Medicines regulation for e-cigarettes – when caution can kill

E-cigarettes represent an amazing market-based, user-driven public health insurgency. From nowhere to €500m in Europe, the market is growing rapidly and […]

Over regulating the alternatives is a form of protection for cigarettes
Over regulating the alternatives is a form of protection for the most harmful and dominant form of nicotine delivery – cigarettes

E-cigarettes represent an amazing market-based, user-driven public health insurgency. From nowhere to €500m in Europe, the market is growing rapidly and already almost equals the market for NRT, according to the European Commission’s consultants (see chart and Matrix report p21). Without anyone in the professional public health field doing anything and without spending any public money, smokers have been quitting, switching and cutting down using e-cigarettes. Enter the regulators…

These new nicotine products deliver clean nicotine – without the tar, carbon monoxide and volatile hot gases of cigarettes – and as a way of taking nicotine they are pretty near harmless to health. For people who switch from cigarettes, they hugely reduce risk, while satisfying any need for the drug nicotine and some of the behavioural aspects of smoking.  They also reduce passive smoking, irritation, smell, litter, fire risk…  What’s not to like? 

Could excessive regulation now put the brakes on these developments and even take these products  off the market? Could the concerns of regulators end up harming or killing the very people they are meant to help?

The proposed updated Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) extends to regulating non-tobacco ‘nicotine containing products’ (NCPs), including e-cigarettes. It would do this by classifying the vast majority of these products as medicines.   At one extreme, it could mean a de facto ban. At the other extreme,  the regulators may take an enlightened ‘light touch’ approach, meaning that the regulation just provides some assurance about product safety and that the products are what they say they are.  The former would be a dramatic public health failure, the latter could be a confidence-building benefit.  But I fear the likely result of medicines regulation will be excessively restrictive.  The lighter touch regulation is perfectly possible without resorting to medicines regulation and can be achieved by general consumer protection legislation.

Here’s my concerns…

Why medicines regulation for e-cigs? The proposed Tobacco Products Directive (Article 18) would place virtually all e-cigarettes capable of substituting for cigarette smoking under the framework for medicines regulation by applying Directive 2001/83/EC – the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (‘medicines directive’ from now on). Though article 18 of the TPD sets a threshold, this is so low that that virtually all nicotine-containing e-cigarettes would exceed it, and hence come under the medicines directive.

Are e-cigarettes medicines? It simply isn’t the case that e-cigarettes are medicines – they are recreational consumer nicotine products, with superior characteristics to cigarettes that appeal to users. See my note: Are e-cigarettes medicines? for more on this. There are other things that have effects on the body that are a better parallel for e-cigs than medicines – for example alcoholic drink, high caffeine drinks, functional foods, cosmetics. Also, there is not need to define something as a medicine simply because it presents risks: thousands of products do – anything using mains electricity, heat, pressure or could be tampered with by children.  Consumer protection regulation deals with all of these successfully.

What if e-cigarettes are regulated as medicines?  The medicines directive, 2001/83/EC is a formidable text (over 170 pages), as you would expect given the important benefits and potentially serious risks of many medicines.  Some key parts of the directive:

  • Article 1 giving definitions used throughout the directive
  • Article 6 which requires that any medicinal product must have a ‘marketing authorisation’ (ie permission to market the product) from a medicines regulator;
  • Article 8 covering what evidence and information needs to be provided to support an application for an authorisation (notably clinical trials, justification of therapeutic effect and description of risk management system);
  • Article 26 specifying the conditions that need to be met before an authorisation is granted (the benefits must outweigh the risks and there must be demonstration of ‘therapeutic efficacy’);
  • Article 28-39 deal with the mutual recognition process (approval in other EU member states) – this is important because it may determine what happens if regulators in different EU states disagree
  • Article 40-53 covering manufacturing and import – important in the existing e-cigarette market, given that manufacturers are largely Chinese and European firms are mostly distributors and wholesalers at this time;
  • Article 54-69 covering detailed requirements for labelling and insert leaflets;
  • Article 76-85 covering wholesaling, retailing and distance sales, including through the internet;
  • Article 86-100 covering advertising, information and marketing practices;
  • Article 101-108 the arrangements for surveillance, detection and response to adverse impacts (‘pharmacovigilance’).

