EU Unified Industry Position Statement?

[freakindahouse]

Hi, all,

We have been working with a number of colleagues outside our membership to put together a unified industry position to present to the MEPs. It is our hope that this may strengthen the case, when the politicos can see that the position of the industry is clarified in this way.

The wording is below, and I really hope that you will find that you too can agree to it, and that you will want to pass it on to any and all of your colleagues, so that as many vendors as possible can send this to their MEPs:

"We believe the following guiding principles should be the basis of any future regulatory framework for electronic cigarettes:

a. Electronic cigarettes shall not carry any claims that they are a smoking cessation aid unless they have authorisation to do so under the relevant legislation.

b. All electronic cigarette products must comply with all relevant EU consumer protection, safety and other relevant legislation; electronic cigarette products that do not make medicinal claims are not medicinal products (nor are they tobacco products); we acknowledge the need for proportionate regulation of the quality and safety of electronic cigarettes that allows them to compete with traditional cigarettes; and the Commission should be asked to consider the need for and if appropriate propose further specific and proportionate legislation.

c. All electronic cigarette products shall carry a health message regarding the addictive nature of nicotine and the sale of electronic cigarettes shall be restricted to adults and/or those over the legal age for smoking.

These principles are supported by [insert names of electronic cigarette suppliers and their trade associations].

We support amendments to the EU revised tobacco Products Directive guided by these principles."

Ultimately, we hope to get a version circulated as widely as possible, and get everyone to literally 'sign on the line', ready for presentation to all members of ENVI, JURI, IMCO, the Commission, the Council and others. If you would like to be involved in this way, please email me at katherine.devlin@ecita.org.uk. Thank you.

All the best,

Katherine
ECITA (EU) Ltd
Welcome to ECITA - The Electronic Cigarette Industry Trade Association

 

[Bill Godshall]

While pleased that ECITA is trying to unite the industry, I'm disappointed that ECITA is proposing an EU ban on e-cigarette companies making truthful claims that the products can help smokers quit.

Since smoking is NOT a disease, a smoking cessation claim by an e-cigarette company is NOT a therapeutic or medical claim, but rather is truthful advertising about the product's actual use and impact.

Besides, FDA and MHRA haven't approve NRT products or Champix as "smoking cessation aids", but rather they've been approved as treatments for the so-called disorder of "tobacco dependence".

Quitting nicotine is very different from quitting smoking, but due to aggressive lobbying by Big Pharma, public health agencies have deceitfully confused the public to believe that quitting smoking is that same thing as quitting nicotine.

 

[tommy2bad]

@Bill, I agree but the EU regulators have started using our testimony as to quiting smoking as evidence of ecigs use as NRT and demanding medical reg same as NRT on that basis, we have to be careful how we use words. Watching the ENVI workshop made me realize that language is being tortured into submission by these people.
We say 'quit', they say 'therefore a medicine'. One 'expert' even went as far as to claim that smoking addiction was the disease. You and I know smoking addiction is a behavior, a behavior with specific risks but they dishonestly claim it's a disease.
Until we are on safe ground, it's better to be cautious.

 

[Oliver]

Hi Katherine,

Thanks for posting this. Unfortunately, with respect to b. I don't think it will stand. From the workshop, it was made quite clear that the commission believes consumer product legislation to be inadequate regarding a product that's inhaled.

The fundamental problem that we're coming up against here is that the harm reduction case still has not fully been made, or if it has is not being heeded. The only interest to the commission and their advisers is with respect to the absolute safety levels as opposed to the relative safety levels.

Frankly, the best proposal you could make would be to suggest that a small levy is raised from all sales which is used to fund research. The noises I heard yesterday were that the industry is being held to be irresponsible because it has made no efforts to establish firm quality controls or to track the safety profile of its products.

 

[Oliver]

Quitting nicotine is very different from quitting smoking, but due to aggressive lobbying by Big Pharma, public health agencies have deceitfully confused the public to believe that quitting smoking is that same thing as quitting nicotine.

I wonder whether this truly is a function of the lobbying efforts, or whether this is just a carry over of the conventional wisdom that quitting smoking = quitting nicotine.

Perhaps this has been going on for some time, but (anecdotally) the phrase 'but you haven't really quit' is one I can remember from my teens when I was chewing nicotine gum.

