@ Rolygate:
Sorry, Roly, but I have to jump in here and correct you on the NRT-for-children issue. Here's what actually happened: Nicorette gum was handed out in a school in West Bromwich last July (2009), without the knowledge of the parents. One pupil, aged 14, was given a large quantity by his friend, and took the equivalent of 180 cigarettes' worth of Nicorette gum. He became very ill, collapsed in the playground, and was hospitalised overnight on a heart monitor. It was reported that, had he not already been a smoker, it is quite likely that he would have died. As a mum of four myself, I just thank my lucky stars that I made the decision before my first was even conceived that I would not be sending my kids to school! (I home-educate them.) Nothing would induce me to do so - I'm simply not brave enough. (If anyone's interested, the links to the two reports about this particular incident are here:
Boy, 14, overdoses on nicotine gum given out at school - mirror.co.uk and here:
Boy, 14, overdoses on nicotine gum - UPI.com
What you say about distribution to children raises another interesting and important point. This was something which we had hoped to bring up at the meeting, but the opportunity did not present itself. However, it is worth noting that at the moment, existing licensed NRT products - often containing considerably higher doses of nicotine than electronic cigarettes do - are widely available in the shops and yet
none are marked with toxic/hazard warnings, they are not in child-proof containers, and as we have seen above, they are readily available to children, even to the point of their being directly given to children in school. This, IMHO, makes an absolute mockery of any suggestions by the MHRA that electronic cigarettes pose any kind of risk. We are yet to hear of any incidence of someone coming to harm through using an electronic cigarette, anywhere in the world, and yet there are several documented occasions where people have suffered harm as a direct result of using existing licensed NRT products, one of the worst examples being the one above, though there are many others. And, of course, as Pillbox quite rightly points out, the MHRA have missed the point entirely by not attacking
tobacco products directly. Unfortunately, the MHRA have no powers whatsoever to do anything at all about
tobacco products, since these are protected by iron-clad layers of law to ensure that they are virtually untouchable, but to suggest that it is in the interests of Public Health to place regulatory hindrance in the way of demonstrably safer alternatives, such as electronic cigarettes, is to turn the whole process into a farce.
The question of new legislation is a bit of a moot point, since the publication and adoption of the Hampton Report. This is a long, and ultimately pretty boring document (although very well researched and presented), but in the briefest possible terms, Hampton concluded that the fewer regulatory agencies, and the fewest possible regulations would provide the most efficient framework, and it is hard to disagree. Unfortunately, when one of the more powerful regulatory agencies is entirely peopled by wombats, efficiency is not likely to be forthcoming!
There is no suggestion in MLX364 or by the MHRA elsewhere that they are looking to introduce new legislation. It is important that we all understand this. What they are suggesting is that electronic cigarettes, and indeed all nicotine containing products (except, of course, the armour-plated tobacco cigarette!) be brought within the existing new legislation which was recently passed to allow existing NRT products to be made more widely available, including an extended indication for use in pregnancy, and indeed in children (with disastrous consequences, as illustrated above). This is where the MHRA has attempted - hitherto successfully - to take ownership of Harm Reduction, which falls squarely
outside their remit. (In their hands, I fear it is reduced from Harm Reduction to Harm
Mismanagement!)
Again, Roly, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you: the existing regulatory frameworks actually do currently provide sufficient safeguards for just about any product that could ever be invented - assuming they are applied correctly. There is no need for a new regulatory body, since the existing ones - specifically MHRA for medicines and Trading Standards for General Sales Products - are more than sufficient to cope with the task... unless extreme wombattery gets in the way, which unfortunately it does. That said, I do believe that the Royal College of Physician's call for an
independent Nicotine Regulatory Authority, to regulate
all nicotine containing products (including tobacco products) would be an excellent idea. They have called for this twice, and yet we still do not have it, so it is unlikely to be forthcoming. In the absence of this, we must work with what we've got, and providing products are classified correctly (which they are at the moment), there should be no problem. It is the MHRA's attempt to
reclassify a product which has caused the current challenging situation.
I am working directly with MEPs, and with agencies beyond Europe, to try to ensure that this issue is handled correctly, but I cannot sit back and allow my own country to fall by the wayside. Therefore, together with the industry team (which is successfully growing by the day, I'm very pleased to report!), we have been and will continue to 'fight the good fight' on home soil, too. We have already seen some success with this kind of campaigning, in the removal of LACORS' inaccurate press release, but clearly there is much more to be done. Be assured, my vaping friends, we will not rest until this issue is resolved
properly.
For the record, I fear we are simply too young an industry to be able to take on lengthy and expensive legal battles, but we have an armoury of other weapons available to us, and believe me, we will stop at nothing. (We are not ruling out legal action, but this will have to be taken under advisement.)
@ Mr Longbeard:
You might be surprised, but there is a growing body of evidence supporting the safety of electronic cigarettes and their use. However, as Roly quite rightly points out, the onus is on the regulators to prove that they are dangerous before they can remove them from sale. The EC Directives are very clear on this point. They haven't got a leg to stand on - and I fear they time-share a brain cell!
@ Foxy9212:
I know exactly what you mean about 'preaching to the converted', which is why I don't often post on fora. Please be assured that the message is being taken to the right people, and we're not just blowing smoke (or indeed vapour!) in here. The campaign is operating at increasingly high levels, and we'll be keeping the momentum moving onwards and upwards...
@ Petbe:
You're far too cute and cuddly to be regarded as 'daft', but thanks for the vote of confidence!
@ Rolygate:
As far as ecigarette control's being 'unattractive' to the MHRA goes, I should imagine they will wince more than slightly when the FDA's case comes crashing down in September, as it inevitably will. I should have thought they would want to off-load this particular hot potato as fast as possible, since they had no idea of the can of worms they would be opening when they instigated this farcical process. As for them walking away, I believe this is where our efforts should be concentrated in the short-term: offering the MHRA a means by which they can go with their 'Option 3: Do nothing', without having egg on their faces. To this end, we are beavering away behind the scenes to establish our industry alliance cohesively, and creating a regulatory framework which will be very attractive to Trading Standards. This will allow the MHRA to demonstrate that they have fully considered all the issues surrounding electronic cigarettes and have discovered - through their highly effective consultation process - that electronic cigarettes are not medicines. As part of their remit to protect the Public Health, they have taken this a step further and ensured that there are sufficient safeguards in place for electronic cigarettes to be regulated properly by Trading Standards. Job done - and MLX364 is consigned to the waste-bin, where it belonged from the beginning.
@ Mr Longbeard:
We are all over the due diligence like a rash, believe me, and our industry standards will be shiny and gleaming, to the point where Trading Standards Officers will salivate at the prospect! (They're already pretty excited in certain areas.)
@ Moog:
Hello darling! Long time no see. Hope you are well? Thank you, too, for the vote of confidence. xxx
@ Moonible:
The MHRA is a government agency which will ultimately report back the findings from their consultation to the Department of Health. Actual MPs, including Andrew Lansley - who is already interceding on our behalf, to a degree (although he needs further education on the subject!) - will be expected to sign off on it.
Mainstream product? Probably not, no, since it is only appealing to a specific group really. However, that doesn't mean it has to be reclassified as a medicine. IMHO, these are consumer products for smokers - a bit of fun, and a demonstrably safer way to enjoy nicotine, which even the MHRA acknowledge, is recognised as being a safe (and, of course, legal) drug for recreational use.
Sorry for the lengthy post, but I shall be unlikely to have time to post again for a while, as I crack on with the campaign, so thought I'd better make this one count!
