David and Goliath: The Canadian Ecig Industry prepares to take on its enemies!

[freakindahouse]

Hi, Slim,

A very fair question, especially considering the fact that in the US industry, there has been some history of particular agendas being pushed to further the interests of restrictive business models, i.e. one type of hardware, and only a couple of flavours - as if that would be a GOOD thing!

With both ECITA and ECTA, the key consideration is to maintain freedom of choice for consumers, and that includes taking action to ensure that nicotine liquid, in a variety of strengths and flavours, can be sold legally and with appropriate safeguards in place.

This is a struggle with policy-makers everywhere, but it is possible to alleviate their fears somewhat when we can demonstrate safety testing. The testing we carry out for ECITA members (and will be for ECTA members) tests for contaminants, including but not limited to diethylene glycol and diacetyl (plus related ketones), while also checking that the stated concentration of nicotine is accurate - including making sure that no nic contains no nic.

Providing there is testing, to ensure that safeguards are in place to protect consumers from potentially dangerous contaminants in their eliquid, then there can be no justification for restricting consumers' available choices.

I hope that clears up that point, and thanks for raising it.

Happy vaping, one and all,

Cheers,

Katherine

 

[Nrgaway]

I am a bit sceptical as well. In the old thread I requested a list of board of directors and was given some mubmo jumbo why they could not at this point. I even checked with the government and it also appears they have failed to provide the required documentation to them even though they are required to file a list of board of directors within 30 days of any change. So far I see only 2 or 3 directors filed when they publicly announced they now have 12. So to me it does kind of seem like a big boys club, especially if they have not even done the proper government filings.

If anyone is wondering about me, I am not a vendor, just a personal Canadian vapor dude. I deal with many vendors in Canada. So this is from a point of view from someone you say your are trying to help. I sure would appreciate you stop with all the secrets regarding the board at least.

 

[Nrgaway]

So, not on the secret board topic, I figure I should let you know what I personally hope to see happen.

I hope you will give other vendors that are not currently members a fair chance to make sure they comply to any government deal, like notifying members they need to have their eJuice tested, and acceptable products, etc.

I hope there will not be a list of approved products which will only be exclusively available to current members.

And if vendors need to become members to comply, it should be at a fair cost.

Personally one of my main concerns in this industry is safety of the eJuice and containers that are used to vape and store them in (make sure the tanks, cartos to not leach toxins). As I have already stated in another thread, I currently imagine (not saying this is true, its just my imagination at this point) many eJuice vendors mixing batches at the kitchen table without regard to bacteria and exact nic levels, etc. So if HC approves eJuice I assume this will be sorted out. I also want to see a list of ingredients and verification to those that claim organic that they all use real organic fruits, etc, since organic can mean many things.

So as a user this is what I want to see for my own safety.

 

[Can_supplier]

I am a bit sceptical as well. In the old thread I requested a list of board of directors and was given some mubmo jumbo why they could not at this point. I even checked with the government and it also appears they have failed to provide the required documentation to them even though they are required to file a list of board of directors within 30 days of any change. So far I see only 2 or 3 directors filed when they publicly announced they now have 12. So to me it does kind of seem like a big boys club, especially if they have not even done the proper government filings.

ECTA respects the right of any member or director to identify or not to identify their involvement at their own discretion for obvious reasons.

Mopar isn't on the board of directors, he's dealt with it, so should you, lets move on.

 

[Can_supplier]

I hope you will give other vendors that are not currently members a fair chance to make sure they comply to any government deal, like notifying members they need to have their eJuice tested, and acceptable products, etc.

This is exactly what we will be offering once we open up general membership. Right now we are in the process of identify what needs to be tested for compliance and creating procedures. Until that is complete, we do not have anything to offer, as to be able to open up general membership.

I hope there will not be a list of approved products which will only be exclusively available to current members.

We have no plans to establish "approved products", thus limiting choice for vedors or vapers. We will establish a means for vendors to demonstrate the safety of their own unique products.

And if vendors need to become members to comply, it should be at a fair cost.

Not one member is in this for the money. We all have business where we make our money. ECTA is an investment to preserve the industry and our businesses. When general membership opens, the cost will be directly related to the expenses.

