Wicked is going Stateside.... www.totallywicked-eliquid.com
- Thread starter pillbox38
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Hi Cucurucho,
Im working on starting an eliquid business from melbourne. Give me a couple of months to sort out all the legals etc
Yes the site should be live wednesday the 10th.
The first batch of fluid has cleared customs the second arrives in LAX on Monday..Should be ok to open then.
The sites ready it just needs switching on
In the meantime shipping worldwide on my main wicked site is just £4.99 regardless of how many bottles and whatever country...
The first batch of fluid has cleared customs the second arrives in LAX on Monday..Should be ok to open then.
The sites ready it just needs switching on
In the meantime shipping worldwide on my main wicked site is just £4.99 regardless of how many bottles and whatever country...
Hi Apostle
A 50ml bottle i could but would have to change from Glass to plastic...Im in china on the 24-27th so will talk about this then..Hope your welll:))
A 50ml bottle i could but would have to change from Glass to plastic...Im in china on the 24-27th so will talk about this then..Hope your welll:
))excellent stuff, it's just that i've seen a few suppliers doing 50ml bottles and seems a more cost effective means of buying a flavour you like.
Buisness trip to china over christmas ha hehe.
I'm doing very well , thanks for asking, gearing up to put up the xmas dec's tommorow.
It get's like Blackpool fekkin illuminations here at christmas..all for the kids of course
give my regards to Mave won't you , hehe
Buisness trip to china over christmas ha
hehe. I'm doing very well , thanks for asking, gearing up to put up the xmas dec's tommorow.
It get's like Blackpool fekkin illuminations here at christmas..all for the kids of course
give my regards to Mave won't you , hehe
Who is the Wicked woman???
The Usa wicked lady has the devils tail, just like the lady on the home page, protecting her bottles and adding a slice of magic...The new Spearmint flavour will be a mint lovers dream..
All loving handled by Mrs Totally Wicked USA
Are you really going to have a Spearmint flavor for US buyers?
Yes the site should be live wednesday the 10th.
The first batch of fluid has cleared customs the second arrives in LAX on Monday..Should be ok to open then.
The sites ready it just needs switching on
In the meantime shipping worldwide on my main wicked site is just £4.99 regardless of how many bottles and whatever country...
and then...
And then US customs and FDA, decide not to release the bottles..So cant open an empty site
And then US customs and FDA, decide not to release the bottles..So cant open an empty site
Sounds like you got a rough wakeup call also known as the US FDA!!!
Good luck pill, it can definitely be a tough and tiring battle!
Cash thank you, its not going well this side..Trading standards about to start issuing Suspension notices on the cartridges....
More headaches to workout..
More headaches to workout..
Not really, they decide what can and cannot be sold..But not in a particular way relating Food, Drugs or Alcohol.
It is the EEC directive on Hazardous chemicals, substances ETC that is causing concern.
It follows from RustyLug getting a kit pulled in Scotland two months ago..The suspension notice then was about two things
1.. Labelling, sell by dates, manufacturers , contact details etc. They at the time mentioned the possibility/probability that the fluid in the cartridges would fall under the CHIP directives.
Yesterday they presented a Lab report stating a high 18Mg cartridge has 3.7% nicotine by weight in it, or in the gauze section. My argument was that the plastic and packaging should be included..
Today i received a monumental Email citing chapter and verse why im wrong and they are right.. Tomorrow they are going to serve Rusty another Suspension notice, i advised him to stop selling his kits.
Fact is now that it has been deemed neccessary by one T-Standards office it will be deemed neccessary by all.
So unless we as sellers in the Uk can make our cartridges compliant then end game for cartridge sales.
I believe its possible but its a lot of work, AAAAAGGGGGHHHHHH
It is the EEC directive on Hazardous chemicals, substances ETC that is causing concern.
It follows from RustyLug getting a kit pulled in Scotland two months ago..The suspension notice then was about two things
1.. Labelling, sell by dates, manufacturers , contact details etc. They at the time mentioned the possibility/probability that the fluid in the cartridges would fall under the CHIP directives.
Yesterday they presented a Lab report stating a high 18Mg cartridge has 3.7% nicotine by weight in it, or in the gauze section. My argument was that the plastic and packaging should be included..