What is the purpose of regulating e-cigarettes?   Governments should start with the rationale for any regulation, if any, and then define a regulatory framework to suit the regulatory objectives.  Reasons to regulate e-cigarettes and liquids might include:

  • To ensure the product is safe – avoids sharp edges, electrical safety, choking hazards, poison risks, child tampering etc
  • To ensure it is what it says it is – eg. that a 36mg/ml e-liquid has that concentration
  • To ensure that it works – that it doesn’t break, fuse, and generally is fit for purpose
  • To provide standardised consumer information and warnings where justified

… and what shouldn’t regulation do? Regulators do not have to ensure the product is a satisfying alternative to cigarette smoking or an effective smoking cessation aid, any more than they need to determine that low fat margarine is a satisfactory alternative to butter (it isn’t for me). Unless the e-cigarette maker makes a claim for some beneficial effect, there is no need for a regulator to become involved in determining its efficacy.  Many smokers have found brands that work for them, and competition will sort out the reliable products from the rest – that is the normal default in any market.

What would good regulation look like?  Good regulation would build confidence in safety and quality and allow effective communication of benefits. The means to do this already exist outside medicine regulation.  Where a vendor wanted to make a therapeutic claim, and believed that to be in their interest, then medicines regulation could apply.

… and bad regulation? The danger is that a heavy duty regulatory regime could impose limitations on new nicotine products making them less attractive relative to cigarettes by limiting their appeal or availability, raising their cost and reducing innovation. Compliance burdens could wipe out or drive out a fledgling industry with no guarantee that larger firms would enter to replace them in every market.  Excessive regulation would then have the perverse effect of reducing the temptation to switch and so maintain more tobacco smoking and more ill-health. Any regulator needs to consider this ‘killing through kindness’ effect in the risk-benefit analysis for regulatory controls on the products.  Like all good analogies, this one has many fathers (from a comment by Dave):

…they would have the victims of a shipwreck avoid the lifeboats as they hadn’t been fully tested and then give the advice to those already in the lifeboats that they should leave them and swim, as this was the approved survival method

Here, at greater length, are ten possible downsides:

1. Evidence hurdles -the information to support a marketing authorisation is set out in Article 8 of  the medicines directive.  It requires some formidable compliance information, including the following in greatly abridged form (refer to the directive for the full text):

  • Details of the medicine, therapeutic indications, contra-indications and adverse reactions
  • Environmental impacts and mitigation
  • Description of manufacturing process and certification of good manufacturing practice
  • Results of pharmaceutical and pre-clinical tests, clinical trials
  • Description of pharmacovigilance system and responsible persons
  • The risk management plan describing the risk management system
  • Mock up of packaging, warnings and leaflet
  • …and more

On the question of trials evidence (see above), it is hard to know what evidence would be expected by a regulator approving an e-cigarette – especially as e-cigarette makers generally don’t make claims.  However, a recent academic study [press release / paper] gives some idea of the evidence hurdles considered relevant, at least amongst some prominent members of the research community:

If credible evidence can be provided to regulators, through independently researched, well-controlled studies, that [electronic nicotine delivery systems] reduces the number of cigarette smokers and does not attract use among nonsmokers, then the net public health effect is likely to be positive.

Consider for a moment what sort of studies, and over what period, would be necessary to meet this requirement? Let me just say this: it would be extremely demanding and time-consuming to design and undertake controlled studies to do this. Yet they have implied this information would be provided to regulators – which means it would form part of an authorising process.  Yet tobacco cigarettes are on the market without any need for evidence like this – in fact we have plenty of evidence that these do attract use among non-smokers!   Amazingly, given the barriers the authors wish to erect, the study above shows that the impact on individuals from e-cigarette use has been very positive.

2. Compliance costs – the costs of securing marketing authorisation or ongoing compliance burdens could be excessive (eg. the directive describes pharmacovigilence obligations,  requires manufacturing lines to be up to pharmaceutical ‘clean room’ standard, and would require extensive testing of the product).  This could drive many existing companies out of business, raise costs to consumers or cause them to leave the EU market, or leave the field to the a few big companies reducing diversity and innovation, or simply protect the NRT manufacturers from competition from more effective products.    The Nicorette Inhalator ‘Statement of Product Characteristics’ gives some idea of the information required.  The demands on cigarette makers are far less.

3. Inadequate transition – there will not be adequate transitional time between entry into force of the Tobacco Products Directive and with it application of 2001/83/EC (medicines directive) – at the moment they happen at the same time.  It is possible that the Tobacco Products Directive directive will enter force as early as 2013, and likely that it will enter force before European elections in May 2014. See discussion on timing here. A product classed as a medicine can’t be placed on the market unless it has a marketing authorisation.  It is far from clear that all, many or any vendors will be able to comply in time and many products in use by smokers could come off the market.

