Consumers said the FDA needs to more rigorously oversee clinical trials to ensure patients get treated fairly; doctors urged the FDA to flag safety concerns with drugs and devices as quickly as possible; and scientists recommended the agency air dissenting opinions by FDA scientists.

These thoughts were balanced, in part, by industry representatives who said that, while they agree the FDA should explain decisions more thoroughly, confidential commercial information shouldn’t reach public eyes.

The meeting is part of an effort underway at the FDA to undermine accusations that it operates like a black box, making decisions without explaining them. The FDA has long faced criticism, some of which was repeated at the meeting, that it sits on safety information that should be public and works too closely with industry.

It’s too early to tell what recommendations, if any, the agency will implement. But FDA officials, including Deputy Commissioner Joshua Sharfstein, and the heads of nearly every division within the agency, eagerly questioned consumers and scientists about their recommendations and said over and again they looked forward to reading more details in written testimony.

Steve Findlay, a senior health-policy analyst at the Consumers Union, said the FDA should tell the public, through its Web site, whenever agency officials have meetings with industry representatives. Such disclosure, Findlay said, would help restore the FDA’s credibility. FDA officials appeared open to the idea, but questioned what meetings would warrant telling the public about.

Findlay said “important” meetings, but acknowledged the FDA will have to decide what that means.

This highlights a broader challenge the FDA will wrestle with as it decides to make decisions more transparent: What should it release? What can it release? And is there such a thing as ‘too much information’?

For instance, Francesca T. Grifo, of the non-profit Union of Concerned Scientists, said the agency should allow FDA scientists to publicly air opinions about a drug or medical product when they disagree with a final agency decision.

Sharfstein questioned such a move, saying scientists often “disagree sharply,” and airing those differences might erode the public’s trust in FDA decisions.

“I don’t think that the idea that we might confuse someone is powerful enough to actually silence an opinion that might in fact save a life,” Grifo said.

By Jared A. Favole, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9207; jared.favole@ dowjones.com

The Food and Drug Administration on Thursday began collecting millions in fees from the nation’s tobacco companies to help fund the agency’s newly granted authority to regulate the industry.

The user fees, which will be collected quarterly, are based on each company’s share of the U.S. tobacco market. The FDA will collect about $23 million for fiscal 2009. That will rise to $235 million in 2010 and grow to $712 million by 2019.

The FDA would not disclose the assessments for specific companies.

Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. analyst Christopher Growe said in a note to investors that Richmond, Va.-based Altria Group Inc., owner of market-leading Philip Morris USA, would be responsible for about 50 percent of the fees.

FDA spokeswoman Kathleen Quinn said the fees will be used to fund the Center for Tobacco Products, the agency’s group tasked with regulating tobacco. The fees will pay for staffing, offices, systems that will be used to register products and outside contractors.

In June, President Barack Obama signed the law that allows the FDA regulate the industry. Its authority includes the ability to ban certain products, reduce nicotine in tobacco products and block labels such “low tar” and “light.” Tobacco companies also will be required to cover their cartons with large, graphic warnings.

The law doesn’t let the FDA ban nicotine or tobacco outright.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated in June that the law would reduce the number of underage tobacco users by 11 percent by 2019 and lead to a 2 percent decline in smoking among adults.

Altria supported the legislation, while its chief rivals — No. 2 Reynolds American Inc. and No. 3 Lorillard Inc., both based in North Carolina — opposed it. The latter two have joined in a lawsuit with other smaller tobacco companies challenging specific marketing regulations of the law.

The nation’s tobacco companies already pay $1.01 per pack that it sells for federal excise taxes, and the top cigarette makers also make yearly payments as part of the landmark 1998 tobacco settlement to reimburse states for smoking-related health care costs.

In that settlement, tobacco companies agreed to make about $206 billion in annual payments over more than two decades. Companies also make payments as part of legislation that ended the federal tobacco program, a quota program that limited and stabilized the amount of tobacco produced by farmers.

By Michael Felberbaum, BusinessWeek.

Check out my other xtranormal video FDA You So Crazy!

We found out about e-cigarettes when I was browsing Ebuyer.com and found the Health E-Cigarette, it was only £10 so I ordered it to see how it worked. It worked fine except I was disappointed with the amount of vapor, so I began searching on Google to see if there was other models.

I ended up finding the ECF and started reading/watching the reviews of various models. We decided on the Titan 510 and haven’t looked back since.

I must admit I do enjoy not smelling of smoke and my wheezing has stopped at night, plus I don’t have to get wet standing in the rain anymore!

Just thought I would share our success here and for anyone considering giving e-cig’s a try check out the Suppliers page and give it a go!