Tobacco Product Standard for Nicotine Level of Combusted Cigarettes
CTP
2018-07-16 2018-07-16 2018-07-03 2018-07-03 2018-07-02 2018-07-02 2018-07-02 2018-07-02 2018-07-02
FDA-2017-N-6189-6416 FDA-2017-N-6189-6408 FDA-2017-N-6189-3307 FDA-2017-N-6189-3301 FDA-2017-N-6189-3254 FDA-2017-N-6189-3077 FDA-2017-N-6189-3083 FDA-2017-N-6189-3085 FDA-2017-N-6189-3044
04:00:00 04:00:00 04:00:00 04:00:00 04:00:00 04:00:00 04:00:00 04:00:00 04:00:00
https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/FDA-2017-N-6189-6416 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/FDA-2017-N-6189-6408 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/FDA-2017-N-6189-3307 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/FDA-2017-N-6189-3301 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/FDA-2017-N-6189-3254 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/FDA-2017-N-6189-3077 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/FDA-2017-N-6189-3083 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/FDA-2017-N-6189-3085 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/FDA-2017-N-6189-3044
Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous
Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous
To Whom It May Concern:The FDAs proposal to limit the levels of nicotine in cigarettes is noble yet will likely not be effective. While I understand that there is much research left to be done on the addictive quality of cigarettes based on their nicotine content, and while I think this research could have other important implications, it does not seem that limiting the market to this extreme will provide any long-term solution. Even in the case of the proposed long-term phase out as opposed to the immediate decrease in nicotine levels, there will be immediate and extreme backlash from a community reliant on nicotine products - due to the extremely addictive quality you reference. For those addicted to cigarettes, having decreased access to the nicotine levels they seek will likely have numerous unintended consequences. Instead of turning to less dangerous alternatives, smokers could do the opposite by using an unregulated underground market. More addictive alternatives to cigarettes could become more desirable in the scenario that strong cigarettes are no longer available. Because of these challenges to this regulation, it seems to me that a more effective and forward-thinking use of resources, research, and funding would be to continue focus on preventative action. Preventing young people from picking up cigarettes in the first place, no matter what level of nicotine they contain, will do more to mitigate the future impact of nicotine addiction on the next generation and generations to come. And focusing this effort outside of just traditional cigarettes, and towards other popular methods of consuming nicotine, will broaden this impact. Because of the potential unintended consequences of setting a maximum nicotine level in cigarettes, I do not believe this regulation would achieve its intended effect and that efforts would be better off directed elsewhere.  To whom it may concern:I disagree with the FDAs proposal to regulate tobacco in cigarettes. If this were to pass, to what extent will the government ever stop trying to regulate our or impose on our freedoms. Cigarettes are not the only thing consumed by Americans that are carcinogenic. Look at bacon and prosecessed meat as stated in this article: http://www.reportingthetruth.com/world-health-organization-officially-declares-bacon-is-as-harmful-as-cigarettes/. Will the FDA outlaw bacon next? As the article (which I did not write) states, this is a common sense issue. I feel as though the government is trying to play the role of parenting to Americans and gaining way too much control. This proposal is not just something that I disagree with but should this law pass, this will affect my family as well. Being the wife of a tobacco farmer, this crop supports our entire family, three children, 20+ employees and our entire community. Please reconsider passing this proposal.  To Whom It May Concern: I am writing today to submit my comment on the Food and Drug Administrations (FDA) possible rule that would essentially ban all cigarettes on the market today by mandating that the levels of nicotine be nearly 98 percent lower than current levels.  There is no combustible product on the market today that meets these unreasonable standards, making this a de facto ban on all cigarettes.The possible rule being considered would be disastrous for my business and tobacco growers across the region, jeopardizing jobs and the entire economy, as the overwhelming majority of cigarettes sold by tobacco retailers and wholesalers are produced here in the U.S. from domestically grown tobacco. Such a drastic regulatory change would be particularly burdensome, if not impossible, for tobacco growers and our employees.  It would impact nearly every aspect of our business---from planting to cultivating to harvesting---as the FDAs possible rule would render all tobacco plants grown today obsolete and unusable.  Many tobacco farmers are small, family-run businesses, and would face significant difficulties implementing and affording this change. This possible rule could also have serious negative repercussions for domestic manufacturing and U.S. jobs, especially since the vast majority of cigarettes sold in the United States are manufactured here using American-grown tobacco.  The FDA should consider the negative economic ripple effect this possible regulatory change would have on the broader economy and well-being of the communities our industry supports. This possible rule goes too far and would limit adult tobacco consumers choices and hurt tobacco growers.  Please keep in mind the impact this possible rule would have on tobacco grower, the jobs we provide, and the economies of the regions and states in which we operate.  To Whom It May Concern: Please do not move forward or even consider a possible new nicotine rule that would require the nicotine level in cigarettes to be nearly 98 percent lower than they are today. Such a move would amount to a ban on all cigarettes currently available to my adult tobacco customers and have a direct negative impact on my business as well as other tobacco retailers and wholesalers across the country.This possible standard, which may not even be achievable, could undermine my business and threaten the larger economy---especially if it is enacted without giving smokers a significant increase in alternative, less harmful tobacco product options and access to truthful, accurate information for smokers about the benefits of switching to these products. Removing regulatory barriers to less harmful products would benefit not only consumers and public health, but also the many stakeholders who depend on tobacco products for revenues, like growers and tobacco retailers and wholesalers.Cigarettes sales have a sizeable impact on my business---and adult smokers usually end up purchasing more than just their tobacco products, driving more sales. Whats more, local tobacco retailers and wholesalers provide jobs, support the economy, and contribute tax revenue---all of which could be negatively impacted by this possible new rule. It could also have serious negative repercussions for domestic manufacturing and U.S. jobs, especially since the vast majority of cigarettes sold in the United States are manufactured here using American-grown tobacco. The FDA should not enact any new rule regarding the nicotine level in cigarettes without thinking through the consequences it could have on local businesses like mine, our employees, and the customers we serve.    