4. Flavours, additives and design features – a danger that the regulators will prevent/limit the use of flavours or other product variants that make them attractive to smokers (perhaps on the basis that this makes them attractive to children and risks ‘abuse’). In fact, the health maximising approach would assist these product in being as attractive as possible relative to cigarettes – and that includes using attractive non-tobacco flavours (of which there are many). The proliferation of flavours reinforces the view that these are recreational consumer products, not smoking cessation aids or medicines.  Note that the European Commission included a ban on flavourings in one of the options in its options appraisal (see option PO1 on page 77) and regards it as likely that flavours would be banned under medicines regulation:

In particular NCP with characterising flavours are unlikely to be authorised under the medicinal products’ legislation. (page 81)

However, flavourings are important ingredients in the success of e-cigarettes and in their appeal as an alternative to smokers.  David Dorn, a vaper and commentator on vaping, says:

For many it could be disastrous – they’ve moved away from “ciggie” flavours onto any one of dozens, in some cases, or, in many cases, they switch flavours during the day to suit their moods… This, apparently, is to get away from their taste buds becoming used to one flavour, so that every change makes it a “fresh” experience and helps them avoid going back to fags. It’s not something that bothers me, particularly, but I do know that for a very large proportion of folks, it’s a vital part of the e-cig experience. Without it, going back to cigs isn’t too much of a stretch. Folks are worried about it. The thing about e-cigs is that they’re customisable in terms of flavour, nicotine strength, diluent (and therefore vapour density) and temperature – so anyone, given the chance, can sort out for themselves something that gives them a much more attractive experience in comparison with cigarettes, the consequences of which are pretty obvious, really.

5. Unattractive labelling, warnings and counter-productive information (not required for cigarettes). The labelling and presentation of the products will change and become medicalised. However, the users just do not see themselves as in treatment and resent being treated that way. They clearly distinguish between e-cigs and NRT, the danger is that these products start to look like NRT: that is, medical and sterile. Article 54-69 covering detailed requirements for extensive labelling and insert leaflets – you can get an idea from the ‘Patient Information Leaflet’ for the Nicorette Inhalator.  The information that must be provided is far in excess of the bald but simplistic information required on cigarette packs – another significant regulatory imbalance.

6. Counter-productive marketing restrictions. The marketing of these products could be curtailed in ways that make the products less compelling to smokers – Article 86-99 cover advertising, information and marketing practices.  With e-cigarettes forced into being defined as  medicines, the directive would require them to be advertised as medicines (article 87):

2. All parts of the advertising of a medicinal product must comply with the particulars listed in the summary of product characteristics.
3. The advertising of a medicinal product — shall encourage the rational use of the medicinal product, by presenting it objectively and without exaggerating its properties […]

That seems unlikely to capture the imagination of the many smokers not seeking treatment or defining themselves as patients.

7. Manufacturing standards. Another regulatory imbalance with cigarettes would be application of Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) standards for pharmaceutical production – standards that are stricter than those required for food.  This may reshape the market to domestic production by larger companies, or it may simply kill off the existing suppliers.  Bearing in mind most of the exiting supply comes from China, what exactly do the regulators expect to happen?  Some questions:

  • Will Chinese or other non-EU manufacturers upgrade to comply or go elsewhere?
  • Will low-cost non-pharmaceutical e-cigs be supplied in a black market or through internet sales?
  • Will new high-spec manufacturers enter the market, and if so will they cover the whole EU and provide an adequate product range?
  • What is the appropriate ‘hygiene’ standard for nicotine delivery when most is delivered in a matrix of toxic smoke and poisonous gases?
  • Is this a technical barrier to trade, within the meaning of the Technical Barriers to Trade agreement of the WTO?

8. Mutual recognition and the role of other regulators. The UK regulator may take an ‘light touch’ approach (see its Q&A). But what if regulators elsewhere in Europe do not take such an enlightened view. The mutual recognition process, if applied, is more likely to take the regulation in a risk averse, more restrictive definition. If there are disputes, regulators try to forge a compromise, the Commission advises on what constitutes a serious public health risk. If that doesn’t resolve it,  the matter is referred to the  European Medicines Agency, which seeks an opinion from its Committee for Medical products for Human Use. In the light of that opinion, the European Commission makes a final decision. Articles 28-39 deal with the mutual recognition process – this is important because it could determine what happens if regulators in different EU states disagree.

