EU Parliament's rejection of proposed e-cig ban, approval of mostly sound e-cig regs, should make FDA reassess potential regs

[Bill Godshall]

Today the European Parliament rejected the proposed e-cig ban (via regulation as medicines), and then approved new tobacco regulations (which will otherwise do very little to reduce cigarette smoking).

Per the EU Parliament's press release
Tobacco: larger warnings, flavours banned, e-cigarettes regulated

E-cigarettes

E-cigarettes should be regulated, but not be subject to the same rules as medicinal products unless they are presented as having curative or preventive properties. Those for which no such claims are made should contain no more than 30mg/ml of nicotine, should carry health warnings and should not be sold to anyone under 18 years old. Manufacturers and importers would also have to supply the competent authorities with a list of all the ingredients that they contain. Finally, e-cigarettes would be subject to the same advertising restrictions as tobacco products.

If this description is accurate, the ban on many/most e-cig ads will likely slow down the surging growth in e-cig sales/consumption by smokers in the EU, and some "health warnings" on e-cigs might deceive consumers (like the mandated smokeless tobacco warnings in the US). But otherwise, the regulations described above appear reasonable and responsible.

Proposed amendments to EU Tobacco Products Directive (see Amendment 170 that was approved by 362 to 298 vote)
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides...E-513.109&format=PDF&language=EN&secondRef=02

Here's the first BBC article on the vote
BBC News - MEPs tighten anti-tobacco laws aimed at young smokers

There's discussion on a thread about this in EU Legislation at
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ocotober-2013-eu-rejected-ecigs-medecine.html

This huge victory for vapers and for public health should help convince FDA officials to reconsider their plan to propose the "deeming" regulation (which would ban all e-cigs not on the market before 2007) and other regulations for e-cigs (sales/marketing restrictions, nicotine level/concentration restrictions, flavor bans/restrictions) that would decimate the industry, that would deprive vapers of legal access to many/most/all e-cig products, and that would be a disaster for consumer and public health.

 

[Thunderball]

+1 for the victory !!

 

[wolfie_beast]

Levelheaded reasonableness. Whoda thunk it?

 

[Strontium]

There is something about EU that I really like, and no, it is not Amsterdam...

 

[AgentAnia]

It would seem a majority of MEPs actually used their brains! This gives me much hope for the future...

 

[ClippinWings]

Coverage on The Verge... appears ot be a few ECF members on the comments over there.

 

[Berylanna]

What does that mean about flavors?

 

[Uma]

Sweet news!!!
I hope the Flavors restriction are only for tobacco, not eCigs.

 

[tommy2bad]

Yeah tobacco only, we got a clause to allow flavors in eliquid.
The 30mg limit is a bad idea as it will kill the diy market and leave high strength juice in the hands of tobacco or pharma.
The advertising restrictions needs to be sorted if it's the same as cigarettes then vaping is badly caught no bricks n mortar shops as tobacco products canot be on open display here. This leaves ecigs in the distribution chain of the tobacco companies as they wont allow competitors share their cabinets. I'm not pushed about tv advertising or billboards but magazines and newspapers is going too far.
The cross border restriction is questionable on legal grounds I think but then again this could over rulled on health grounds. Some clarification is needed on personal importation as well, again I think they would set duty so high as to efectly kill any advantage of importing.
I'm also not sure how this will affect states that already have a ban on non medical nicotine products. More clarification needed.
Still it's a descent attempt to bring in some regulation, mostly positive and the failings are due to not understanding the product, or more specifically trying to shoehorn ecigs into existing cigarette regulations.

 

[Berylanna]

Yeah tobacco only, we got a clause to allow flavors in eliquid.
The 30mg limit is a bad idea as it will kill the diy market and leave high strength juice in the hands of tobacco or pharma.
The advertising restrictions needs to be sorted if it's the same as cigarettes then vaping is badly caught no bricks n mortar shops as tobacco products canot be on open display here. This leaves ecigs in the distribution chain of the tobacco companies as they wont allow competitors share their cabinets. I'm not pushed about tv advertising or billboards but magazines and newspapers is going too far.
The cross border restriction is questionable on legal grounds I think but then again this could over rulled on health grounds. Some clarification is needed on personal importation as well, again I think they would set duty so high as to efectly kill any advantage of importing.
I'm also not sure how this will affect states that already have a ban on non medical nicotine products. More clarification needed.
Still it's a descent attempt to bring in some regulation, mostly positive and the failings are due to not understanding the product, or more specifically trying to shoehorn ecigs into existing cigarette regulations.

BP and BT are pushing hard on "let's use the tobacco framework" and we can NOT fight this by saying "Don't" -- we need to SPECIFICALLY suggest a framework they can use instead. Like allergenic foods.

What will be the requirement for an e-liquid VENDOR to buy stronger nic? Or is the problem that each EU country is too small to support multiple vendors who cannot export?

 

[tommy2bad]

Vendors who mix their own can buy as high a nic base as is legal in the state, it will be a business to business transaction, this isn't considered as for sale until it for sale to the general public.
Well big P realy wanted medical regs with some tobacco regs thrown in like advertising and public use restrictions. Big T wanted tobacco regs with some medical regs like expensive start up costs. Both side were trying to protect their existing product while keeping an eye on possible opportunitys.

Nothing underhand about it at all, just regular business practice.

The requirement to provide data on emissions on every product will reduce the number of small boutique vendors, in future we will see a smaller selection of flavors with occasional 'special editions' maybe like craft breweries. I' duno how it will pan out tbh. I hope once a flavor is established it will justify the cost of approving the next and so on but I fear that a lot of vendors don't have the scale to produce enough profit to chance investing in testing of each and every product. It's nothing like the cost of medical authorization but still a steep enough investment for a small start up. Of course those serious about staying in the business have 3 years to get things together so I might be being a bit pessimistic.

I know that most vendors in Ireland do depend on overseas sales but as this is a growing market they might recoup lost custom from new custom in their own area.

It's a whole other discussion but I think the ecig market may be in a gold rush stage and will see a shake out soon. A bit like the early PC market or the mobile phone market.

we can NOT fight this by saying "Don't" -- we need to SPECIFICALLY suggest a framework they can use instead. Like allergenic foods.

I see what you mean but it's too late now also I doubt they were all that interested in regulating the product a a product as much as regulating the product as a habit. As Linda McAvan said "We don't want this to become a 'thing'". They were intended regulating the use of the produce more than the manufacture of the product.

 

[Berylanna]

No, it's not too late.

Of course the ANTZ know what THEY want but a common theme with them is "we can't let these go unregulated." It's not just the EU, it's also individual countries, states or provinces, counties, cities. IMO this ball is barely rolling compared to what we'll see in the next 2 years.

We need a LOUD suggestion that everybody has heard that we can back up. We cannot back up "it's just vapor" because it's NOT just water vapor, it's food vapor. So, there ARE places where you are not allowed to have hot food.

Lawmakers need, repeat NEED, a defense if they are asked if they are "doing something" -- so let them do something APPROPRIATE.

 

[Oliver]

Nothing here is a done deal. Negotiations now start between the "Trialogue" - namely, council (ministers from each national govt), parliament (elected MEPs who just voted), and the commission (the civil service).

In theory, we could end up with a totally different piece of legislation from that which was agreed on in the Parliamentary vote, although for obvious reasons this is unlikely. However, things can sneak back in - but they can also be removed.

European campaigning efforts are redoubling right now. Watch this space, as whatever is decided in the EU will have a profound knock-on elsewhere.

 

[Hulamoon]

Wow, well this is better news than I expected. Let's hope it continues!

 

[Dayglow]

I am curious to know what kind of loopholes could be used to continue the market even if legislation puts heavy levies and restrictions on e cigarette products. Kind of like how head shops can sell a waterpipe as long as they don't call it that B word and state it's for tobacco use only. I don't see those "tobacco products" getting taxed to the hilt...
As long as it's not marketed as a tobacco product, but more a personal vaporizer without nicotine being mentioned at all, it might be able to minimize the harm that BT/BP are trying to enact.