Personally one of my main concerns in this industry is safety of the eJuice and containers that are used to vape and store them in (make sure the tanks, cartos to not leach toxins). As I have already stated in another thread, I currently imagine (not saying this is true, its just my imagination at this point) many eJuice vendors mixing batches at the kitchen table without regard to bacteria and exact nic levels, etc. So if HC approves eJuice I assume this will be sorted out. I also want to see a list of ingredients and verification to those that claim organic that they all use real organic fruits, etc, since organic can mean many things.

Which is exactly what we are working on right now. Product safety standards that cover all the above are already in place. We don't want a bottle or orange juice sold which is in plastic that leaches anymore than we want a bottle of e-juice. Same with sanity production, you don't want orange juice that was squeezed by someone's dirty hands in a kitchen sink.

The research we are doing right now is to find all the laws that protect consumers that are on the books right now. We must bring our products in compliance with those before we are able to approach HC in regards to e-juice and nicotine.

 

[Nrgaway]

ECTA respects the right of any member or director to identify or not to identify their involvement at their own discretion for obvious reasons.

Mopar isn't on the board of directors, he's dealt with it, so should you, lets move on.

Personally, I will just take a wait and see approach. I only bring this up since it seems to be the one big this that is harming the rep of the organization even before it is operational and gives ECTA a lack of creditability especially since it is not actually your choice to respect directors wishes to be anonymous in Canada.

In Canada you need to file the board of directors list including names and addresses within 30 days of any change and that information is publicly available. This is why people are wondering why you are so secretive, especially since you appear not to even be honouring Canadian law. I personally am not going to take my time to make you comply with Canadian law since the last things you guys need at this point are government fines and audits at this stage of the game. I was just hoping your would on your own since after all you will need consumer support in the end as well. I will leave it at that and do wish you all the best of luck.

I really hope I am not coming across in a negative manner; I am aiming for constructive criticism to help improve the image of ECTA.

I also did appreciate your response given in post #25, thank you.

 

[kanadiankat]

Thanks Eric ... I guess I am somewhat confused about the whole current landscape in regards to the nic e-liquid trade, and where it may be going without intervention, and where the ECTA wants to see it go.....

Good questions Slim Batz.

While there are certainly more Canadian laws and standards governing hardware, eliquid regulation is a big concern.

ECTA has already developed a program for this and an initial audit will be carried out next week. The tests will be made on many of the eliquids available in Canada and carried out by a laboratory qualified and experienced in testing eliquid (yes - such a lab exists). It will also test to verify nicotine strength and purity (or for non-nic liquid - verification of it's absence). Weights, measures, plastics, lids and labels.

Nic E-liquid isn't sold by BM outlets, but its sold online, but JC got shut down, but other vendors continue to operate, but nicotine is a drug, but vendors are having it shipped in by the barrel ... etc. etc. etc.

Nicotine is not a drug in the concentration sold in eliquid (1-34mg/ml = > 4mg per dosage unit). In 2004 (?date verification?) Health Canada sponsored new legislation to move "nicotine for the purpose of inhaling" to a list of exemptions from "Schedule F" (restricted drugs) and placed in the same category as nicotine in tobacco and nicorettes. This was done to support the free sale of nicotine inhalers in federal law.

Why nic in eliquid is targeted by HC has more to do with how the product entered the market - than the actual product. It came in without checks and balances, without regulations or verifiable tests. That creates issues for government agencies (and for consumers). It would have been much easier for HC to simply require testing documentation right away - but they didn't and that brings us to the current situation.

I'd really like it if the ECTA would post some detail regarding the current state of the e-liquid sub-industry in Canada ... how precarious is it?, what actions/agendas does the ECTA see various government agencies (HC, CC) persuing, and what actions the ECTA may be considering in response.

The industry is - surprisingly - in very good shape. The larger manufacturers have good facilities, legally obtained and certified ingredients and protocols for production. But even saying this is problematic - because you have to "assume" that I'm telling you the truth. That's NOT good enough.

This is where ECTA will fill the breach.

Testing, documentation, verification of facilities, legal standards, etc - will all be thoroughly checked by an independent 3rd party (NOT the Directors or other vendors). That party will ensure that facilities maintain the highest standards. These standards will be published - and the vendors given a certification by ECTA that they have to maintain.

