Letter from The Department of Health

[lordbarby]

My MP has sent me a letter from Anna Soubry, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Public Health, setting out the the Government's position on this matter.


Make of it what you will, I think its the usual stuff.

Yours sincerely,
~I
Further to my previous correspondence to you in respect of your concerns relating to
the European Tobacco Directive, please find enclosed a copy of a substantive
response that I have received today from Anna Soubry MP, the Parliamentary Under-
Secretary of State for Public Health at the Department of Health.
I trust that this response is of interest to you and clarifies the Government's position
on this matter.
Once again, thank you for having taken the time to contact me and if I can ever be of
any further assistance to you then please do not hesitate to contact me again.
CHRIS HEATON-HARRIS MP
MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR DAVENTRY
, ~ De';artme~t \C of Health
From Anna Soubry MP
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Public Health
P000000747771
Richmond House
79 Whitehall
L.ondon
SW1A 2NS
Tel: 020 7210 4850 Chris Heaton-Harris MP
House of Commons
Westminster
London S\" lA OA~;\
1 4 JAN 2013
~~G' a... v: C~-'"-,~s I ~ -~._- _.
Thank you for your letter 0[20 December to Jeremy Hunt on behalf of your
constituent 1 F I 3 J b • r I L'"B I }, about
the draft European Union Tobacco Products Directive. I am replying as the
Minister responsible for tobacco policy.
It may be helpful if I set out the position in relation to electronic cigarettes.
There are a number of products that are widely and easily available on the
market, such as nicotine-containing electronic cigarettes, that claim to contain
nicotine but are not licensed medicines. Currently, any nicotine-containing
product (NCP) that claims or implies that it can assist in giving up smoking is
considered by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
(MIIRA) to be a medicinal product. This approach has allowed NCPs, such as
electronic cigarettes, that do not make such claims to be used and sold without
the safeguards built into the regulation of medicinal products, Therefore the ~
safety and efficacy of the products as they are used has not been subject to the
type of rigorous testing expected for medicines regulation.
The MHRA is responsible for the regulation of medicines and medical devices,
and deciding where products fit can be very difficult. Alcoholic drinks and
coffee, for example, are regulated as foodstuffs. However, there are products
containing caffeine that are regulated as medicinal products due to the medicinal
purpose of the product and some foods fall within the definition of a medicinal
product because they modify physiological processes for a medical reason.
Until relatively recently, there were few or no nicotine products available and so
how they were regulated was not a concern. The increasing availability of these
products and potential impact on public health means that we need to consider
how they are regulated. Products that contain nicotine and that appreciably
affect metabolism in normal usage fall within medicines legislation in terms of
pharmacological action. In light of this, the MHRA undertook a public
consultation exercise to seek views on the regulation ofNCPs.
In March 2011, the MHRA published the outcome of the public consultation,
which is available at www.mhra.gov.uk (enter 'Public consultation (MLX 364):
The regulation of nicotine containing products' in the search bar and follow the
links). The consultation highlighted the need for further information about levels
of nicotine that have a significant pharmacological effect and the need for further
information on the impact of regulation on public health and business. The
MHRA is coordinating further scientific and market research with a view to a
final decision on the application of medicines regulation later this year.
The Government wants to ensure that an effective regulatory framework exists to
protect consumers from any electronic cigarette products that fail to meet
acceptable standards for quality, safety and efficacy. Reducing the public health
impact of smoking remains a priority. The Government does not want to reduce
the availability of products that help to reduce smoking but does want to ensure
that smokers have access to products that are acceptably safe and that support
smokers in reducing the number of cigarettes they smoke or to quit.
With the ongoing work of the MHRA in mind, the Government will be
reviewing the proposals in the draft Tobacco Products Directive carefully. The
proposals will be discussed by the member states and the European Parliament
and will be subject to change during this process. The legislation is unlikely to
be adopted before 2014 or to come into effect before 2015/2016.
I hope this reply is helpful.
ANNASOUBRY

 

[Darth Vaper]

My MP has sent me a letter from Anna Soubry, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Public Health, setting out the the Government's position on this matter.


Make of it what you will, I think its the usual stuff.