9. Activism and legal action by threatened interests. Once covered by medicines regulation, it is possible that companies (or organisations) opposed to wider use of e-cigarettes on commercial or moralising grounds could use judicial review, or threat of judicial review, or other forms of advocacy to push regulators into more restrictive application of the regulations.  Pharmaceutical companies have a commercial interest in NRT and may consider this threatened by the rise of e-cigarettes.  The pharmaceutical companies’ responses to MHRA consultation on regulation on nicotine devices suggested they wanted regulation to be as risk averse as possible, raising many possible evidential hurdles (for example, see the GSK response at the end of this). Imperial Tobacco also demonstrated its hostility to e-cigarettes in its response, and groups like the European Respiratory Society have inexplicably hostile positions: “available research suggests that these products pose a significant health risk to citizens, placing them at continued high risk for disease and negative health outcomes”. The World Health Organisation has been especially short sighted. It has provided a ready-made hostile context in the shape of its recent paper on Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems – including e-cigarettes (ENDS – see paras 33 onwards).

10. Market stagnation and death of innovation. The danger is that a laborious, time-consuming regulatory process will freeze the market with mediocre products, when what is really needed is innovation and excitement in this field.  Remember the big picture – this is about people finding their way out of long-term smoking habits.  Note this excellent comment by Vapers Nightly News on the evolving market and importance of hyper-customisation – the exact opposite of the medicines regulatory philosophy.

But will all these bad things actually happen? Some aspects of the directive do not allow for discretion, and some do. So we cannot tell at this stage how medicines regulation will work out in practice for this market.  My main concern is that applying medicines regulation will open the door and provide leverage to all manner of prohibitionist and controlling instincts, of the type all too evident in the WHO document.

Are there potential benefits from medical regulation?  Yes there are – and these could be important for some vendors in some circumstances, and may provide a framework that would encourage larger companies to enter the market. It could help to legitimise and build confidence in the products – some retailers may like this assurance and it may help health care professionals discuss the potential benefits of switching with smokers (an approach adopted in the draft NICE guidance on tobacco harm reduction). It may clear up some ambiguity about whether the products can be advertised on TV or used indoors, and so remove other counter-productive regulation.   If (and only if) medicines regulation is applied in a sufficiently light touch way, these benefits might outweigh the costs and risks for some larger producers able to bear the compliance costs.

What’s the right thing to do?

So enough moaning about how bad it might be, what’s the way ahead?

A better way. The way to deal with this is not to close down the market for novel nicotine devices like e-cigarettes to only those that are approved medicines, but to have a two tier system. This would have a floor standard defined in the Tobacco Products Directive and general consumer legislation, with the option to opt in to medicines regulation for any vendor, if the benefits justify it. So that creates two tiers:

  1. A standard  tier is subject to a ‘floor standard’, which is defined by the ordinary consumer safety protection and a labelling regime defined in the tobacco products directive (this is the approach taken to e-cigarettes below the threshold).
  2. A  premium tier in which vendors opt in to medicine regulation. They would do that if they regard the advantages of a medicines marketing authorisation to outweigh the costs and wish to make a therapeutic ‘harm reduction’ claim.  In time, some retailers may demand this standard, health care providers might only recommend products that have this authorisation, so the advantages could be considerable.

Note that the Tobacco Products Directive already creates a two-tier system – nicotine containing products below the threshold are regulated under standard consumer protection legislation augmented by some specific requirements of the  proposed Tobacco Products Directive. NCPs above the threshold are regulated under the medicines directive.  This proposes a different alignment of the two tiers.

Use the normal consumer protection framework. The first thing to recognise is that thousands of products are placed on the market in Europe and many have the potential to be dangerous, not to be fit for purpose, not to be as described and so on. But we have a general consumer protection regime that works.  That is because there is a broad platform of consumer protection legislation, general obligations, specific directives, standards-setting bodies and enforcement regimes designed to protect consumers. It would be best to use this conventional approach to strike the right balancing between consumer protection and developing the market for these recreational alternatives to cigarettes.

The E-cigarette industry has already developed a strong voluntary standard, the Industry Standard of Excellence. This standard could form the basis of a mandatory code.  It draws primarily on existing consumer protection regulation protects consumers from dangerous products of all kinds. Some examples of applicable regulation below:

Regulation applicable to e-cigarettes (various UK jurisdictions)

  • General Product Safety Regulations 2005
  • Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations (CHIP) 2009
  • Weights & Measures (Packaged Goods) Regulations 2006
  • Plugs and Socket (Safety) Regulations 1994
  • The Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment Regulations 2006 (WEEE)
  • The Batteries and Accumulators (Placing on the Market) Regulations 2008
  • The Waste Batteries and Accumulators Regulations 2009
  • Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000
  • Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002
  • Data Protection Act 1998
  • Health and Safety at Work Act 1974
  • Control of Misleading Advertising Regulations (1998)
  • Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations (2008)
  • Enterprise Act (2002),
  • Unfair Trading Regulations (2008)
  • Advertising Standards Agency Code

