Next Industry Meeting Webinar | Tuesday May 31st
Next Industry meeting webinar will be held online on Tuesday, May 31st 2016 From 1:00 PM - 3:00 PM Eastern Standard Time. Webinar details to follow.
Strengthen The Industry | Report intellectual Property Infringment
We've provided a portal to allow you to anonymously report IP infringement below to help keep the industry strong and stable for the future!
Please consider giving to the Legal Defense fund
Recent Scientific Updates
The TVECA Science Page has been updated with the most recent studies and valuable industry information on the E-Cigarette and Vapor categories. We pride ourselves in getting you the information first to aid in development of proactive strategies rather than reactive. (Logged in members only)

Tobacco Vapor Electronic Cigarette Association

TVECA is an international nonprofit trade association. Our organization is dedicated to creating a sensible and responsible electronic cigarette market by providing the media, legislative bodies and consumers with education, communication and research.

Call: 1 (888) 99-TVECA

Fax: 1 (888) 332-2058

Email: info@tveca.com


Latest News | E-Cigarettes

Lung, e-cigarettes, and health: response from the Royal College of Physicians

The Royal College of Physicians completely refutes any suggestion or assertion that it has any “hidden agendas” in relation to harm reduction and e-cigarettes as might be implied by the Editorial (April 30, p 1789).1 All conflicts of interest are declared by the contributors to the report,2 and the Royal College of Physicians, an independent medical organisation representing 32 000 physicians, did not allow any involvement in the report by any manufacturers of tobacco, nicotine replacement therapy, or e-cigarettes.

We declare no competing interests.

How The New E-Cig Rules Hurt Americans

It is disheartening to see that the media’s near-exclusive focus while covering the Food and Drug Administration’s recent tobacco “deeming regs” has been on the provision that restricts e-cigarette sales to minors. The New York Times published an editorial entitled “Keeping E-Cigarettes Away From the Kids,” and the Huffington Post ran an article with the headline “Finally—Commonsense Protections for Our Kids From Tobacco.” Most people agree minors should not have access to products that contain substantial levels of nicotine (and “substantial” is used because many foods contain trace amounts of nicotine). But, in focusing on this move, commentators are missing how the FDA’s new regulations will destroy 99 percent of an industry that offers an option the Royal College of Physicians finds is 95 percent safer than cigarettes. The FDA’s regulations will force all e-cigarette products to go through the costly and time-consuming premarket tobacco product application process, a step that all but the big tobacco companies will not be able to comply with. (For more on how the FDA’s approval process will harm innovation and consumers, see my previous E21 article). The fundamental reason FDA placed the public at greater risk of the health problems that come with smoking traditional cigarette was that it cannot pass up on a chance to expand its power. As the tortured language of the regulation shows, the FDA recognizes that e-cigarettes are safer than cigarettes, but refuses to admit their potential positive consequences. Instead, the agency twists congressional intent in its deadly power grab........Read more...

Pediatric Poisonings from E-Liquids | The Full Story

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recently commented on data showing growth in calls to poison control centers from accidental exposure of young children to nicotine-containing “e-liquid,” (used to fill e-cigarette and vaping devices), calling for “bold, immediate action at the highest levels of government” to address this issue. As an industry leader in the e-cigarette category, we too are concerned with such accidents, and fully support child-proof packaging requirements for e-cig and vaping equipment (along with numerous other common sense provisions, like health warnings on packaging, age restrictions, marketing limitations, etc.). Even the most carefully crafted regulations regarding safe packaging will fail to wholly eliminate the problem, however, as human carelessness is the most proximate cause of such accidental exposures. Government could require such e-liquids be stored in a locked safe, but human error and inattention would ensure that such accidents continue. And when considering the uptick in poisonings, let’s put the numbers in perspective. According to the latest data, calls to poison control for children under the age of 6 have gone up 14.2%. Similar reports continue to draw significant media attention.

First, such increases are bound to happen as the e-cigarette industry grows and matures, and vaping of all types continues to gain in popularity, converting people away from the far greater hazard of traditional cigarettes. E-Cigarette products accounted for approximately 103 calls per month to poison control for children under the age of 6. This may seem like a large number, but consider that according to The American Association of Poison Control Centers (aapcc.org), in the same period as the aforementioned study, they received ~26,412 calls per month for poisonings related to cosmetics, personal care products, and cleaning products alone. That’s a 25,643% increase from the number of calls received over E-Cigarette products per month! Considering the far greater threats that lurk under kitchen and bathroom sinks throughout America, why is it that The Centers for Disease Control (CDC), as well as many other entities, single-out the e-cigarette for opprobrium, describing them as “an emerging public health threat”? (And let’s not even get started on the actual public health benefits e-cigarettes actually represent.)

