MEP and MP Letters

[ecignet]

ethelking that is sweet news! you rock!
an actual reply, with a mostly positive balanced viewpoint!

 

[EthelKing]

ethelking that is sweet news! you rock!
an actual reply, with a mostly positive balanced viewpoint!

I've got to say ecignet that I was pleased! Tom Brake is the sort of person who actually listens to what you have to say and takes time to actually work out what he needs to do and then does it. I've met him a few times, and he has always kept his word and given further feedback - sometimes in favour, sometimes not - but out of all the replies I have had, it's actually a pleasant change to get one that mainly gets the point. I will put him right on the children vaping thing - my daughter and her mates have had the "no smoking" message since nursery, and two of us dads vape and they have absolutely no interest. They like the smell of some of the vapours - but then they are comparing them to fag smoke!

My daughter's year at school did the anti-smoking lessons last year, and e-cigarettes were discussed (a proud moment!), and whilst the girls saw the benefit, they still regarded it as something unhealthy, and I think that is the base of it - vaping is less harmful than smoking. Job done!

 

[MrDeseVaper]

Out of my local MP and 5 MEPs, I think I've only had 2 responses...

Thank you for your recent email regarding the recent proposals to revise
the EU Tobacco Products Directive, particularly on the issue of
electronic cigarettes.

I note your opinions, from your own personal experience as an electronic
cigarette user, and understand that you believe there to be benefits in
using an electronic cigarette as an alternative to a conventional
tobacco cigarette.

I will take your views into account as the debate in the European
Parliament on E-cigarettes progresses, ultimately seeking a balanced
position that takes into account scientific health assessments and the
legitimate concerns of E-cigarette consumers.

Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Hudghton MEP

Many thanks for getting in touch.

I have been in contact with our group advisors regarding the Tobacco
Products Directive, specifically the sections relating to electronic
cigarettes, and have been informed that this is the start of what will
be quite a substantial process. The proposal has only recently been
published which means that the European Parliament has yet to appoint
the Rapporteurs for each of the committees involved or on a timescale.
The committee which will be responsible for this file will be the
Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee which,
unfortunately, Alyn is not a member of. This committee will go through
the proposal line by line, submitting specific amendments until they
reach a position where the text is agreed upon by the majority of MEPs
in that committee. Certain other committees in Parliament will be
asked for their opinion on the text and, once this is agreed upon, the
text will then be put to the full Parliament at a plenary session and,
if passed, this becomes the position of the European Parliament. This
then goes to the Council and, depending on whether they agree with the
Parliament's position or not, the text could be amended further and
sent back to Parliament again. As the European Institutions must
compromise on certain aspects of legislation, this means that the
final text is rarely the same as the proposed text.

As a result of this there is very little that
I or any other MEP can do to influence this directive at this stage. We
have
received a number of emails from constituents on this matter and will
bear the concerns in mind.

One of the main concerns that has been raised with us by constituents
is that the Commission is proposing to ban electronic cigarettes under
the new Directive. This is certainly not the case. Instead, the
proposal states:

"Extension of the scope of the Directive : Nicotine Containing
Products (e.g. electronic cigarettes) below a certain nicotine
threshold are allowed on the market, but must feature health warnings;
above this threshold such products are only allowed if authorised as
medicinal products, like nicotine replacement therapies. Herbal
cigarettes will have to carry health warnings" (Page 9 of proposal and
article 18 on page 39)

However, as I have said, this may be subject to amendments by the
committees involved and so may change.

I thank you for your interest.

Yours aye

Alyn Smith MEP

 

[Mark]

Another response

Dear Mr Davis,


Having followed up this issue, Andrew is of the view that the Commission proposal is unbalanced, and is particularly unsatisfied with it on the point of the nicotine concentration that would be permitted under the proposals.


You can rest assured that Andrew will liaise with the Liberals' spokesperson on the report, Mr Frederique Ries MEP, in order to intervene on this point.


