The Injury Board Commentary - Defective & Dangerous Products - Most Commented

Rick Perry: Tort Reform Hypocrite

Brett Emison — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 09:32:00 GMT

Rick Perry has been highly critical of the American civil justice system. Perry has lauded so-called "tort reform" in Texas and chastised the 7th Amendment's right to civil jury trial as "frivolous lawsuits" and referring to plaintiffs - those who bring a lawsuit - as "playing the odds and hoping for a jackpot jury."

But what does Rick Perry do when his presidential campaign fails to follow the rules to obtain enough signatures to make it on the Virginia presidential primary ballot?

Rick Perry uses the same civil justice he has chastised and Rick Perry sues the Commonwealth of Virginia.

"We believe that the Virginia provisions unconstitutionally restrict the rights of candidates and voters by severely restricting access to the ballot, and we hope to have those provisions overturned or modified to provide greater ballot access to Virginia voters and the candidates seeking to earn their support," said Perry communications director Ray Sullivan in a statement.

Perry's lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of a state law that says those who circulate petitions to get a candidate on the ballot must be eligible, or registered, to vote in the state. Perry claims that the requirement violates his freedom of speech and association.

Source: NBC News

As Perry's lawsuit demonstrates, the 7th Amendment is the ultimate lynch pin for all other constitutional rights, which is why it's not just democrats and trial lawyers standing up for this fundamental freedom, but also constitutional conservatives who oppose attacks on 7th Amendment rights through tort reform.

What is your remedy if someone violates your constitutional rights to free speech? To religious freedom? To keep and bear arms? To contract? Or even to be on a Virginia presidential primary ballot? These are civil law (or civil justice) claims in which you take the bad actor (whether a person, a corporation, or a government) to court in order to have your rights protected.

But what happens when access to courts is limited? What happens when access to the courts is so lopsided that the average person cannot gain access? What happens when powerful lobbyists control the courts like they control other branches of government?

I applaud Rick Perry for recognizing the importance of the civil justice system in protecting his civil liberties. But such actions make his continued attacks on the civil justice system that much more hypocritical. The civil justice can protect Rick Perry's rights, but not yours.

The US Constitution is not something from which you can pick and choose. It applies in full. As patriots, we are bound to uphold it.

Freedom, liberty, and civil justice are issues our founders fought and died for. These are issues that should unite us as citizens rather than divide us as partisans. Join those on both sides of the political aisle in standing up for our Constitution and for preserving Civil Justice rights and accountability.

Perry Suing to Get on Virginia Ballot [Lexi Stemple at Fox News]
Perry Campaign Sues to Get on Virginia Ballot [Rebecca Kaplan at National Journal]
Rick Perry sues Virginia to get on primary ballot [Pete Williams and Carrie Dann at NBC News]

[More on your 7th Amendment Rights]

[More on Rick Perry]

Follow @BrettEmison on Twitter.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brett Emison

E-Cigarette…Anyone Else?

Armand Rossetti — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:00:17 GMT

The FDA has alleged that one of several E-cigarette distributors in the United States, Smoking Everywhere, Inc. (SE), has marketed a product that is both an unapproved drug (nicotine) and an unapproved medical device (synthetic cigarette body).

The FDA made this determination after examining the product, several claims made about the product, and information that SE, itself, provided to the FDA. For further information, please read E-cigarette Anyone?

While class I medical devices (gauze pads, throat sticks and the like) do not necessarily need FDA approval, class II or III medical devices do require FDA clearance before legal marketing can occur. The FDA has classified the E-cigarette as a class III medical device, and as such that device must undergo the strictest FDA scrutiny before it can reach the marketplace.

Depending on the manufacturer and type, the cost of entry to use E-cigarettes can vary from $14.99 for the “disposable” version all the way up to more than $200.00 for reusable deluxe models. Complete “starter kits” with cartridges and batteries included have been advertized at around $100. While the $200.00 price tag might discourage younger users, the chic of it all and the curiosity to try an E-cigarette at the price of about three packs of cigarettes ($14.99) might entice a younger demographic to give it a try.

Most people who use E-cigarettes do so with the intention of cutting down on smoking, or with the anticipation being able to get a nicotine high while working indoors (no smoke = no ban). Other consumers use the device to quit smoking altogether. Cessation is possible because the nicotine concentrations in the cartridges can range from 16 mg all the way down to zero mg. The choice remains with the consumer.

