Below are the comments Smokefree DC has submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration regarding the proposed rule to regulate e-cigarettes and other tobacco products:
Amid the debate over the regulation of e-cigarettes, one key question looms: How dangerous to nonsmokers is the aerosol that emanates from e-cigarettes?
Initial research shows that it might be quite harmful. It is therefore vital that the FDA require e-cigarette manufacturers to test the aerosol that comes out of their e-cigarettes and report the chemicals it contains.
Here’s what we know so far:
- In 2009, the FDA released a warning about e-cigarettes, saying that a laboratory analysis had found that they contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals, including diethylene glycol, which is found in antifreeze. The agency said that it “is concerned about the safety of these products.”
- Renowned secondhand smoke researcher Stan Glantz determined that e-cigarette aerosol contains a host of chemicals that in California are required to carry a warning because they can cause cancer or reproductive problems. The chemicals include acetaldehyde, benzene, cadmium, formaldehyde, isoprene, lead, nickel, nicotine, nitrosonornicotine and toluene.
Carol Schwartz is back. As reported this week, she wants to run for mayor.
Many residents who moved to D.C. since she left office five years ago don’t know much about her. Others may have forgotten how she performed while on the Council.
On the issue we focus on — smoke-free workplaces — she was terrible. She blocked the first smoke-workplace bill, keeping it bottled up in her committee. She didn’t support the notion that all workers deserve to breathe clean air on the job.
A smoke-free workplace bill finally passed in 2006 after D.C. Councilmember David Catania (I-At Large), now running for mayor, drafted it and steered it through the Council. Schwartz voted against it. The law likely has saved many lives and staved off respiratory and other illnesses since it fully took effect in 2007. If Schwartz had had her way, it wouldn’t have seen the light of day.
Do District residents really want to go back to that?
The long-awaited proposed regulation of e-cigarettes by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is out. It’s a mixed bag.
On the plus side, the agency proposes requiring e-cigarette manufacturers to register with the government and provide information about what’s in their products. They wouldn’t be able to sell e-cigarettes to anyone under 18 or dole out free samples. And e-cigarette makers would no longer be able to make claims about their products being less harmful without providing scientific evidence to the FDA.
But the rule is lacking in a number of significant respects. It doesn’t ban the candy flavorings that are in e-cigarette liquid, which are widely considered designed to lure children and teens into nicotine addiction. The rule also does nothing to address marketing of e-cigarettes. And it would give manufacturers of certain tobacco products two years from the issuance of the final rule – which is still at least a year away – to comply. That’s at least three years right there. That is way too long.
What’s more, the agency is considering exempting from regulation “premium” cigars – pricey cigars that are hand-rolled in tobacco leaves. That strikes those of us in the tobacco control world as crazy.
Regarding e-cigarettes, the FDA says:
Continue reading FDA proposes e-cigarette regulation
One thing was clear from the candidate questionnaires that Smokefree DC reviewed last week: Most candidates vying for office in the April 1 primary are spot-on when it comes to understanding some key secondhand smoke issues. At the same time, though, they are clueless about other secondhand smoke issues, often contradicting the logic they exhibited in a previous question.
In fact, we were pretty stunned by the variation within the same questionnaires — in one question, the candidate would recognize the health hazards of secondhand smoke, while in the next, he or she would express a market-forces-should-prevail opinion.
However, a few candidates stood out as fully grasping the fact that secondhand smoke is a health hazard, and that the right of nonsmokers to breathe clean air should trump a smoker’s desire to light up. Those who aced the questionnaire:
* Mayoral candidate Andy Shallal, who has been an early and longtime supporter of smokefree workplaces and made his restaurant/bar Mimi’s smokefree long before the law required him to do so;
* Councilmember Jim Graham, who also has been a longtime supporter of smokefree workplaces and is running for re-election to his Ward 1 seat; and
* Charles Allen, who is contending for the seat of his former boss, Tommy Wells, in Ward 6.
Continue reading Shallal, Graham, Allen top Smokefree DC candidate questionnaire
A move is afoot on Capitol Hill to protect nonsmokers from the unknown effects of the chemicals emitted by e-cigarettes.
