EU EU update

[NicoHolic]

The 2 ml ecig makes no sense. Most disposables and prefilled cartos are only 1 ml anyway. There may be some hybrids and bottom-feeders affected by this, but most ecigs just have a 510 connector for a separate juice delivery device. Do they plan to ban clearomizers, carto tanks, and RBAs with greater than 2 ml capacity?

OTOH, most PAD smokers vape about 3 ml/day and that's a reasonable equivalent to a pack of cigarettes. Why not a 3 ml or so ecig instead of 2 ml? Probably because these rules were made by those who have no clue about vaping.

The 10 ml bottle is ridiculous. The 30 ml industry-standard is a reasonable equivalent to a carton of cigarettes. Many juice vendors don't even sell at less 30 ml and of those who do, many don't sell below 15 ml.

Hopefully, in America, the land of COSTCO size packaging, these will be more reasonable. In fact, I'd expect an immediate injunction against any FDA attempt to limit bottle sizes.

Will the next EU move be to limit alcohol to 20% ABV in no larger than 30 ml bottles?

 

[AgentAnia]

The 2 ml ecig makes no sense. Most disposables and prefilled cartos are only 1 ml anyway. There may be some hybrids and bottom-feeders affected by this, but most ecigs just have a 510 connector for a separate juice delivery device. Do they plan to ban clearomizers, carto tanks, and RBAs with greater than 2 ml capacity?....

As I read it, yes Article 18 does indeed ban *any* container (tank, clearo, rba) with capacity more than 2ml.

The 10 ml bottle is ridiculous. The 30 ml industry-standard is a reasonable equivalent to a carton of cigarettes. Many juice vendors don't even sell at less 30 ml and of those who do, many don't sell below 15 ml.....

This will eventually be recognized as an environmental disaster, when all those little 10ml bottles hit the waste disposal sites and recycling centers.

Also, read the labeling requirements. Try fitting all of that on the label of a 10ml bottle! My eyes hurt already.... Either that label is going to have to be bigger than the bottle, or the print so small no one can read it.

 

[NicoHolic]

This will eventually be recognized as an environmental disaster, when all those little 10ml bottles hit the waste disposal sites and recycling centers.

If they thought cigarette butts with filters were bad, wait'll they see little plastic bottles blowing and rolling around all over… not to mention the "six-pack" rings they'll come in.

Also, read the labeling requirements. Try fitting all of that on the label of a 10ml bottle! My eyes hurt already.... Either that label is going to have to be bigger than the bottle, or the print so small no one can read it.

Each bottle is going to have to come with a small book with all the labeling in ten different languages.

 

[Orb Skewer]

As I read it, yes Article 18 does indeed ban *any* container (tank, clearo, rba) with capacity more than 2ml.



This will eventually be recognized as an environmental disaster, when all those little 10ml bottles hit the waste disposal sites and recycling centers.

Also, read the labeling requirements. Try fitting all of that on the label of a 10ml bottle! My eyes hurt already.... Either that label is going to have to be bigger than the bottle, or the print so small no one can read it.

The same point has been raised regarding millions of throw-a-way 'Blandjoys' going to landfill.

 

[Anjaffm]

GREAT Transcript of of Viscount Ridley!
That man knows what he is talking about.!

And I will save watching Lobby Linda (also called Pharma Linda, even by her MEP colleagues) for another day.
I have seen enough nonsense lately...

edit:

This will eventually be recognized as an environmental disaster, when all those little 10ml bottles hit the waste disposal sites and recycling centers.

hehehe.. what do you think many of us have been writing to our MEP's about the - first proposed but then dropped - nonsensical proposal to allow only non-refillable-throwaway cartridges with .5 ml (10 drops) useable content?

Mountains of garbage, all over Europe - prescribed by an EU directive. Yeah... we need that like we need a hole in the head. And especially Germany is quite environmentally conscious, and rightly so

 

[AegisPrime]

Unfortunately this whole 10ml bottle thing seems to be based on the bad science behind the supposed LD50 (lethal dose) of nicotine - in fact, there's still members of this forum that don't know the 150 year+ precedent for that has since been debunked and that the *actual* lethal dose is considered to be some 20 times higher.

