Sunday, 22 December 2013

The catalogue of ERRORs behind Article 18

The European Commission have published their "justification" for Article 18 of the Tobacco Products Directive - The latest proposals to regulate electronic cigarettes.

You can read their justification of each part of Article 18 here :

http://ec.europa.eu/health/tobacco/docs/fs_ecigarettes_en.pdf     (PDF)


If this is the reasoning behind the proposals, then they are totally flawed. As each and every single reason contains an error, they can only have been written by (a) the mis-informed, (b) idiots, (c) or people who are deliberately lying.



For each part of Article 18, lets have a look at the REASON and the ERROR MADE




Current Regulation 

Reason - Currently there is no EU wide regulatory framework to guarantee the safety and quality of  e-cigarettes. The application of the General Product Safety Directive is not sufficient.

Justification - 14 notifications concerning (re fill) liquids for E-cigarettes via the RAPEX system have been reported. DG Health and Consumers. Rapid Alert System for non-food products posing a serious risk (RAPEX) Brussels: DG SANCO; 2012.    http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/safety/rapex/index_en.htm

ERROR  

-  Pure Cherry Picking. These notifications show that the system IS working. In actual fact there are far more rapex reports for "Toys" than for refill liquids, and I wonder if the Commission have actually read these rapex reports ? They are reports for incorrect labelling of liquid, not for any toxicity or health problem. The system works, incorrect labels are picked up and corrective action is taken. Evidence that the General Product Regulations work.



Concentration and Size

Reason - An e-cigarette with a concentration of 20mg/ml delivers approx. 1 mg of nicotine in 5 minutes (the time needed to smoke a traditional cigarette, which delivers 1mg of nicotine). 

ERROR  

-  Pure twisting of figures. The time to deliver is similar, however the concentration delivered is completely different (10 times different). For a full explanation of why nicotine delivery cannot be simply compared like this see my earlier post on this subject - why 20mg from ecigs is not the same as 20 cigarettes.  .

MEGA ERROR  

-  They quote some research by Dr Farsolinos, perhaps they haven't read it or perhaps they are being duplicitous - but Dr Farsolinos was identifying MINIMUM level of nicotine that is needed to work for a smoker and the Commission have now turned this into a MAXIMUM

They are aware of the work done my Dr Farsolinos, so it is a clear error of omission, or deliberate cherry picking, to leave out information like this - which completely undermines the Commission position

 ''In facts, vapers need to use such devices for approximately 30min in order to get plasma nicotine levels similar to those found after smoking 1 tobacco cigarette. In another study, smokers who were using the e-cigarette for the first time showed significantly lower nicotine absorption compared to experienced users. Therefore, we provide sufficient data indicating that the addictive potential of e-cigarettes (even the new generation devices) is much lower compared to smoking, while at the same time we proved that new-generation devices are much more efficient and probably more effective for smokers. Moreover, we have shown that there is no chance of overdose or intoxication from e-cigarette use in na├»ve users, even when a new generation device is used. Of note, an 18mg/ml e-liquid was used in both studies. I doubt if a nicotine-containing liquid with double concentration would deliver nicotine similar to a tobacco cigarette.''  - Dr Farsolinos   HERE


MEGA ERROR 

- They are happy to quote that a cigarette "delivers 1mg of nicotine", using figures from the side of a cigarette pack when it is now accepted that these figures are manipulated by the Tobacco companies and the real does can be up to twice as much whilst the amount of freebase nicotine is optimised in tobacco smoke to increase the addictive properties - making the delivery not comparable with electronic cigarettes impossible.


Reason -  The most commonly sold strength of e-cigarettes is 17-18 mg/ml and strengths of 20mg/ml and lower were shown to be effective for the majority of smokers in their cessation efforts

ERROR 

- ... and the other 40% that use higher strengths will just have to carry on smoking ! - this is pure nastiness, they know that there is a large group (40%) that need a higher strength for e-cigs to work but they will stop them from having access to this product (that is currently available) because 'the majority' will be okay - pure evil and malicious.


Cartridges and Refills

Reason - The market share for refillable cartridges and tanks varies across the EU. At this stage reliable independent studies on market shares are not available. A recent study of a stakeholder estimated the EU average of refillable e-cigarettes to slightly exceed 40%

ERROR

- Refillable e-cigarettes represent 82% of the market


From Dr Lynne Dawkins presentation to the ecig summit

Trying to pass off a known 82% as 40% to hoodwink MEPs into believing that the regulations will only affect the minority, whilst banning the overwhelming majority of devices.

Reason -  Refillable cartridges and refill bottles with liquid can be contaminated, expose users to toxic nicotine liquid and are a safety risk for children. These products also allow users to home blend higher nicotine strengths and flavour combinations.