Some examples of the regulatory tools available…

1. Safety. The EU’s general product safety framework already applies, including Directive 2001/95/EC (Article 1: “The purpose of this Directive is to ensure that products placed on the market are safe“). If more specific guidance is needed, then this could be included in the Tobacco Products Directive or through a Commission Decision made under Article 13 of the general product safety directive, as is the case for example, for the child safety of cigarette lighters (Commission Decision 2006/502/EC).

2. Labelling and packaging.  There is already a substantial body of non-food labelling regulation applied by the EU. The proposed Tobacco Products Directive already applies a labelling regime for products that fall below the threshold.

3. Claims. If the claim is for a therapeutic effect or health benefit, then it could be appropriate to apply the medicines directive 2001/83/EC.  This should be a matter for the vendor to decide. They shouldn’t be required to make a claim so that the claim they didn’t wish to make can be tested by a regulator using rules that make no sense to them. Simple provisions are applied in other legislation to test other claims, for example for cosmetics, Regulation EC 1223/2009 Article 20 states:

Product claims

1. In the labelling, making available on the market and advertising of cosmetic products, text, names, trade marks, pictures and figurative or other signs shall not be used to imply that these products have characteristics or functions which they do not have.

4. Quality and fit for purpose.  Does the product do what it is supposed to do? The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (s.13 and 14) provides the necessary consumer protections in UK law. As the Office of Fair Trading puts it:

The Act provides that any contract for the sale of goods will include implied terms that the goods are:

  • of a satisfactory quality, that is of a standard that a reasonable person would consider to be satisfactory, free from fault or defect, fit for their usual purpose, of a reasonable appearance and finish, safe, and durable. The price paid is an important consideration as a reasonable consumer should not expect top quality at rock bottom prices,
  • fit for the purpose, that is as well as being fit for the purpose for which they are generally sold, goods should also be fit for any specific or particular purpose made known at the time of the agreement. For example, if a consumer asks for a food mixer that beats, whisks, and kneads dough then the one the seller gives them should do all of those things,
  • as described, that is the goods should correspond with any description applied to them whether this be verbally, through words and pictures on a sign, on packaging, or on an advertisement. For example, a pair of trousers described on the label as being “100 per cent pure cotton” should be just that

Trading standards services and OFT have the necessary enforcement powers.

5. Standards. At European level is is possible to develop specific product standards (often seen with a ‘CE marking‘).  This is known as the New Approach (which has been around a while now).  Under this approach, essential requirements such as safety and hygeine are drawn up in EU directives and then European standards bodies set out technical specifications to meet these essential requirements – many products are regulated through this system.

Lack of consultation on regulatory options so far is a weakness. It looks as though almost no attention has been paid to the health and commercial consequence of introducing a medicines regulatory framework, nor has there been proper consideration of alternative regulatory strategies. Given this could be part of a long end-game for cigarettes with a billion lives globally at stake in the present century, consultation has been very poor. The Commission’s 2010 consultation for the directive simply asked if novel nicotine products should come within the scope of the proposed new directive.  It did not examine the implications of different regulatory approaches and there was no obvious consensus in the responses – see 6.1 on p9.  It has not consulted on the options that it set out in the impact assessment for the TPD (see Commissison’s impact assessment: p52-53 and 77-83) and has not taken any views from those affected by these decisions.

How should the directive change to support the development of e-cigarettes as an alternative to smoking?

The overall change required is that these products should be regulated as recreational consumer products with cigarettes as their main comparator, not as medicines for ‘treatment’ of smoking with NRT as the main comparator. To do this, the TPD should be revised do six things differently with respect to NCPs (updated 9 March):

  1. Drop the requirement for mandatory medicine regulation, and allow this to become an opt-in for manufacturers who want to make a therapeutic claim or see commercial advantages in a medicines license;
  1. Remove the arbitrary  and poorly specified threshold in TPD Article 18.1 – it is not necessary to have a threshold, or alternatively set this at a level that captures only very high strength mixing liquids (>75 mg/ml nicotine density);
  1. Re-assert the basic framework of European consumer protection applies, and refer to or restate these. Member states all have legislation and institutional capacity to address this need.
  1. As necessary, create a basis for a future light touch non-medicines regulatory regime, for example through a CE marking, Commission Decision or new regulation or directive specific to NCPs – the consumer protection tools exist outside medicines regulation;
  1. Add a meaningful mandatory label proportionate to the risk and encouraging smokers to switch;
  1. Design a proper transitional arrangement that will not destroy or drive away incumbents with no guarantee of adequate new entrants. The EU should not overburden small businesses with regulation where this is not necessary

Comments retrieved

29 comments to Medicines regulation for e-cigarettes – when caution can kill

  • A really excellent analysis and a very solid proposal for progress.