Accidental exposures and poisonings are a fact of life. Of course the TVECA supports child-proof packaging and health warnings, but let’s not get carried away with public health hysteria. According to the National Fire Protection Association (www.nfpa.org), cooking-related fires result in an average of 430 deaths, 5,400 injuries, and $1.1 billion in property damage each year. Perhaps public health advocates should call for a ban on frying chicken. Proper handling and control of e-cigarette and vaping devices by consumers, combined with reasonable packaging safety requirements, is the legitimate approach to this problem. Consider the above fire death statistics – “(u)nattended cooking was by far the leading contributing factor in these fires and fire deaths.” http://www.nfpa.org/research/reports-and-statistics/fire-causes/appliances-and-equipment/cooking-equipment. Rather than use the relatively small number of accidental poisonings as a reason to regulate e-cigarettes out of existence, let’s take a moment to put these numbers in perspective and agree on a sensible path forward.

A Word from The TVECA Legal Team | The Lesser of Evils

The TVECA’s lawyers handled the landmark litigation that established the legal framework for the industry as it exists today. They represented an e-cigarette distributor in its case against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) when inbound shipments of its products from overseas manufacturers were detained by Customs officials at U.S. ports of entry at the direction of the FDA, which claimed that e-cigarettes were an unapproved new drug-device combination under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). The attorneys successfully argued that e-cigarettes are the functional equivalent of traditional cigarettes and should be regulated as such. Among other things, our lawyers successfully argued that because Congress had enacted the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act ("Tobacco Act") (which for the first time permitted FDA to regulate tobacco products), when not marketed as smoking cessation devices, e-cigarettes did not fall under FDA’s regulatory jurisdiction as drug-device combinations. If Congress already had authority to regulate e-cigarettes as drugs, medical devices, or drug-device combination products under its existing statutory authorities, why would it need the new authority conferred by the Tobacco Act? The court agreed with their argument that, as respects e-cigarettes, the Tobacco Act and its statutory definition of “tobacco product”—which includes e-cigarettes and other vaping products containing naturally derived nicotine—would be completely superfluous if such products were already drugs, devices, or drug-device combination products. Indeed, the only alternative would be that such products would be regulated as drugs, medical devices, or combination products and face an even more burdensome regulatory regime. The decision resulted in a clearer definition of the FDA’s scope of authority to regulate the use of e-cigarettes in the United States under the FD&C Act and the 2009 Tobacco Control Act.

-The TVECA Legal Team

Vaping: Government unmoved, key researcher clears the air re research

Dr Chung Shan-shan (鍾姍姍), Assistant Professor of the Baptist University’s Department of Biology, has been oft cited in Hong Kong for her research on vaping (aka e-cigarettes). Dr Chung was commissioned by the Council on Smoking and Health (COSH) between October 2015 and February 2016 to lead a studies on the potential harm brought about by vaping. She found in favour of stricter regulation, or perhaps a total ban of the product, but is keen to clear up misconceptions about the research in previous media reports. She takes issue with previous media reports that neglected to report on nuances she presented, leaving a misleading impression that has been repeated and magnified in the community. “Neither COSH, which commissioned the research, nor we, claimed that the sample products were representative. But, like all other manufactured goods, product variability does exist. It is particularly so for vaping products as the history and experience in regulation and quality control are short when compared to many other electronic products,” Dr Chung explains. “One should understand that both PBDEs and PAHs [chemicals created from burning petroleum] are not by-products of e-liquids but rather the electronic appliances themselves. Even if the flavor is the same, different vaping products can use different flame retardants or different types of plastic resins, resulting in varying levels of emission of these by-products in the aerosols. So a thorough understanding of the health effects of vaping should not just focus on the compositions of the e-liquids but the whole e-cigarette product......”

Read More

1 of 5
TVECA

Download Draft Guidance Document

Download the T.O.C. of the new Deeming Regulations


TVECA Members

Go to top