e-mail: Goverment response to petition 'e-cigs'

[magicma]

Has anyone else received this email. I'll try to C&P the link to it into here......

www.hmg.gov.uk/epetition-responses/petition-view.aspx?epref=ecigarettes

Don't know if it will work or not - it obviously does from the email and doesn't sound very promising. MM

[magicma]

P.S to ^^^^^^^^^ Having read it again from that link, maybe that is old news!!! MM

[Scylla]

The deadline's passed, so looks like it is "old news", Madam

I think I must have signed it ???

EDIT - having glanced at my own copy of this email, it looks like it's NEW NEWS and requires proper reading, which I will allow Chrissie, Kate, Lisa, Foxy and other greater minds to do for me - it doesn't look good, does it? Or shouldn't we worry at the moment ???

scylla

[Chrissie]

I only just received the same email today. So though the info re MHRA is old news, the government response appears to be new. Though it doesn't really say anything we don't know already. Sounds to me they have just found a PRO to respond & say in a long winded way as little as possible.

For anyone not happy clicking on links, here is the response : -

Government response

E-cigarettes and other novel nicotine delivery products are subject to existing consumer product safety regulations as enforced by local councils’ trading standards departments. To comply, products must meet specific requirements concerning packaging and labelling of products which may be a danger to consumers. Some e-cigarettes have been tested by local authority trading standards departments and have failed to comply with consumer safety regulations. They have therefore been removed from sale.

Following advice from the Commission on Human Medicines, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency’s (MHRA’s) independent scientific expert advisory committee, a decision was made to extend the use of licensed Nicotine Replacement Therapy products to include harm reduction. This means that the licence for these products has been extended to include those who are still smokers, but who choose or are forced not to smoke for a period of time. This would include when smokers do not wish to expose others to their secondhand smoke or cannot smoke because they are in a smoke-free area. It also includes those who wish to reduce the number of cigarettes smoked but do not plan to quit.

However, there are a number of products on the market, such as nicotine-containing e-cigarettes, topical gels and oral forms, that claim to contain nicotine and are widely and easily available but are not licensed medicines. Unlicensed nicotine-containing products have not been assessed for safety, quality and efficacy and therefore there is potentially a risk to public health.

The Government knows from work carried out by the Food and Drug Administration in the United States that laboratory analyses of e-cigarette samples were found to contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals. Bringing all current unlicensed nicotine containing products under regulation would protect users from unknown risks and ensure that smokers had products that had been assessed for their quality, efficacy and safety.

Until relatively recently, there were few or no nicotine products available, and how they were regulated was not a concern. However, the increasing availability of these products and their potential impact on public health means that regulation needs to be considered. Products that contain nicotine and which appreciably affect people’s metabolism in normal usage fall within medicines legislation in terms of pharmacological action. In light of this, on 1 February, the MHRA published a consultation exercise to seek views on the regulation of nicotine containing products, including e-cigarettes.

The consultation sought views on whether products containing nicotine should be considered to be medicinal products and, if so, whether all unlicensed nicotine-containing products should be removed from the market within 21 days, in line with current MHRA practice, or whether a notice should be issued to manufacturers that all marketing must cease by a certain date, such as June 2011, giving manufacturers a year to license their products as medicines.

The consultation did not seek to make nicotine-containing products available only to the pharmaceutical industry. All manufacturers of such products will be able to approach the MHRA to receive authorisation to sell their product. Rather, the consultation sought to set a level playing field that does not favour any particular manufacturer or industry.

The consultation was extended following the announcement of the general election and closed on 2 June. There were a large number of responses and these are now being considered. The outcome of the consultation will be announced in the autumn.

[magicma]

Yes, it confused me Chrissie because I reading it as new - and then the very last sentence made me doubt it.
I'm glad you got the e-mail too, else I would've thought me or my computer were going round the bend!!! MM

[lisaf01]

The "government response" appears to be a portion of the original MLX364 consultation document.

[Chrissie]

MM & Lisa, I reckon due to the government cut backs they got the janitor to type out a response to the petition

[jimmybat]

anyone that supplied a valid e-mail when signing the patetion have got that mail
please excuse the spelling
James

[Chrissie]

James is right, you would have automatically got a reply if you signed the petition. In fact I'm certain your email would have had to be verified before your signature was included.

Don't forget, there where 2 petitions going about around the same time. So if you haven't recieved this email it be because you only signed the other one - either that or it's gone to your junk folder

[foxy9212]

Yup! I got it today too. It tells us little we didn't already know and I'm still convinced we're all doomed!

My e-cigs have done me no harm so far, in fact quite the contrary and the reference to what the Americans (allegedly) found frankly makes me sick!

Fox

[Chrissie]

Yes that bit re the FDA worried me as well Foxy. Just shows they haven't done their research

I still don't think we are doomed. Even if the worst comes to the worst there will be ways to get round it.

As I've said before, Snus is banned in the UK yet you can openly buy it via the internet. Not that I have ever tried it myself.

[hissie]

Fingers crossed eh.

I'll be ok as long as we will still be able to buy juice from somewhere

Also, we have each other, I'm sure we can work something out between us.

[Chrissie]

Aug 12, 2010 21:27:17 GMT hissie said:

Also, we have each other, I'm sure we can work something out between us.

That's lovely Hissie & I'm sure you are right

[lolli]

Government response
*LOL

"Some e-cigarettes have been tested by local authority trading standards departments and have failed to comply with consumer safety regulations. They have therefore been removed from sale. "

*WOW - Genius! Errr, just like you would any other product........ unsafe toys, unsafe cars, unsafe food............

"Unlicensed nicotine-containing products have not been assessed for safety, quality and efficacy and therefore there is potentially a risk to public health."

*GOSH!!!! - what like the risks to health of ummm, alcohol, smoking, fats, sugars...............................

"Products that contain nicotine and which appreciably affect people’s metabolism in normal usage fall within medicines legislation in terms of pharmacological action."

* AH HA............so............it was PROVED ?? was it ?? that e-liquid "appreciably" affected metabolism ??

"The consultation did not seek to make nicotine-containing products available only to the pharmaceutical industry."

*PERISH THE THOUGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Rather, the consultation sought to set a level playing field that does not favour any particular manufacturer or industry."

*PMSL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Scylla]

You've reflected thoughts that flitted thru my head when I got around to reading that response, Lolli

Why aren't you in bed? Night Night (though I must pop into Suppliers first, just in case )

scylla