 

[freakindahouse]

Check out the amendments which have already been submitted, and I think you'll see that there is already growing support for our position: http://christianengstrom.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/com20120788_08-05-2013_11-31-03.doc

We are going to have to accept some compromises, and the 'health claims' - while absolutely ridiculous, I agree Bill - is something we are stuck with, due to the wording of our medicinal products directive in Europe. So there's nothing we can do about that, but that's fine. The most important thing is that these products remain as widely available as possible, so that ALL smokers are given the choice to make the switch.

The MEPs have been very annoyed by hearing a disjointed industry position. This is why we are working with colleagues outside our membership to create a unified industry position. This has been well received in Brussels, and I am confident we are on the right track.

We heard today that 1,200 amendments have been tabled. I am confident there will be something in there that we can all get behind.

Cheers,

Katherine

 

[Oliver]

I do hope you're right, Katherine.

I also got the impression that some MEPs are very annoyed by the commission's overall lack of a clear case for the directive as currently proposed.

The question is, of course, how many MEPs are a shoe-in for the yes-vote? Not many in MEPs in attendence yesterday.

Yes, I heard about these ammendements - any idea what the process is regarding their acceptance/rejection? Is this done entirely in private by the commission? And how long should it take?

Did you register McAven's comments at the end of the session yesterday, by the way? Along the lines of - "yes, I'm aware that many of you want a new law, and consequently another 2 years to bring new products to market" - Clearly equating the industry's behaviour with the historical actions of the tobacco industry - dogwhistle politics at its finest. See also her comments regarding lobbyists.

 

[freakindahouse]

Actually, her comments concerning the industry wanting longer to market their products struck me as a clear indication that she recognises that the current proposal equates to a ban - no matter how often she tries to suggest otherwise!

She doesn't seem to have too much of a problem with pharma lobbyists and front groups either - just look at the bods on her panel! Disgraceful, especially when they have the gall to declare 'no conflicts'!

 

[Bill Godshall]

Smokey Joe wrote

I wonder whether this truly is a function of the lobbying efforts, or whether this is just a carry over of the conventional wisdom that quitting smoking = quitting nicotine.

The only reason the "quitting smoking = quitting nicotine" is considered "conventional wisdom" is because of a 25 year lobbying and PR campaign by Big Pharma to get public health NGOs, researchers, and public health agencies to deceitfully promote drugs that are approved to treat the so-called disorder of "tobacco dependence" as the most effective way to quit smoking.

And the only reason "tobacco dependence" was declared a "disorder" in the DSM (back in the 1980's) was due to lobbying by drug companies (and some anti tobacco groups) to create a new "disorder" so the drug companies could get approval by the FDA to market their new NRT products to smokers.

A few years later, the US Public Health Service issued its first "Treating Tobacco Dependence; A Guide for Clinicians" that was authored by a heavily conflicted panel whose majority (including panel head Michael Fiore) had received lots of drug industry funding to research and promote NRT (and of course the US PHS never disclosed the Big Pharma financial conflicts of its panel members until a decade later after John Polito exposed it publicly).

That's how the drug industry gets many of its new drugs onto the market (i.e. by lobbying to create a new disease, disorder or syndrome).

Anyone ever hear of "erectile dysfunction" before Cialas was approved by FDA?

 

[rolygate]

Can I ask, Katherine, when any of your members will publish a current full analysis* of a finished retail e-liquid product?

Could I also ask when the same will be done for the vapour produced?

Many thanks.


* An analysis showing 99.5%+ of the ingredients, including water

 

[mgomez]

I have mixed feelings about the message. On some points, I'm somewhat opposed. On a few, I'm vehemently opposed. The only thing I marginally agree with (sort of-ish) is point "c," which stipulates that e-cigarettes must be sold to customers above the age of 18, and that they must carry a warning about the addictive nature of nicotine. Similarly, if we are to do this, we should also restrict the sale of quetiapine to people over the age of 18, and warn about its addictive nature. I don't see pharmaceutical companies doing this to a drug that is far more dangerous than nicotine. So yes, it's annoying, but I can at least live with "c."

The rest is a prerequisite to tax and further regulate the product. Even point "c" is, but as I said, I can live with it. Or can I?

This is the problem with showing support for legislation. You're pandering to the monster. We should be stabbing it, not embracing it. For now, you'll have their approval, but you're also approving what they do every single day. Shortly, you'll see how they will push legislation even further to the point of strangling the very industry that once endorsed their very existence. If you feed the troll, it doesn't stop.

All we're doing is sewing the seeds for unpredictability. They will be able to gain popular support by saying "the e-cigarette industry supported regulations." Before you know it, mob rule does what it does best: Dictate rules over the minority; the individual.