 

[NicoHolic]

redheadfullofsteam blogged:

People will be using the next two years to amass a lifetime’s supply of the devices they prefer to use...
Nicotine… well that could be an issue. My own way around this will be to buy a liter of 72mg nicotine base each month for the next two years.

So does this mean it doesn't go into effect until something like January 2016?

 

[tommy2bad]

Yes it won't come into effect untill 2016 and national it might be dec 31 2016 before a non compliance fine is enforced. Won't matter as a lot of country's are chomping at the bit to have the lot medicinal anyway, this just makes a legal challenge to that easier but not a sure thing by any means.
The 10ml bottle thing is a stupid move but based on the ld50 it looks good. The clearo size is based on what they consider 20 smokes equivalent. Wonder how they came up with that number? ( cigalike sellers I'm looking at you!)

In fairness it's not all bad, we still have an ecig just one that has been cut down to the lowest common denominator. It could have been worse for users. The big fail is for public health, ecigs will now remain a weeker alternative to smoking and a quit method. The opportunity to attract current smokers who have no intention of quitting is lost, now it's only smokers who want to stop smoking and have no success with nrt who will gravitate to ecigs.
Of course this means that the goal of a tobacco free world is left to be achieved with the current failed methods of denormalization, sin taxes and public use banns. If it didn't work up to now, what makes them think it will work if they just do more of the same.

Ecigs are now the domain of tobacco companies in the eu and it's only a matter of time before the small vendors go out of business. Ecigs will replace cigarettes in vending machines and newsagents shelves but they will be ecigs from BAT, P.M and the rest. they wont cede shelf space to the opposition and shelf space is a hard fought for resource in retail.

 

[Berylanna]

Dumb question: will the noncompliance fine be for owning, selling, gifting, bringing in for private use when visiting the EU, what?

 

[Dave_in_OK]

Excellent defense of ecigs and excoriation of Art. 18 by a member of Parliament.

Transcript of Viscount Ridley’s debate on e cigs in the House of Lords – how it should be done! | Save e-cigs

Just read Viscount Ridleys debate Now that was worth reading twice! Loved it so much I retweeded the daily action plan 6 asking them to read it.

 

[Julie W]

Clive Bates sheds some light on this 'fiasco"

http://saveecigs.wordpress.com/2013/12/18/making-sense-of-the-proposed-new-e-cigarette-regulations/


Brilliant speech by Viscount Ridley why couldn't HE have said this in Brussels

 

[tommy2bad]

Dumb question: will the noncompliance fine be for owning, selling, gifting, bringing in for private use when visiting the EU, what?

No. Once an EU directive is passed it must be encoded in national law within a stated time frame, if a country fails to do so theirs a daily fine charged to that country.

 

[AegisPrime]

Note that on our own poll here - What level of nicotine keeps you off tobacco? - most of ECF's members use 24mg - the 2nd highest group is 18mg. Switching from cigs to e-cigs is going to be much harder for heavy smokers when these rules come into force. And anything that prevents helping smokers switch is costing lives - disgraceful

 

[low_tar_neil]

Plus, I imagine the people using the strongest nicotine were the most hardcore smokers and therefore the most at risk group from severe disease/death from smoking.

 

[Anjaffm]

Plus, I imagine the people using the strongest nicotine were the most hardcore smokers and therefore the most at risk group from severe disease/death from smoking.

so true.

However... you gotta see it this way:

the most hardcore smokers buy the most tobacco cigarettes and pay the most taxes - and then, later, may get the most sick and may consume the most stuff from Big Pharma. And then they die the most early and save Big Goverment the most pension payments.

Why on earth should Big Tobacco, Big Goverment and Big Pharma want the most hardcore smokers to switch?

And no, I am not cynical. I am truthful.

 

[Talyon]

so true.

However... you gotta see it this way:

the most hardcore smokers buy the most tobacco cigarettes and pay the most taxes - and then, later, may get the most sick and may consume the most stuff from Big Pharma. And then they die the most early and save Big Goverment the most pension payments.

Why on earth should Big Tobacco, Big Goverment and Big Pharma want the most hardcore smokers to switch?

And no, I am not cynical. I am truthful.

Your also ABSOLUTLY Correct.

 

[Julie W]

"Burning questions: Are tobacco lobbyists applying undue pressure?"