Today i received a monumental Email citing chapter and verse why im wrong and they are right.. Tomorrow they are going to serve Rusty another Suspension notice, i advised him to stop selling his kits.
Fact is now that it has been deemed neccessary by one T-Standards office it will be deemed neccessary by all.
So unless we as sellers in the Uk can make our cartridges compliant then end game for cartridge sales.
I believe its possible but its a lot of work, AAAAAGGGGGHHHHHH
Add the headache im having in the States and its beginning to look like a tedious week.
Cash>>>>>>Take a Read
Mr Cropper
I write with reference to our brief telephone conversation yesterday.
Two issues were discussed, namely;
1. The results of our latest tests (attached) and the classification of the cartridge refills as ‘TOXIC’.
2. A difference in interpretation on the how the percentage of nicotine is calculated.
In terms of the laboratory results I think it is fair to say that you agree that the percentage of nicotine discovered inside the cartridge is correct. In the case of the high strength cartridge the analyst found 13.5mg nicotine present. All this nicotine was soaked within the gauze contained inside the plastic tube/mouthpiece. 13.5mg nicotine represented 3.2% of the total weight of the gauze and the liquid. It was not possible to extract the liquid from the gauze to calculate the percentage of nicotine in the liquid, however we understand the solutions used by the various Chinese manufacturers of these products contain up to 6% nicotine - so 3.2% would seem to be a realistic figure.
The second issue is on what basis is the percentage or concentration calculated. It is my understanding that you have been advised that the percentage should be based on the total weight of the packaging. I would disagree with that interpretation for the following reasons.
The Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 2002 (CHIP) are based on requirements set out by the Dangerous substances Directive first brought into law in 1967.
The regulations require producers to:
identify the hazards (dangers) of the chemical. This is known as ‘classification’;
give information about the hazards to their customers. Suppliers usually provide this information on the package itself (eg a label) and, if supplied for use at work, in a safety data sheet (SDS);
package the chemical safely.
The regulations set out various definitions such as "package" which means in effect the package in which a dangerous preparation is supplied, including the receptacle containing the dangerous preparation in question. Receptacle means a container together with any material, wrapping and component, including any closure or fastener, associated with the container which enables the container to perform its containment function. A preparation is a mixture of substances and would include the nicotine/ propylene glycol solution soaked in the gauze.
The public analyst has taken the view that the plastic tube/mouth piece is in effect a receptacle and performs the ‘containment function’ of such a device. In simple terms a bottle of bleach is a receptacle containing the dangerous preparation within. The hazardous nature of bleach is not based on the percentage of the dangerous substance present in the total weight of the liquid plus bottle. It is based on what percentage of dangerous substance is present in the liquid alone and that has to be the common sense interpretation of these rules.
There are exemptions for the labelling of certain products - Regulation 8(8) &8 (9) of CHIP states:
(8) Where paragraph (9) applies, the packaging of a dangerous substance or dangerous preparation classified in one or more of the categories of danger harmful, extremely flammable, highly flammable, flammable, irritant or oxidising shall not be required to be labelled in respect of that hazardous property.
(9) This paragraph shall apply where the package contains such small quantities of that substance or preparation that there is no foreseeable risk, under conditions of supply, use and disposal, arising from that hazardous property to persons handling that substance or preparation or to other persons.
This does not exempt TOXIC products from labelling. The only exemption would be where the level of nicotine within the receptacle was less than 0.1%.
Further on the labelling aspects I would point out that the Health & Safety Executive enforce these rules in the workplace and for industrial chemicals generally. They have FAQ section on their website which sets out relevant information on these matters, in particular FAQ 7 states:
Q7 Is it true that I don't have to classify things like ink cartridges and firelighters because they are 'articles'?
A7 No. this is a common misunderstanding. There are no derogations from classification for 'articles' in CHIP, or in the European Directives from which it is derived. So if you are supplying a dangerous substance or preparation which can present a risk - in any form - in principle you will have to classify it and provide information by means of safety data sheets. However, it is recognised that in some cases, the form in which the chemical is supplied may mean that it does not need to be labelled. This is a difficult area in which a case-by-case approach must be taken. However, you can find guidance about it on page 109 of the "Manual of Decisions for implementation of. …Directive 67/548/EEC on Dangerous Substances[4] [PDF 1MB] ". This part of the manual is mainly concerned with notification of new substances, but it also addresses the packaging and labelling of existing chemicals when they are placed on the market.