According to a recent Politico story, some Democrats are calling for e-cigarettes to be included in the Capitol’s smokefree policy.
That’s absolutely the right thing to do, for two reasons:
1) We know that visible, smoke-like vapor comes out of e-cigarettes, but we don’t know exactly what chemicals are in the vapor; and
2) E-cigarettes look like cigarettes, and when they are used, they emit white vapor that looks and smells like cigarette smoke. Permitting the use of e-cigarettes in smokefree areas could cause confusion and prompt smokers of real cigarettes to light up.
The lawmakers who are pushing this sensible measure are U.S. Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), and U.S. Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.).
They should be commended, and the D.C. Council should follow suit.
Smoke from an e-cig
Little did I know when I testified before the D.C. Committee on Health this week about the need to regulate e-cigarettes that I was sitting next to a convicted felon.
Bruce Bereano, representing the Maryland Association of Tobacco and Candy Distributors, sat next to me on the first panel. He was pompous and pugnacious, and he made some absolutely ludicrous statements.
(Earlier this year, Bereano lost an attempt to overturn his 1994 fraud conviction. He falsely billed clients, then gave the money to politicians via his political action committee. He was sentenced to five months in prison and five months in home detention, and was fined $30,000. Despite this, and the fact that he was stripped of his law license, he is still considered a powerful lobbyist in Annapolis. Go figure.)
The bill we were there to speak about was the Electronic Cigarette Parity Amendment Act of 2013 (B20-233), introduced by Councilmembers Yvette Alexander (D-Ward 7) and David Grosso (D-At-Large). The idea is to treat e-cigarettes like other tobacco products – restrict their sales to minors, ensure they won’t be used in smokefree areas and so forth. It’s a great idea, and we applaud Alexander and Grosso for introducing it.
In my testimony, I made three points: The health effects on nonsmokers of the vapor emitted by e-cigarettes are unknown; e-cigarette use in smokefree venues will cause confusion and could weaken the city’s very popular and effective smokefree workplace law; and e-cigarettes are being regulated by other jurisdictions throughout the country.
Continue reading Smokefree DC urges D.C. Council to regulate e-cigarettes
Flickr photo of Phil Mendelson courtesy of mar is sea Y
Last week, the D.C. Council voted unanimously to make all D.C. parks and bus shelters smokefree.
There’s just one hitch: The bill was weakened by the Council Chair, Phil Mendelson, who amended it on the floor.
His amendments, which we didn’t get until well after the vote, did two things: 1) eliminate criminal penalties; and 2) specify that the measure pertains only to tobacco products. E-cigarettes, which D.C. Councilmember Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3) had rightly added, are no longer covered.
How shortsighted. Here’s why:
1) E-cigarettes emit smoke-like vapors containing chemicals that have not yet been analyzed for safety by the FDA. Here’s a helpful excerpt from a recent Los Angeles Times editorial
According to the FDA
, e-cigarettes contain many chemicals and ultrafine particles that can become embedded in the lungs, just as regular cigarettes do. The effect on people sitting nearby — in other words, people inhaling secondhand vapor — isn’t known. The mist certainly isn’t as smelly, cough-inducing or annoying as tobacco smoke. One German study found that toxins were still a problem in secondhand vapor, but at about 20% of the level from tobacco cigarettes. And a report this year by the German Cancer Research Center concluded that harm to secondhand inhalers couldn’t be ruled out because of metals and carcinogenic chemicals. The paper also cited the substances that irritate people’s airways as a reason not to assume that “vaping” indoors harms no one other than the person puffing on the e-cigarette.”
The bottom line: Anyone in the vicinity of an e-cigarette smoker is being subjected to chemicals whose safety is still in question. Many cities are including e-cigarettes in smokefree laws.
2) E-cigarettes can look very realistic. What the smoker blows out looks like smoke. This creates confusion if they are smoked in areas that are supposed to be smokefree, and may prompt people who smoke cigarettes to light up their real cigarettes. If you want to see what smoking an e-cigarette looks like, check out this video.
3) E-cigarettes are becoming a gateway for teens to get into smoking, especially since the liquid comes in a variety of flavors. Forty state attorneys general are calling for a ban on e-cigarette sales to kids and the regulation of e-cigarette marketing.
