Dr. Henningfield: "Dr. Henningfield is a Principal at, and derives most of his income from, Pinney Associates, a firm that currently provides to GSK on an exclusive basis consulting services regarding smoking-cessation products. His formal title is: Vice President, Research & Health Policy. Through his association with Pinney Associates, Dr. Henningfield advises GSK specifically on the development of nicotine-replacement therapies and treatments for tobacco dependence. Pinney Associates has received on average more than $2 million per year in revenue from pharmaceutical companies, more than half of which relates to smoking-cessation products. In addition, during the last decade, Dr. Henningfield has received grant support for research and writing from GSK on at least eight occasions. Dr. Henningfield is also a partner in a company that holds patents for a nicotine replacement-therapy product. He has estimated that, if thess patents are successfully licensed, they could be worth more than $1 million to him as a partner in that company. Thus, Dr. Henningfield has a financial interest in bringing about regulatory policies that will drive current smokers to use nicotine-replacement-therapy products."

My argument was echoed in a to the article by Steven Pinkerton, a public health researcher from the Medical College of Wisconsin, who pointed out that: "the major tobacco companies demonstrated 100% compliance with the law by eliminating all terms specified in the FSPTCA [Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act]--the use of colour terms to designate sub-brands is not regulated by the FSPTCA."

Recently, Stan Glantz and colleagues called for a on electronic cigarette flavorings. Other anti-smoking groups have also urged the FDA to implement a ban on the use of flavors in electronic cigarettes. I have already why such an intervention makes no sense because it essentially represents a ban on electronic cigarettes, prevents brand differentiation, and greatly decreases the appeal of these products, thus forever protecting the market share of tobacco cigarettes. Today, I explain why the flavors in electronic cigarettes probably play a role in deterring youth smoking. Thus, I provide another argument for why the FDA should not ban electronic cigarette flavors.

If a company were to make such a claim, it would constitute a reduced exposure claim, which is prohibited under section 911. To make matters worse, such a claim can only be approved by the FDA if the company shows that if consumers hear that the product is free of tobacco, they will not be led to believe that the product is safer. In other words, to simply make the truthful and uncontroversial claim that your electronic cigarettes are free of tobacco, you would have to first demonstrate that consumers will not interpret the absence of tobacco as indicating that the product is any safer. But we know for a fact that consumers will interpret (and should interpret) the absence of tobacco as an indication that vaping is safer than smoking. Therefore, the deeming regulations place a de facto, permanent ban on electronic cigarette companies making the simple claim that their products do not contain tobacco.

LAST：New design Bolutank ego glass atomizer |NEXT：New model cloutank m3 atomizer , wax dry herb atomizer better than ecig exgo