URGENT. The TPD amended to ban flavours - outrageous!
Results 1 to 6 of 6
Like Tree3Likes
  • 2 Post By FourWinds
  • 1 Post By DrMA

Thread: URGENT. The TPD amended to ban flavours - outrageous!

  1. #1
    Administrator low_tar_neil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    115

    Default URGENT. The TPD amended to ban flavours - outrageous!

    This letter today from Martin Callanan:


    Mr Martin SCHULZ
    President
    European Parliament

    20th February 2014

    Subject: Revisions to the Tobacco Products Directive agreement during joint finalisation by Parliament and Council services

    Dear President,

    Further to the discussion at Conference of Presidents this morning, I am writing to highlight my concern over the recent inclusion of several adaptations, by Parliament and Council services, to the trilogue agreement on the recast of the Tobacco Products Directive.

    These adaptations are not technical and legal-linguistic corrections, but substantive changes to key articles (including Article 5a on the priority list of additives and enhanced reporting obligations, and Article 18a on electronic cigarettes) of the basic act and an annex, they are as follows:

    Articles 5 and 5a
    Some paragraphs of Article 5 have been moved into a new article - Article 5a on the priority list of additives. This is intended to simplify and clarify the structure of the act. The remaining text in Article 5 has been restructured in a way more appropriate to a legislative text (by grouping of like obligations).

    Article 18a
    Article 18a(4)(b)(ii). The text now reads as follows:
    "without prejudice to point (i) of this point, do not include elements or features referred to in Article 12, with the exception of Article 12(1)(a) and (c) concerning information on the nicotine content and on flavourings; and"
    (a) The insertion of the words "without prejudice to point (i)..." is a legal-linguistic clarification for the avoidance of doubt, making explicit that the requirement to include a list of ingredients set out in Article 18a(4)(b)(i) is not affected by point (ii).
    (b) The insertion of the words "...and (c)..." and "...and on flavourings;" corrects, at the request of the political level, an oversight in the text of the political agreement, aligning it clearly to the spirit and intention of the agreement, as, for example, set out in Recital 32(l) from which it is apparent that the directive does not contain a prohibition on flavourings in e-cigarettes.

    Annex II
    During the course of finalisation it became apparent that the Commission would not be able to provide a picture library before adoption of the directive, as initially
    indicated in square brackets in Annex II of the agreed text. The picture library in Annex II is thus empty and will be established by the Commission by means of a delegated act pursuant to Article 9(3)(b) as provided for in the text of the political agreement.

    I understand that these substantial changes to the agreed (and voted) text were displayed on the committee website at 9.00am on Thursday 20th February. Changes were then endorsed by co-ordinators shortly afterwards and notified to the committee at 10.00am on the same morning.

    The fact that it was considered necessary to ask the committee to endorse these changes clearly indicates that they were considered as substantive. As such they should surely have been circulated to Members and a vote should have been taken.

    In my view, this is a violation of the custom and democratic practice we expect of this Parliament and it sets an extremely dangerous precedent, especially in view of the deep unease in the House over first reading agreements.

    I would therefore ask you to consider postponing the vote on the Tobacco Products Directive until such time as the appropriate democratic requirements have been fulfilled.

    Kind regards,

    Martin Callanan MEP

  2. #2
    Administrator low_tar_neil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Update: This may not actually be what it means, EU lawyers are going over it now. Hopefully we have nothing to worry about!

  3. #3
    Super Member Supporting Member FourWinds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    466

    Default

    I received this from Catherine Bearder, she seemed to believe that this was the future:


    http://ec.europa.eu/health/tobacco/d...arettes_en.pdf.

    I've sent mails to others explaining that I think the children would be better served by a law that didn't insist that they become accustomed to the taste of tobacco smoke should they ever try an e-cig.
    Last edited by FourWinds; 02-21-2014 at 12:09 PM.
    Julie W and AgentAnia like this.
    "Lord loves a vapin' man; don't trust smokey; see a vaper, and get rid of it."

  4. #4
    Administrator low_tar_neil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Ridiculous!

  5. #5
    Ultra Member Supporting Member Roger_Lafayette's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Moved On
    Posts
    1,039

    Default

    Vote appears to be occuring in six days - not much time left.
    Don't WAIT until the FDA takes away your right to vape! Join CASAA: a vaper's rights industry-UNaffiliated CHARITY w/ NO PAID STAFF, that has stopped bans on sales of vaping supplies & much more. Join FREE, info. is confidential: http://www.casaa.org/Become_a_Member.html

  6. #6
    Ultra Member ECF Veteran DrMA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Seattle area
    Posts
    1,891
    Blog Entries
    16

    Default

    Atrocious! Why can't these guys just stay out of other people's business? You don't see me telling them what spices to put on their steak, why should they dictate how I mix my eliquid?
    jpargana likes this.

Bookmarks