On page 109 of the manual of decisions the question is raised of whether or not a substance marketed in the form of an item/object, including a substance in a specific container, is subject to the labelling requirements of the Dangerous Substances Directive.
Two questions must be addressed in order to decide whether or not labelling should be required, they are:
(i) Is there a release of the substance during use of the object? If the answer is no, then it is considered that labelling is not required. If the answer is yes, then a second criterion should be considered:
(ii) Is there a barrier preventing exposure of the user or the environment? If the answer is yes then it is considered that labelling is not required, if no labelling is required.
Nicotine is release during use of the product – it is inhaled. Even if you argued that it wasn’t released then the second question would be answered ‘No’ as there is no barrier preventing exposure. In conclusion according to the criteria set out above labelling of your product is required as it contains a dangerous substance – in this case nicotine.
You did ask why cigarettes and other products containing tobacco do not have to be CHIP classified. I believe the answer is set out in the aforementioned ‘manual of decisions’ on page 23. Tobacco is a naturally occurring substance and doesn’t have to be classified but substances which are produced by chemical modification of naturally occurring products or are separated from them by physical processing can be caught if they are classified as dangerous – which nicotine is.
What next?
Under the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 we have already served a suspension notice (see page 20) for the previous model/packaging of the DSE901 mini cigarette on Mr Webster. We have also notified the European Commission of our concerns via the RAPEX (Ref 51 1280/08) system. The notification was sent pending results of our tests which have now been sent to the Commission.
Mr .(Deleted)....... is now selling all the latest Electronic cigarette company (ECC) branded products including the re-branded DSE901 (in all colours). It is our intention to issue a further notice suspending Mr (deleted) from selling any of the ECC branded products. This is based on our view that these electronic cigarettes are not a ‘safe product’.
A “safe product” is any product which under normal or reasonably foreseeable conditions of use presents no risk or only the minimum risk compatible with the product’s use and which is consistent with a high level of protection for consumers.
The safety of a product will be assessed having regard to a number of matters and, in particular:
l the product’s characteristics;
l packaging;
l instructions for assembly and maintenance, use and disposal;
l the effect on other products with which it might be used;
l labelling and other information provided for the consumer; and
l the categories of consumers at risk when using the product, particularly children and the elderly.
.
The General Product Safety Regulations 2005 allow us to take into account the impact of other safety legislation when assessing the safety of a product so failure to comply with CHIP is evidence of the product not being safe.
We are particularly concerned about these products getting into the hands of young children. The minimum lethal dose of nicotine in an adult is 40-60mg and it is felt that 1mg per kg is the lethal dose for a child. A typical 3 year old will weigh 15kg so 13.5mg of nicotine if swallowed or absorbed into the skin could cause serious toxicity issues for a small child. That is the whole point of the CHIP regulations which would require your product to be marked:
TOXIC
· Toxic in contact with skin and if swallowed
· Keep locked up and out of the reach of children
· In case of accident or if you fell unwell seek medical advice immediately
The CHIP Regulations also require that the packaging of the product must be fitted with a tactile warning device and child resistant fastenings. Although not formally tested at this stage, the accessibility of the nicotine soaked gauze is very straightforward and certainly would not meet established child resistant standards.
As stated above we will be issuing further suspension notices on our local retailer - Mr (deleted). I would recommend you speak to Jason O’Rourke in Blackburn Trading Standards as a matter of urgency as you are under a duty as the importer/producer not only to supply safe products but importantly to take appropriate action when you become aware that the products you are supplying are not safe – see the BERR guidance for further information - . http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file22713.pdf
Regards
Willie Paul
Trading Standards Officer
_______________________________________________________________
Highland Council
Trading Standards Unit
38 Harbour Road
Mr Cropper
I write with reference to our brief telephone conversation yesterday.
Two issues were discussed, namely;
1. The results of our latest tests (attached) and the classification of the cartridge refills as ‘TOXIC’.
2. A difference in interpretation on the how the percentage of nicotine is calculated.
In terms of the laboratory results I think it is fair to say that you agree that the percentage of nicotine discovered inside the cartridge is correct. In the case of the high strength cartridge the analyst found 13.5mg nicotine present. All this nicotine was soaked within the gauze contained inside the plastic tube/mouthpiece. 13.5mg nicotine represented 3.2% of the total weight of the gauze and the liquid. It was not possible to extract the liquid from the gauze to calculate the percentage of nicotine in the liquid, however we understand the solutions used by the various Chinese manufacturers of these products contain up to 6% nicotine - so 3.2% would seem to be a realistic figure.