    Thank you, Clive.

  • This is probably the most insightful analysis of the current situation, and certainly the most sensible set of proposals I’ve seen in quite a while. I would urge every reader to copy it to their MP and MEP, and every radio station, television station and other news outlets that they can.

  • I would like to re-emphasize point number 4 and Dave Dorn’s comment.

    Each aspect of an electronic cigarette and the associated liquids and accessories are as essential as each other to making what is essentially ‘electronic cigarette use’.

    Factors such as the size of the device, the shape (and feeling) of the drip tip mouth piece, the specfic flavoring, cloudiness of the vapor exhaled (%VG), temperature of the vapor, the air flow (draw), as well as nicotine concentration (contributing to BOTH throat hit level sensation and blood-nicotine requirements), all make up what is essentially ‘electronic cigarette use’.

    Most importantly, each factor’s involvement varies depending on the product and/or user self-set ups. Even the appearance (e.g color, pattern design, shape, size) of the electronic cigarette device can be considered an essential part of the use. In other words, Personal Customization is vital for electronic cigarettes to work.

    Vaping only works because it is customizable, which is why it is critical that products such as liquids containing various levels of nicotine (aka “loose juice”), various Glycern(VG)/Glycol(PG) ratios, various flavorings, various refillable cartridge types/designs, and various battery types must remain available to consumers. For some users, DIY products are an absolute necessity.

    Each week, electronic cigarette designers are inventing news ways to make devices that offer even more customizabiltiy (see latest MiD device for example). The more customizability, the more chance a smoker will be able to find his or her preferred setup that will reduce their tobacco smoking.

  • Dave

    Thanks Clive. An excellent and thorough piece of work.

    I still struggle to understand how ERS have the audacity to use ‘primum non nocere’ (first do no harm)in an argument that fails to evaluate the research they are relying upon. I can only believe that to reach such conclusions they must have only used secondary sources and never actually looked at the research itself. A novice researcher could see the flaws in the ‘evidence’ they use to support their case. They should change their latin byword to “Primum excrucio” (first cause great pain);)

  • Clive Bates

    ERS are just one of many “health” groups (always in quotes now) saying totally stupid and irresponsible things about e-cigarettes, and they aren’t the worst:

    The American Lung Association, American Cancer Society and Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids called forregulators to “pull e-cigarettes from the marketplace“!

    And thank goodness for the warning from the Canadian Lung Association: “Don’t be fooled by e-cigarettes”.

    The BMA is little better, it says: “These devices directly undermine the effects and intentions of existing legislation including the ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces“.

    Cancer Research UK continues its remorseless promotion of cancer by pretending that nothing is known, when in fact we know that none of the toxins present in cigarette smoke is present in vapour in any meaningful concentration.

    ASH stands out as sensible, but I can’t find many others.

  • Dave

    Yes – some of the organisations you mention are probably worse than ERS. I have already tried to approach the BMA in early January and I’ve also written to CRUK today, as I was really suprised by the piece on their site you pointed to. I hadn’t seen it before & I can’t help but feel the hand of big pharma at work there.

    I’ve basically made the argument that someone should review the primary research and consider the flaws and then give thought to the consequences of their anti-lifeboat stance.
    You can but try

  • Unfortunately, Clive, all the organisations you mention above seem to be largely blinded by over-zealous ideology, and a (thoroughly misguided) belief that they can eliminate smoking by making everybody quit – using ‘approved’ medicinal products which don’t work, and indeed CANNOT work, because smoking isn’t a disease, and the vast majority of smokers do not want treatment. The denormalisation of smokers is nothing short of cruel and unusual punishment, especially considering how comparatively recently smoking was promoted by many in the medical profesion.

    You have put forward the most comprehensive and common sense approach I have seen from anyone who is not from ‘within’ the vaping community! We can but hope that someone will pay some attention and listen. I fear it is a vain hope, since many of these decisions appear to have been made long, long ago, in various corridors of power, without – as you rightly point out – ANY attention paid to the very valid concerns of all those directly affected by these issues.

