retail news in context, analysis with attitude

The New York Times reports that "the Food and Drug Administration has decided to allow Juul Labs’ vaping products to stay on the market temporarily, citing 'scientific issues' that warrant a review of the agency’s ruling last month to ban the company’s e-cigarettes.

"The agency’s decision to conduct an internal review effectively moves the dispute out of the public eye in appellate court, where Juul had initially received a temporary reprieve, and returns it to the agency’s private administrative process. But the F.D.A. cautioned that its latest move, first announced in a tweet on Tuesday night, should not be misconstrued as a decision rescinding the original order."

The Times goes on:

"The F.D.A.’s decision is a twist in Juul’s journey toward seeking official authorization under rules that required it and other companies to prove their products provide more benefit to public health than harm. It was blamed for the teenage vaping crisis more than four years ago, drawing widespread anger from parents, schools and local policymakers as well as Congress.

"On June 23, the F.D.A. took many by surprise when it issued an order telling Juul to stop selling its e-cigarette products in the United States. In a statement, the agency said that Juul’s applications to remain on the market 'lacked evidence' to prove they would benefit public health and included 'insufficient and conflicting data' about 'potentially harmful chemicals leaching' from its e-liquid pods."

KC's View:

I'm not fan of Juul or any of the vaping companies, but I must admit that I'm a little skeptical of the notion that these folks are being held to a standard that they must be doing more good than harm.  I even find "less harm" to be laughable, but to suggest that these things actually are doing some good?  Really?