Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 47
Like Tree75Likes

Thread: Brussels will Conclude on 4th Trialogue

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3,064

    Brussels will Conclude on 4th Trialogue

    In 5 hours time, The European Parliament, Council and Commission will sit down for their final discussion about the European Tobacco Product Directive. I guess we'll know the situation in about 8 hours time.

    Documents on what the Council plans on arguing for in this final discussion were leaked recently, and explained by Clive Bates here. There were some improvements such as the permitting of refillable cartridges and ejuice bottles, however it was far from the optimal that most vapers would approve. Namely, the 20mg/mL limit still holds, which is just not acceptable.

    French Vapers Association, AIDUCE, have come out calling to remove electronic cigarettes from the Directive, and asked "is it too much to ask to have properly thought out policy based on hard evidence?".

    Here is what they wrote;

    4th Trialogue this evening: AIDUCE’s advice to the participants

    Despite its proven willingness to work with legislators to ensure the continuous improvement of the electronic cigarette, AIDUCE advises all vapers and European citizens in general that the latest draft of the Tobacco Products Directive is completely unacceptable.

    AIDUCE is an independent and responsible organisation defending vapers’ interests. We have enthusiastically joined an initiative to work with government institutions and health professionals to develop norms and better documentation for electronic cigarettes.

    However, we have to advise vapers across Europe and the public in general that the latest draft of the Tobacco Products Directive is dangerous and unacceptable.

    This is why:

    1. The ban on cross-border sales imprisons consumers in closed, protected national markets. It will severely limit consumer choice, considerably slow product development and lead to a dramatic increase in prices. It runs contrary to the basic pillar of the EU: the free movement of goods in the single market. Moreover such a prohibition can be circumvented and quite rightly will be; making a mockery of the entire Directive.

    2. The total ban on all publicity deprives smokers of the opportunity of learning that a viable alternative to tobacco exists that is far less dangerous. It will be a godsend for the tobacco merchants, all the better able to retain their customers.

    3. The following clauses of the Directive have to be read to be believed:
    d) any form of public or private contribution to radio programmes with the aim or direct or indirect effect of promoting electronic cigarettes … is prohibited;
    e) any form of public or private contribution to any event, activity or individual with the aim or direct or indirect effect of promoting electronic cigarettes … and involving or taking place in several Member States or otherwise having cross-border effects is prohibited.
    Yes, you’ve read right. The European Commission and the Council of the EU are proposing to ban free speech!

    4. The nicotine content of e-liquids will be limited to 20mg/ml. We have repeatedly explained that this would exclude a large number of smokers from adopting the electronic cigarette. Studies have shown that at least 20% of them start at a higher levels in countries where they are allowed and where no serious adverse reaction has ever been reported. The imposition of this arbitrary limit ignores the evidence and is based on pure prejudice. It condemns at least a fifth of Europe’s smokers to remain in the clutches of the tobacco industry.

    5. Bottles containing e-liquid will be restricted in volume to 10ml. No explanation is provided and indeed no evidence exists to justify this quantity. Is it due to a feeling that smaller is safer? We invite the people who have come up with this rule to take a look at some real vapers’ bottles. They will notice that little phials are potentially more attractive to children than large ones. The real rule should be that whatever the volume, the same precautions should be taken for phials as would apply to any hazardous household product: they should be kept secure and away from the reach of children. We would also point out that small bottles are considerably more expensive. The typical price of a 10ml bottle is €0.59 per ml compared to a 60ml bottle at €0.40 per ml. This legislation will cause an immediate price hike of 49% for many consumers. It will encourage the practice of ‘DIY’, that is, the mixing at home of liquids in order to produce sufficient quantities at the lowest cost. The risk of misuse will be far greater.

    6. The obligation for manufacturers to wait for six months before placing new products on the market is a deliberate attempt to delay product development and to curb the number of smokers who adopt the electronic cigarette. According to the testimony of vapers on the largest francophone forum (over 50,000 members), an increasing majority of them have found a unique and effective replacement for tobacco; far more than two years ago. Continuous product improvement has clearly been a major driver in succeeding to quit smoking. To resist dynamic innovation is to discourage an ever growing proportion of vapers to abandon tobacco. Choosing to delay this process will protect the market for tobacco. It betrays a refusal to embrace a unique opportunity that may one day rid the world of tobacco.

    7. We also note the requirements that “only substances of high purity and free from contaminants are used in the manufacture of the liquid; and that only substances are used in the liquid that are not toxic in heated or unheated form with the exception of nicotine”. If taken literally, these requirements would prohibit the manufacture of any product of any nature! As Clive Bates notes, “everything has some contamination in it – in reality a standard setting regime is necessary and should be established in the directive” and we would add that all products are toxic under certain conditions. In particular, nicotine is not toxic in normal use. When a proposed law contains such nonsense, how can it be taken seriously?

    8. The Directive continuous to defy logic and evidence not to mention common sense by insisting that electronic cigarettes are tobacco products. The direct consequence will be that the Directive will be treated with contempt by millions of Europeans. This would be a shame considering the objective sought by the rest of the document.

