posted
I don't know exactly when this happened, but at some point in the past couple years, the EPA decided that since Inhalers (for asthmatics) used some CFCs to propel inhalant, that the inhaler manufacturers would have to change the way their inhalers work to remove CFCs. Now, I'm kind of curious about what kind of affect Inhalers actually HAD on the atmosphere...or the fact that Inhalers were made to stop using CFCs or whatever about 10 years after everything else did away with them...but what really pissed me off about this was when I received my first, brand new, "environmentally friendly" Inhaler...cause apparently I couldn't use the one that I had been using for 20 years any longer. The problems I have are that the new inhalers expel roughly half the inhalant of the old style inhalers (despite being half the size), here is an obvious taste to the inhalant now as well (and not a pleasant one either), and they cost about twice as much. What's worse...I just discovered that my new inhaler has been slowly jamming itself by coating the hole in the inhaler with mist. I just had to jam a knife hole into my inhaler to get it to actually spray anything. I had *never* had this problem before these new inhalers were thrust upon me. Am I allowed to be righteously pissed off about this crap legislation or does it make me a bad person that I really don't care how much CFCs were pumped out be the inhaler that worked when I have to perform surgery on the new one to get it to work properly?
*pant pant pant*
Anyway. I really think this change was due more to a lot of lobbying by one of two groups... 1. Excessively die-hard environmentalists who DO NOT have asthma. 2. Medical companies trying to cash in on the fact that reformulating means they get to charge more for their medicine.
posted
I'd be very suspicious of outside agendas, too. Nonetheless, the total sum of inhalers in North America is huge, and the environmental impact surely would have added up.
You are still allowed to be pissed, though. It's a nasty development for many people, and more than just an inconvenience. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That sounds unpleasant. I've found that using an aerochamber attachment reduces the nasty taste of inhalants, but it probably won't help the clogging problem Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've never been able to stand using the aerochambers. They're just a little too bulky to fit in my pocket, and I really don't feel like toting around more than I already do.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now, this would be very retro-geek chic, but you can use the cardboard center from a toilet paper roll as an aerochamber. It folds down to fit pretty well in a back pocket, and it's a good size for spacing.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
But it's not the first time. Bush's EPA has tried before to violate the Clean Air Act, and many other environmental protections in an effort to deregulate industry to make it cheaper for them and to allow more pollution. Usually they get slapped down by the court before it does any damage, but you'd think they'd have learned by now.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You might want to look more at the FDA and the profit motive. This decision means a windfall for large drug companies, which seems a more likely motive for this change than enivornmental concerns.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The ability to consistently dispense the same amount throughout the life of the inhaler is a key element of FDA approval for these things. If the hole clogging is consistently happening, I recommend reporting it to the FDA. If enough people do it, action might be taken.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not technically the EPA's fault. The CFC restrictions are a result of the Montreal Protocol, a treaty signed by 178 countries. The treaty requires the signatories to discontinue CFC use in all products. Inhalers were able to keep using CFCs for longer than most products because there wasn't a reasonable alternative available.
Inhalers do not release a significant amount of CFCs into the atmosphere, but the Montreal Protocol is apparently not nuanced enough to take that into consideration.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd probably have more sympathy for the EPA's decision to force inhalers to meet environmental guidelines if the Bush administration's EPA wasn't doing such a piss poor job protecting the environment. I mean, as part of a big package to change the way we treat the environment and to help control and even reverse pollution, I'd say: "Sorry about your inhaler, it sucks but we all have to do our part." However, given what big businesses are getting away with in the pollution department, I'm more inclined to wonder why they chose to pick on asthmatics first.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I can find, the Montreal protocol makes specific exception for necessary medical equipment, which inhalers fell under. The U.S. is taking the lead in saying that they no longer should be exempted from this.
As I said, this move would lead to a windfall for large drug companies.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was under the impression that the reason behind this change was that it insured better drug compliance among patients who tended to frequently use inhalers incorrectly. Was I just duped by the man?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering the fact that I can't understand how an inhaler that works worse than the one previous is supposed to change incorrect inhaler behavior, I think you got duped.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems like it ought to be possible to create an inhaler without CFCs that doesn't suck (so to speak.) I'm sorry the old inhaler that worked well for you has been discontinued, but it sounds like the new one is a poor piece of engineering, and that in and of itself isn't the EPA's fault.
Oy. It sounds like the EPA is heading for the same conundrum that's long faced the USDA- to promote the same people they regulate.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