Response to the FDA-2017-N-6189 for Tobacco Product Standard for Nicotine Level of Certain Tobacco Products. Consideration to lower the nicotine content of cigarettes many lead to increased number of cigarettes smoked to get to the harmful level of nicotine. With increased in smoking comes increased 2nd hand exposure to cigarette smoke. Seeing that reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes does not change the number or composition of cancer causing chemicals placed in cigarette. Reducing nicotine may not be a healthy move for the many To Whom It May Concern: The FDA should not consider imposing this possible rule as it is unreasonable and would unfairly target adult tobacco consumers by essentially banning the legal products they prefer without having widespread access to and information about alternative, less harmful tobacco products. A mandate that cigarettes have nearly 98 percent less nicotine than current levels would be a de facto ban on all cigarettes currently on the market.   By effectively banning these products---without first creating a market for less harmful alternative tobacco products---the FDAs possible rule is simply unfair and unreasonable.Beyond just adult smokers, this possible rule would hurt our economy. A de facto ban on cigarettes would threaten American tobacco growers and manufacturing.  Given that the vast majority of cigarettes sold in the United States are manufactured domestically from American-grown tobacco, such an severe regulatory mandate would have a serious negative impact on U.S. manufacturing, agriculture, and jobs.The FDA should focus its resources on a comprehensive plan that reduces harm and risk for adult tobacco consumers through proven strategies to prevent initiation, encourage cessation, and by the development of reduced risk alternatives to cigarettes that adult smokers like.  Please reconsider this drastic regulatory change.   To Whom It May Concern: I am writing today to submit my comment on the Food and Drug Administrations (FDAs) possible new rule concerning the nicotine levels in cigarettes.  By mandating that the levels of nicotine be reduced nearly 98 percent, this possible rule would essentially ban all cigarettes on the market today.  This possible rule is unfair to adult smokers, and may not even be achievable.  The FDA should not move forward without considering the impact it would have on adult smokers as well as our larger economy.Once again, the government is trying to solve a problem by restricting choice rather than by giving adults more alternatives.  Rather than reduce choice for adult smokers, the FDA should focus on giving adult smokers more options and access to a wider choice of less harmful tobacco products, and truthful, accurate information about the benefits of switching to them.  Instead, this de facto ban would simply target adult smokers for purchasing the legal products they prefer.FDA should focus resources on a comprehensive plan to reduce harm through proven strategies to prevent initiation, encourage cessation and by fostering the development of reduced risk alternatives to cigarettes that are satisfying to adult smokers.Please do not consider such a severe and unfair proposal.  To Whom It May Concern: The FDA should not consider imposing this possible rule as it is unreasonable and would unfairly target adult tobacco consumers by essentially banning the legal products they prefer without having widespread access to and information about alternative, less harmful tobacco products. A mandate that cigarettes have nearly 98 percent less nicotine than current levels would be a de facto ban on all cigarettes currently on the market.   By effectively banning these products---without first creating a market for less harmful alternative tobacco products---the FDAs possible rule is simply unfair and unreasonable.Beyond just adult smokers, this possible rule would hurt our economy. A de facto ban on cigarettes would threaten American tobacco growers and manufacturing.  Given that the vast majority of cigarettes sold in the United States are manufactured domestically from American-grown tobacco, such an severe regulatory mandate would have a serious negative impact on U.S. manufacturing, agriculture, and jobs.The FDA should focus its resources on a comprehensive plan that reduces harm and risk for adult tobacco consumers through proven strategies to prevent initiation, encourage cessation, and by the development of reduced risk alternatives to cigarettes that adult smokers like.  Please reconsider this drastic regulatory change.   To Whom It May Concern: I am opposed to the possible new nicotine rule the FDA is currently considering in the form it is presented.  If enacted, it would be unfair to adult smokers, threaten our economy, and may not even be technically achievable. Please oppose this effort.Before implementing any nicotine standard the FDA should ensure that adult smokers have access to a much greater variety of less harmful alternatives, and to information about the benefits of switching to them. FDA should focus resources on a comprehensive plan to reduce harm through proven strategies to prevent initiation, encourage cessation and by fostering the development of reduced risk alternatives to cigarettes that are satisfying to adult smokers. If a rule such as the one being considered were enacted, it would basically remove all cigarettes and cigars currently on the market today.  This is essentially a de facto ban on the products many adult tobacco consumers prefer as there are currently no combustible tobacco products on the market today that meet the unreasonable restriction the FDA is considering.  Everyone can support reasonable regulations, but this goes too far.  Not only would this possible rule target adult tobacco consumers and limit their choices and the options available to them, but it could seriously hurt U.S. tobacco growers and manufacturing.  The overwhelming majority of cigarettes sold in the United States are manufactured right here by American manufacturers using tobacco grown here.  A de facto ban on cigarettes would have a devastating impact on the manufacturing and agricultural sectors, as well as the jobs they support.This possible rule is unfair and would have far too many unintended, negative consequence. Please keep my views in mind and do not advance such a severe regulatory mandate. 