ERROR

- Banning liquids above 20mg/ml will simply force many more people to home blend, an activity that has not caused a problem, that allows people to customise and select the blends that work best for them. That e-liquids are regulated as General Products mean that the bottles come with child resistant lids which prevents problems like THIS happening. 

Reason -  The majority of products on the market consists of disposable e-cigarettes and e-cigarettes with sealed cartridges.

ERROR

- Bollocks, see ERROR before last - same lie repeated

Flavours

Reason - Regulating flavours is important to ensure that products are not attractive to young people and non-smokers (risk of gateway into nicotine addiction et alia).

ERROR

- There is no evidence of a gateway into smoking for young people (source ASH UK) - it doesn't happen. There is plenty of evidence that the flavours make electronic cigarettes much larger incentive for smokers to switch.

Question for the Commission - Has this product, legally available from age 12 and in a completely non child resistant package, acted as a gateway ?




Reason - Flavours currently in use in nicotine replacement therapies include tobacco (approx. 50% of the e-cigarette market), mint, fruit, lemon, toffee and liquorice

ERROR

- There is no tobacco flavour NRT

I wonder if they even realise that tobacco is actually a flavour, and that unflavoured is just that - unflavoured.


With so many basic errors for every single proposal, it is easy to think that the EU want to regulate electronic cigarettes in such a way as to render them useless.

If it transpires that these people knew that electronic cigarettes were a useful tool to provide an alternative to tobacco smoking and deliberately acted to suppress this innovation - then there will come a time when these decision makers will end up in court.



. .

8 comments:

  1. Nice work. They have pretty much made it up to favour medical and tobacco company cigalikes. It's bollocks and they know it . I think their biggest mistake is underestimating the will and ability of vapers to fight this until we win. Dr Farsalinos deserves a medal for all he's done in providing the real science to show them up for what they are. Murderous tax grabbing bastards.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Doesn't the list off errors pretty well make this unenforceable?
    If the whole thing is based on lies and errors then how can it (legally) become law?
    Surely they have to follow rules when creating a law?

    ReplyDelete
  3. So, if they go banning all flavors except those available in NRT, does that mean that tobacco flavors will be banned, since there are no tobacco flavored NRTs?

    ReplyDelete
  4. It would seem that no matter what science is offered,or what personal stories are presented,the government lackeys are going to ensure that vaping/vapours are treated like lepers and forced out of society..just like smokers & we'll be given the same old choice...quit or die from smoking poisons.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You may want to add:

    About Flavours:
    http://ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/research/145-e-cigarette-flavors

    About Toxicity:
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00204-013-1127-0/fulltext.html
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.12410/abstrac
    http://www.eapcct.org/publicfile.php?folder=congress&file=Abstracts_Copenhagen.pdf (85.)

    ReplyDelete
  6. excellent work. I was just working down the same list of examples. Was trying to compile the RAPEX notifications and whilst searching came across your article. Amazing how its been skewed, the RAPEX notifications show the current system works. There were 2 278 RAPEX notifications in 2012,Clothing, textiles and fashion items (34%), followed by toys(19%), refillable e-cigarettes 0.61%. I am trying to find the specific problems but the ones I have found so far are are more to do do with another issue 'RAPEX notifications, products of Chinese origin remains high(58%)'
    They seem to be using advertisements, a news paper report, mis matched data and a complete misrepresentation as citations. If my children had done such a shoddy bit of work on a homework assignment I would have been disappointed, to find highly paid professionals doing it to justify legislation that affects the health and well being of millions is outrageous.
    I am currently trying to find any follow up to the Jerusalem Post Article. Everything I have found so far just refers to that article which appears to be a Breaking News report on newsaper website quoting a radio report, with no sign of any follow up. Has anybody seen anything else?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It looks like I made a mistake saying 'refillable e-cigarettes 0.61%.' Silly me was assuming 14 in a year.
      I have been through the 48 of the 50 reports published by RAPEX in 2013. I can not access reports 49 & 50. In 2013 I can only find 5 reports of vaping products. 3 are e-juice, http://goo.gl/PT1J3y http://goo.gl/mywDB1
      2 are for e-cigarettes http://goo.gl/wyMdtp http://goo.gl/dUP7IL
      The juices all have problems with labelling, the e-cigarettes have electrical problems. One I think is refillable.
      It is quite remarkable that a product that as been under so much scrutiny as had so few reports throughout the whole of europe.
      Does it also show that existing legislation is adequate to deal with reported problems?

      Delete
  7. I got my first electronic cigarrete kit off of VaporFi, and I enjoy it a lot.

    ReplyDelete