There can be no dispute that well designed and well regulated E-cigarettes have a potential to aid smokers in reducing or eliminating their habits. And several manufacturers are heading in the direction of making the E-cigarette device as safe as possible.

However, E-cigarettes might also provide an avenue for further addiction. A first time E-Cigarette user with the handle, “Utada” recently posted an after purchase review on Amazon.com. Although Utada was going to give the SE distributed E-cigarette five (5) stars, Utada only gave the product three (3) stars because he or she felt that the product was addictive since it had nicotine.

But here's the catch. When Utada was smoking real cigarettes, she smoked only 5 or 6 a day. However, with the E-cigarette, Utada wound up smoking two cartridges a day (each cartridge being equal to 20 regular cigarettes). Utada continued her review by advising the purchase of “e-cig juice” an after market nicotine cartridge rejuvenator, which comes in different flavors. With e-cig juice (or E.LIQUID, as one example), Utada expected to save a lot of money. In fact, using e-cig juice to extend the life of the device, reduces the cost of “smoking” significantly to far less than $5.00+ a pack for 20 smokes (see below). But there is a potential health hazard in using an E-cigarette beyond the number of cycles that the manufacturer has built into the device; an example follows.

Recently, several complaints have surfaced about a burning taste that consumers experience after cycling the E-cigarette through a number of puffs. This phenomenon may or may not involve SE’s version of the E-cigarette, but it would be prudent to obtain more information from the manufacturer.

As one blogger illustrated, most E-cigarette devices contain a wick inside a filament that soaks up the liquid in the cylinder that contains nicotine. A battery powered filament then heats the liquid that finds its way to the wick to form a vapor. After a while, the wick dries out fairly easily and starts to burn forming “burnt e-liquid”). Thereafter, the residual E-liquid has a propensity to turn into a solid and begin to burn. That sequence is what creates an unwelcome taste, and a possible, device-related health hazard. With little regulation, the possibilities for serious health risks seem as endless as human creativity will permit.

For example, some ardent E-cigarette consumers have expressed concern that manufacturers may be using a cheap polyester material to make the filter portion of the cigarette. Polyester filters could turn out to be dangerous when burned and inhaled.

Moreover, E-cig liquid is sold in 15 milliliter bottles in several flavors and nicotine strengths for $14.99. According to one distributor, only 2 or 3 drops of the liquid will regenerate a cartridge. Since there are 20 drops per milliliter, that means that one 15 milliliter bottle contains from 100 to 150 cartridge refills, and one cartridge equals 20 cigarettes. Doing some simple math, like many young people are able to do, a cigarette equivalent could cost as little as $14.99 divided by 3000, or about half a cent (or 10 cents a pack). It’s a great way to beat the cigarette tax.

To reiterate, the E-cigarette is a device, nicotine is a drug, and the FDA will be regulating both. Therefore it is within the purview of the FDA to ensure the safety of the E-cigarette device and its delivery of a drug. Otherwise, problems associated with misuse and/or device alteration might abound

Bottom line: In the interest of consumer safety, the FDA should require all E-cigarette manufacturers list materials used in respective devices. In addition, the FDA should require E-cigarette manufacturers to conduct studies to determine whether any materials subject to heat during cycling, including polyester, might produce toxins. Smart manufacturers should be forthcoming with appropriate warnings and, lastly, all forms of nicotine, including E-cig juice should be FDA regulated.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Armand Rossetti

Drywall From China Causes Concern Over Sulfur Odor In Homes

Wayne Parsons — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 11:51:33 GMT

MARY WOZNIAK (mwozniak@news-press.com) and DICK HOGAN (dhogan@news-press.com) reported on December 20, 2008 that drywall from China in 2004 - 2005 has has been creating noxious sulfur odors and potential health problem. A Florida family had to move out of their new home at the home builder's expense while the problem - and a solution - is investigated.

The Environmental Protection Agency confirms there is a problem with drywall, but says the breadth and severity of that problem are unknown.

“It is the drywall, and from what I gather it is causing a problem with copper and, specifically, air conditioning units,” said Dawn Harris-Young, spokeswoman from the EPA’s Region 4 in Atlanta.

