Government response to the TPD consultation

[charliehorse]

After a very quick read through I voted better than expected but ......

these are all just recommendations based on the consultation and could be changed ??

[nanotm]

Jan 8, 2016 16:56:44 GMT yahoo2u2 said:

Just has a message from a vendor who says that YES all nic variations will need to be tested and paid for. Not sure yet on if its a VAT full of the stuff, if so I can see some making huge vats of juice and paying for one test, but if nic levels are to be tested then that adds another layer to the costs.

The end user will of course pay for it, but I think that many small juice makers may struggle to offer the ranges they do.

until the consultation is finished there will be no definitive on the derivatives registration requirements for the UK, its less likely the MHRA will want to swamp itself with 100 product registrations per juice based on the % variation of the filler (vg/pg) and the nic concentration, the EU will require it but that responsibility will fall to the person or company that exports the product to the EU destination in accordance with the local rules for that item....

add on to that they are professional fees incurred via the MHRA can be claimed against taxable deductions and suddenly you see it has zero impact on the overall costs to the company, if the fees are set to high then they will be earning rebates every year.... leaving the end product price basically fixed.

consider for each company currently flogging e-juice there are a possible 100 permutations of each flavour mix based on pg/vg /nic levels if each creator has 20 juices that's 2000 notification filings that need processing by the MHRA extrapolate that out across the number of suppliers currently on the market and your looking at millions of filings, they would need thousands of new staff to cover the initial day one window rather than the handful they are predicting to need, the testing labs would similarly require thousands of gcms machines and techs to run them to get the stuff processed within the 6 month window and none of that is available, so thee is a better than average chance they don't actually want all that work or they will require a lot longer to get it done before opening the market up to receive new applications and still process them within the 6month timeframe they have indicated.

[VapingBad]

"claimed against taxable deductions" is far from free.

[yahoo2u2]

But it seems to me you are forgetting the reasoning behind the TPD. Its to try and close the loop hole that has taken way the vast sums of lost tax revenue from the smokers.

Remember that big T need new smokers every year to maintain profits. IF we as vapers are seen to be the way to go, new smokers will be happy to try the vaping scene as opposed to the smoking scene.

Also remember the taxman claims the tax from smoking in advance, so I can hear the conversations behind closed doors.

Taxman, can we have our tax now please for next year.
Big T, yeah of course, but you know its going to be a lot less this year and will continue to decline.
Taxman Why?
Big T, these bloody ecigs have taken away large numbers of smokers, nearly 2.5 million and on the rise.
Big T, oh yeah you know if thye stop smoking they will live longer and we will need more NHS resoures and more care homes and of course you will need to pay them a pension for longer.
Taxman, shit, better stop this now.
Big T, How?
Taxman, dont worry we have a plan and we will look squeaky clean as well.
All: See you next year mate

[robby]

Jan 8, 2016 17:25:42 GMT charliehorse said:

After a very quick read through I voted better than expected but ......

these are all just recommendations based on the consultation and could be changed ??

That`s the Government`s position, no need for it to be changed (worsened) at all.

[Perpetua]

May I post a friendly reminder that this is not the appropriate place for political comment on the TPD . . . . we do have a Politics & Religion Board for such issues.

 allaboute-cigarettes.proboards.com/board/57/politics-religion

I shall move the posts I consider to be politically orientated onto a new thread on this Board - for those of you who wish to post further comments of such a nature and aren't ' registered ' on there as yet, please feel free to do so.

allaboute-cigarettes.proboards.com/thread/58100/politics-religion-board-group?page=1

[yahoo2u2]

Fair do's

[charliehorse]

Jan 8, 2016 18:35:38 GMT robby said:

Jan 8, 2016 17:25:42 GMT charliehorse said:

After a very quick read through I voted better than expected but ......

these are all just recommendations based on the consultation and could be changed ??

That`s the Government`s position, no need for it to be changed (worsened) at all.

Yeah, cause the government never u turn on anything they say  

[pedro]

I dont think any of this really applies to the liquid side just the hardware.

Good points for me. Anything that does not come in contact with the liquid does not apply to TPD so only really looking at tanks (but includes all no only for 0 excuse)
0% nic having to be proved can be done by process to me does not have to be by testing in my eyes.
2017 till we see any real affect as a sell-through which means anything on the market will still be there till may 2017. Though nothing new on market after may 2016.