The second issue is on what basis is the percentage or concentration calculated. It is my understanding that you have been advised that the percentage should be based on the total weight of the packaging. I would disagree with that interpretation for the following reasons.
The Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 2002 (CHIP) are based on requirements set out by the Dangerous substances Directive first brought into law in 1967.
The regulations require producers to:
identify the hazards (dangers) of the chemical. This is known as ‘classification’;
give information about the hazards to their customers. Suppliers usually provide this information on the package itself (eg a label) and, if supplied for use at work, in a safety data sheet (SDS);
package the chemical safely.
The regulations set out various definitions such as "package" which means in effect the package in which a dangerous preparation is supplied, including the receptacle containing the dangerous preparation in question. Receptacle means a container together with any material, wrapping and component, including any closure or fastener, associated with the container which enables the container to perform its containment function. A preparation is a mixture of substances and would include the nicotine/ propylene glycol solution soaked in the gauze.
The public analyst has taken the view that the plastic tube/mouth piece is in effect a receptacle and performs the ‘containment function’ of such a device. In simple terms a bottle of bleach is a receptacle containing the dangerous preparation within. The hazardous nature of bleach is not based on the percentage of the dangerous substance present in the total weight of the liquid plus bottle. It is based on what percentage of dangerous substance is present in the liquid alone and that has to be the common sense interpretation of these rules.
There are exemptions for the labelling of certain products - Regulation 8(8) &8 (9) of CHIP states:
(8) Where paragraph (9) applies, the packaging of a dangerous substance or dangerous preparation classified in one or more of the categories of danger harmful, extremely flammable, highly flammable, flammable, irritant or oxidising shall not be required to be labelled in respect of that hazardous property.
(9) This paragraph shall apply where the package contains such small quantities of that substance or preparation that there is no foreseeable risk, under conditions of supply, use and disposal, arising from that hazardous property to persons handling that substance or preparation or to other persons.
This does not exempt TOXIC products from labelling. The only exemption would be where the level of nicotine within the receptacle was less than 0.1%.
Further on the labelling aspects I would point out that the Health & Safety Executive enforce these rules in the workplace and for industrial chemicals generally. They have FAQ section on their website which sets out relevant information on these matters, in particular FAQ 7 states:
Q7 Is it true that I don't have to classify things like ink cartridges and firelighters because they are 'articles'?
A7 No. this is a common misunderstanding. There are no derogations from classification for 'articles' in CHIP, or in the European Directives from which it is derived. So if you are supplying a dangerous substance or preparation which can present a risk - in any form - in principle you will have to classify it and provide information by means of safety data sheets. However, it is recognised that in some cases, the form in which the chemical is supplied may mean that it does not need to be labelled. This is a difficult area in which a case-by-case approach must be taken. However, you can find guidance about it on page 109 of the "Manual of Decisions for implementation of. …Directive 67/548/EEC on Dangerous Substances[4] [PDF 1MB] ". This part of the manual is mainly concerned with notification of new substances, but it also addresses the packaging and labelling of existing chemicals when they are placed on the market.
On page 109 of the manual of decisions the question is raised of whether or not a substance marketed in the form of an item/object, including a substance in a specific container, is subject to the labelling requirements of the Dangerous Substances Directive.
Two questions must be addressed in order to decide whether or not labelling should be required, they are:
(i) Is there a release of the substance during use of the object? If the answer is no, then it is considered that labelling is not required. If the answer is yes, then a second criterion should be considered:
(ii) Is there a barrier preventing exposure of the user or the environment? If the answer is yes then it is considered that labelling is not required, if no labelling is required.
Nicotine is release during use of the product – it is inhaled. Even if you argued that it wasn’t released then the second question would be answered ‘No’ as there is no barrier preventing exposure. In conclusion according to the criteria set out above labelling of your product is required as it contains a dangerous substance – in this case nicotine.