Is it any wonder we can't win against BT ?
take a look at their annual lobbying budget

Link removed
Guilty as charged Anja my fault for not reading all the article thorougly

not all there today

 

[Anjaffm]

.. caution, will develop into a complete rant. As soon as I recognize that "document".
Not a good text to quote, Julie, not a good text to quote.

........................................

@Julie W

Please take that article with a grain of salt.
Public health.. blather.... evil Big Tobacco.. blather blather.... hm.....

Compared to the 100 or so declared full-time tobacco industry lobbyists, there are only a handful of professional lobbyists active from the public health perspective.

Paul Murphy MEP, from the European United Left/Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL), testified to this massive disparity between the level of tobacco lobbying and NGO campaigning around the Tobacco Products Directive:

“My understanding is that Smoke Free Partnership have two people working for them whereas the tobacco industry have 100 full time people... It's a massive disparity because tobacco have a lot of money -

Yes .. yes.... and both of those people are in the pay of Big Pharma. 100% paid by Big Pharma.
There was a very interesting TV Show in Germany on that subject. Started after some Big Pharma shills accused one e-cig proponent MEP of being a tobacco shill. Well, she gave some information to the media on just who is whose shill

Of course, it is useful to use anything we can against Big Tobacco. And no, their hands are not clean.
BUT it is good to remember that all those "oh-so-poor" and "oh-so-poorly staffed" "oh-so-good" "public health" organizations are in the pay of Big Pharma. And that the LAST thing they want is public health. Healthy public = less money going to them = not so cushy jobs.

And this here

The backdoor approach: using other groups to indirectly lobby

is the favorite lobbying tactic of - Big Pharma.

Like "Tobacco Free Kids" in the States. Yeah.. who would mind kids who want to be tobacco free, eh?
UNTIL you find out that this organization is paid 100% by Big Pharma to do their lobbying - against e-cigs for example. Because e-cigs hurt the profits for the expensive and nearly useless NRTs.

And here is proof that that article is BS, right there

Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) report free e-cigarettes delivered to their letter boxes;

Those were sent by an e-cig company that has nothing whatsoever to do with Big Tobacco. Nothing whatsoever.

Oh, did people in the EU central office whine.. "poison" sent to MEP's .. oh my oh my!!! ... (pity that it was not alcohol, then I bet they would have drunk the booze instead of whining about the free sample) - AND THEN ... a lot of MEP's claimed that they had no idea what an e-cig even looked like. Hellooooooo? Why do you think you received samples, people? Show-and-tell, eh?

oh.. sorry.. I should not get started on that subject.... that was at the same time where some "assistant" in the EU central office actually had the gall to call citizens (!) who wrote e-mails "Astroturfs" (= paid industry shills). Well, that tells you enough of what those politicians - and their "assistants" - think of us.

..........
Aaaaaaaargh.. now I recognize that document... a complete piece of filth.. ... don't get me started on those jerks!!!!

Paul Murphy MEP explained that in the Parliament, MEPs “are subjected to a lot of astroturf campaigning in the sense that it is manufactured. We get emails from so-called ordinary constituents about electronic cigarettes. But they are really detailed about the Directive.”

Yes. I remember. Ordinary constituents are not supposed to know anything about a directive that is meant to govern their lives! How dare that jerk insult us like that? Ordinary citizens are just to shut up and say "Yes, master" "whatever you say, master"! And if they ARE informed about something that is to govern their lives (!) then they get called "astroturfs" (= industry shills)

OH YES, I remember!!!!


/ end of rant

... pour self a nice glass of spiced red wine.. drinks wine... calms down....

Not a good document to quote, hun

 

[Orb Skewer]

@Julie W

Please take that article with a grain of salt.
Public health.. blather.... evil Big Tobacco.. blather blather.... hm.....



Yes .. yes.... and both of those people are in the pay of Big Pharma. 100% paid by Big Pharma.
There was a very interesting TV Show in Germany on that subject. Started after some Big Pharma shills accused one e-cig proponent MEP of being a tobacco shill. Well, she gave some information to the media on just who is whose shill

Of course, it is useful to use anything we can against Big Tobacco. And no, their hands are not clean.
BUT it is good to remember that all those "oh-so-poor" and "oh-so-poorly staffed" "oh-so-good" "public health" organizations are in the pay of Big Pharma. And that the LAST thing they want is public health. Healthy public = less money going to them = not so cushy jobs.

