Zero nicotine E-liquids

[Codz]

I was just reading through some MHRA documentation to get a better idea of what the future regulations are, and how they are likely to affect what we are using today, and one part in particular got my attention in relation to zero nicotine juice;

10. If my electronic cigarette contains no nicotine do I need a marketing authorisation?
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]If there is no nicotine, and no other active substance, then a marketing authorisation (MA) is not required. However, it should be noted that there would need to be no medical claim made for the product. This includes claims for smoking cessation. If a medical claim were to be made then the product would be considered to be a medical device and would require CE marking under medical device legislation.


[/FONT][/FONT]

The above was taken from the MHRA Licensing Procedure for Electronic Cigarettes: - http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/comms-ic/documents/websiteresources/con297583.pdf

As we know the regulations are pretty harsh, and amongst other things would affect the availability of any flavours, and possibly refillable tanks/cartos/clearos, etc. However, taking the above into account everything that is now on sale could still be sold as long as devices make no claim of being smoking cessation aids and the liquid is nicotine free. The next question, which doesnt seem to be addressed is whether unflavoured nicotine base would still be available, whether it would be medicinalised, how it would be regulated and who could buy it. I'm sure someone with more knowledge than me could answer this as i am sure many of us would be fine with continuing as we are, but adding our own nicotine.

 

[djsvapour]

This could be wrong..

BUT, I was under the impression that the MHRA actually lost the battle in the EU court to make e-cigs only legal in a "Medical" sense.

There is an option for companies to make an e-cig that get gets "medical" approval; this is what BAT and another one (can't remember) have lined up. These could be sold with claims and possibly sold under prescription.

The ongoing rumour that e-cigs are required to have a medical license in 2016 would therefore not be correct. Bottles of e-liquid will be limited to only 10ml at a time, and presumably this would mean that nicotine base liquid could only be sold as a "consumer product" (not a medicine) in small quantities.

BUT, I since I found this out, I have not followed the story anymore.

 

[Enigmatica]

So horrible not knowing. What plans do others have if it all gets banned? How long can the base liquids be stored for? Presumably vaping equipment such as batteries couldn't be legislated against.

 

[Codz]

This could be wrong..

BUT, I was under the impression that the MHRA actually lost the battle in the EU court to make e-cigs only legal in a "Medical" sense.

There is an option for companies to make an e-cig that get gets "medical" approval; this is what BAT and another one (can't remember) have lined up. These could be sold with claims and possibly sold under prescription.

The ongoing rumour that e-cigs are required to have a medical license in 2016 would therefore not be correct. Bottles of e-liquid will be limited to only 10ml at a time, and presumably this would mean that nicotine base liquid could only be sold as a "consumer product" (not a medicine) in small quantities.

BUT, I since I found this out, I have not followed the story anymore.

It's all a bit (pardon the pun) cloudy.

I think you are correct - what 'they' wanted wasnt approved by the EU, but then there was some kind of 'back door' thing that went on after the main ruling. I'm sure someone on here knows what ocurred, but it was my understanding that this back door approach was sucessful and that there can be some kind of regulation. I'm not 100% on any of this, but i spoke to my GP and a pharmacist about it and they both seemed to think that some regulation is heading our way in 2016 and a quick search of MHRA website shows that they are clearly intending to regulate. However, MHRA had these intended regulations on their website before the EU ruling so it could all be down to an administrative oversight in not removing the area of regulations relating to ecigs, simply because the bill was mainly aimed at various restrictions on analogs and those were approved in the main.

I think keeping it vague and people not really knowing where they stand is intentional - it's how government organisations often get a lot of their insidious little policies into place - either bit by bit so no-one poses any real objections because it doesnt sound too bad at first, or by keeping people in the dark about it so they arent even sure if its happening / when its happening and are therefore less pro-active about it until it's too late.

 

[Codz]

So horrible not knowing. What plans do others have if it all gets banned? How long can the base liquids be stored for? Presumably vaping equipment such as batteries couldn't be legislated against.

There is no chance they will be able to regulate against batteries, and i really cant see them regulating any kind of APVs except perhaps cigalikes. There are shops that sell things which vapourise illegal drugs for inhalation - if they havent managed to regulate these out of existence then there is no chance of regulating something like a vamo / provari / ego or even cartos / tanks / clearos as long as they make no claims of being a smoking cessation aid.

 

[Pictor]

It's all a bit (pardon the pun) cloudy.

I think you are correct - what 'they' wanted wasnt approved by the EU, but then there was some kind of 'back door' thing that went on after the main ruling. I'm sure someone on here knows what ocurred, but it was my understanding that this back door approach was sucessful and that there can be some kind of regulation. I'm not 100% on any of this, but i spoke to my GP and a pharmacist about it and they both seemed to think that some regulation is heading our way in 2016 and a quick search of MHRA website shows that they are clearly intending to regulate. However, MHRA had these intended regulations on their website before the EU ruling so it could all be down to an administrative oversight in not removing the area of regulations relating to ecigs, simply because the bill was mainly aimed at various restrictions on analogs and those were approved in the main.

I think keeping it vague and people not really knowing where they stand is intentional - it's how government organisations often get a lot of their insidious little policies into place - either bit by bit so no-one poses any real objections because it doesnt sound too bad at first, or by keeping people in the dark about it so they arent even sure if its happening / when its happening and are therefore less pro-active about it until it's too late.

I have vague memories of something like that happening too - EU decided not to spoil something that was having good results, but our government overruled that and decided to make their own legislation.
For once, they overrule/ignore an EU decision, only for it to be something we actually wanted to keep! Bah!
Oddly enough though, I can find no reference to it by searching.
It was certainly earlier this year because I was taking very little notice of these things until late December/January.

As you say, it was vague and undefined as far as I recall. You're probably right: deliberately vague in order to deflect protest and just land it on everyone.

Why can't they listen to what eminent scientists at our own major institutions are telling them: it's saving lives! People are actually doing what the government has nagged at them to do for years: they're stopping smoking cigarettes.

Yes, it needs some regulation in certain areas just to keep everything safe - but only in a similar way that any consumable is regulated.

 

[Codz]

I just remembered that i had started a thread on this early this year.... Has some links in there that explain a little more too.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/uk-forum/533203-bad-news-europe.html

 

[Pictor]

Well I can't find any reference to that news item where the government decided to go their own way rather than with the EU stand on things. It was definitely on the news though!

 

[Codz]

If it's the same one i am thinking of it involved a female MP raising it and got enough votes to be carried. I remember seeing her celebrating afterwards. No chance of me remembering her name though!

 

[Pictor]

Trouble is, half the people in government haven't a clue what they're talking about when making these decisions.

I do wish ministers were experts in their field, as I'm sure it would make a lot of difference with many things.

 

[Rab D]

So horrible not knowing. What plans do others have if it all gets banned? How long can the base liquids be stored for? Presumably vaping equipment such as batteries couldn't be legislated against.

I read in a few places, nicotine stored in a freezer should be OK for a couple of years.

Apparently as time passes the nicotine breaks down, so the % content falls, but I couldn't find anything definitive on how fast it degrades or if it becomes unusable.

Since vaping has barely been around for a decade, I guess nobody saw a need until recently to experiment with really long-term storage.