When there was a worldwide push to get ozone-depleting aerosols containing CFCs off the market, it was realized that asthma medications would have to be exempted due to the fact that they are necessary for some people literally to LIVE. Under the "Montreal Protocol" it was agreed that CFC-containing asthma medications would be exempted from this ban (permitted to remain on the market) until a CFC-free asthma medication was introduced.3M had a MAJOR program underway to be first to market with a non-CFC asthma medication, and about four years ago they succeeded. At which time they asked the FDA to honor the Montreal Protocol and pull the other CFC-containing medications off the market.Well, the makers of the other products all put up a tremendous fuss - went to Congress and said "Hey - it's a lot tougher to develop a non-CFC formulation than we thought it would be! We need more time!" They put a lot of $$$ into lobbying efforts and exerted some pretty significant political clout, and FDA did an about turn on their previous position.They announced - and this was AFTER 3M had come to market with their non-CFC product - that NOW there had to be THREE non-CFC drugs with similar effectiveness before the CFC-containing formulations would be banned. So that bought the other companies more development time. Good news for them, unhappy news for 3M.That just happens to be a similar scenario that I know about.