FDA rules announced

[woodsroad]

I can see a a rise in tobacco leaves sales and twist your own rope actions.

The FDA announced last month that it plans to conduct tobacco farm tours this fall as part of an educational and fact-finding mission. Herewith witness the slippery slope.

Paul Creasy of Sutliff has been fighting on our behalf. I just hope his fight is tougher than his fruity flavored products. ha ha.

Paul has not worked for Sutliff for over a year. He was replaced by a gentleman from the cigarette industry.

 

[peckinpahhombre]

I am just glad the FDA is there to save the children from the horrors of $20 cigars.

 

[metalheadycigarguy]

To be fair I haven't read the 499 page report, but I am aware of several key components to these regulations. I also haven't read this entire thread, so if I repeat something I apologize.
When the 2009 Tobacco Regulation Act was put forth, it stated that cigarette manufactures would be required to put graphic image warnings on all cigarette and smokeless tobacco packages with the regulations taking affect in 2012. Kind of like the graphic images that our friends across the pond have on their packages/tins. In 2011 RJ Reynolds filed a lawsuit against the FDA and the Tobacco Regulation Act, and since then this lawsuit has been pending. In the mean time their are no graphic images on any cigarette and/or smokeless tobacco packaging.
I'm confident that Altadis, JC Newman and others will also proceed with lawsuits to fight this regulation. They will probably be joined by groups like Cigar Rights of America as well. Large tobacco manufactures like the Scandinavian Tobacco Group may get involved as well. If that happens then the permits will be delayed, and any good attorney can extend a case out which will only help the cigar and tobacco manufactures.
Even if lawsuits don't come, I'm still not "Freaking Out" like most people, because after the 90 day period, manufacturers will have 2 years to submit their permits, and as far as I understand they can still sell tobacco/cigars during that time period. There is also an extension with permission for up to 1 year, so that's 2 years with a possible third year before you see any real impact on certain tobacco's/cigars.
For those thinking that the cigars and tobacco manufactured after 2007 are going to disappear after the 90 days is up... don't give in to the fear mongers!!!
The real problem with the FDA is that they do what ever they want. They don't need President or Congress approval to approve food, drugs and other items. What upsets me about the FDA is that they have approved several drugs that may cause cancer. My wife had cancer and went through hell with chemo and radiation, and there are long term side affects from those treatments, but the FDA feels that these certain cancers are so treatable that its ok to approve a drug that may cause them. Sure take an arthritis medicine that gives you cancer, then take chemo and radiation, and then take other drugs after that to relieve the side affects of the chemo and radiation. That's what ticks me off! I'm not worried about tobacco regulations, I'm pissed that the FDA approves cancer causing medicines and medicines that have caused people to die in studies. That's the real problem with the FDA! Just stupid!!!

 

[jacks6]

I'm confident that Altadis, JC Newman and others will also proceed with lawsuits to fight this regulation. They will probably be joined by groups like Cigar Rights of America as well. Large tobacco manufactures like the Scandinavian Tobacco Group may get involved as well.

I can't see Scandinavian getting involved. They're the Marlboro of the pipe industry. If the smaller guys are hit their drugstore brands will benefit.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

I am just glad the FDA is there to save the children from the horrors of $20 cigars.

ha ha!!

And, I'm still trying to imagine a group of kids all setting around the garage enjoying a bowl of Paladin Cherry, ha ha. Actually, I have a hard time imagining anyone enjoying Paladin Cherry. ::

 

[jmatt]

Great link showing timetable for new rules coming into effect: FDA Rule Timing

 

[jackswilling]

^^^ Thanks for the link.

 

[jacks6]

Good to know, JMatt

 

[jmatt]

It seems like while there may be time to get existing products approved, no new products can be introduced after August 7th unless/until the FDA approves.

 

[jackswilling]

^^^ Correct, and if the bill I referenced in congress passes, the "effective" date is the date the bill is signed into law, not 2007.

 

[marshaul]

markthelad: Looks like they are going to enforce the blurry line between pipe tobacco and RYO tobacco. I wondered how long it would take before the Nazi's got around to closing this loophole.

deathmetal: However, they're going to use RYO as an excuse to tax cigars/pipes the same as cigarettes.

I suspect there is a bit of confirmation bias going on here. This is what the FDA actually said:

(Comment 187) A few comments provided suggestions as to how FDA should define pipe tobacco in this final rule to differentiate it from roll-your-own tobacco. For example, comments suggested FDA define pipe tobacco to include the moisture measured at the time of packing, the amount of reducing sugars, and the fact that it does not use reconstituted sheet tobacco or expanded leaf tobacco as part of the blend. Others suggested FDA define the term based on the "consumer's reasonable perception of the product" or include language stating that it is "suitable for use and likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as tobacco to be smoked in a pipe." Comments also requested that FDA enforce against the misuse of pipe tobacco as roll-your-own tobacco, regardless of whether it defines pipe tobacco, because mislabeled pipe tobacco already meets the definition of cigarette tobacco or roll-your-own tobacco.
(Response) FDA disagrees. The Agency finds that it is not necessary to define pipe tobacco in this rule. FDA also notes that it has issued Warning Letters for products bearing the package description of "pipe tobacco," but that are sold or distributed for use as cigarettes for the purposes of chapter IX of the FD&C Act due to the fact that, because of its appearance, the type of tobacco used in the filler, or its packaging and labeling, it is suitable for use and likely to be offered to consumers as cigarettes, and/or likely to be purchased by consumers for making cigarettes or intended for use in cigarettes. FDA will continue to do so as circumstances warrant.

Translation: we know that "pipe tobacco" can be and is used as RYO tobacco, but we send out Scary Warning Letters to companies who make this too obvious.
IMHO the "pipe tobacco" "tax loophole" isn't likely to be closed, since the packaging as about the only way you really *can* differentiate different types of tobacco in many cases. Plenty of people can, and do, smoke the same tobaccos in a pipe and in cigarettes. Too much examination of all this is apt to reveal that any FDA classification of various types of tobacco based on anything other than packaging is entirely arbitrary, and that tobacco is, after all, tobacco.
Also note FDA doesn't get to directly spend tobacco tax proceeds. If the Feds want to tax pipe tobacco at the same level as RYO, they'll simply pass a law to do so. I suspect there really isn't enough money in the pipe tobacco industry to make new legislation worthwhile, what with all the low-hanging fruit (e-cigs, coming marijuana legalization, etc).