At that point - ECTA will not be waiting on a response from regulators. There will be documentation on file and lab tests available. ECTA will "invite" gov agencies to examinee the program, make suggestions and begin working towards recognizing eliquid (and ecigs).

This method has worked already in the UK, is before the European Commission and has just started up in another country as well. So there is an growing international precedence to work this way with regulators. That's something that someone in government has to acknowledge.

Where the fight goes from there is something we will all need to wait and see.

Unlike court action (which is "win or lose"), if the first attempts don't meet with success - the process stays in place and develops until success is achieved.

 

[Can_supplier]

Personally, I will just take a wait and see approach.

We welcome that, as long as you have a open mind. We are an organization about action and we must show results to be able to continue. If we are not making progress, this will not be an organization any other vendors will want to join.

I only bring this up since it seems to be the one big this that is harming the rep of the organization even before it is operational and gives ECTA a lack of creditability especially since it is not actually your choice to respect directors wishes to be anonymous in Canada.

Its the decision of each director and each member. To go public about one's involvement with an organization such as this at an early stage does come with some risk, and could very well be painting a target on ones back. As such it is a personal decision at the moment, I wouldn't feel right about forcing anyone's decision on this.

Creditability will come from our actions. As will come a time when we are closer to our objective this will not even be a question, everyone will be able to show their support and involvement in the organization without any fear of repercussions.

 

[freakindahouse]

While this is not something which is - or could ever be - regarded as 'ECTA specific', I would like to include it in this thread as a reminder of why we are even discussing ECTA:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/canada-forum/286898-reason-why-we-here.html

The nitty gritty details are crucially important, and every post in this thread has value from that point of view. However, from time to time, it is useful to take a step back, take a deep breath, and remind ourselves what every part of this vibrant community and industry is REALLY about.

Kudos to Noizmaker for posting this moving video.

That's why we're all here, and that's why we are throwing our efforts into making ECTA happen. We can't publish everything immediately, but that is not because we are trying to be secretive; it is because we are trying to give this the best chance for success. If HC or anyone else is able to swoop in and destroy it before it can gain momentum, that will not help our global collective cause. ECTA is one tiny thread in the global tapestry of the vaping community. I hope it will glitter brightly and beautifully when the stitching is complete, but it's a complicated weave, so we beg your patience.

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thread. Every one of us has something to contribute to the overall community, and I am enormously proud to be a tiny part of it.

Happy vaping, one and all.

Cheers,

Katherine

 

[mopar]

Lets face it nicotine in this form is a banned substance according to Health Canada I don't believe it ever was in the UK? So there is only one way to try and fight it here and that is in the courts. If not this entire effort is a long drawn out waste of time. Kinda funny how all the ecfer's that will boldly come in here are smacked down by vendors in ECTA You can put as much lipstick on a pig as you like and you still just have a pig even if it is covered in lipstick.

 

[freakindahouse]

According to Canadian law (and UK law), nicotine in this form is not banned. In the UK, it is allowed in this diluted form with up to 7.2% concentration. In Canadian law, it is exempted from the restrictive legislation in amounts up to '4mg per dosage unit'. (Gotta love how they make the wording so woolly in legal statutes!)

So it's not a banned substance according to the law, and it's the law we rely on - just like the Courts do.

Not entirely sure I'd like to try putting lipstick on a pig. For one thing, they can be pretty aggressive, and I found squirting water much more effective at staving off the charge of an adolescent pig. Also strikes me as a bit cruel. Reckon pigs are pretty enough already!

Happy vaping, one and all,

Cheers,

Katherine

 

[Can_supplier]

So there is only one way to try and fight it here and that is in the courts.

It’s a foolish proposition to take anyone to court without first at very least trying to negotiate the matter. We are following in the successful and proven footsteps of the ECTIA who negotiated this exact situation with complete success, rather than the court route as was done in the US with very limited success.

Kate in her earlier post has covered the basis of our argument. It is very compelling. It might well be worth your time to re-read it as it directly answers your later question about nicotine.

Working together with others to form partnership, rather than battling with everyone is a much more successful method, both with HC and in life.

