FDA Rules To Ban Juul Products

[El Presidente]

Not cigar related........but the same powers exist. 

 

 

https://www.addictioncenter.com/news/2022/06/fda-orders-juul-pull-products/

FDA Rules To Ban Juul Products

On Thursday, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued marketing denial orders (MDOs) to Juul Labs Inc. that mandates the company must stop selling and distributing “all of their products currently marketed in the US marketplace.” These products include the Juul e-cigarette device and 4 types of Juulpods, consisting of the Virginia tobacco-flavored pods with Nicotine concentrations of 3% and 5% and menthol-flavored pods with Nicotine concentrations of 3% and 5%. Furthermore, Juul, a powerhouse in the US e-cigarette market, must remove all products currently on the market, or they risk enforcement action.  

The FDA claims that the company failed to provide enough information proving the products were safe for people of any age, not just the youth. Juul’s “conflicting and insufficient data” prevented the FDA from assessing the potential health risks of its products. The FDA decision is a part of a campaign to review e-cigarettes to ensure they are “appropriate for the protection of public health.” This quote means that e-cigarette companies must prove through data that their products are more of an aid to adult traditional cigarette smokers than a risk to the youth and general public. 

Previous Investigations Into Juul’s Marketing Tactics

Juul has long been in the hot seat due to allegations that the company knowingly sought teenage users with intentional marketing. Four years ago, the FDA began investigating Juul’s marketing efforts. Previous marketing campaigns included video clips of young, “hip” individuals using the Juul e-cigarettes with “youth-friendly” flavored pods, including flavors like “crème brûlée” and “cool cucumber.” The company has since modified these particular flavor names to more specific titles and only uses real people, not actors, who have switched from cigarettes to Juul in its advertisements. 

James Monsees, one of Juul’s co-founders, previously stated that selling Juuls to young people was “antithetical to the company’s mission;” however, a former senior manager said that he and others in the company were “well aware” that the products could appeal to teenagers. In fact, the company went well beyond appealing to teenagers during its launch period, from June 2015 through early 2016. According to a 2020 lawsuit filed by the Massachusetts attorney general, Juul purchased ad space on numerous youth-focused websites, including Nickelodeon, the Cartoon Network, Seventeen magazine, and educational sites for middle and high school students.

Harms Of Nicotine On The Youth

E-cigarettes, also known as vapes, make Nicotine increasingly accessible and tempting to young people due to pervasive marketing and enticing flavors. According to the FDA, nearly 10.7 million young people ages 12-17 have used e-cigarettes or are open to trying them. Additionally, research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that two-thirds of Juul users aged 12-24 did not know that the company’s products always contain Nicotine. While e-cigarette users may inhale fewer toxins than traditional cigarette smokers, that is not to say that vaping is without its harm. Nicotine inhalation remains a serious health concern for teenagers, whose brains and bodies are still developing. Additionally, some e-cigarette products contain more Nicotine compared to traditional cigarettes. According to Juul, a single Juul pod contains as much Nicotine as a pack of 20 regular cigarettes.

 

 

 

The risks of vaping for young people include Nicotine addiction, mood disorders, and permanent lowering of impulse control. Additionally, young people who use e-cigarettes may be more likely to try traditional cigarettes in the future, which is counter-intuitive to the mission of Juul and similar e-cigarette companies to reduce the number of adults using cigarettes.    

Are All E-Cigarettes Banned Now?

The FDA is not issuing a “blanket ban” on all e-cigarettes; however, the agency is reviewing applications for millions of products. The agency has only approved 23 applications for sale on the US market. For products to be approved, the benefits to public health must outweigh the potential harm, and the agency must consider if the product can help traditional cigarette smokers quit. 

 

 

What’s Next For Juul, Other E-Cig Companies, And Consumers?

On Friday, a federal appeals court granted Juul a reprieve to keep selling its products pending further court review of the FDA’s decision to ban Juul’s products. The e-cigarette company argued that the FDA’s decision was influenced by political forces that wanted to blame the company for the youth vaping crisis. However, the FDA did not explicitly state underage use in its decision to ban Juul from the US market. It will be up to the appeals court to decide whether Juul should be allowed to sell its products while the company pursues its appeal of the FDA’s decision.

Those who have been using Juul products to transition away from cigarettes and cigars may switch to other electronic Nicotine delivery system (ENDS) products that the FDA has approved based on their potential to benefit adult smokers. Potential replacements approved by the FDA include products by R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, NJOY LLC, and Logic Technology Development LLC. It is unclear if the FDA’s ban of Juul products, if upheld, will set a precedent for other popular e-cigarette companies.

Last Edited: June 28, 2022

[JustDave]

On friday evening I was hanging out with friends one of whom vapes and he mentioned that people had run around all day buying up all the Juul and most other vaping products in town.  Even if it quickly got squashed, it caused a bunch of folks to panic.  

That being said, they have Altria's lawyers on their side, so I have a hard time imagining the FDA really 'wins'.

[NSXCIGAR]

FDA ran amok decades ago. The only reason they don't ban tobacco outright (unconstitutionally) is the enormous revenue it generates. But they really care about your health.

[JustDave]

2 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

FDA ran amok decades ago. The only reason they don't ban tobacco outright (unconstitutionally) is the enormous revenue it generates. But they really care about your health.

They had a ton of success 100 years ago with alcohol.  Surely they can do the same thing with tobacco.

[Greenhorn2]

18 minutes ago, JustDave said:

They had a ton of success 100 years ago with alcohol.  Surely they can do the same thing with tobacco.

They are too much in love with tobacco tax revenue. 

[NSXCIGAR]

14 minutes ago, JustDave said:

They had a ton of success 100 years ago with alcohol.  Surely they can do the same thing with tobacco.

If they want to pass a constitutional amendment fine. But the fact that many think the FDA could unilaterally do it at all is what's concerning. The FDA has no authority to ban anything. Let congress pass a law at least. 

[JustDave]

12 minutes ago, Greenhorn2 said:

They are too much in love with tobacco tax revenue. 

 

12 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

If they want to pass a constitutional amendment fine. But the fact that many think the FDA could unilaterally do it at all is what's concerning. The FDA has no authority to ban anything. Let congress pass a law at least. 

 

32 minutes ago, JustDave said:

They had a ton of success 100 years ago with alcohol.  Surely they can do the same thing with tobacco.

It may have been dry, but this was entirely meant as a joke.  Prohibition was an unmitigated disaster.

[NSXCIGAR]

22 minutes ago, JustDave said:

It may have been dry, but this was entirely meant as a joke.  Prohibition was an unmitigated disaster.

I know it was. But they absolutely would ban tobacco if not for revenue concerns and despite it being totally unconstitutional. You think they care what happened during prohibition? They'll ban anything. 

[Shrimpchips]

Guess the lobbyists for the firms listed at the end of the article are better than Altria’s.  
 

Also, I have a really hard time taking seriously any article repeatedly using “the youths”.  

[MrBirdman]

12 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

If they want to pass a constitutional amendment fine. But the fact that many think the FDA could unilaterally do it at all is what's concerning. The FDA has no authority to ban anything. Let congress pass a law at least. 

Technically that authority lies with the DEA - they could outlaw nicotine by making it a Controlled I substance. . Why does a law enforcement agency make these decisions in the US? Good question. 

[Kaptain Karl]

Unlike premium cigars, juuls are awful with Gen z. 

[Yardley]

Would be a much higher cost benefit for the government to eliminate cigarette tax revenue than pay for cigarette related healthcare. 

[Cairo]

1 hour ago, Yardley said:

Would be a much higher cost benefit for the government to eliminate cigarette tax revenue than pay for cigarette related healthcare. 

This is more complex than it may appear at first glance.

Supposedly the largest chunk of health care costs are in the last six months of life, whatever caused those last six months to happen.

Preventing death is not really an option on the menu.    😀

[Hoepssa]

 

Juul is prohibited in Taiwan, the young bought them from US, and now ...

 

[rcarlson]

On 6/28/2022 at 9:35 PM, NSXCIGAR said:

If they want to pass a constitutional amendment fine. But the fact that many think the FDA could unilaterally do it at all is what's concerning. The FDA has no authority to ban anything. Let congress pass a law at least. 

Damn right.  

[Ej456]

the first 10 minutes 

[Nevrknow]

On 6/28/2022 at 9:35 PM, NSXCIGAR said:

If they want to pass a constitutional amendment fine. But the fact that many think the FDA could unilaterally do it at all is what's concerning. The FDA has no authority to ban anything. Let congress pass a law at least. 

Or the CDC or the DEA  or the EPA or any other alphabet agency. ALL of these groups are over stepping their authority and it seems like with impunity. All I hear is " this agency " says......not good enough. I want names of who is doing this. At least with politicians you can get names. This " man behind the curtain " stuff is unsettling. Especially with un-elected seemingly life long appointments.

A law by elected officials is the way. At least it would seem a lot more transparent than just " we don't like this ".

[HawkI84]

On 6/28/2022 at 8:13 PM, NSXCIGAR said:

But they really care about your health.

I get there's more than a hint of sarcasm in this, but if they really cared about health they'd start taxing sugar like alcohol or tobacco. I can't go to Wal Mart without seeing 5 diabetics on scooters.

[MrBirdman]

3 hours ago, Nevrknow said:

Especially with un-elected seemingly life long appointments

The real super-legislature in this country is the Supreme Court. Somehow people are supposed to be immune to the trappings of absolute power by virtue of being lawyers. Sounds ass-backwards to me. 

[gustavehenne]

Terrible for smokers and consumers in general. The precedent it sets is bad and it will only serve to push people back to smoking cigarettes, which is the last thing anybody wants. A range of smoking alternatives helps people get off the harmful stuff is only a good thing.

I worry about where this will lead us next...