    Fortunately, there are standards and Codes of Conduct which apply to policy-makers, just as there are to the many small to medium enterprises involved in the sale of electronic cigarettes. Just as those traders are required to operate to certain standards, with various necessary restrictions for the protection of the public from sub-standard products and fair trading requirements (as you rightly point out above), so too, the policy-makers have to abide by a variety of ‘rules’ which govern how they govern.

    For example, any proposal for new regulations (of any kind) must be ‘appropriate’ and ‘proportionate’. There are various requirements for the conduct of consultation processes and impact assessments. Both the UK MHRA and the European Commission have fallen far short of their own Codes of Conduct and standards in their consultation processes, and the proposals they have put forward. (See, for an example of this, the Regulatory Policy Committee’s Opinion on the MHRA’s consultation, which I analysed here:

    The light at the end of the tunnel is that someone, somewhere, can hold the policy-makers to account for these actions, and insist that they take a more proportionate and appropriate position. Ultimately, I believe this is what will happen. The alternative is too awful to contemplate: enforcement officers all over the European Union utterly overwhelmed by the explosion of a black market of seriously dangerous products, goodness knows how many deaths and serious adverse events caused by sub-standard products (i.e. NOT complying with the current robust regulations, as you have outlined above), and little hope of being able to get any of the bolted horses back into any stable capable of containing them!

    Let’s hope the efforts of true, unbiased public health advocates, such as yourself and an increasing number of your colleagues, can persuade them of the error of their ways before it is too late.

    Thank you so much for what you are doing in support of vaping. Your clear elucidation of the true position is a much-needed contribution to the debate.

  • […] picture – this is about people finding their way out of long-term smoking habits.  Note this excellent comment by Vapers Nightly News on the evolving market and importance of hyper-customisatio… – the exact opposite of the medicines regulatory […]

  • Anthony

    I find the BMA & MHRA approach nonsensical and I wait in eagerness for someone to make a Freedom of Information Act request to the MHRA to find out what communications there have been between the MHRA and the pharmaceutical industry on the subject of electronic cigarettes. It would also be interesting to know what funding or personnel have joined the MHRA from the pharmaceutical industry and vica versa recently. Just how fast does the revolving door spin.

  • Tony

    As Dick Puddlecote has been saying for as long as I can remember it was never about health.

    These crackpots are trying to get people back onto the cigarettes purely to preserve their own NRT gravy train.

  • […] With a tagline of “when caution can kill”, former ASH Director Clive Bates has written another very intelligent – and important – article on e-cigs and the unintelligent EU’s disgraceful plan to kill them […]

  • Jonathan Bagley

    I was looking at a friend’s nicotine spray. It contained 150mg of nicotine and each squirt delivered 1mg. One ml of my liquid (aprroximately a cartridge refill) contains 24mg. If this is genuinely thought to be dangerous, sale of the spray would not have been approved. There is not much to stop a child repeatedly spraying nicotine into his mouth – apart from the disgusting taste and the violent hiccuping it brings on. Objections on safety grounds are just not credible.

  • […] Why would governments make it harder to put these products on the market than the much more dangerous products they are designed to replace or compete with? Read novelist Lionel Shriver (We need to talk about Kevin) on Puritans and the powerful – and tobacco smokers – can’t take the fact that electronic cigarettes are harmless and enjoyable . For more background on e-cigarettes this ASH fact sheet is good. [Update Feb 2013… an in depth posting on medicines regulation and e-cigs: Medicines regulation and e-cigarettes: when caution can kill. […]
  • Unfortunately, I agree with Tony about what Dick Puddlecote said, it’s never been about the health, about the children or about the general good. Why do you think no one is talking about harm reduction when it comes to smoking? They want you to quit by way of pharma products or just stay on analogs and either way make someone a lot of money.

    This was indeed one of the most insightful articles I’ve read on the present situation of e-cigs, but sadly I don’t think it’s going to convince the right people. Unless maybe you can also fill their pockets, Clive.

    • Clive Bates

      Bribery might be worth a try… unfortunately, Commissioner Dalli and his dodgy friend got there first and set the price at €60 million, which is beyond my budget.

    • Agreed. A perfect example is that there was a documentary a few months ago about how big pharma companies (ie Pfizer) abandoned research on “super viruses” immune to any antibiotics known to mankind. Super viruses have become more common place recently, but because spending a few billion dollars on research to treat only a few dozen cases a year doesn’t make economical sense, the entire facility and research team has been disbanded.

      Similarly, why should society embrace a product that eliminates all carcinogens and will likely decrease the number of cancer patients? It’s a no-brainer in terms of benefits, but once again, economics are the biggest factor.