Once upon a time, Mendelson was a staunch supporter of smokefree workplaces. In fact, he was one of the original supporters on the Council of the smokefree workplace law, back when only three Councilmembers publicly supported the idea.
We are urging Mendelson to amend this new bill to include e-cigarettes, as was intended. Feel the same way? email email@example.com.
The D.C. Council took a major step today by making all city parks and bus shelters smokefree.
It marks the first time that the city has required any outdoor areas to be smokefree. (The Council has passed legislation permitting business owners to post no-smoking signs in front of their doors, but that is voluntary. And the city’s smokefree workplace law addresses indoor areas only.)
The measure passed today applies to all city parks, dog parks, trails, community facilities, playgrounds, swimming pools, spray parks, neighborhood recreation centers and other similar facilities owned or maintained by the District.
(Now it will be possible to sit on the porch at Hains Point on a summer evening without sucking in cigar and cigarette smoke from patrons. But we digress.)
The measure, which the Council approved unanimously on second reading (Bill 20-0095), was amended to remove criminal penalties and to clarify that the businesses that are now exempt from the smokefree law (such as cigar bars), would not be affected. (The committee-approved version is here. This doesn’t reflect the amendments approved today.)
We must give a shout-out of appreciation to Councilmember David Grosso (D-At-Large), who objected to the removal of criminal sanctions. “I think there should be stiff penalities,” he said. “Secondhand smoke is serious.”
The bill was originally introduced by Councilmember Vincent Orange (D-At-Large) as a smokefree playgrounds bill. Councilmember Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3), who chairs the Committee on Transportation and the Environment, strengthened it. Kudos to them both.
It is telling that this measure was noncontroversial. We remember the reaction in 2002 to the proposal that bars – gasp! – be made smokefree. One would have thought that the world was going to end.
Continue reading D.C. parks, bus shelters to be smokefree
The Washington Post is backing a smokefree parks and bus shelters measure that the Council tentatively approved in July.
In an editorial that ran over the weekend, the paper wrote:
The move to restrict outdoor smoking, also supported by Mayor Vincent C. Gray’s administration, is an encouraging sign of the council’s renewed interest in trying to discourage smoking.
The paper noted the lack of opposition to making outdoor areas smokefree, saying that it is likely a reflection of the public’s lowered tolerance for smoking.
The paper suggested that the measure is good but isn’t enough, rightly noting that D.C. needs to ensure that money is dedicated annually to tobacco control measures:
Anything that discourages smoking and protects people from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke is worthwhile. But the city needs to do more than extend outdoor smoking restrictions if it wants a truly effective and comprehensive tobacco prevention program. … The District has lagged in mounting a comprehensive tobacco prevention program; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) ranked D.C. 35th among states in the funding of cessation programs. The $495,000 cited by the CDC for fiscal 2013 is an improvement over the previous year, when no money was allocated.
A final Council vote is expected in September.
flickr photo courtesy of Garry Knight
The D.C. government soon will notify hookah bars that are operating without an exemption to the smokefree workplace law that they are breaking the law.
Smokefree DC notified the city in April about more than half a dozen establishments that were permitting smoking indoors without having a certificate of exemption from the Department of Health.
The Department of Health explained to us that it was difficult to enforce the smokefree law because of the way the penalties were written — a violation calls for a criminal penalty, which means the police must get involved. The department has told us that it is taking a couple of steps to remedy this.
First, it has put into place emergency rules that make a violation of the law a civil matter. Second, it has designated DOH food inspectors to enforce the smokefree law. Third, it is forming an interagency task force consisting of representatives from other agencies. The idea is to enforce the smokefree workplace law from a variety of angles.
In an email sent today to Smokefree DC, a DOH representative said:
As we continue to work on a comprehensive enforcement strategy, the DOH Food Safety and Hygiene Inspection Services team will investigate complaints and issue fines. In the coming weeks we will conduct an educational campaign for the restaurant community about Smoke free Workplaces and allow a voluntary cease and desist period. We expect fine enforcement to begin in mid/late September.
We appreciate the city taking the steps necessary to ensure the integrity of the smokefree workplace law.