Yours sincerely,


Kilian Bourke


Caseworker to
Andrew Duff
Liberal Democrat MEP for the East of England

 

[EthelKing]

Another response

Dear Mr Davis,


Having followed up this issue, Andrew is of the view that the Commission proposal is unbalanced, and is particularly unsatisfied with it on the point of the nicotine concentration that would be permitted under the proposals.


You can rest assured that Andrew will liaise with the Liberals' spokesperson on the report, Mr Frederique Ries MEP, in order to intervene on this point.


Yours sincerely,


Kilian Bourke
Caseworker to
Andrew Duff
Liberal Democrat MEP for the East of England

Brilliant! Now we're getting somewhere!

 

[AnnaLaw]

Tomorrow I'm sending another set of letter to all of my lot. Only two replied, one Conservative quoting the Conservative on the relevant committee who says the same as us, the other the lib-dem I'm carrying on writing to and trying to educate, getting nonsense reasons for banning every time I wipe the last one out.
But none of the other MEPs have replied unless you count one 'he receives thousands of letters so you'll have a long wait' I got just after Christmas.
I did get an acknowledgement from my MP saying he'd take my concerns up with Jeremy you-know-who and send his answer to me, but I think I'll write another letter to him.
I've been trying to see him but the Education Secretary who needs educating doesn't hold many surgeries as he's busy with Education. No luck there yet.

 

[AnnaLaw]

A lot different to my 2nd reply from one of my Lib-Dem MEPs, the only one to reply, the one who will get a 3rd letter with endless links to studies. I've probably posted this before but in case I haven't:-

Many thanks for contacting me again regarding electronic cigarettes and pointing me in the direction of some very useful studies.

I am pleased that overall you support the proposed tobacco legislation. As far as the regulation of nictotine-containing liquid used in e-cigarettes are concerned, I am staying up-to-date with developments in this field.

My main concern is the health effects of electronic cigarettes. Although preliminary tests of the original e-cigarettes produced by Ruyan, a Chinese electronics company, suggest that they are relatively harmless in comparison with smoking, there are now many different models on the market that have not been tested. Further, a draft review by the WHO's Tobacco Regulatory Group notes that the extent of nicotine uptake and the safety of e-cigarettes have yet to be established.

One of my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the European Parliament, Marielle de Sarnez, has recently written a question to the European Commission about the use of electronic cigarettes. A copy of her question is copied here for your reference. I will of course keep you updated when an answer to this question is provided by the Commission.

Over the last few years, more and more people in Europe have started using electronic cigarettes. According to a study by the Commission's Directorate-General for Health and Consumers, 7 % of EU citizens claim to have tried them and the total value of the EU market was between EUR 400 and 500 million in 2011. These new e‐cigarettes, which can be recharged using cartridges containing nicotine and flavourings, use a mechanism that produces water vapour, rather than burning tobacco which produces tar. Manufacturers claim that they are less harmful than standard cigarettes. However, it is still not completely clear how smoking electronic cigarettes affects people's health. The World Health Organisation does not think that they should be used to wean people off standard cigarettes and still classifies nicotine as a ‘very dangerous’ substance. According to a 2010 study by the French National Research and Safety Institute, the liquid used to recharge the cigarettes also contains traces of propylene glycol, which can be toxic if consumed in large amounts. The French Agency for the Safety of Health Products (AFSSAPS) does not recommend that people use e‐cigarettes to give up smoking, because it is still not clear how they affect human health. The agency's fear is that people who are not addicted to cigarettes and nicotine would develop an acute addiction by using these products. In 2010, the Commission, in its answer to a parliamentary question, said that it would look into the issue of electronic cigarettes and assess ‘the impact of a (…) revision of the Tobacco Products Directive’

Given that it is not clear how electronic cigarettes affect consumer health and whether they can lead to addiction, does the Commission intend to carry out a study into the potential risks of e‐cigarette use, particularly among young people? Does it plan to revise EU legislation on smoking to take account of its findings?

I will continue to monitor the situation closely and look forward to the European Commission’s response on e-cigarettes in order to make an informed decision regarding their use before the first vote takes place on 25^th February.