After new home buyers in Fort Myers Florida complained about the sulfur odors, the builder had the Chinese drywall tested and determined that it was the problem. The builder replaced the drywall in one house and used ozone, fogging and barrier paint in the other.

Florida health department officials have received over 50 complaints from around the state about these problems and is investigating the problem:

“It certainly does raise concerns,” said Dr. David Krause, toxicologist for the state Health Department. “There may be a direct health threat.”

At highest risk for health problems are children and the elderly. People with asthma and chemical sensitivity are at even higher risk. The Chinese drywall that came into this market three to four years ago often was of poor quality being very brittle.

Doug Hoffman, executive director of the National Organization of Remediators and Mold Inspectors, said he has been getting a lot of reports about the Chinese drywall recently from his members — mainly in the Southeast.

“What they’re finding is that the drywall being shipped over from China is emitting much higher levels of sulfur, methane and other volatile organic compounds” than is considered healthy.

This drywall problem highlights the problem of foreign made products. We cannot control what foreign product manufacturers do and with US health and safety regulation having been substantially dismantled by the Clinton and Bush Administrations the public is being subjected to an epidemic of health threats from foreign products. I have written before on this problem in regard to Melamine in baby formula and defective foreign products. Another interesting article on this subject is "Food and Toy Safety: China's refusal to allow free speech increases our risk of exposure to melamine and lead" by prominent consumer advocate Steve Lombardi from Des Moines, Iowa. Higher profits at the expense of public health is at the core of these issues. The American civil justice system protects the public when corporations and government fail in their duty to do so. In China there is no effective system of courts, citizen juries and the Rule of Law to stop these practices. Unfortunately politicians in Hawaii and across the country are at work stripping American's of the protections of the courts, so Hawaii defective products lawyers cannot protect your family. Don't let it happen in in Hawaii or any community.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Kudos to GM for Volt Buy Back Policy

Michael Phelan — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 10:00:06 GMT

According to a report in the New York Times,General Motors said Thursday that it would buy back Chevrolet Volts if owners were concerned about fire risks. It also promised to comply with any changes to its battery pack recommended by federal regulators. In an interview with The Associated Press, G.M.’s chief executive, Daniel F. Akerson, defended the safety of the plug-in hybrid vehicle but said the automaker would purchase Volts from unsatisfied customers.

Such a policy is rare for auto makers, which typically have to be forced by federal regulators to institute recalls when safety concerns caused by alleged product defects arise. Last year, however, Ford broke the trend by offering to buy back older Windstar van models with alleged rear axle problems.

The safety issue concerning the Volt is the potential for post-crash fires caused by the car's 400-pound lithium-ion battery pack. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) opened a product defect investigation in November. NHTSA announce that initial crash simulations resulted in one fire occurring three weeks after a battery was damaged in a simulated crash; one fire occurring one week post-simulated crash; and one battery pack smoking and sparking immediately after such a crash.

GM is not only offering to buy back Volts from worried customers, but is also offering free loaner cars to customers who wish to wait on the final results of NHTSA's investigation. Moreover, GM is pledging to make any changes to the battery pack recommended by NHTSA.

Consumer saftey advocates should applaud GM for getting out in front of this issue before anyone burned up in a car fire. People old enough to remember the Ford Pinto will recall that this proactive approach was not always favored by the auto makers.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Phelan

Toyota Sticky Throttles - Another Recall

Greg Webb — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:18:46 GMT

Toyota recently announced that it plans a recall of nearly 2.3 million vehicles because of problems with accelerator-pedal assemblies that occur due to premature wear. The parts were supplied by CTS late last year. Toyota says it knew the assemblies had problems, but there weren’t enough to warrant a recall.

Included in the recall are an unspecified number of ’09 – ’10 Pontiac Vibes that were designed and built by Toyota for General Motors.

Right now Toyota does not have a proposed fix for the problem due to the speed with which everything has come together. As a result, General Motors has confirmed that the Vibe will be included in the recall, but has not made a formal announcement. GM stated that it typically likes to wait to announce a recall until a solution to the problem has been determined.