ECTA stands committed to forming working partnerships, rather than an adversary relationship to achieve our objective. We are forming a grounding based on law to do exactly that.

 

[Can_supplier]

So there is only one way to try and fight it here and that is in the courts.

I will expand a bit further on the court challenge.

The background here dates back to 2009, when my involvement with e-cigarettes began. A group of us did explore the option of a legal challenge against Health Canada. There were meeting with a law firm where possible directions were discussed.

It is important to understand what "taking someone to court" is. It’s not like you see on TV where you sign up for a date with Judge Judy. The first obstacle is what court do you challenge someone in? Is this constitutional law, administrative Law, criminal Law or civil law? For many of those area, it is not our decision to press a matter, it is at the discretion of the Crown Attorney. Really what is left to us is Civil Law.

To challenge HC under Civil Law would require we show that a) HC broke a law acting against us and b) this caused us damages. The problem starts with part a). HC has not acted on any laws, they have simply issued warning, without part a) part b) as no merit and the case will be tossed.

This leave Criminal Court. As discussed we cannot have HC charged there based on our desire, so to make that challenge happen HC would have to initiate the process by laying charges. The defense of those charges and if it were successful would form case law, defining how these matters are to be handled.

If someone were so incline, they could challenge HC to charge their business, effectively that is what “taking them to court” means. At that time there was no vendor willing to put themselves in such a position. Maybe things have changed and we have a volunteer?

Again ECTA stresses negotiation with product compliance under law on our side as the way we can and will win this battle.

 

[Slim Batz]

This has been posted before in another thread, but I just read it with interest and thought I would re-post it here... suggested reading if you haven't gone thru it already ...

Journal of Public Health Policy - Electronic cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy for tobacco control: A step forward or a repeat of past mistakes[quest]

The paper makes an interesting point which I will paste here just for emphasis ....

Do products with established user bases warrant a different regulatory approach than entirely new products? This would seem to follow from consistent application of the principal of nonmaleficence – ‘do no harm.’ Products yet to enter the market have only potential beneficiaries, people who can only speculate about what the precise therapeutic effects of the product will be for them. In contrast, products already on the market have users who may already be deriving benefits. By definition, enacting a ban will harm current users, unless the evidence suggests that the harms outweigh the benefits for those already using the product. The burden of proof is on the regulatory agency to demonstrate that the product is unreasonably dangerous for its intended use.

How does this principle apply to electronic cigarettes? For the many vapers who report using them in place of cigarettes,33 the benefits of the product are readily observable, already established. Simply demonstrating that electronic cigarettes are ‘not safe’ may not be sufficient grounds to ban them. Unless the evidence suggests that vaping does not yield the anticipated reduction in harm to the user, enacting an electronic cigarette prohibition will do harm to hundreds of thousands of vapers already using electronic cigarettes in place of tobacco ones – a clear violation of nonmaleficence.

 

[freakindahouse]

Excellent post, Slim, and an excellent article.

This is absolutely the case, yes, and this is confirmed in a particular piece of Canadian legislation. I would ask all the Canadian vendors to consider this carefully:

Whenever Health Canada is directing you to stop selling/manufacturing/distributing a product, or if you are a practitioner, to stop providing a treatment, you need to get advice concerning the criminal negligence sections of the Criminal Code. Section 217 of the Code reads:

“217 Every one who undertakes to do an act is under a legal duty to do it if an omission to do
the act is or may be dangerous to life.”

If you have been providing a product or treatment that anyone has come to rely upon for their health, this section creates a legal duty to continue to provide the product or treatment if failing to do so will cause physical harm.

Seems pretty cut and dried... (even though, of course, it's never that simple! *sigh*) Food for thought, though, isn't it?

Thanks, Slim!

Cheers,

Katherine

 

[Mindfield]

Excellent post, Slim, and an excellent article.

This is absolutely the case, yes, and this is confirmed in a particular piece of Canadian legislation. I would ask all the Canadian vendors to consider this carefully:

Whenever Health Canada is directing you to stop selling/manufacturing/distributing a product, or if you are a practitioner, to stop providing a treatment, you need to get advice concerning the criminal negligence sections of the Criminal Code. Section 217 of the Code reads:

“217 Every one who undertakes to do an act is under a legal duty to do it if an omission to do
the act is or may be dangerous to life.”

