Recent Posts

Hi, blownupdolly,

I completely understand - and share - your concern. It is VITALLY important that the consumer's voice is heard in all of this. In every discussion I (and my colleagues) have with policy-makers, we are always keen to stress the point that the most important stakeholders in all this are US, the consumers!!!!! Frankly, the industry's interests are their own business. Obviously, I have to take them into consideration in my business role, but perhaps I should elucidate a little more of my own history, by way of (hopefully!) further reassurance:

The whole reason why I wanted to start ECITA (I believe Simon's was perhaps slightly more focussed towards his business and his staff - which is fair enough) was that I had started vaping the year before, and found my freedom, just like the rest of you. This was my own personal miracle. Friends who had known me for years were absolutely dumbfounded that I, of all people, had allowed something to persuade me away from the cancer sticks which were NEVER far from reach before!

Also, of course, having lost my husband to cancer at the age of 31, I was delighted at the hope this could offer to other families, of NOT having to go through what we did. (Even now, whenever my daughter bemoans the unfairness of her dad's untimely passing, I feel a wave of empathetic relief that I am in a position to do something to help some other families avoid having to have such awful conversations!)

When the MHRA first threatened to take ecigs away, in February 2010, I was outraged and disgusted. I am someone who doesn't get mad; I get even. I had already had the opportunity to work with some vendors, so knew a little about the industry's workings; and from forum chat, I had gathered that there were a few issues which would need to be improved upon if my new hobby was not going to remain open to threat.

For me, the solution seemed obvious: get the industry to clean up its act, get its house in order, and EARN some credibility, and then we vapers might just have a chance of being able to continue to source the products we want from the companies we want to buy them from. With my experience as a legal secretary, and having had a cursory look over the legislation which already covered these products OUTSIDE of medicinal regulation, the ECITA concept was a pretty obvious next step. So here we are.

My endless frustration is the fact that I had to choose: do I represent the 'little guy', or do I get the 'bigger guys' to behave better, and thus better serve the needs of the 'little guy' by continuing to give them what they want? That wasn't actually that difficult a choice. It was blindingly obvious to me at that stage that it was the industry that was being targeted, albeit that it was the consumers who would ultimately suffer as well, so it was the industry that needed my help (and bullying, and persuading, and kicking up the bum to get their f***ing house in order! )

I guess my point is this: ECCA is going to struggle to get off the ground. We've all seen that. I truly hope someone can grab it by the horns and drag it into line, but with so many different opinions, it will take a helluva personality to pull it off. (I was slightly more fortunate in getting the industry lined up, since I was offering an appealing alternative to their impending doom, although even then, there was significant dissent at the beginning, which is why we had only a paltry 7 founding members.) It took enormous persistence and determination to pull off ECITA, and I am enormously proud of what we have achieved. ECCA will have to work very hard to get something similar to happen, and I fear it may not, at least not in time to make enough of a difference to this particular course of events we are all currently 'enjoying'!

For this reason, as throughout, there has ALWAYS been an element of consumer focus to ECITA's activities. Even after what went on last year with the demise of UKV1, I have still tried my best to keep in touch with the community - of which I am a proud member - and try in everything I do to look out for the needs of the consumers. This is especially true when it comes to the political activity we have increasingly been involved in.

I imagine it isn't much of a consolation, but we ARE here for you, and will continue to do our best to ensure that you are kept informed, and that what YOU want is conveyed to the policy-makers when we are speaking with them. But more importantly, that you have the information you need to be able to take your own direct action. Some of you may have noticed the significant increase over the past 6-8 months of documents for download from our website, such as the 2-sided handout, the legal summary, etc. These documents have been deliberately provided by us to you guys, so that you have the ammunition you need to make your own arguments to your elected representatives - and anyone else who will listen!

Also, bear in mind that as EU vaper/consumers, there are strong consumer groups in other Member States who are getting the important messages out there. This includes one that we explained to Chris Davies, MEP, and were delighted to hear him repeat so powerfully in Committee, concerning the vital importance of a wide range of flavourings, to keep vapers vaping and not relapsing to smoking.

If you look at our members' list, you will see a lot of cigalike companies. They are there for all to see. And they have by far the biggest market share - at the moment. However, we also have the likes of Liberty Flights (founding members), ECig Wizard, and of course, my brother's company, Decadent Vapours - who only make eliquid, and who are responsible for the plethora of flavours which have evolved over the years. Therefore, even if I were ONLY looking out for the interests of my members (which I am not!) then I would still be pressing for public policy which allows for ALL the products sold by ALL our members. Such policy would also cover all the products sold by the vendors you all use, so you see, our interests are more aligned than some might think at first glance.

I do hope this can reassure you all. I shall continue to fight for this til my dying breath, and I am ensuring that we have a strong and capable team to continue the work when I am gone, so that ALL of us - now and in the future - have the freedom to choose for ourselves. My sincere hope is that no-one else has to explain to their 3 year old daughter that Daddy isn't coming home, and then continually have to agree with them that no, it isn't fair that Daddy isn't coming home.