You did ask why cigarettes and other products containing tobacco do not have to be CHIP classified. I believe the answer is set out in the aforementioned ‘manual of decisions’ on page 23. Tobacco is a naturally occurring substance and doesn’t have to be classified but substances which are produced by chemical modification of naturally occurring products or are separated from them by physical processing can be caught if they are classified as dangerous – which nicotine is.
What next?
Under the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 we have already served a suspension notice (see page 20) for the previous model/packaging of the DSE901 mini cigarette on Mr Webster. We have also notified the European Commission of our concerns via the RAPEX (Ref 51 1280/08) system. The notification was sent pending results of our tests which have now been sent to the Commission.
Mr .(Deleted)....... is now selling all the latest Electronic cigarette company (ECC) branded products including the re-branded DSE901 (in all colours). It is our intention to issue a further notice suspending Mr (deleted) from selling any of the ECC branded products. This is based on our view that these electronic cigarettes are not a ‘safe product’.
A “safe product” is any product which under normal or reasonably foreseeable conditions of use presents no risk or only the minimum risk compatible with the product’s use and which is consistent with a high level of protection for consumers.
The safety of a product will be assessed having regard to a number of matters and, in particular:
l the product’s characteristics;
l packaging;
l instructions for assembly and maintenance, use and disposal;
l the effect on other products with which it might be used;
l labelling and other information provided for the consumer; and
l the categories of consumers at risk when using the product, particularly children and the elderly.
.
The General Product Safety Regulations 2005 allow us to take into account the impact of other safety legislation when assessing the safety of a product so failure to comply with CHIP is evidence of the product not being safe.
We are particularly concerned about these products getting into the hands of young children. The minimum lethal dose of nicotine in an adult is 40-60mg and it is felt that 1mg per kg is the lethal dose for a child. A typical 3 year old will weigh 15kg so 13.5mg of nicotine if swallowed or absorbed into the skin could cause serious toxicity issues for a small child. That is the whole point of the CHIP regulations which would require your product to be marked:
TOXIC
· Toxic in contact with skin and if swallowed
· Keep locked up and out of the reach of children
· In case of accident or if you fell unwell seek medical advice immediately
The CHIP Regulations also require that the packaging of the product must be fitted with a tactile warning device and child resistant fastenings. Although not formally tested at this stage, the accessibility of the nicotine soaked gauze is very straightforward and certainly would not meet established child resistant standards.
As stated above we will be issuing further suspension notices on our local retailer - Mr (deleted). I would recommend you speak to Jason O’Rourke in Blackburn Trading Standards as a matter of urgency as you are under a duty as the importer/producer not only to supply safe products but importantly to take appropriate action when you become aware that the products you are supplying are not safe – see the BERR guidance for further information - . http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file22713.pdf
Regards
Willie Paul
Trading Standards Officer
_______________________________________________________________
Highland Council
Trading Standards Unit
38 Harbour Road
See they are out to ban the Fluid, if they can, or make sellers jump through so many hoops they give up.
Im not sure i agree that the
"The public analyst has taken the view that the plastic tube/mouth piece is in effect a receptacle and performs the ‘containment function’ of such a device. In simple terms a bottle of bleach is a receptacle containing the dangerous preparation within. The hazardous nature of bleach is not based on the percentage of the dangerous substance present in the total weight of the liquid plus bottle. It is based on what percentage of dangerous substance is present in the liquid alone and that has to be the common sense interpretation of these rules."
Its function is not one of a receptacle, without the mouthpiece you have no functioning cartridge so the cartridge in its entirety makes up the unit. Not the gauze neither the plastic they are all one...but their opinion is not so.
Presents a serious problem..
Im not sure i agree that the
"The public analyst has taken the view that the plastic tube/mouth piece is in effect a receptacle and performs the ‘containment function’ of such a device. In simple terms a bottle of bleach is a receptacle containing the dangerous preparation within. The hazardous nature of bleach is not based on the percentage of the dangerous substance present in the total weight of the liquid plus bottle. It is based on what percentage of dangerous substance is present in the liquid alone and that has to be the common sense interpretation of these rules."
Its function is not one of a receptacle, without the mouthpiece you have no functioning cartridge so the cartridge in its entirety makes up the unit. Not the gauze neither the plastic they are all one...but their opinion is not so.
Presents a serious problem..
- Status
Similar threads
