Do ANY suppliers want self-regulation?

[kristin]

There are a lot of outspoken suppliers and consumers who wish to simply be left alone and see no need for any kind of regulation. They want the "nanny state" to just leave us alone. This is understandable and I can see their point.

Are there any suppliers who disagree with this? Or at least feel that the possiblility of being left alone is pretty unlikely and think regulation is inevitable?

What kind of regulations can you see being implimented by the government? Will they be worse or better than what vendors could come up with themselves?

Do you think a trade association of vendors agreeing to self-impose certain regulation will make it more likely for the government to impose even stricter regulations or do you think self-regulation will help set the standards we'd want?

What kind of standards do you think consumers and vendors could agree upon? What is "reasonable?" What would the government be likely to agree with?

Here are some proposed standards that I have seen posted by both consumers, vendors and antis - what are your arguments for or against them?

These are NOT CASAA-proposed standards or rules!! The question is - WHICH of these should be implimented, if any?
These are just ideas I've seen posted around the forums. You'll notice some of them directly contradict others. I'm just wondering if the vendors/manufacturers will ever be able to get an effective trade association together and agree upon any type of standards? Or will they simply wait for the government to set them for the industry?
----------------------------------------------------------------

Child-resistant caps on bottles. On all bottles? Included WITH all bottles (one of each?) Sold separately? Consumer choice when purchasing (can choose which they want?)

Maximum flavored liquid strength sold 16mg. 24mg? 36mg? 60mg?

Maximum unflavored sold for home mixing 60mg. 100mg?

Maximum bottle size 10ml. 30ml? 100ml?

No non-tobacco/menthol flavors at all

No "child-friendly candy flavors" such as bubble gum or cotton candy advertised (could still be sold, though)

No kiosks in malls

Kiosk placement in malls placed far from teen-oriented stores

Random liquid/cart testing for purity and accurate nicotine strength. Monthly? Annually?

Vendors don't need to test if selling liquid/carts from approved liquid/cartridge manufacturers, but need certification that they are actually supplying from that approved manufacturer (such as selling only Dekang products, if the products are certified)

"No sales to minors" signs/messages clearly posted at kiosks and online

No bottles of liquid - only prefilled, tamper-proof cartridges

Bottles labeled with percentages instead of milligrams (3.6% vs. 36mg)

Clearer labeling on what that percentage/milligram means (how much nicotine per ml)

No online sales (to avoid sales to minors)

More secure online sales, with 3rd party age system verification (not just "Click here if you're over 18")

Complete ingredients listed on bottle or packaging

Poison warning label on advertising, bottles and packaging

Complete user instructions required to be packaged with starter kits and mods

No home-made mods

No homemade liquids - minimum manufacturing standards (to eliminate "bathtub juice")

Licensing required (like tobacco sales)

Certification by a trade association required (meet the guidlines)

Offering the states taxes

Vendors must agree to standards and ethics or they aren't "approved" by the trade association

Trade association has a website listing compliant vendors for consumers to check

Trade association has a public interface allowing consumers to rate vendors

Trade association dues will pay for random testing for members

Individual liquid manufacturers pay for their own testing from certified or approved labs to be accepted into the association

Thoughts? Ideas? Comments?

 

[kristin]

WOW, not one response?

This apparent apathy is going to come back and bite you guys in the .....

 

[keyzygirl]

Im not a supplier but it seems to me they should be more interested in this.We are going to end up with only prefilled carts with smoke flavored juice from mall vendors if we dont do something about it.Thats the way I see it going.

 

[UntamedRose]

Well I can see Why they havnt jumped in on this........
while many of those rules are very reasonable.

These...just knocked 99% of the decent US companies here.
No home-made mods
No homemade liquids
No online sales

What are you wanting them to say? That drives them out of business....huge difference between making a mod in a workshop......and opening a manufacturing plant(like a few million dollars difference)

I totally agree that the industry needs to self regulate...or it Will be regulated by the gov. But that list.....as is(and I realsise it's just a collection of ideas at this point) is insane.

 

[kristin]

You need to read imy whole post more carefully - these are ALL of the different suggestions made and as I said, some directly contradict others. Sometimes the suggestion is based purely on saving one's own business model, IMO.

So, do the kiosk owners really want the online owners calling the shots? Or vice versa?

If ALL vendors don't start getting involved, one business model is going to try to take over and make the rules which best fit them and not consider the others.

SOME of these could be implimented and others omitted - so ALL business models can survive.

The question wasn't should ALL of these be implimented, it was WHICH should be, if any?

I added that to the post to clarify, in case others were thinking that I was suggesting that ALL of these be implimented.







.

 

[butterbean03]

I think that I have made it clear that I am for self-regulation under this thread started by Shining Wit "Dangerous Advice from Suppliers". I do feel like if we don't regulate ourselves, somebody is going to do it for us and we are going to hate that if some of us even last that long.

All of these things you are talking about are going to make prices sky rocket. Batch testing can cost upwards of $10,000. by itself. I personally have warning labels on all of my bottles since I print them myself (I own a sign shop also). When you choose your strength, there is a tag that says "View Warning Label" and it shows a picture of it.

I agree with child-proof caps, but can't find them around here and having to order from China.

Let's be realistic here. You have to have certain guidelines just to be a supplier here and they are not that simple, but what about all of the vendors that are not part of this forum or any other. $$$ is what it is going to cost to watchdog these vendors in malls or fairs or festivals. I think all of the vendors here are pretty much on the straight and narrow.

There is another forum that wanted to get all of the major forums together and follow the same stringent guidelines. No problem here. To get on another forum I had to get a PCI DSS which is protecting me even more from lawsuits from identity theft. Heck, I never see a credit card number, much less store them. It is a third party that scans your site for vulnerabilities (identity theft protection). They do this every 3 months. Just click on the two badges on my site and you can see the certificate and results of how safe my site is. Sorry, got off topic there.

After being self-employed for the last 16 years, experience tells me it won't be easy to do this. Nicotine is a legal drug and is easy to get. I can get on the phone now and have it here tomorrow. I have been mixing for almost a year now and place stringent guidelines on myself for safety. Although it is done more for my personal use than to sell. I could talk about this for a while and give more examples of why prices would go up from the above guidelines, but will stop here and let someone else chime in. You wanted responses, so I got it started.

Don
P.S. Let's not hit the panic button yet.

 

[butterbean03]

While I was writing and thinking, you guys were posting.

 

[jcamacho]

So who's going to be the first supplier to start charging more to pay for these guidelines and lose business to those that offer cheaper prices that don't abide by them?

 

[Aloy1001]

I'll go first then.

Perhaps the suppliers should have a well moderated forum to discuss some possible self-imposed regulation. It certainly wouldn't hurt our case as far as the FDA is concerned, although I'm not entirely convinced it would help either. I think the FDA's strings are being pulled a bit by two particular multi-billion dollar industries who shall remain nameless.
Unfortunately I fear a forum such as this would put the ECF in the unenviable position of having to mediate the discussion and thusly wind up shaping this self-legislation. At that point any democratically agreed upon regulation would have to be enforced upon all supplier members of the ECF. It would be hypocritical of them not to having had a hand in drafting these democratically arrived upon regulations even though they are indeed self-imposed. I don't think that is what the ECF would want. I'm not sure that is what we would want.
I'm not opposed to the idea personally and I suppose the ECF could provide a forum for such discussion and maintain neutrality while vendors hammer out these "laws". But ultimately, at least in regards to this venue, whereupon these "laws" are agreed upon by the vendors they would still be handed over to the ECF to enforce within it's borders.
That being said, I'd like to comment on some of the ideas stated in the original post:

No bottles of liquid - only prefilled, tamper-proof cartridges

I run 99vapors.com. We are primarily a juice store so prefilled carts only would pretty much put us out of business. I personally am a dripper so I'd likely go back to cigarettes as I hate prefilled carts.

No homemade liquids - minimum manufacturing standards (to eliminate "bathtub juice")

As far as "homemade", that would also put us out of business. We do what we do because we were not too impressed with the liquid coming from China. We thought we could do it better. And I think we do. I'm not sure what sort of standards people would like to see set. I'm not opposed to some though. When I make liquid I wear surgical gloves and a respirator. I run a hepa filter in the room 24-7. I use sterilized needles. It looks like a cross between a tattoo shop and a .... lab. All recipes are kept on a spreadsheet to ensure consistency. All nicotine is American made and cut to strength in house. If I wouldn't vape it, I WILL NOT SELL IT.

No non-tobacco/menthol flavors at all

As far as no non-tobacco flavors goes, I don't think that would kill us, but it would put a serious hurt on the industry as a whole. I've always thought the flavor issue was a witch hunt anyway. The FDA outlawed clove cigarettes, so now cloves come rolled in leaves like a cigar. So effectively, the FDA accomplished nothing. They could have worded the legislation to avoid this work around but they didn't, and I don't think it was a mere oversight on their part.

Maximum flavored liquid strength sold 16mg. 24mg? 36mg? 60mg?

I don't think a cap on strength is a bad idea at all. I think we should self-regulate this though. And it seems like we do. I haven't noticed anything of 40mg sold unless it is specifically for mixing purposes and then it is clearly stated as such. The ECA wants to cap it at 24mg last I checked. I am 100% opposed to that. I think 36mg is a good range personally. I don't sell anything over 32mg unless you order unflavored which is 36mg. I will not sell anything over this strength even by request.

No "child-friendly candy flavors" such as bubble gum or cotton candy advertised (could still be sold, though)

This is another ECA thing. The irony is this. I was on the ECA's site looking up their members' sites. I came across one ECF member's flavors which was called "Carnival Cotton". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out this is code for "cotton candy" ( at least that is the impression I got from it). Isn't this just a work around for terminology specifically forbidden to ECA members. This vendor was not only a member of the ECA they are a BOARD MEMBER. So if the ECA wants to enforce policy, perhaps they should start in their own backyard. Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against the ECA. I think they are trying their best to save our industry from the FDA chopping block. I just don't agree with some of their key points. I also think their membership fees are costing them quite a few allies among the rest of the vendors.

Maximum bottle size 10ml. 30ml? 100ml?

I really don't see the point here to be honest. If people want a 100ml bottle why shouldn't they be able to buy one? If it is a question of people not being able to self-regulate how much they vape, then I could see an argument being made for this. I'll say this though. I can walk into Walmart and buy a 30pack of Busch and this doesn't seem to be an issue.

Child-resistant caps on bottles. On all bottles? Included WITH all bottles (one of each?) Sold separately? Consumer choice when purchasing (can choose which they want?)

I'm all for this one. Just tell me where I can find a vendor who will sell them to me in quantities of less than 20k at a time, and please don't tell me HG.

Bottles labeled with percentages instead of milligrams (3.6% vs. 36mg)

Does this really help to clarify things for anyone? If it does, I'm game.

Poison warning label on advertising, bottles and packaging

Right now mine state:
"WARNING
Harmful if swallowed
Keep out of reach of children"
If that is not good enough, I'll change it no questions asked. Just tell me what you'd like to see. If it is safety related I'm not against it.

Complete user instructions required to be packaged with starter kits and mods

The kits I've been selling have that already so no problem there. Do other kits not have this? Seems kinda dumb of the factory not to include this.

Licensing required (like tobacco sales)

If the cost of the licensing and the requirements aren't overly prohibitive, then I have no problem with this.

Certification by a trade association required (meet the guidelines)

Depends on who this "trade association" is and what their criteria are. If you are referring to the ECA then my answer is emphatically "No".

Offering the states taxes

I'd have to look into how companies who sell cigarettes online are taxed first. As long as any taxation on us is in keeping with the guidelines enforced on the tobacco industry then I'm alright with this.

Vendors must agree to standards and ethics or they aren't "approved" by the trade association

Moot point I think if you have to be a member of a trade association in order to operate legally. Which is what I took from the previous points regarding trade associations.

Trade association has a website listing compliant vendors for consumers to check

Again moot point if I understood the other points about trade associations. If you are a member I'd assume you have to be compliant.

Trade association has a public interface allowing consumers to rate vendors

No problem there. If you are compliant but still have inferior products/customer service then the public deserves to know. As long as the trade association investigates and substantiates these claims prior to publicizing them that is. It is no use having to be a member of an organization if that organization does not have your back when false accusations are brought against you.

Trade association dues will pay for random testing for members

Sounds good to me.

Individual liquid manufacturers pay for their own testing from certified or approved labs to be accepted into the association

Why am I paying these guys dues then.

I hope this helps to give you the perspective of one vendor. Basically, I'm trying to keep an open mind. Something will happen eventually. It is inevitable. The Wild West didn't stay wild and neither will we whether we like it or not.

 

[Aloy1001]

Though I was going first anyway. Guess I type too slow.

 

[kristin]

So who's going to be the first supplier to start charging more to pay for these guidelines and lose business to those that offer cheaper prices that don't abide by them?

Here's the thing - think of the UL. Would most people buy electronics that weren't certified by the UL?

Look at how people listen to the FDA and the weight they put in the FDA approval.

If the vendors can come together and agree upon reasonable safety and ethical standards and then issued a certification to vendors who join the organization, I believe consumers will have more confidence in those products and those vendors that are certified.

If the vendors got together and formed something like an Electronic Cigarette Certification Board (ECCB), I would feel more confident buying from someone who is ECCB certified than one who refused to agree to safety and ethical standards and I would be willing to pay more for this. I don't think I'm alone.

Ultimately, vendors who join an ECCB will make more money than those who don't - especially with all of the new customers coming into the market looking for an indication of who is best to buy from. An ECCB certification will give them the confidence to buy.

 

[kristin]

I'll go first then.

I hope this helps to give you the perspective of one vendor. Basically, I'm trying to keep an open mind. Something will happen eventually. It is inevitable. The Wild West didn't stay wild and neither will we whether we like it or not.

I'm assuming you saw my post explaining this - these are ALL to be implimented, just a list to choose from. So regarding your last statement, the choice would be that testing is paid for from the dues OR individual companies test their own. Not both.

Dues can be cheaper if companies pay for their own testing, but if REASONABLE yet substantial dues are implimented, it could help smaller companies get their testing. I agree with the other poster that the ECA dues are just out of reach for many vendors and that is unfortunate. If you keep the dues lower yet enough to cover costs, more vendors can join and add to those funds.

Thanks for giving your feedback! I hope more vendors jump in and say what they can agree with.

It's important that vendors get the conversation started. Whether you know it or not, there are vendors who are considering these guidelines and they don't necessarily have the "little guys" or the consumers' best interests in mind.

I'm telling you guys - if you don't get together and start an organization that includes ALL business models, addressing how to treat bottles of liquid, cartridges, online stores and mall kiosks equally, one or the other is going to be eliminated altogether.

 

[schaedj]

Here's the thing - think of the UL. Would most people buy electronics that weren't certified by the UL?

Absolutely. And they do. Where's the UL label on your flash drive? Ever looked at the bottom of your coffee pot to see if there is one? Most people will buy whatever is cheapest as long as they can do so legally. UL is no longer a non-profit organization. They went for-profit a few years ago so that they could increase their fees to US-based companies to try to extend their influence outside of the US. Also, competitors from outside the US are now creating "UL-recognized marks" (cUL for example). A tremendous number of the "UL Listed" products on the market have no standard or testing asociated with them, they just collect money from manufacturers and sell the rights to plaster their name on the box of the product. (Can you tell I work in a regulated industry?). Even products which are UL certified are only certified to specific limited criteria. A UL label doesn't mean the product does what it claims, only that it has been tested to meet the standard that applies to it.

Look at how people listen to the FDA and the weight they put in the FDA approval.

Again, this is based on the fact that they are a government-enforced regulatory agency. For the products they regulate, if a product is not FDA approved, it is actually illegal to sell it in the US. The same people who want FDA approved products have no problem jumping across the border to pick up the same products for a tenth of the cost, even though those products are not FDA approved. In addition, despite the fact that the FDA has taken what I consider to be the wrong position on this issue, they do serve a valuable and specific purpose as a 3rd party review agency who independently both define the standards and enforce them.

If the vendors can come together and agree upon reasonable safety and ethical standards and then issued a certification to vendors who join the organization, I believe consumers will have more confidence in those products and those vendors that are certified.

U.S. Consumers don't trust self regulation in any form. (With lots of historical evidence to back that perspective up) It sounds like a nice idea, but the only potential benefit I would see would be to pre-game the rules to be imposed by an outside agency. From one perspective, you may actually be weakening your position by giving away everything you are willing to give up before the process starts, and then when the regulations are increased, they could easily argue "it's only a slight change from what you're already doing, what's the problem"

If the vendors got together and formed something like an Electronic Cigarette Certification Board (ECCB), I would feel more confident buying from someone who is ECCB certified than one who refused to agree to safety and ethical standards and I would be willing to pay more for this. I don't think I'm alone.

You may not be alone, but you are in a small minority. That is most likely based on the fact that you already trust the manufacturers in question. Since you would (and do) already buy their products without that organization, it wouldn't sway your general consumer opinion at all. For those who don't currently buy because they are waiting for FDA approval, the current suppliers banding together and saying, "We're checking up on ourselves" is not going to change their consumer opinion, either.

Ultimately, vendors who join an ECCB will make more money than those who don't - especially with all of the new customers coming into the market looking for an indication of who is best to buy from. An ECCB certification will give them the confidence to buy.

Sorry, but IMHO, this is exactly the opposite of what would happen. If there was any significant financial outlay without a regulatory agency in place to legally enforce a common standard, the non-participants would quickly drive the participants out of business, since they would be able to undercut their pricing. For commodity or perceived commodity markets, price is 95% of the decision process. Look at how many people on ECF pay large shipping bills and buy bulk from China, even with the risk of long delays and siezures because they net out at a lower cost/unit for what they buy.
The best case scenario would be that the participants would be better prepared to respond to an externally imposed set of regulations and would thus be on the market faster if and when the regulations went into effect. Not something I would want to bet my source of income on investing in.

As an employee of a US-based company trying to sell into overseas markets where regulations are either non-existent or self-policed, I know exactly how this will play out. If you've ever seen equipment installed in a second or third world country, and its relative safety versus a regulated country's competitive product, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[kristin]

All good points. It'll be interesting to see how it actually plays out.

 

[schaedj]

I agree, and there is an opportunity for a few "high-end" suppliers to get ahead of the regulated game by getting the lab analyses, labels, safety controls, etc. in place ahead of the curve, as long as they have the volume required to invest in a short-term non-value-add, long term high-value-add strategy.

 

[kristin]

The problem I see is that most those "high-end suppliers" have a business model of prefilled cartridges and overpriced kits and are willing to give up bottled liquids and non-tobacco flavors.

If they get to be seen as the "ecig industry leaders" then that is who the government will be working with. The smaller liquid dealer won't even have a chance.

 

[Aloy1001]

The problem I see is that most those "high-end suppliers" have a business model of prefilled cartridges and overpriced kits and are willing to give up bottled liquids and non-tobacco flavors.

If they get to be seen as the "ecig industry leaders" then that is who the government will be working with. The smaller liquid dealer won't even have a chance.

Ah, the new "American way".

 

[Magnetron]

If heavy regulation occurs, I will seek out other vendors like myself who would be willing to pool our resources together to pay for licensing fees, taxes, and testing. I think if a lot of us suppliers got together and united we could all get enough capitol to get it done.

When someone tells you "that's impossible!!"

You should understand is as this: "According to my very limited experience and narrow understanding of reality, thats very unlikely"

I support these suggestions, and I need to think about some of the others.


Maximum flavored liquid strength sold 16mg.- 24mg

No kiosks in malls
Random liquid/cart testing for purity and accurate nicotine strength. Quarterly

"No sales to minors" signs online

Bottles labeled with percentages instead of milligrams (3.6% vs. 36mg)

Clearer labeling on what that percentage/milligram means (how much nicotine per ml)

Complete ingredients listed on bottle or packaging

Poison warning label on advertising, bottles and packaging

Licensing required (like tobacco sales)

 

[butterbean03]

I haven't seen any of the big players chime in. I'm not a big player, yet. Gotta wonder what they are thinking! Maybe this should have been moved to the private forum.

 

[Tampa2]

I haven't seen any of the big players chime in. I'm not a big player, yet. Gotta wonder what they are thinking! Maybe this should have been moved to the private forum.

I agree with butterbean. This thread should have been in the private forum. Make no mistake, eventually the e-cig is going to be regulated by the Government. And your suggestion has great merit. My fear is that one of the "home makers" of liquid is going to make a mistake (use your imagination) and the FDA is going to be right there to claim all of us are going to harm the citizens of the US. The question is "How do you self regulate"? Every vendor out there is always looking for an edge on his competitor. But there does have to be rules & regulations placed, so there should be an organization made up of people that do know the business so that the organization might have a say when the day comes that we are regulated. But you cannot say "we will endorse prefilled carts, but not liiquid"? My feelings on that are better said in a private forum. The bottom line is that there should be an organization formed for self-regulation before the Government imposes their version of regulation.