Daily Mail: Safety Fears over Electronic Cigarette
- Thread starter James
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- revolution
- Status
Wow, just wow! I sent the link to Katherine Devlin of ECITA (see Welcome to ECITA - The Electronic Cigarette Industry Trade Association) and left a comment stating that the industry has already taken the lead on making sure that the products are in compliance with all applicable laws.
I just wish that US vendors would get together and create a US chapter of ECITA. Perhaps we could get out in front of government-imposed regulation by implementing self-regulation first.
I just wish that US vendors would get together and create a US chapter of ECITA. Perhaps we could get out in front of government-imposed regulation by implementing self-regulation first.
In my opinion, we sort of already are (except those "snobby" companies that refuse to be a part of the community or even the uppity California group (no name mentioned). So a few folks give everyone a bad name (when there is an issue) If products are not good or are unsafe, the forum tells everyone and vendors are forced to change or stop selling their products of if they continue to- very few buy these goods anyway. Wonder if there's a way to convey this message- or some way to quantify it to make a difference. I think we probably are self-regulating the "industry" much better than forced litigation already.
ECITA takes it a bit farther than what we do here on ECF. See this page of their site: Regulations that affect the electronic cigarette industry
Note that "CHIP" does not mean the same thing in the UK as it does here. CHIP refers to the Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 2009, which came into force on 6 April 2009. These regulations are also known as CHIP 4.
CHIP is the law that applies to suppliers of dangerous chemicals. Its purpose is to protect people and the environment from the effects of those chemicals by requiring suppliers to provide information about the dangers and to package them safely.
CHIP requires the supplier of a dangerous chemical to:
- identify the hazards (dangers) of the chemical. This is known as classification;
- give information about the hazards to their customers. Suppliers usually provide this information on the package itself (eg a label); and
- package the chemical safely.
Of course, the US has a different law or set of laws that correspond to the list that ECITA is using in the UK. But all countries have such laws.
If you look at the list of regulations ECITA asks its members to comply with, you'll see it goes far beyond liquids. ECITA has created a handbook that tells vendors what they need to do to come into compliance and will work with vendors so that when an inspector shows up, the vendor will have all the necessary measures in place and the paperwork to prove it.
So is nicotine on that list? Seems at the % we use (.6-2.4%) typically, it would not fall under anything that is toxic or dangerous, but then I've been wrong before.
This would be a Very Good Idea.
When the Government Regulations do come, if a Framework of the Voluntary Regulations were Already be in place, perhaps the Government Regulations would be more Aligned with Realistic Constraints verses something dreamed up by a Bureaucratic Agency.
If they were Smart they would consider it.
Examples:
Persuade to Use Colorant Free Flavorings.
List types of Plastics for e-Liquid Containers that are considered "Safe" and Chemically Stable to hold e-Liquids. Push to give consumers the Option to receive e-Liquids in Glass Bottles.
Provide Contact Info for Analytical Testing Labs where a e-Liquid Retailer could send a Sample of their Nicotine Base for Testing there State.
Encourage Retailers to Post Dated Analytical Test Results, per Nicotine Base Batch, to their web sites.
Provide Sample Labels in Avery Format that contain things like Batch Numbers and Warnings / Poison Control Info for e-Liquids and Nicotine Base.
Etc.
I think the Big Carrot for the Retailers, and something that would make the FDA and Legislators Smile, is the Independent Analytical Testing.
If I receive a 55 Gallon Drum of 1000mg Nicotine Base from China and then have an Independent Laboratory Test it and Certify in Writing that it is Pure and Free of any Contaminants, I think Consumers would chose to place more orders with me verses someone who just puts e-Liquids an bottle and writes "Watermelon 18mg" on the label.
So ... the advise for the small e-cig businesses is "Grow or Go"
because the future is regulation including packaging, testing, and labels.
Maybe “Grow or Go” is a little Black and White.
What Retailer’s want is Profits. No reason to sell e-Liquids unless it is just some Hobby.
So if you want a Retailer to do something, or make a Change to their current business, and you do Not have the Direct Control to Impose, the best way is to show that there is the Potential for Higher Profits.
The cost of Analytical Testing isn’t cost Prohibitive to even the smallest “Mom and Pop” e-Liquid Vendor.
And it seems that the vaping community has gone from people who Smoked Analogs with Thousands of Chemicals and Undisputed Health Risks to a community of Heath Minded people.
Also, here is the Stick in the Carrot and the Stick Analogy.
If Vendor “A” sells the Same Flavor in the Same mg with the Same Shipping for the Same Price as Vendor “B”, but Vendor “B” has Certified Lab Reports showing that the Nicotine Base is Pure, why wouldn’t Consumers try Vendor “B” verses Vendor “A” for a given Flavor?
