to prevent sales of e-cigs and cigars to minors, a prohibition that many states already enforce. Additionally, producers would have to register with the FDA to account for ingredient sourcing and manufacturing processes; currently there is virtually no regulation over what goes into e-cig vials. An important omission in the FDA's outline is a plan to immediately regulate the marketing and flavoring aspects of e-cigs, which have been labeled as an attempt to appeal to children.
Are these regulations warranted? Do they go far enough? Too far?
9 comments:
I, for one, am surprised that producers were not required to account for ingredient sourcing and manufacturing processes with the FDA in the first place. I definitely support the plan to prevent sales of e-cigs and cigars to minors, the idea of kids having access to any type of cigarette disturbs me. Plus, e-cigarretes carry cancer-causing nitrosamines, and it is still unclear if they actually help people get over their addiction to smoking normal cigarettes. I think that these regulations are necessary to keep minors safe and healthy; I know that some kids think it is a good idea to try smoking just to see what it feels like, but with all of the things that are put into the e-cigs, it is important for people, both young and old, to know what goes into them, and it is better if they are kept away from minors in general.
While I do think that e-cigs seem like a better subistitute for cigarettes, with the lack of tar and other nasty stuff, I do think there should be stricter regulations with how theyre made and how they are sold. Like Alex, Im surprised that there werent regulations before that required producers to register their ingredients with the FDA. I think that the age restrictions should be put in place, I feel that having a product that can introduce young people to nicotine at an even earlier age just doesnt seem right.
I think that E-Cigarettes are such a new product that the FDA didn't have time to regulate. I think that it would be more important to publish what exactly is in the E-Cig, so then the people using them can know. If people think that they are significantly safer than regular cigarettes, then maybe more people will begin to smoke (not good for society, but great for the producers' pockets). At the very least, sale to minors should be prohibited because many do not understand the effects that it will have on their body. Also, there need to be more studies about the effects that will happen in the long run. It could turn out that E-Cigs are a much safer alternative, but I want to see science prove that first.
In response to your comment, Brandon, it is likely that e-cigs are a better substitute for cigarettes. However, what worries me is that it isn't clear exactly what their health concerns are. This quote from the article particularly struck me: "Health experts disagree over the role of e-cigarettes, with some arguing that they offer the first real alternative to the deadly risks of smoking and could save millions of lives. Others are more cautious, saying their gadgetry and flavors tempt children, and that people are using them to enable smoking habits, not to quit."
I think that regardless of whether e-cigs are a "real alternative" to smoking, it is still better to not smoke at all. Better than cigarettes does not mean good, and it is worrisome that people will think that there are no health-risks to e-cigs. Also addiction is addiction, and the concept of being addicted to anything (whether it be cigarettes or e-cigs or pretzels) bothers me.
Although e-cigs are a much better alternative to cigarettes, I think that this device should be geared more towards people who are addicted to smoking. Like Brianne mentioned, the best alternative is to not smoke at all. Yet, the way e-cigs are being advertised makes them almost like a complete replacement for cigarettes.
"With e-cigarettes, we see a new product within the same industry -- tobacco -- using the same old tactics to glamorize their products...They use candy and fruit flavors to hook kids, they make implied health claims to encourage smokers to switch to their product instead of quitting all together, and they sponsor research to use that as a front for their claims."
If anything, flavoring should be prohibited because it just makes this product more addictive to people of all ages. And though possibly a safer alternative, there are still health concerns associated with e-cigs
To some degree, there are usually the two classical positions on this type of issue -- to make the choices for the consumers (banning e-cigs), or to force the manufacturers to disclose information, but leave the choice up to the consumer.
Personally, I feel that the government's job should be to prevent the companies from marketing the e-cig as something it isn't, or from trying to conceal the negatives of it (nicotine addiction, nitrosamines, etc.). However, past that it should be more or less up to individuals to make their own decisions as long as there are no negative externalities. If these people want to smoke e-cigs, knowing the facts (or knowing the lack thereof), they should be able to. I couldn't care less if other people wanted to smoke them as long as the public is not affected by those who smoke.
Having said that, bans on minors' usage of products have generally enjoyed special allowances, as much of the population believes (perhaps correctly) that minors may be less able to control their own impulses or evaluate consequences correctly. The 18 year old line, drawn explicitly in cases such as Roper v. Simmons, is a rather controversial one; I would argue that many members of the junior and senior classes (ok, maybe not the sophomores) are more mature and can make better decisions than many adults. However, it's also obvious that younger teenagers may be more susceptible to advertising and marketing, and perhaps like the cigarette industry should be barred from targeting them.
Brianne highlights an interesting portion from the article: the e-cigarette appears to enable smoking rather than bring about a healthy alternative for already-smokers. Personally, I agree with the sentiment that e-cigs do not appeal as much to smokers who are saying, "Yes! Finally a less caustic option to fuel my nicotine habit!" as much as it reaches out to people who are intimidated by cigarettes and cigars and think that an e-cigarette is a safe baby step towards smoking. Additionally, from what I have gathered it seems that smoking e-cigs are not as detrimental to one's health as standard smoking is, but I'm not very well informed as to the actual pros and cons of e-cigs and it seems that neither is much of the public. Because of this, I agree with Connor when he says he would like to seem some stronger evidence on the effects on electronic cigarettes before I make any further judgment calls on them.
E-cigs have clearly been being advertised as a product that's more than an alternative to regular cigarettes. The FDA took a great step forward towards regulating the ingredients, but like others have mentioned, advertisement is still a problem. According to an article by nbc news (http://www.nbcnews.com/health/kids-health/e-cigarette-makers-going-after-youth-report-finds-n94166), research has proved that e-cig companies target young Americans with their advertising for marketing purposes. I personally don't trust these e-cig makers at all, because they state that they "welcome regulation and don't want to sell to teenage nonsmokers," while their advertising clearly speaks otherwise. For example, their advertisement of "flavored" e-cigs (bubblegum, gummi bear) are obviously intended to attract young customers. There needs to be federal regulation on federal advertisement, that bans not only e-cig makers, but all substance companies from advertising towards minors.
Like some of the above commentors have mentioned, I think that more scientific research needs to be done/made available to the public so that they can determine how safe e-cigarettes are. I'm a little bothered by how it sounds like the big tobacco companies will only benefit from these new regulations as the regulations will effectively put many of the smaller businesses out of service due to how much it costs to follow the new rules, but I guess that's just how it works. I think that the marketing and flavoring aspects of e-cigarettes can be left without strict regulations. As long as they're marketing something grounded by facts, these companies are good to go. Honestly, I don't know whether banning sales of e-cigarettes to minors will make a huge difference. While it might deter some less-determined minors searching to experiment with e-cigarettes, those that are determined to get their hands on e-cigarettes will be able to do so - where there's a will, there's a way.
Post a Comment