  • Charles

    Firstly, well done and thank-you for putting together such rational and well thought out arguments on the subject of vaping.

    I have seen the website enabling easy contact with MPs/MEPs and shall be contacting my MEP regarding the directive. However, I can’t help thinking that a distilled version of your wisdom put online as an e-petition would attract an awful lot more signatures than are likely to materialise when expecting individual vapers to construct their own letters in full.

    In fact I would have thought that posting details of such a petition to the various e-cig user forums could see it go seriously viral as friends & families are asked to participate, and given the ‘ease’ of signing up. I certainly hope that you will consider such a move as I have not yet found anything similar on the internet.

    Otherwise, there have been numerous legal actions in the US and Europe that have successfully challenged attempts to restrict/regulate vaping at both state and national level. Surely a collation of the key issues upheld in the court in favour of vaping would be of great value in opposing this directive and recruiting MPs/MEPs to the vaping cause ?

    Best, Charles.

  • […] The RPC opinion was, in my view, exactly right in its criticisms.  This is an enormously burdensome regime, and wholly disproportionate to any risk.  In fact it creates significant risks of its own, by potentially reducing competition with cigarettes and smothering in restrictive red tape what appear to be very successful, low risk alternatives to smoking.  I have recently set out the risks arising from excessive regulation in this area. […]

  • […] The RPC opinion was, in my view, exactly right in its criticisms.  This is an enormously burdensome regime, and wholly disproportionate to any risk.  In fact it creates significant risks of its own, by potentially reducing competition with cigarettes and smothering in restrictive red tape what appear to be very successful, low risk alternatives to smoking.  I have recently set out the risks arising from excessive regulation in this area. […]

  • […] More information, including referenced sources and detailed recommendations is available here: Medicines regulation for e-cigarettes: when caution can kill […]

  • […] More information, including referenced sources and detailed recommendations is available here: Medicines regulation for e-cigarettes: when caution can kill […]

  • […] restrictions.  I have written at length about the dangers of applying excessive regulation (see Medicines Regulation for e-cigarettes: when caution can kill) and tipping the balance in favour of  smoking (see Reduce harm or protect the cigarette […]

  • […] for cigarettes – the main rival. I’ve set out the dangers in an earlier posting: Medicines regulation for e-cigarettes – when caution can kill.  I don;t think anyone in the companies already trying to get medical marketing authorisations […]

  • fred wood

    Just another government ploy to get more money out of taxing e liquid. Pharmacuetics want to control e cigs to make more money.. discusting .

  • […] Therapeutic claims. It does not validate a therapeutic (ie. health) claim, such as “will help you quit smoking” or “prevents cancer”. Companies that wish to make therapeutic claims should apply for a marketing authorisation under the Medicines Directive 2001/83/EC . […]

  • […] approach than the MHRA. I have explained the risks of excessive regulation in this post: Medicines regulation for e-cigarettes: when caution can kill. The point is a simple if paradoxical – if you over-regulate the low risk alternatives to […]

  • First I appreciate your effort of research on e cigarette. You have write long article. It is not important that e cigarette use as medicine or not important is e cigarette banned or not. Government wait for the result of FDA then it will announce rules on e cigarette which may not in fever of e cigarette. So hope for the best.

Download Post as PDF

3 thoughts on “Medicines regulation for e-cigarettes – when caution can kill”

  1. Medical regulation would be absolute insanity. The free market has already done a tremendous job in spreading the best and most effective solution to desperate cigarette smokers (e-cigs), and has done so in a way where costs drop each and every year as products improve in quality! Get government out of people’s purchasing decisions and let them make their own choices.

    Hell, look at what the war on drugs has done to reduce drug usage! Just about nothing. When you restrict supply and demand remains constant, the only thing that changes is price! Guess we didn’t learn our lessons from alcohol prohibition in this country…it doesn’t work.

  2. Pingback: » Helsegevinsten tåkelegges

  3. Ok so now it’s 2017 and the new laws and e-liquids and e-cigarettes is coming in on the 20th May. So what do the new laws mean? Eliquids cannot be sold in containers larger than 10ml, canisters on e-cigarettes are to be 2ml maximum. No larger strength of nicotine than 20mg, some additives and colouring agents have been banned, tougher labelling and child resistant packaging for e-liquids. Only registered products with the medicines and healthcare regulatory agency can be sold. So what does this really mean, only good things for the industry we think. All the reputable e-liquids already have had their e-liquid flavours approved and that’s got to be good news for any vapers health right?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top