    It is too much too much to ask, to have properly thought out policy based on hard evidence?

    These absurdities are liberticidal, harmful to public health and ridicule the entire Directive. They run counter to the original objective: to combat tobacco addiction. The electronic cigarette should instead be welcomed and encouraged, as an alternative to tobacco that is recognized by health professionals as infinitely less dangerous. The simplest and most efficient way forward is to remove all reference to electronic cigarettes from the document, thus enabling prudent regulation to be developed based on proper study and scientific evidence.

    If, however, these proposals were to be retained, the consequence for public health would be worse than the benefits sought elsewhere in the text and reluctantly we would be forced to ask MEPs to reject the entire Directive. No-one wants the issue of the electronic cigarette to haunt the forthcoming euro-elections.

    I agree. Get rid of Article 18, and start fresh on a separate directive for electronic cigarettes, based on science and common sense.
    margyb, lozza 82, Rose and 5 others like this.

  2. #2
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Victoria
    Posts
    868
    Well at least they've made some concessions about the refillables. That's a start. And the Trialogue itself is not the final word. The whole thing will likely drag on another couple of years....enough time to recruit another 10 million vapers in Europe. Let's keep our chins up.
    margyb, mavinry4, lozza 82 and 3 others like this.

  3. #3
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Hobart Tasmania
    Posts
    5,658
    And from Clive Bates

    When we’ve decided, we’ll let you know: an update on nicotine negotiations in Brussels « The counterfactual

    December 15th, 2013
    When we’ve decided, we’ll let you know: an update on nicotine negotiations in Brussels
    lozza 82, Rose, spud and 1 others like this.

  4. #4
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Alice Springs, NT
    Posts
    547
    They'd go a long way to alleviating the "think of the children" and "attracting new non smokers" worries if they banned Gen1 cigalikes and got with the times. If they banned Gen1 then all the "scientific" research would be done on Gen2 & 3 devices. Banning Gen1 would also go a long way to alleviating the BT influence. I'll probably cop flak from cigalike users but I think most of us agree they're useless and don't do the cause any good (cigalikes, not cigalike users....).

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3,064
    Quote Originally Posted by Blaktop View Post
    Banning Gen1 would also go a long way to alleviating the BT influence. I'll probably cop flak from cigalike users but I think most of us agree they're useless and don't do the cause any good (cigalikes, not cigalike users....).
    If Big Tobacco and cheapo China were the only ones selling cigalikes, then I'd be more vocal about the banning of them.

    But there are companies like E-lites that have put a lot of effort into supporting ECITA and resisting the medical regulation, building consumer awareness and confidence in the products, and although eGos and clearos compete against their market share, E-lites have only ever been nobel in supporting ECITA's push to save refillables and ejuice bottles.

    Cigalikes have functional potential, but every cigalike should be accompanied by a portable charger, and major improvements are needed on their cartos. The whole design needs to be rethought to give users the choice of refilling them, otherwise our environment is going to be packed full of metal duds.
    Gresh11 and spud like this.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Melbourne Sth East
    Posts
    1,686
    Please correct me if I'm wrong but it seems............

    If this http://www.clivebates.com/documents/ecigtext121213.pdf is what they go for, the burden will be with the smaller manufacturers and retailers, not us vapers. Because they are allowing refillables and don't prohibit DIY. In Australia we have to DIY unless we import ready made nic flavours so there would be virtually no change for us.

    I'm sure I must be missing something BAD so please tell me if I am.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3,064
    Quote Originally Posted by Donna View Post
    Please correct me if I'm wrong but it seems............

    If this http://www.clivebates.com/documents/ecigtext121213.pdf is what they go for, the burden will be with the smaller manufacturers and retailers, not us vapers. Because they are allowing refillables and don't prohibit DIY. In Australia we have to DIY unless we import ready made nic flavours so there would be virtually no change for us.

    I'm sure I must be missing something BAD so please tell me if I am.
    The limit they want is 20mg/mL which is only DIY if you're vaping at about 10-15 mg/mL.

    The most vocal against this are those who vape at 24mg/mL and above.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Melbourne Sth East
    Posts
    1,686
    Quote Originally Posted by mavinry4 View Post
    The limit they want is 20mg/mL which is only DIY if you're vaping at about 10-15 mg/mL.

    The most vocal against this are those who vape at 24mg/mL and above.
    Yes I see your point Mav, thanks.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Melbourne Sth East
    Posts
    1,686
    Again correct me if I'm wrong but it clearly defines the rules for manufacturers and importers who are placing products "on the market", I don't think importers for own use are covered so if China keeps selling higher mg/ml nic, we don't have a problem.

    Mav, help explain it to me.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Melbourne Sth East
    Posts
    1,686
    E-cigarette row could block new EU tobacco rules: diplomats | Reuters

    Article about this with some possible consequences if agreement not reached.

 

 
Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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 11:28 AM.