From a front-page New York Times news article about regulation of electronic cigarettes:
F.D.A. officials gave journalists an outline of the new rules on Wednesday, but required that they not talk to industry or public health groups until after Thursday's formal release of the document.
The "required" is an odd formulation. Who gave the FDA the authority to stop journalists from asking questions? Why would any journalist agree to abide by such a requirement? Did the Times agree to it, and if it did agree to it, did it abide by the agreement? What is the FDA's rationale for such restrictions? Some more explanation would be useful, and one shouldn't have to pay extra for "Times Premier" to get it.
It's a poorly done article for other reasons as well, primarily the underlying bias toward regulation. The Times says, with what seems like a note of disapproval, that the electronic cigarettes "have grown into a multibillion-dollar business with virtually no federal oversight or protections for American consumers." It also reports, "Once finalized, the regulations will establish oversight of what has been a market free-for-all of products, including vials of liquid nicotine of varying quality and unknown provenance."
My goodness, "a market free-for-all of products" "of varying quality"? Sounds like many other industries, including news, fashion, footwear, food, automobiles, furniture, sporting goods, books, software, and movies. Plenty of other businesses — Internet search advertising, social media networks — have grown into multibillion dollar businesses without "federal oversight." One might even argue that the lack of federal oversight is what makes the business growth possible, because the business owners can focus on product growth and development instead of compliance and lobbying. As for consumer protections, there are a raft of federal and local civil and criminal statutes that outlaw fraud and false advertising and that hold manufacturers liable for products that they know are harmful or defective.
Not even Democratic senators agree with the Times claim that there are no protections for electronic cigarette consumers under current law. Senators Boxer, Blumenthal, Durbin, Harkin, Markey, and Brown wrote to the chairwoman of the Federal Trade Commission earlier this month that "Unsubstantiated claims that e-cigarettes help people to quit smoking are false and deceptive advertising and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) currently has the authority to investigate and take punitive actions against these companies." The letter itself is proof that the Times claim of "virtually no federal oversight" is wrong. The senators are federal officials and they are exercising oversight.