Toyota has said that there have been no reported deaths or injuries related to the issue, and that it could be weeks before a solution was found and approved by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

Toyota says this problem is separate from the one that warranted a recall back in November, where gas pedals in a select number of Toyota and Lexus vehicles were getting caught under floor mats and sending the vehicles out of control. There are 1.7 million vehicles that crossover into both recalls.

Toyota says drivers who experience their throttles sticking should shift into neutral, pull off the road and call the nearest Toyota dealer. Dealers have been instructed to deal with calls on a case-by-case basis until the problem is fixed. Toyota has not commented on how much leeway dealers have in helping owners of vehicles with the problem, whether it be installing new pedal assemblies or issuing long term loaner cars.

The first sign of a problem with the throttle is when the driver goes to accelerate and the gas pedal feels rough instead of smooth. The second is when the throttle doesn’t return properly upon foot removal, and lastly, when the pedal doesn’t return at all and the throttle stays open. Toyota encourages drivers to report to dealers immediately upon experiencing the first sign.

Toyota is continuing to sell models involved in the recall because they are new and the throttles don’t seem to be sticking until the vehicle ages.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Victoria's Secret Bras Contaminated With Formaldehyde According To Ohio Woman's Lawsuit

Wayne Parsons — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:37:53 GMT

A woman in Ohio purchased Victoria's Secret bras and after wearing them came down with hot , blistering welts and severe itching that made it difficult to sleep. She filed suit in May after tests revealed that the bras contained formaldehyde, an embalming chemical. She may be allergic to formaldehyde. The bras she purchased are the Angels Secret Embrace and Very Sexy Extreme Me Push-Up bras.

A class action lawsuit has been filed but court approval of the class action has not yet occurred. Apparently dozens of women have been contacting the Ohio attorneys who filed the suit with similar complaints. According to ABC News Victoria's Secret has stated that "We have strict quality controls around our products, and we do not use formaldehyde in our bras". The woman's attorneys have responded that "[i]t may not be something that they're specifying to put in their bra, but somehow it's making its way into the manufacturing process because it was certainly present," according to the ABC New story.

In a Fox News story they quote the Ohio woman as saying that"

I had the welts ... very red, hot to the touch, extremely inflamed, blistery. It itched profusely. I couldn't sleep, waking up itching.

How the formaldehyde got in Victoria's Secret bras is not yet known but apparently other women are having the problem. Often in chemical sensitivity injury cases it turns out that contamination occurs in the manufacturing process when products are exposed to dangerous chemicals coming from some other source. In the DuPont Benlate cases that I was involved in as an attorney on behalf of flower farmers in Hawaii, the fungicide had been manufactured next door to a plant that manufactured a powerful herbicide and lack of quality control resulted in contamination of the fungicide powder with a powerful and deadly chemical. Perhaps that is what is happening here.

Consumers have no protection from these types of injuries. what we eat and wear and the air we breath can injure us it contains dangerous chemicals and no one can test all of these things before using or consuming them. That is why the corporate practices of manufacturers and the regulatory expense of our consumer protection government agencies is so important. Corporations have been successful at reducing government regulation and these are the results of such trends. The recent U.S. Supreme Court case of Wyeth vs. Levine and legislation proposed by corporation friendly legislators to completely bar lawsuits by injured consumers in these cases. They would have the governmental approvals of their products be a bar to any claim that the product is defective. You can read other articles in my Blog and at the Injury Board website about this attempt to take away consumer rights. Only public pressure will stop that from happening. Go to the American Association of Justice website to learn more and join the fight for people over profits!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

How To Get Your Reebok Toning Shoe (EasyTone and RunTone) Refund

Brett Emison — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 08:54:55 GMT

I wrote yesterday about Reebok's $25 million settlement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) over deceptive marketing of Reebok's toning shoes, the EasyTone and RunTone.

Since then, I have received numerous questions from readers about how to take part in the settlement.

Purchasers of Reebok toning shoes may request a refund through the settlement using this Refund Request Form.

In order to participate, you must have purchased the toning shoes on or after December 5, 2008. The refund applies to the following Reebok toning shoes and apparel:

EasyTone

EasyTone Flip

RunTone

TrainTone

JumpTone

SimplyTone

SlimTone

EasyTone Capri

EasyTone Pants

EasyTone Shorts

EasyTone Long Bra Top

EasyTone Sleeveless Shirt

EasyTone Short Sleeve Top

According to the settlement web site, payments to eligible purchasers will vary depending upon the product purchased and the number and amounts claimed by all eligible consumers. If you submit a refund request in excess of $200, you may be asked to provide proof of purchase to validate your request.