Taste will win the Day but I believe that Consumers will gravitate towards e-Liquid retailers who can shown Independently Certified Purity of a given e-Liquid in the long run.
And the FDA is going to Love Independent Testing and it takes away a Very Valid Argument the ANTZ can use against us.
---
And Yes. Future Government Regulations will include Packaging Requirements. Nicotine Base will have to be Regulated for Purity on Import / Domestic sales. Else there can be No argument that e-Liquids are "Safe".
Because you can't say something is "Safe" unless you know what is in it.
What Retailer’s want is Profits. No reason to sell e-Liquids unless it is just some Hobby.
So if you want a Retailer to do something, or make a Change to their current business, and you do Not have the Direct Control to Impose, the best way is to show that there is the Potential for Higher Profits.
The cost of Analytical Testing isn’t cost Prohibitive to even the smallest “Mom and Pop” e-Liquid Vendor.
And it seems that the vaping community has gone from people who Smoked Analogs with Thousands of Chemicals and Undisputed Health Risks to a community of Heath Minded people.
Also, here is the Stick in the Carrot and the Stick Analogy.
If Vendor “A” sells the Same Flavor in the Same mg with the Same Shipping for the Same Price as Vendor “B”, but Vendor “B” has Certified Lab Reports showing that the Nicotine Base is Pure, why wouldn’t Consumers try Vendor “B” verses Vendor “A” for a given Flavor?
Taste will win the Day but I believe that Consumers will gravitate towards e-Liquid retailers who can shown Independently Certified Purity of a given e-Liquid in the long run.
And the FDA is going to Love Independent Testing and it takes away a Very Valid Argument the ANTZ can use against us.
---
And Yes. Future Government Regulations will include Packaging Requirements. Nicotine Base will have to be Regulated for Purity on Import / Domestic sales. Else there can be No argument that e-Liquids are "Safe".
Because you can't say something is "Safe" unless you know what is in it.
The fact that the consumers aren't expecting and demanding the most basic of production and ethical business standards from the industry is what keeps it from even bothering.
Yeah. But unfortunately when people Don't demand Standards for things that they Consume, sooner or later the Government steeps in and demands it for them.
Especially when it is something they might want to Tax down the road.
Especially when it is something they might want to Tax down the road.
Besides the government doing it for them, "our" guys had better get together and do it before the highly-marketed crap companies do it in a way that protects only their business model; i.e. overpriced, inferior products, pre-filled carts only, "adult" flavors only, and a standard stating that one <1mL cartridge is equivalent to several packs of cigarettes.
We've put out a response to it on our blog building on what our industry organisation, ECITA, has already said i.e. that we are regulated, and that some of us undergo further self-regulation. I think that at the moment the problem is that the cowboy companies are being taken as the common denominator.
I left my comment about ECITA regulating the products as consumer products under applicable laws immediately after I saw this story posted. At the time, the story had 19 comments. By yesterday it was up to 38 comments and mine was not one of the 38 published. Now it says comments are closed.
Apparently the Daily Mail is not interested in facts that run counter to their story's theme.
Apparently the Daily Mail is not interested in facts that run counter to their story's theme.
Not exactly. The only thing that both have in common is that they are vendor organizations. TVECA folks have met with FDA to discuss how they can meet FDA's needs.
ECITA sat down and looked up all the various consumer protection laws that are already in place such as safe handling and labeling of chemicals, battery safety, product packaging, marketing laws, etc. that might be applied to the manufacture and sale of PVs and/or component parts. ECITA developed a handbook to teach members how to become in compliance with these laws and what records to keep to prove they are in compliance. ECITA figures if vendors are already self-regulating to be compliant with all the necessary safety measures as a consumer product, there is no need to come up with a medical or tobacco regulatory framework for the products.
ECITA sat down and looked up all the various consumer protection laws that are already in place such as safe handling and labeling of chemicals, battery safety, product packaging, marketing laws, etc. that might be applied to the manufacture and sale of PVs and/or component parts. ECITA developed a handbook to teach members how to become in compliance with these laws and what records to keep to prove they are in compliance. ECITA figures if vendors are already self-regulating to be compliant with all the necessary safety measures as a consumer product, there is no need to come up with a medical or tobacco regulatory framework for the products.
I recall being in a discussion over 2 1/2 years ago about much the same thing. This is when the FDA was trying to shut down e-cigs by claiming they where a medical device. There where many of us calling for the industry to self-regulate before someone else did it for us.
Years later and it's the same old tune.
Even after a serious DIY incident there is still nothing from the manufactures to set up an organization to regulate themselves with some basic safeguards and standards. I have no faith they will do it on their own unless forced to by us or...... someone else.
I'm curious if the UK group is organized and funded by the manufactures or if they are an independent group? I don't know that much about it but the little I have read. They appear to be years ahead of the USA.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