If you have been providing a product or treatment that anyone has come to rely upon for their health, this section creates a legal duty to continue to provide the product or treatment if failing to do so will cause physical harm.

Seems pretty cut and dried... (even though, of course, it's never that simple! *sigh*) Food for thought, though, isn't it?

Thanks, Slim!

Cheers,

Katherine

The question though is, does Health Canada view harm reduction in a non-medically-supervised setting as a viable alternative to either abstinence or already-established (though largely ineffective) and approved methods of quitting? Would they see the reduced harm of switching to E-cigarettes and remaining hooked on nicotine as an acceptable alternative to just telling people to try harder using approved patches, gums or sprays that are designed to get them off the addiction entirely? Would they think that only the hardest cases where none of the approved methods of treatment will find success would be proper candidates for E-cigarettes and seek to restrict their sale only to those cases, and then only by prescription? Or are there precedents and laws in place that should (but are not currently applied explicitly to E-cigarettes) allow the free sale of E-cigarettes in the open market?

Not that I doubt that we can and likely will see the free and open sale of E-cigarettes and nicotine liquid in Canada with full market authorization, but I suppose it seems to me that it comes down to whether Health Canada disapproves of their sale on health and/or moral grounds and will therefore fight against their approval or, at the least, try to impose heavy tariffs on their sale and maybe restrict the outlets and methods through and by which they are sold.

 

[freakindahouse]

If the Criminal Code were all we had to rely upon, we would indeed be in a dangerous position, but fortunately, there are other "laws in place that should (but are not currently applied explicitly to E-cigarettes) allow the free sale of E-cigarettes in the open market", and these are what we will be bringing in additionally, if we have to.

Our hope is that, by demonstrating that existing regulations - applied, complied with, and with sufficient government enforcement thereof - are sufficient to protect public health and safety while allowing the free trade of electronic cigarette products in Canada. There is plenty of precedent from other territories, and our legal arguments are sound and very difficult to argue against. Personally, I think it is unlikely to come to that, but if it does, we are ready - and we will win.

Hopefully, we can keep it out of the Courts, and present persuasive arguments when the time comes. However, we have a great deal of work to do first, and we are focussing on that work at the moment.

Happy vaping, one and all,

Katherine

 

[Mindfield]

That's good to hear. I do realize there's a lot of groundwork to be done before it can be presented to Health Canada, but it's good to know that at least there are some pretty solid foundations upon which a persuasive argument can be based. I'm very optimistic about the eventual outcome and look forward to the day when we don't have to trade nic vendor lists in private or worry that our favourite vendors will get shut down or shipments stopped at the border.

 

[wood]

this is a joke who are you people to decide anything , or say whats best for us , so what you set up a website and sell the product , what right does that give any of you , the consumer should regulate this and should be choosing who is representing the industry

 

[Mindfield]

this is a joke who are you people to decide anything , or say whats best for us , so what you set up a website and sell the product , what right does that give any of you , the consumer should regulate this and should be choosing who is representing the industry

This is nothing unusual. Almost everything on store shelves is regulated at one level and to one degree or another. They aren't telling you what to sell or how to sell it. Regulation is about ensuring the safety of E-juice manufacturing to ensure that a quality and (relatively) safe product is produced rather than swill mixed in someone's bathtub. (I'm not saying anyone is doing that, I'm just using exaggeration to get my point across).

The real point here is that it must be regulated. It will be banned here if it isn't. The choice then becomes: Do you want the government to regulate it (E-cigs will become drug delivery devices; E-juice drugs; and they will be taxed heavily and available only through approved outlets over the counter or worse, by prescription), or do you want those who have a vested interest in the industry and vapers to regulate it (with the goal being to have them available everywhere as general merchandise)? Consumers can't regulate it. The government will not allow it. Regulators must have standing in the industry, which means they must have a vested interested. Consumers don't. Vendors do.

That's just how the game is played. If you don't like the rules, take it up with the government. They made them. There must be regulation. Period. Someone (or a group of someones) have to do it. Who would you have regulate it, if not the government (who would love to much to our detriment), ECTA (who want to for the good of everyone), or consumers (who aren't allowed to)?