The only bit I saw of any use might be (and a big might) was this titbit "The proposals will be discussed by the member states and the European Parliament and will be subject to change during this process"
Hope the change is in our favour, can't be any worse that the current proposals.

 

[DocVape]

The only bit I saw of any use might be (and a big might) was this titbit "The proposals will be discussed by the member states and the European Parliament and will be subject to change during this process"
Hope the change is in our favour, can't be any worse that the current proposals.

This also is interesting to me: "The Government does not want to reduce the availability of products that help to reduce smoking but does want to ensure that smokers have access to products that are acceptably safe and that support smokers in reducing the number of cigarettes they smoke or to quit."

Sounds like they are using this as an opportunity to legislate for taxation rather than anything else.

 

[KulrMeStoopid]

4mg doesnt support smokers though.


I dont care if they tax the nicotine, but it shouldnt be taxed like cigs. Tax the nic, leave the MG regulating up to the user and ensure that mixers and juices are safe. Just like they send the health inspector into the food shops.


Alot of this is what geared me towards making my own, so I see with mine own eyes and I know if a mistake has been made. My biggest concern has been and always will be the safety of our e-liquids. I am more concerned over a bad batch making someone ill verses a battery vent.

 

[Darth Vaper]

This also is interesting to me: "The Government does not want to reduce the availability of products that help to reduce smoking but does want to ensure that smokers have access to products that are acceptably safe and that support smokers in reducing the number of cigarettes they smoke or to quit."

Sounds like they are using this as an opportunity to legislate for taxation rather than anything else.

What would be worse, taxing it and making it as dear as fags or having it reduced to less than useless?

 

[Mark]

What would be worse, taxing it and making it as dear as fags or having it reduced to less than useless?

The latter for me because it is likely to push me onto tobacco

 

[Darth Vaper]

I keep hearing from people who I have told about this directive and what it will do to my juice and vaping habit, "well can't you just buy the e cigs that will be classed as a medicine at least you can still vape"
Bloody hell we can't win.

 

[DocVape]

What would be worse, taxing it and making it as dear as fags or having it reduced to less than useless?

On a personal level or a general level?

Generally - taxation to the same cost as fags would, i expect, result in far fewer smokers making the switch...

On a personal level: neither of those two scenarios is acceptable to me. If it ends up costing the same as fags then I would probably try and give up the Nicotine entirely. Cost was one of the main reasons for me making the switch (that and not wanting to smoke tobacco when my son was born) I did not give up for health reasons or because I didn't enjoy smoking. Since I've made the break from associating my nic hit with fags I doubt my Nic cravings would see me going to buy a pack of cigarettes, more likely if I was failing to quit I would buy a disposable ecig from the corner shop on the odd occasion). If the available nic level was next to nothing, again not much point in continuing in my eyes...

Whichever scenario happens I am sure that there will be some "entrepreneurial" souls who may provide "alternative" solutions

 

[KulrMeStoopid]

What would be worse, taxing it and making it as dear as fags or having it reduced to less than useless?

Being made useless would be the biggest abomination to human health and safety.

If I had no other choice but to pay tax on it.... but some 30ml juices are all ready twice the price of cigs anyways. I would just be more mindful of how much I vape and I would probably invest in cheaper juice vendor. I am sure Hangsen and Dekang will have no issues having their juices tested and pass as they are very stringent and they really do not want to lose another market.


In some cases... now because i mix my own... I am floored at the mark up some companies put on their "premium" or self mixed juices. It actually pisses me off. That in some cases, they are making an almost 500% profit on the juice they make in bulk. BUT with that being said, some vendors only use top of the line and the mark up is as little as 50-100% I made 100ml of Excellent quality juice for just under £2. It would retail at over £20 if I wanted to sell it and had a good name as a vendor.

I will pay the increase on plain nicotine base without an issue. My idea is if they are reaching for taxation, they will have to base it on a per ml calculation. so at 10pence per mil, its an extra £3 for 30 ml of juice. But if they started reaching into the 50p -£1 per mill. I'd quit all together.

 

[Darth Vaper]

On a personal level or a general level?

Generally - taxation to the same cost as fags would, i expect, result in far fewer smokers making the switch...

I don't think the powers that be care if taxing it turns people off making a heathier switch to ecigs as long as they get their tax income from either source they can't lose