And this here



is the favorite lobbying tactic of - Big Pharma.

Like "Tobacco Free Kids" in the States. Yeah.. who would mind kids who want to be tobacco free, eh?
UNTIL you find out that this organization is paid 100% by Big Pharma to do their lobbying - against e-cigs for example. Because e-cigs hurt the profits for the expensive and nearly useless NRTs.

And here is proof that that article is BS, right there



Those were sent by an e-cig company that has nothing whatsoever to do with Big Tobacco. Nothing whatsoever.

Oh, did people in the EU central office whine.. "poison" sent to MEP's .. oh my oh my!!! ... (pity that it was not alcohol, then I bet they would have drunk the booze instead of whining about the free sample) - AND THEN ... a lot of MEP's claimed that they had no idea what an e-cig even looked like. Hellooooooo? Why do you think you received samples, people? Show-and-tell, eh?

oh.. sorry.. I should not get started on that subject.... that was at the same time where some "assistant" in the EU central office actually had the gall to call citizens (!) who wrote e-mails "Astroturfs" (= paid industry shills). Well, that tells you enough of what those politicians - and their "assistants" - think of us.

/ end of rant

Aaaaaaaaand Vape........

 

[Orb Skewer]

Frédérique Ries' parliamentary assistant sent this to her followers this afternoon (English translation of original French)

Frédérique Ries thanks you for your many messages.

For over a year now, she has appreciated answering you about the evolving legal status of electronic cigarettes within the broader context of the revision of the European directive on tobacco products.
Reasons beyond her control prevent her writing to you right now. She has therefore asked me to deal with the most urgent issues and to answer your legitimate questions about the agreement on the tobacco products directive reached Monday evening and endorsed Wednesday morning by representatives of the 28 Health Ministers.
As I said yesterday morning to interested journalists, there are three observations to be made following this agreement on which Frédérique Ries abstained on behalf of her political group:
1. And this is the most important, 80% of the directive goes in the right direction, that of public health and of tobacco prevention amongst the young. This policy will achieved through new rules on health warnings now to appear on 65% of the surface of the packets or by a ban on characterizing flavours to make smoking less attractive to young people (menthol cigarettes have obtained a lease of life and their ban is planned for July 2020). Clearly (and it will soon be the rule throughout the European Union) a conventional cigarette must taste and have the colour of tobacco.
2. Regarding the electronic cigarette with nicotine, it is clear that the agreement between the delegation of the European Parliament and the representatives of the Member States is characterized by a lot of vagueness. This is evidenced by the fact that member states retain discretion to consider it as a consumer product (which is the pragmatic position of France and the countries of southern Europe), or as a medicine sold over the counter (the option chosen by the British), or as a strictly controlled medicine sold exclusively in pharmacies (the Belgian authorities are on this hard line).
This à la carte treatment also applies to flavourings, left to the discretion of the member states; some will allow them and others will prohibit them, instead of the European Parliament’s clearer and more liberal position in voting to allow flavours in the electronic cigarette throughout Europe.
3. As for the rest, there nonetheless has been visible progress: a threshold of 20 mg nicotine / ml which corresponds to a good "dose" for a steady smoker and a size of e-liquid bottles of 10 ml which is the model most commonly sold in shops . Last but not least, the constant vigilance of Frédérique Ries and of the British MEP Martin Callanan has at least saved refillable e-cigarettes, i.e. 80% of the products sold in Europe, from being banned.
But it is true that the overall philosophy remains unchanged: the electronic cigarette remains in the “firing line” of the European Commission and of many European Health Ministers. Their obsession to apply the precautionary principle remains an enigma to me (they never answered questions from MEPs asking them to present their scientific evidence, or proof of any incident or accident due to improper use of the product that might have been reported to them).
An unpleasant, almost guilty stubbornness!
Hence ultimately the only question that has to be asked at this late stage of the legislative process: should we accept the compromise currently on the table or remove Article 18 on the electronic cigarette from the Tobacco Directive (with a legal volte-face yet to be discovered)?
I do not have the answer; I encourage you to consult amongst yourselves so that together we can find the right solution. We have 2 months to do so before the final vote in plenary session on the whole of the Directive, due at the earliest on 25 February 2014 .

Regards,
Patrice Audibert
parliamentary assistant to Frédérique Ries