Happy vaping, one and all,

Katherine

Hi, all,

Sorry not to have come back into this discussion sooner, but we are still in Brussels and working on solutions....

Many, many very good points raised so far. I find myself in agreement with most of you!

It may reassure some of you to know that we have submitted positively nauseating amounts of detailed proposals alongside this broader position statement. These include the full text of our Industry Standard of Excellence (approx 100 pages), which details precisely how the existing regulations are applied to electronic cigarette products, and their sales, and their advertising, and their quality and safety standards, etc.

We also provided a draft proposed amendment, again with significant detail, to several 'friendly' MEPs who had asked us for it. After the workshop, we met with Rebecca Taylor's assistant, and we discussed the amendment they are working on. Much of the intricate detail from our draft has been removed, in favour of 'broader strokes' for which they are confident they can get support from enough of the voting members. Rebecca has now tweeted that her amendment has now been submitted, so we shall soon be able to see the detail of it.

We were able to agree with the vast majority of what was being discussed yesterday, but did raise our concerns about the proposed health warning: "This product contains nicotine which is addictive and may damage your health." We pointed out that this was inaccurate and more than a little misleading, which may have negative public health consequences, but in the grand scheme of things, we agreed that it would not be something we would feel the need to fight over or challenge, if the rest of the amendment delivers what we need, i.e. for the Commission to be mandated to go away and do the work it should have done in the first place, and for the existing regulations to be enforced in the meantime.

There was some talk around thresholds. Ultimately, we were told they had decided to abandon including any limit, owing to the near impossibility of getting broad support for any particular number. Clearly, this needs to form part of the Commission's deliberations over the coming years.

I hope we shall all soon find that there is at least one amendment tabled that we can all get behind and support. We shall be continuing to work closely with policy-makers at every level to try to ensure that sensible decisions are made.

However, the credit for any possible victory belongs with all of you: had you not all written such impassioned letters - in such volume!! - to your MEPs, nothing we did could have made such a difference. It is vitally important that you keep this pressure on. Please do continue to write to your MEPs to make sure they know - directly from you - why this matters so much to real, live human beings.

We are a long way from the end of this, but well done, vapers. This community really is a force to be reckoned with!

Cheers,

Katherine

Hi, all,

We have been working with a number of colleagues outside our membership to put together a unified industry position to present to the MEPs. It is our hope that this may strengthen the case, when the politicos can see that the position of the industry is clarified in this way.

The wording is below, and I really hope that you will find that you too can agree to it, and that you will want to pass it on to any and all of your colleagues, so that as many vendors as possible can send this to their MEPs:

"We believe the following guiding principles should be the basis of any future regulatory framework for electronic cigarettes:

a. Electronic cigarettes shall not carry any claims that they are a smoking cessation aid unless they have authorisation to do so under the relevant legislation.

b. All electronic cigarette products must comply with all relevant EU consumer protection, safety and other relevant legislation; electronic cigarette products that do not make medicinal claims are not medicinal products (nor are they tobacco products); we acknowledge the need for proportionate regulation of the quality and safety of electronic cigarettes that allows them to compete with traditional cigarettes; and the Commission should be asked to consider the need for and if appropriate propose further specific and proportionate legislation.

c. All electronic cigarette products shall carry a health message regarding the addictive nature of nicotine and the sale of electronic cigarettes shall be restricted to adults and/or those over the legal age for smoking.

These principles are supported by [insert names of electronic cigarette suppliers and their trade associations].

We support amendments to the EU revised Tobacco Products Directive guided by these principles."

Ultimately, we hope to get a version circulated as widely as possible, and get everyone to literally 'sign on the line', ready for presentation to all members of ENVI, JURI, IMCO, the Commission, the Council and others. If you would like to be involved in this way, please email me at katherine.devlin@ecita.org.uk. Thank you.

All the best,

Katherine

Hi, all,

I realise I've smothered my other post with the update on the EU situation re ECITA's activities, but I just heard some great news from E-Lites:

The Estonian Health Ministry has said it will not be challenging the Court ruling from last month, which means this is a further solid win.

We are really seeing a change in attitude from the policy-makers, and I believe that cases like this one have been instrumental in helping us all to effect that change.

Happy vaping, one and all!

Cheers,

Katherine

Obviously, I can't reproduce the whole article here, because I don't want to get this forum (or any!) into trouble with copyright laws, but for those who haven't seen it, here is Clive Bates's comment:

"It's a very good decision, and if the reasons given are right, the MHRA have been very wise on this. It would be ridiculous if, in the name of health and safety, the regulator carelessly wiped out a nascent industry supplying alternatives to cigarettes that smokers seem to like and that are probably 99% or so less dangerous than smoking. The trouble with classifying and regulating e-cigarettes as medicines is that they are not medicines, they are alternatives to cigarettes. Medicines regulation is fundamentally heavy handed, imposing massive compliance burdens, costs and restrictions. 'Light-touch' medicines regulation is about as likely as low-fat lard and so we need to find a genuinely proportionate way of regulating these products that recognises they are alternatives to the most dangerous consumer products imaginable. In other words, without letting inflated concerns over minor risks in e-cigarettes mean that the totally unlicensed market for super-harmful cigarettes is protected from competition from better, much safer products by perverse regulation."