Other good thing I have read is no new additional testing on addictiveness or harm of substance than all ready available. Should bring down cost of testing to a reasonable amount. I dont know where people get the impression MHRA will do testing from though this will be up to manufacturers to get done from certified laboratory and submit which will be additional cost to application fee.

Also all lot of the panic merchants will be quieter about forums being banned and the like as seems the advertising stuff never applied to vapers.

[yahoo2u2]

Well Pedro, these are not the final proposals and nearly ALL this applies to liquid sales and also flavourings. It will be published in about 4 - 6 weeks after the 3 weeks of discussions.

I also think that Big P and T will be looking at the NHS to prop up any losses and will be pushing ecigs (they make of course) as a new and improved form of NRT. We know it works, but they are not making enough money.

I also agree that the advertising was a little on the quiet side, we have to wait and see.

[calnorth]

Having worked in the Civil Service (not public facing) I always tended to waste away when a very big document was created/issued. Just imagine UK/EU technical standards and trying to match up to those in the USA. And that had many pre-release review rounds. I didn' hang around for long. This isn't that big but its a questionnaire that is loaded with bear traps in terms of managing it. Its about human safety and taxes and the former is the more important. P*ssing tax money up the wall is quite something else.

As regards human safety I would of expected a fast transition to e-cigs so that tobacco could be banned. Tobacco I thought was the primary target? The safety of the e-cig constituent parts is already controlled as far as I can see, so risk is reduced. The mitigation as with anything else is not 100%. Mixing it...well there's a thing.

As regards cross border. The Border Agency and HMRC are not good at that as we well know. Just viewing Fake Britain has shown some of that. And I know that happens in China having had it happen to my electronic designs.

When I see this kind of thing my mind immediately switches to any available work around. The last one many years ago was the greenhouse and Virgina seeds. And so it goes.

The handwringers we experience today are not helpful to humanity I'm afraid. Am sure they'd be after government outlets at some point? Almost like the proposed e-fags on prescription...ooo-er?

[pedro]

Jan 9, 2016 2:57:26 GMT yahoo2u2 said:

Well Pedro, these are not the final proposals and nearly ALL this applies to liquid sales and also flavourings. It will be published in about 4 - 6 weeks after the 3 weeks of discussions.

I also think that Big P and T will be looking at the NHS to prop up any losses and will be pushing ecigs (they make of course) as a new and improved form of NRT. We know it works, but they are not making enough money.

I also agree that the advertising was a little on the quiet side, we have to wait and see.

The advertising is quite clear any advertising featuring cigarettes or tobacco must carry health warnings. Though these regulations never applied to ecigs even though the majority of respondents believed they did.

Yes this does apply to the liquid side of stuff but gives no real clarification, which would have been a better way for me to put it probably.


Question 2 ........................................................................................................................... 20

The Government intends to implement this provision of the Directive [TPD2 Article

8(8)] to mean images, targeted at consumers that are used to promote the sale of

products, such as retailer websites offering products for sale. Do you agree with this

approach? ........

E-CIGARETTE STAKEHOLDERS

3.2.3 E-cigarette stakeholders supported the Government proposals with regards to

tobacco products, but there was some confusion over whether the restrictions on

images applied to e-cigarettes, which they do not

[blaze]

I can't see anywhere where it say no-nic tanks wouldn't come uder the TPD. I would appreciate a quote or link for this. Thanks.

[pedro]

They do come under TPD they have used a catch all phrase

3.16.14 The Government will maintain the definition in The Nicotine Inhaling Product (Age
of Sale and Proxy Purchasing) Regulations which is drawn wider than the TPD2
definition, to capture all devices capable of delivering nicotine by inhalation, with the
intention that these Regulations cover existing and future developments in
technology providing protection for those under the age of 18. Scotland will
maintain the definition of nicotine vapour products in respect of the provisions
contained in the Health (Tobacco, Nicotine etc. and Care) (Scotland) Bill. The
definition in the bill covers all devices and e-liquids whether they contain nicotine or not

[blaze]

Well quite, yet there appears to be a rumour about that they don't. I'm just hoping it has some substance.