The FTC is requiring the refunds because Reebok's ads made unsupported claims that the rocker-bottom shoes were "proven" to tone buttocks 28% more than other shoes and build calf muscles by 11% more. According to the FTC, it "spent a lot of time examining the evidence [Reebok] put forward and found it wanting."

Right now, Reebok is the only toning shoe manufacturer providing refunds, but Skechers has also been contacted by the FTC over claims about the exercise benefits of Skechers Shape-Ups toning shoes.

As I've discussed many times, not only will these shoes not improve your fitness, they actually cause injury.

Popular toning shoes include MBT and Skechers Shape-Ups.

Toning shoes (including shoes manufactured by MBT and the popular Skechers Shape-Up shoes) may actually cause more harm than good. Consumer Health Reports found a number of complaints for toner shoes far greater than any other single type of product. In one report, an individual suffered a broken bone only 45 minutes after wearing the shoes.

These injuries do not surprise health care professionals. Dr. Orly Avitur, the lead doctor working with Consumer Health Reports, concluded that anyone with balance issues, back pain, neuropathy, or unstable ankles should not wear toning shoes.

The Reebok toning shoe settlement covers only claims for deceptive marketing. Injury claims and lawsuits for toning shoe injuries must still be resolved on an individual basis.

The toning shoe danger is not limited to individuals with balance issues. Even young people in good shape have reported problems with toner shoes. A test by the American Academy of Podiatric Sports Medicine and American Council on Exercise showed prolonged use can lead to material alteration of individual walking gait mechanics. This is particular concerning considered the industry new marketing campaign targeting preteens.

The bottom line is – when you are told you can get more results with less efforts, one should be suspect. You may end up with more than tighter buns and thighs, you might end up with serious injuries.

[More on Toner Shoe Injuries]

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brett Emison

Medical Device Liability Bill: Undoing Injustice

Don Greiwe — Tue, 19 May 2009 10:25:09 GMT

Last week, the new Medical Device Liability Bill was up for debate within Congress’ House and Energy Subcommittee. This new legislation is intended to undo the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. In Riegel, the Supreme Court immunized certain manufacturers of medical devices by protecting them from state law product liability claims. This precludes approximately 10 million patients from claims against the manufacturer of their implanted devices when the devices were approved by the FDA.

Expectedly, pro tort reform associations such as American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) have begun marketing against passage of the new bill. In their latest press release, ATRA makes several bold claims, including: (1) the legislation’s intent is to only further trial lawyer fees; (2) this bill will allow claims that could bankrupt reputable companies; and (3) the bill would undo “longstanding law”. As a proponent of the bill, it’s clear to me that these claims are without merit.

First, the argument that pro-consumer legislation is really just pro-trial lawyer legislation is incredulous. This is nothing more than ARTA’s attempt to play to the stereotype of a trial attorney as reason to prevent victims from being made whole. Trial lawyers have, directly and indirectly, brought about increased safety measures and forced manufactures to be more conscientious of consumer safety.

Second, ATRA claims that the bill could allow excessive claims that would bankrupt the industry. The intention of product liability lawsuits, like most all other forms of personal injury litigation, is to make the injured victim whole again. Often people will hear of lawsuits with huge punitive damage awards. These punitive damages are sometimes greater than the compensatory damages themselves, and are intended to do as its name implies – punish the defendant. However, they are only available in extreme cases. In other words, the vast majority of product liability cases results in compensating the plaintiff for their injury, and are not intended to “bankrupt” any company (or for that matter, actually do bankrupt such a company).

Third, to call the decision of Riegel “longstanding” is beyond a stretch of the imagination. Riegel was decided February 20, 2008. In the decision, the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 was construed to spare medical device manufactures from claims of flawed design or labeling. While the decision has already precluded at least 1,400 lawsuits against manufacturers, the decision has created law that is far from longstanding.

The intent of this legislation is to undo the Supreme Court’s overreach into product liability lawsuits. Riegel has precluded otherwise legitimate claims, a preclusion not consistent with any other tort law. In the more recent decision of Wyeth v. Levine, the Supreme Court held that manufacturers could be held liable for mislabeled or defective drugs regardless of FDA approval.