Yours sincerely,

Catherine Bearder

Office of Catherine Bearder MEP
27 Park End Street
Oxford

PG is in trace amounts and large quantities may be dangerous? Anybody who asks that kind of question should be laughed out of parliamentr, nut when clutching at straws any straw will do.

 

[KulrMeStoopid]

A lot different to my 2nd reply from one of my Lib-Dem MEPs, the only one to reply, the one who will get a 3rd letter with endless links to studies. I've probably posted this before but in case I haven't:-



PG is in trace amounts and large quantities may be dangerous? Anybody who asks that kind of question should be laughed out of parliamentr, nut when clutching at straws any straw will do.

Dammit, now where is that study.... If you INJECT PG directly into your veins or swallow it in copious amounts, it can kill you, then again, so can water. but inhalation was shown to only cause a sore throat/dry mouth... in very few participants.

Im off to find that damn study now... I know it was posted in a thread by Ethelking....

 

[KulrMeStoopid]

Found it!

http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/a?dbs+hsdb:@term+@DOCNO+174


This link contains a huge list of different toxicity tests done on PG.


Just to give you an idea of how often humans come into contact, most of the tests involved oral intake, topical, and Intravenous, limited reports of allergy, common vapour produced symptom is ...SORE THROAT!....



Its in our medication, at any point in our lives if we ever needed a drip, its been pumped into our blood.


some high lights...

Some examples of medications that include propylene glycol as an intravenous diluent/solvent include: etomidate, lorazepam, diazepam, esmolol, phenytoin, nitroglycerin, pentobarbital, phenobarbital, hydrocortisone, digoxin, and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. Most significant human toxicity results from exposure to large does of intravenous medications that contain propylene glycol as a solvent/diluent.</pre>

TOXICOLOGY: In general, propylene glycol is considered nontoxic; however, patients receiving large doses (especially by intravenous administration)</pre>

EPIDEMIOLOGY: Significant toxicity is extremely rare, with case reports described in the literature developing after rapid intravenous administration or prolonged intravenous infusion of drugs with propylene glycol as a diluent.</pre>

WITH THERAPEUTIC USE 1) No adverse effects are expected from propylene glycol when administered in therapeutic doses to healthy individuals.</pre>

Propylene glycol was not carcinogenic in experimental animals.</pre>

</pre>

Hydroscopic agents (eg, propylene glycol...) are added /to respiratory inhalants/ to reduce viscosity of bronchial secretions.

These are studies are a collective of studies from the 40's to recent.

 

[EthelKing]

My take on the "PG and VG can be harmful when inhaled" point is quite simple - If we, as vapers, maintain that it is harmless, we are doing ourselves and injustice. Many things are harmful when inhaled in sufficient quantities - the same applies to PG and VG. We need to, in my opinion, acknowledge (as KMS has done, above) that PG can cause irritation of the upper airway, and a slight increase in airway resistance, predominantly in no smokers, BUT when inhaling vapour is compared directly with inhaling smoke (of any origin, not just tobacco) it is less harmful physiologically by a very long margin.

I think McAldo made a very good point in a similar thread a few days back that a lot of things are used in medicine out of necessity rather than choice - for example, some drugs cannot be dissolved in water for injection, so they are dissolved in PG and other solvents - at the other end of the scale there are drugs used in psychiatry which are suspended in sesame oil! A lot of drugs are not approved for the purpose of certain treatments - but they are still used - not because they are safe, but because they achieve the desired result for a particular illness or condition. A huge number of chemotherapy drugs are, in fact, carcinogenic.

The upshot is - we need to acknowledge that there are mild side effects, that animal research has shown that it is very unlikely for there to be any significant long-term adverse effects, and to reinforce our point with a like-for-like comparison. In my opinion, the vaping advocate that proclaims vaping as harmless is as uniformed as the non-vaper who proclaims it as bad as cigarette smoking. Common sense says that vaping is less harmful, and that is the point - it is LESS harmful. We need to supply information to support our perspective whilst at the same time acknowledging that nothing we breathe in is completely harm free, but there are somethings which are a lot better to breathe in, out of personal choice.