The FDA Is Regulating E-Cigarettes. Here’s What You Need to Know.

Read before vaping.

<a href="http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/hand-holding-an-electronic-cigarette-over-a-dark-background-gm468041842-60764156?st=727e811">gawriloff</a>/iStock

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Yesterday, the Food and Drug Administration announced sweeping federal regulations for the burgeoning $3.5 billion e-cigarette industry, setting off a storm of reaction from both sides of the vaping debate. Here’s what you need to know:

What do the regulations do? The rules, which go into effect in 90 days, regulate e-cigarettes, hookahs, cigars, and other tobacco products in the same way the FDA regulates conventional cigarettes. Sales to people under 18 are prohibited, and buyers will have to show photo ID. (Many states have already taken this step, including California, which just passed a law raising the age for purchasing any tobacco product, including e-cigarettes, to 21.) But here’s the most contentious part: E-cig producers will be required to go through a lengthy registration and safety review process with the FDA, providing lists of ingredients—including potentially harmful additives—manufacturing details, and evidence that the product is safe. Manufacturers will have up to two years to sell their products while readying their applications, and up to one additional year while the FDA reviews them.

What’s been the reaction so far? Public health advocates are mostly pleased. Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, called it a “critical first step,” but not enough. Notably, the new regulations don’t address all those tasty-sounding e-cigarette flavors—like Mango Tango, Peppermint Bark, and Vanilla Mocha Frappe. And studies show such flavors are a huge draw for kids. “It does not restrict e-cigarette marketing, which often mimics tactics long used to market regular cigarettes to kids, nor does it take strong steps to prevent online sales of e-cigarettes and refill liquids to youth, despite studies showing many online vendors have inadequate age verification,” Myers said in a statement.

The vaping industry, meanwhile, is panicking. “This regulation would destroy the vapor products industry and hand the market to Big Tobacco,” says Greg Conley, president of the American Vaping Association. “It’s prohibition.” Conley argues that because the FDA registration is so onerous—regulatory consulting agency SciLucent LLC estimates the applications will cost manufacturers millions of dollars per product to complete—small producers will go under. This, he worries, would leave only tobacco industry brands such as blu (Imperial Tobacco), VUSE (Reynolds American), and MarkTen (Altria).

What does the science say? There are loads of conflicting studies. And while e-cigarettes are almost certainly safer than conventional cigarettes, many scientists agree nonsmokers should think twice before taking up the habit, since the long-term effects of vaping are unknown.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 16 percent of high-schoolers reported using them in the last 30 days—up from 1.5 percent in 2011. “We want parents to know that nicotine is dangerous for kids at any age, whether it’s an e-cigarette, hookah, cigarette, or cigar,” CDC Director Tom Frieden said last month. “Nicotine exposure at a young age may cause lasting harm to brain development, promote addiction, and lead to sustained tobacco use.”

On the other hand, the Royal College of Physicians, a prominent UK medical group, just published a report saying e-cigs have enormous potential to reduce smoking. “This is the first genuinely new way of helping people stop smoking that has come along in decades,” John Britton, who led the committee that produced the report, told the New York Times. E-cigarettes “have the potential to help half or more of all smokers get off cigarettes.”

Can we expect pushback from Congress? Yep. Last month, anticipating the rules, House Republicans introduced legislation that would exempt existing e-cigarette products from the lengthy review process. Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), who authored the bill, calls the regulation exemplary of the “nanny-state mentality.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate