EU EU ENVI committee 'workshop' on e-cigarettes - May 7th

[Oliver]

For those who don't know, the ENVI (Environment, Public Health and Food Safety) committee is the committee responsible for the forthcoming tobacco products directive which, as it currently stands, will outlaw all electronic cigarettes that don't have a medical license.

On Tuesday, May 7th, this committee is to have a workshop (pdf View attachment ecigarette-workshop.pdf ) on electronic cigarettes - and this can be watched live via this link from 12.30pm.

I won't comment on the speakers, except with respect to Prof. Etter, who in my opinion is an excellent advocate for sensible non-medical regulation of electronic cigarettes. I hope he's listened to.

It's a shame that no industry or consumer representatives were invited, though, and I do hope that Dr. Farsolinos latest research on the cardiac effects (or lack thereof) are presented. Not holding my breath, though.

 

[Frody]

...
It's a shame that no industry or consumer representatives were invited...

There will be a speaker from the German consumer association..

Part 4
The voice of consumer associations
14.30 - 14.35
"Interessengemeinschaft E-Dampfen" (IG-ED), German e-cigarettes
users association (DE)
Mr. Hans Christian HOLY

 

[Paulette]

You can read more about it here:

ECITA Blog

 

[Berylanna]

Can you guys rent a restaurant banquet room or something for May 7th evening and present rebuttals to the MEP's? Or line up outside the room with signs and handouts refuting the extremely-biased presentations by the invitees?

 

[Kelemvor]

The German IG-ED has written an open letter to Linda McAvan ( CC to all ENVI- und JURI- Parliamentarists) on their concerns about this "workshop".

Offener Brief zum ENVI-Workshop “E-Zigaretten” am 7. Mai 2013 in Brüssel - Interessengemeinschaft E-Dampfen

 

[Kelemvor]

After watching the Livestream, i'm pleasantly surprised that the Antis got lots of concerned and critical voices thrown at them.
I think Linda McAvan never thought it would be like this. In my eyes she looked very stupid waving her Hands and trying to mock off some of the better informed speakers.

Our german scientific expert ( cough cough) Dr.Stephan did not show up, one of the reasons mentioned were bad mails against her.
My own interpretation ist that she knows how bad she did in the past, and did not want to look as silly as Linda at the workshop.

congrats to our IG-ED Member, alone for the courage getting there and voicing the opinion of the consumers.

"why he spoke for all e-cig users?" someone there asked...well they were the ones getting invited to talk as the voice of consumers.

Linda McAvan and her ENVI Committee tried to contruct this workshop as the last event to get all the votes on their side, and i think they failed bitterly.

but...thats just my 2 cents.

 

[Berylanna]

After watching the Livestream, i'm pleasantly surprised that the Antis got lots of concerned and critical voices thrown at them.
I think Linda McAvan never thought it would be like this. In my eyes she looked very stupid waving her Hands and trying to mock off some of the better informed speakers.

Our german scientific expert ( cough cough) Dr.Stephan did not show up, one of the reasons mentioned were bad mails against her.
My own interpretation ist that she knows how bad she did in the past, and did not want to look as silly as Linda at the workshop.

congrats to our IG-ED Member, alone for the courage getting there and voicing the opinion of the consumers.

"why he spoke for all e-cig users?" someone there asked...well they were the ones getting invited to talk as the voice of consumers.

Linda McAvan and her ENVI Committee tried to contruct this workshop as the last event to get all the votes on their side, and i think they failed bitterly.

but...thats just my 2 cents.

Oooooh, I wanna see! What language was it in? Got link?

 

[Kelemvor]

i knew i forgot something important, sorry.

it was held only in english, no translators.

http://youtu.be/6BakbkrE7L0

 

[Oliver]

I attended the workshop yesterday, and will write up my thoughts fully as soon as possible.

Briefly, though - only 6 MEPs appeared to be in attendence, 3 of which offered up serious misgivings about the proposals.

The panel was heavily biased with representatives of organisations hostile to the electronic cigarette. Indeed, Prof Etter was the only scientist present who is actually involved in the cold-face of research. He remarked to me prior to the meeting regarding his concerns about the absence of scientific representation.

In terms of my interpretation of the atmosphere in the room, it seems that the feeling went against those opposing the current stipulations of the TPD.

There were many 'elephants in the room' that were either not pointed out, or were dismissed by the participants.

For instance: Safety - if the concern is regarding the non-nicotine components long-term inhalation safety, how can it be right that a medicinal version is sold alongside a non-medicinal version with lowered nicotine contents?

Regarding the appropriatness of the 'medicinal framework' - it was admitted by Martin Seychelle that the medical framework is being utilised because of a good fit with pre-existing regulatory infrastructure. An ethicist (need to find his name) pointed out that there is the possibility of another better fitting regulatory infrastructure being created. Why has this been dismissed out-of-hand?

Prof. Etter called Seychelle out on the arbitrariness of the 4mg/ml stipulation for non-medicinal products. Seychelle claimed it not to be arbitrary, but instead a way of 'creating a level playing field' (whatever that means) and is based on the dosage found in other nicotine containing products currently on the market. Of course, this is an entirely arbitrary way of deciding on nicotine levels. In terms of creating a level playing field - be careful what you wish for: the NRT products under discussion are, by and large, disliked by smokers and do not impact smoking behavior in any way near the level needed. It seems to me that what they mean by creating a level playing field is to make e-cigarettes as unattractive as these products.

On efficacy and cessation - this is probably the biggest elephant. At no point did any of the panelists define cessation. Put simply, it's an ambiguous statement that means one of two things: Cessation of the addiction (i.e. tobacco smoking and nicotine dependence) or cessation of tobacco smoking. No-one is claiming (yet) that e-cigarettes are efficacious for the first, but the evidence is mounting that e-cigarettes currently on the market are indeed efficacious in stopping tobacco smoking behavior. Because of the ambiguity in cessation terminology, merchants have been careful (as have organisations like ECF) to maintain that e-cigarettes are tobacco alternatives only. The only person who spoke about this critical point was Hans Holy.

Many thanks to Hans Holy, who did an admirable job of speaking (in his non-native tongue). It was a very tough call for him in that environment, and he should be congratulated. Many thanks too to Prof. Etter and Dr. Ricardo Palosa who asked some very important questions from the panellists. Sadly, Palosa's integrity was questioned by the Rapporteur, Linda McAvey, who in my opinion was a very poor convener of this meeting, from the point of view of objectivity and scientific scrutiny.

Dual use is another are that needs to be discussed.

 

[Oliver]

Oh, I should add -

It occurs to me (and this probably shouldn't be a surprise to anyone) that not a single one of the panellists understand the actual product itself over and above the very basics regarding functionality.

That is to say - the reason that e-cigarettes are working so well for people is precisely because there are so many options available, so many products and so many variations of e-liquids etc. This the aspect of the industry that will be wiped out by careless regulation and why many people are describing the regulation as a ban. It is perhaps more accurately a de facto ban.

Rapporteur McAvey made a statement towards the end of the event regarding the 'opportunity' any delay in regulation offers manufacturers in getting new products to market - In her view the industry is like the tobacco industry, introducing new products to snare users into an addictive cycle. The reality is that this aspect of the industry is why it's been so successful in getting smokers off tobacco - to equate it with the tobacco industry in this 'dogwhistle' fashion is shameful.

 

[Berylanna]

Oh, I should add -

It occurs to me (and this probably shouldn't be a surprise to anyone) that not a single one of the panellists understand the actual product itself over and above the very basics regarding functionality.

That is to say - the reason that e-cigarettes are working so well for people is precisely because there are so many options available, so many products and so many variations of e-liquids etc. This the aspect of the industry that will be wiped out by careless regulation and why many people are describing the regulation as a ban. It is perhaps more accurately a de facto ban.

Rapporteur McAvey made a statement towards the end of the event regarding the 'opportunity' any delay in regulation offers manufacturers in getting new products to market - In her view the industry is like the tobacco industry, introducing new products to snare users into an addictive cycle. The reality is that this aspect of the industry is why it's been so successful in getting smokers off tobacco - to equate it with the tobacco industry in this 'dogwhistle' fashion is shameful.

Ohhhh, wow. I'm getting SERIOUSLY depressed again.

Why isn't anybody asking for clarity, actual facts, etc?

Well, maybe that's a stupid question.

 

[Oliver]

It was depressing, but perhaps unsurprising.

The good thing is that the MEPs in attendance did seem quite confused and angry at the commission's (and their invited experts') position.

 

[LaraC]

Thank you for the youtube video link, Kelemvor. I watched the entire thing.

When Dr. Etter began his good presentation (around 2:05:40) the woman to his right (C. Pisinger, on the left side of screen, wearing a black/white jacket) rolled her chair wayyyy back. Distancing herself as far away from him as she could get. When Dr. Etter was not speaking, she pulled her chair up to her place at the table again.

Each time he spoke, she pushed her chair far away from him. Over and over.

Interesting.

 

[Oliver]

I actually found Dr. Pissinger's body language rather offensive throughout. Much tutting and head shaking.

And this from a lady who both claimed that knowldege of e-cigarettes on health is exactly the same as our knowledge of cigarettes 100 years ago, and who also brought up the Pru Talbot 'study' of ECF members and then said "of course, it's not science but...." - but what? Why on earth would you bring it up if it's not science?

Extraordinary. I'd like to think that someone like her would be the best thing to happen in undermining the credibility of the position, but actually the atmosphere in the room appeared to me that she was held in some esteem.

Sad times.

 

[Oliver]

By the way, here is an excellent write up by K.Farsolinos: http://ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/component/content/article?id=105

 

[Old Chemist]

I actually found Dr. Pissinger's body language rather offensive throughout. Much tutting and head shaking.

Right SmokeyJoe - this WAS very offensive. Such a behaviour could hardly be tolerated in primary school, but absolutely not at this level.

And this from a lady who both claimed that knowldege of e-cigarettes on health is exactly the same as our knowledge of cigarettes 100 years ago, and who also brought up the Pru Talbot 'study' of ECF members and then said "of course, it's not science but...." - but what? Why on earth would you bring it up if it's not science?

You certainly know what should be said after "but". "It's not science, but we do not have any other arguments, so we will use anything that supports our point of view".

Sad times.

Couldn't agree more.
But - looking a bit on the bright side...
I loved Riccardo Polosa saying: hey guys, we're making history here. We could save lives.
Also the presentation of JF Etter was really good - and this WAS science.

 

[Duck]

As one of our goals is to really strengthen cooperation of vapers all over Europe, we are starting to release part of our publications also in English language.

Please read about our 2nd "adventure" in Brussels and a bit of our thoughts about it.

You may also download our presention we showed during the workshop.

ENVI-Workshop May 7, 2013

Kind Regards
Michael

- Interessengemeinschaft E-Dampfen - First German Vapers' Consumer Association

 

[Old Chemist]

Michael: your presentation at the workshop was excellent! Plain and simple, pointing out the most important issues. Congratulations.

 

[rolygate]

I blogged about this, here:

Report: ENVI Committee E-Cigarette Workshop May 7th - ECCA Blog

SJ provided me with much of the detail, although the opinions expressed in the blog post are mine and not SJ's.

 

[mgomez]

Prof. Etter called Seychelle out on the arbitrariness of the 4mg/ml stipulation for non-medicinal products. Seychelle claimed it not to be arbitrary, but instead a way of 'creating a level playing field' (whatever that means) and is based on the dosage found in other nicotine containing products currently on the market. Of course, this is an entirely arbitrary way of deciding on nicotine levels. In terms of creating a level playing field - be careful what you wish for: the NRT products under discussion are, by and large, disliked by smokers and do not impact smoking behavior in any way near the level needed. It seems to me that what they mean by creating a level playing field is to make e-cigarettes as unattractive as these products.

Correct. They are trying to protect the pharmaceutical industry. However, they're also wrong about the 4 mg level being non-arbitrary. It's arbitrary. The amount of nicotine in a patch is 15 mg. All of it gets absorbed. The amount of nicotine in e-liquid ranges from 6-36 mg, but a smaller quantity is absorbed into the lungs. Vapor is a very bad medium for nicotine absorption, because nicotine tends to be more attracted to the vapor it comes in.