Government response to the TPD consultation

[Richard46]

Reading 3.16.11; through to 3.16.14 (see pedro's post above) makes no sense to me. Indeed it reads as contradictory. Obviously I am missing something but it is very confusing.

[pedro]

It is not the most clear really is it.

I think it is cause we are dealing with a few different elements all at the one time. Sometimes we read things and since there is so much info we skim read and miss words which makes sentances mean completly diffrent things. Happens to me a lot . Eliquid falls under TPD but 0% nic does not. Refill bottles and tanks both fall under it but drip tips, accessories and batteries/mods don't appear to so they will fall under existing regulations. But they have used the term " devices capable of delivering nicotine by inhalation" so to me that means you cant sell a tank for 0% nic only.

[blaze]

Ah sussed the source of this rumour:




Seems they got confused lol! Easy to do admittedly!

[Deleted]

I already posted that earlier in the thread

[blaze]

Ah yes reply #10. Still don't know what they mean by non-nicotine ecigarettes - I suppose disposable e-shisha type things wont be covered ...

[nanotm]

Jan 9, 2016 20:28:31 GMT blaze said:

Ah yes reply #10. Still don't know what they mean by non-nicotine ecigarettes - I suppose disposable e-shisha type things wont be covered ...

perhaps they will get round to specifying it but hopefully it is any product that is sold as "not designed for use with nicotine", they can then relegate the likes of ce4's as "designed for use with nicotine" and have them as the sole contender for regulation (since there old and not that good), that is my take away from the various bits of information contained in the few released documents and follow-up consultation documents, the clarification that the advertising stuff wont apply to e-cigs is strange, not that long ago they were arguing that should be the case and lost the argument in the regulatory commission meeting vote about it, seems like a complete U-turn on the stated position of just a few months ago, its all rather confusing and leaves a dodgy taste in the mouth, they cant change their position again without further consultation I hope otherwise were in for a bumpy ride /

[blaze]

Jan 9, 2016 21:19:14 GMT nanotm said:

Jan 9, 2016 20:28:31 GMT blaze said:

Ah yes reply #10. Still don't know what they mean by non-nicotine ecigarettes - I suppose disposable e-shisha type things wont be covered ...

perhaps they will get round to specifying it but hopefully it is any product that is sold as "not designed for use with nicotine", they can then relegate the likes of ce4's as "designed for use with nicotine" and have them as the sole contender for regulation (since there old and not that good), that is my take away from the various bits of information contained in the few released documents and follow-up consultation documents, the clarification that the advertising stuff wont apply to e-cigs is strange, not that long ago they were arguing that should be the case and lost the argument in the regulatory commission meeting vote about it, seems like a complete U-turn on the stated position of just a few months ago, its all rather confusing and leaves a dodgy taste in the mouth, they cant change their position again without further consultation I hope otherwise were in for a bumpy ride /

No, the point is is that nowhere in the draft, the consultation resonse or the MHRA fees consultation can I see any evidence for that point! (non-nic ecigs not covered)  No-nic eliquid yes, and I think that's what they meant to say in their email/fb post.

[letsavit]

Flicked through, I voted "same" because I have yet since I started vaping read anything negative with regards to vaping from the UK goverment, it's obvious Cameron doesn't like being told what to do by brussels. The word "Response" says enough for me, has any over European goverment gave a *response ?

* feck off we will decide what we what to do with vaping.

[ceedee]

Jan 8, 2016 16:42:44 GMT everythingliquid said:

Jan 8, 2016 15:00:17 GMT yahoo2u2 said:

ZERO NIC juice will need to be tested FFS

Correct, however this will be to show that the juice contains no nicotine.

Today has been a huge step forward for a lot of manufacturers.  Consider that MHRA fee's were originally estimated between 5 - 10k per flavour this money can now be put towards product testing, meaning that a much larger percentage of SMB's will have a fair crack at getting through the directive.

An extended deadline to sell off old stock will allow suppliers who can't afford to get through more time to budget for testing, shop keepers will have had a huge weight lifted from their shoulders.

For us, the majority of our business is from dealing with SMBs and start ups.  This allows us time to really nail down the finer points and bring more manufacturers past the TPD.

A brilliant start to the year and awesome end to the week!

Who estimated that the MHRA's fees would be 5-10k per flavour?

What kind of cost do you estimate toxicity testing will be (per flavour)?
(Not looking for a precise figure, an estimate to the nearest £5k would be good enough.)