In contrasting these two decisions, the current state of American law is this: If someone were to be seriously hurt or killed because of an FDA-approved drug was mislabeled, they are allowed to seek compensation. But if this person were injured by a mislabeled FDA-approved medical device, they would be precluded from bringing suit. Where is the consistency, or for that matter, the justice in that?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Don Greiwe

E-cigarette Anyone?

Armand Rossetti — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:28:44 GMT

That’s right. The quest to deliver controlled nicotine doses to people of all ages never ends. Cigarettes are now on the technological cutting edge. There’s no secondhand smoke to worry about, but do worries about personal health still exist? The truth is that those health concerns are still apparent.

E-cigarettes, also know as electronic cigarettes are battery operated devices consisting of cartridges filled with nicotine, flavor and other chemicals. The consumer switches on the device, inhales the vapor and receives a dose of flavored, highly addictive nicotine. Young consumers who favor cover up flavors like chocolate and mint will definitely enjoy the high.

According to an FDA news release, e-cigarettes are available online and companies market those cigarettes to the young consumer. However, electronic cigarettes could increase nicotine addiction and tobacco use in young people. Margaret Hamburg, MD, commissioner of food and drugs indicated that “the FDA is concerned about the safety of these products and how they are marketed to the public.

So far, the FDA has not had the opportunity to evaluate the safety of or to approve marketing of e-cigarettes, and the agency has conducted only limited testing, concerning the levels of chemicals and nicotine that various brands of the devices will deliver to the consumer.

In one tested sample, the FDA detected diethylene glycol (a toxic chemical used in antifreeze), and in several other samples, the FDA detected cancer causing chemicals, including nitrosamines.

Evidently, e-cigarettes are reaching our borders from foreign sources. The FDA has intercepted and examined shipments of e-cigarettes at the border and has determined that those devices meet the definition of being a combination drug-device under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

A concern called Smoking Everywhere is challenging the FDA’s jurisdiction and the case is pending in federal district court, District of Columbia. Healthcare providers and consumers may report serious adverse events (side effects) that concern the use of e-cigarettes to the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting Program (please scroll to the bottom of the page).

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Armand Rossetti

FDA Study Identifies Toxins in Electronic Cigarettes

Greg Webb — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 17:42:28 GMT

According to a preliminary analysis by the FDA, electronic cigarettes contain traces of carcinogens and toxins. These findings contradict electronic cigarette manufacturers’ statements that their products are a safe alternative to tobacco. Manufacturers claim that the battery-powered cigarettes contain nothing more than water vapor, nicotine, and propylene glycol, which is used to create artificial smoke. When heated, the liquid produces a vapor that users inhale.

The FDA analyzed 19 varieties of the cartridges that hold the liquid and two types of cigarettes made by NJoy and Smoking Everywhere. It found that several cartridges contained nitrosamines, tobacco-specific compounds known to cause cancer, and one cartridge from Smoking Everywhere contained diethlyene glycol, a common ingredient in antifreeze. Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, the FDA’s principal commissioner, reports concerns because, while the FDA knows what’s in the cigarettes, it doesn’t know how those ingredients affect the body when inhaled through electronic cigarettes.

The Electronic Cigarette Association said in a statement that the FDA’s testing was too narrow to be reliable and that its members only sell and market their product to adults. CEO of NJoy Jack Ledbetter said a third party had tested its products and pronounced them an appropriate alternative to cigarettes, but he did not release those findings. He said experts would review both NJoy’s tests and the FDA’s.

Dr. Sharfstein said that electronic cigarettes are manufactured in China and subject to little quality control, adding that the study found nicotine levels to vary in cartridges who claimed to have a standard amount and found the drug in cartridges who claimed to be nicotine-free.

The FDA has called the cigarettes electronic drug delivery devices, turning away approximately 50 shipments of them at the border. It would not comment on whether it planned to ban electronic cigarettes, but public health officials are worried that the cherry and bubblegum flavors are enticing to children and may be easy for minors to obtain. Smoking Everywhere filed a lawsuit against the FDA in April, claiming that it did not have jurisdiction to bar electronic cigarettes from entering the U.S.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb