The FDA recently posted some non-binding guidance here. In part it says on page #6:
"Examples of components or parts for which FDA does not intend to enforce the ingredient listing
submission requirement of section 904(a)(1) at this time include, but are not limited to, the
following:
Even if I put the "tobacco product" into a tank on an atomizer and apply power via "lights" through "software" etc. etc. nothing happens..."
The list and non-science goes on.
There are far, far too much similarities here for this to be any kind of coincidence.
Another interesting coincidence has been the extremely high volume of blog views recently:
The peak here occurring from December of 2017 through March 26th.
From the beginning (about seven years ago) I have maintained that these "deeming regs" and the ideas behind them consist solely of scientific nonsense.
This guidance would seem to prove this assertion.
I think that the backing down of the FDA on non-tobacco nicotine (for which I am still awaiting my FOIA information) is related as well.
The path is clear for the right products.
Vaping is now free.
"Examples of components or parts for which FDA does not intend to enforce the ingredient listing
submission requirement of section 904(a)(1) at this time include, but are not limited to, the
following:
- Electrical components including, but not limited to, batteries, charging systems, circuit
- boards, wiring, and connectors
- System software
- Digital display, lights, and buttons to adjust settings
- Connection adapters
- Cartomizers
- Coils
- Wicks"
Now this is really a kind of interesting.
The original deeming regs say in part that "e-liquids; atomizers; batteries (with or without variable voltage); cartomizers (atomizer plus replaceable fluid-filled cartridge); digital display/lights to adjust settings; clearomisers, tank systems, flavors, vials that contain e-liquids, and programmable software" are components/parts of e-cigs.
On December 30th, 2017 I wrote the following here on this blog relative to this nonsensical gibberish passed off as science:
"...Lights (devices which emit photons) and digital display's (devices which emit patterns of photons) convey information to a user's eye or a camera or other photo receptive device, i.e., they indicate a value of something (through shape or color or arrangement of these photons) typically contained in software or electronic hardware to a "user."
Secondly, "lights" and "digital displays" only pass information from within a device to a user. You would need a "control system" of some type, a physical element which translates the actions of a user, e.g. a switch or button, into a value inside the device. These lights are not directly connect to a "tobacco product," of course, either."
I wrote "Your Child's iPhone is a Tobacco Product" about how the deeming regs make any software device indirectly involved in an e-cig a tobacco product (more insane nonsense).
On December 30th I also wrote: "At best the "voltage" and "software" are affecting this "atomizer" and not the "tobacco product" itself.
Even if I put the "tobacco product" into a tank on an atomizer and apply power via "lights" through "software" etc. etc. nothing happens..."
The list and non-science goes on.
There are far, far too much similarities here for this to be any kind of coincidence.
Another interesting coincidence has been the extremely high volume of blog views recently:
The peak here occurring from December of 2017 through March 26th.
From the beginning (about seven years ago) I have maintained that these "deeming regs" and the ideas behind them consist solely of scientific nonsense.
This guidance would seem to prove this assertion.
I think that the backing down of the FDA on non-tobacco nicotine (for which I am still awaiting my FOIA information) is related as well.
The path is clear for the right products.
Vaping is now free.
