Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15
Like Tree36Likes

Thread: ACCC's position on e cigarettes safety in Australia

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Melbourne Sth East
    Posts
    1,686

    ACCC's position on e cigarettes safety in Australia

    Electronic cigarette safety
    margyb, essiemessy, spud and 4 others like this.

  2. #2
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Grumpy Old man, Living inPerth Northern suburbs
    Posts
    6,590
    Potential suppliers of e-cigarettes should ensure that the e-cigarettes as well as the chemicals that the users are exposed to, are safe before they market the product.

    The CCA also requires that all representations or claims made in relation to the supply of consumer goods are truthful. There are significant penalties for making misleading, deceptive or false claims in trade or commerce. Suppliers are also potentially liable for any loss or injury incurred from defective goods that they have supplied.

    Suppliers should be also aware that they are required to report any serious injury, illness or death associated with consumer goods that they have supplied in Australia within two days of becoming aware of a reportable incident. This requirement is known as mandatory reporting. A supplier who fails to fulfil this mandatory requirement may be found guilty of an offence and be liable for a penalty of up to $16,500 for a body corporate or $3,300 for a person other than a body corporate for each offence. View the Mandatory reporting section for more information.



    Interesting. One has to assume that the same rules apply to Big Tobacco.
    Because I trust no-one Who tells me FACTS with no proof

  3. #3
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,368
    Clearly not considering the enforced health warning labelling
    Robray likes this.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Esperance Western Australia
    Posts
    3,627
    First the supplier has to "be aware" of any incident, this requires the consumer to contact the supplier, if they are not aware of any incident, then there is no requirement to report something they don't know about. Second, proof is required that it was the product sold by the supplier, (in this case the e-cig or PV, and the juice), that caused the incident, particularly if it becomes a matter of litigation.

    Any warning labels etc, are a CYA action by BT. These types of actions put the onus back onto the individual, as well as placate the ANTZ.

    I thought the ACCC information was fairly sensible, and at least truthful based on information we have now.

    In Australia we have a legal system that is nowhere near as punitive as other countries, in regards to consumer law. We, as individuals, are expected to take "reasonable" steps to ensure our own safety, as well as take "reasonable" responsibility for our own choices. Vendors, and service providers also need to take "reasonable" steps to ensure the safety of their products. The word reasonable is a very important one in Australian law.

    Personally I would hate to see us catch "The American Disease" and become an overly litigious society. This is happening to a certain extent here, but there has been law reform over the last ten years or so, that has sought to add a bit of common sense back into the legal system. Hence caps on damages claims, the dismissal of frivolous claims, and a more rigorous burden of proof requirement.

    In regards to vaping, I think we should be doing our research as consumers, and not relying on vendors to wear the burden of responsibility for our own choices, (within reason of course). If we expect to only be supplied with a perfectly safe product, without research and knowledge on our own part, then our choices as consumers are going to be very few.
    Bobthebuilder, maggie and Donna like this.
    All opinions expressed by me, are my own, I do not represent, or speak for, anyone but myself.






    STOPPED SMOKING 11/08/13 STARTED VAPING 11/08/13

  5. #5
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Hobart Tasmania
    Posts
    5,658
    I wonder what the Australian Government is actually doing in regards to the National Tobacco Strategy

    National Drug Strategy - 6.6 Consider further regulation of the contents, product disclosure and supply of tobacco products and non therapeutic nicotine delivery systems

    QUOTE

    Actions

    6.6.5 Commission research on electronic cigarettes to examine the risks and/or benefits of these products; determine whether there is a need to increase restrictions on their availability and use; and, identify the most appropriate policy approach for Australia.
    Responsibility: Australian Government.



    And I love this quote from Bob Hawke "ignorance is the enemy of good policy"
    Last edited by margyb; 24-11-13 at 12:14 PM.
    spud, Bobthebuilder and Donna like this.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Melbourne Sth East
    Posts
    1,686
    Yes you are right Spud. The ACCC's information is fairly sensible.

    IMO, if ALL of the suppliers of vaping equipment and consumables correctly labelled their products with appropriate warnings and provided safe use instructions, not only would their clients be happier, they would be protecting themselves from potential litigation.

    In my industry now, if a child is injured or dies by strangulation from a blind cord (window furnishings) and I didn't supply it with the warning label, I and all in the supply chain are liable regardless of whether it was installed correctly. The manufacturer, the retailer, the installer, and in the case of a Landlord or Real Estate Agent in a rental property situation them too. This is regardless of whether the child was being supervised or not. The warning label does not make the blind cord any safer, it just removes the liability for all in the supply chain. IMO labelling doesn't necessarily make adults more sensible but the ACCC's position is that it makes unaware people aware of potential dangers that they otherwise would not have known about.
    spud and maggie like this.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Melbourne Sth East
    Posts
    1,686
    [QUOTE=margyb;380633]I wonder what the Australian Government is actually doing in regards to the National Tobacco Strategy

    QUOTE]

    Yes Margy I saw that too and I googled it. Guess what it came back with......a thread on AVF from 2012 where members where asking exactly that. haha
    margyb and spud like this.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Melbourne Sth East
    Posts
    1,686
    You oldies have probably seen this but here it is anyway.

    National Drug Strategy - Public Submission by Australian Tobacco Alternatives Consumer Association

    Edit. Have a look through all the other submissions if you haven't already. there are quite a few from BT BP and even from individuals. Individual number 7 is particularly good. Tried to link it but it wouldn't work.
    Last edited by Donna; 24-11-13 at 01:35 PM.

  9. #9
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Hobart Tasmania
    Posts
    5,658
    Quote Originally Posted by Donna View Post
    You oldies have probably seen this but here it is anyway.

    National Drug Strategy - Public Submission by Australian Tobacco Alternatives Consumer Association

    Edit. Have a look through all the other submissions if you haven't already. there are quite a few from BT BP and even from individuals. Individual number 7 is particularly good. Tried to link it but it wouldn't work.
    Hey Donna
    that submission was from our very own Soundasleep (SAS)
    He was the one who got ATACA off the ground. Unfortunately he is unable to continue running ATACA but I believe the new VAA is able to merge his documentation with theirs.
    maggie and Donna like this.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Melbourne Sth East
    Posts
    1,686
    Quote Originally Posted by margyb View Post
    Hey Donna
    that submission was from our very own Soundasleep (SAS)
    He was the one who got ATACA off the ground. Unfortunately he is unable to continue running ATACA but I believe the new VAA is able to merge his documentation with theirs.
    I thought it would be someone from here. It all sounded very familiar. It had the associations web site and I clicked on it and there was nothing there. FYI, this morning I emailed the Dept of Health asking if the final report had been published yet and if not, when it would be.

 

 
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2019 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
All times are GMT +11. The time now is 04:33 PM.