Low-fat lard!!! ROFPMSL!!!

Cheers,

Katherine

Hi, all,

Sorry for the long delay in providing a further update, but as you can imagine, there has been a lot going on! We are continuing with the process of dealing with the European Parliament as they process the Commission’s proposed revisions to the Tobacco Products Directive. As promised, here is a (very!) rough guide to the timeline for the process. This is very likely to change, as at various stages, spanners are likely to be thrown into the works, but roughly, this is what will happen:

The ENVI Committee has held a debate on the Tobacco Products Directive, by means of the public meetings which we have all been following. The ENVI Committee, led by Linda McAvan (the Rapporteur), are putting together their report. ENVI will be working together to get something which they can get agreement on from their colleagues when the ENVI committee vote is held.

When the report is completed, the ENVI committee will hold its vote. Other committees, such as IMCO (Internal Markets and Consumer Protection), JURI (Legal Affairs) and AGRI, etc., will offer an opinion in their areas of competence – for instance JURI will look at any legal problems the Directive could face, and IMCO will look at any implications on the free movement of goods and services

The deadline for amendments is on 6 May 2013, so it is imperative that you make your voices heard now so that MEPs understand that our community is watching what they do with great concern. (See below.)

Eventually, after a report is adopted by the Committee, there will be a first reading in Plenary, where the proposed amendments will be presented to the whole parliament for a vote. This should happen by September 2013, barring unforeseen ‘spanners’. At that stage, Parliament can suggest further amendments, but is unlikely to, providing the groundwork has been undertaken properly (highly likely, with Ms McAvan in charge).

ENVI’s key objective at this stage is to make whatever amendments are necessary, without diluting the TPD revisions beyond what they want to see, in order to get it through during this Parliament. This is the task Linda McAvan has been given, and she has a well-deserved reputation for getting results.

This is why ECITA will continue to work with the MEPs, including Ms McAvan, to offer whatever assistance we can in achieving this aim, whilst obviously seeking to ensure that the destruction of our industry (and community!) is not an unwanted ‘side-effect’ in this process.

We shall be offering various resources to YOU, (starting with the template letter below) since we feel it is desperately important that your voices are heard as significant stakeholders in this process, and hope that you will join with us in our attempts to help the European Parliament make the necessary amendments to the proposals for electronic cigarettes so that our industry doesn’t have to stand in the way of the progression of this long overdue legislation.

Thank you all for your continued support.

Happy vaping, one and all!

Cheers,

Katherine

Suggested template letter for MEPs:

In an attempt to make it ‘user friendly’, I have highlighted the sections which require input, although of course, you are free to amend it in any way you wish, so that your views are clearly put across. Hard copies through the post are better than emails, if you can manage it, but if you must email, the address format is [first name].[last name]@europarl.europa.eu.

[MEP name] MEP
[Your address]
European Parliament
Rue Wiertz 60,
1047 City of Brussels,
Belgium

[Date]



Dear [MEP name]

I am writing to you today about the proposed revisions to the Tobacco Products Directive. I am a user of electronic cigarettes and I have grave concerns that the revisions to the TPD as proposed will make the products I am currently using unavailable. If electronic cigarettes become unavailable, I will then be forced to either source my nicotine through illegal grey imports, or by returning to smoking. Clearly, this is not an outcome that I would wish. I trust that you will want to ensure that public health is firmly at the heart of the revisions to the Tobacco Products Directive.

[Write your own story about what electronic cigarettes have done for you, how the choice of flavourings allows you to stay away from tobacco (if that is the case), how medicinal ‘solutions’ didn’t work (if that is the case), how much you value your freedom to choose, as an adult consumer, etc. Do try to keep it polite and fairly short, though. We need to respect their time.]

I am aware that this issue is now being examined by the Environment and Public Health Committee of the European Parliament, and that a number of approaches are being considered. I would urge you to support an approach that allows electronic cigarettes with a nicotine concentration of less than 5% (50mg/ml) to be sold as consumer products, in order to allow smokers access to this reduced-risk nicotine delivery method. I would be very happy to provide you with further information, if you would find this useful, but in the meantime, may I urge you to have a look at Clive Bates’ (former Director of ASH UK) blog: www.clivebates.com/ and at ECITA’s Documents www.ecita.org.uk/docs.html and their Science and Safety Information www.ecita.org.uk/science%20and%20safety.htm. I should be most grateful if you would respond to this letter.

I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Yours sincerely,