Connecticut bill (HB 5286) would require labels covering 60% of e-cig packages listing contents & nicotine yield, hearing Feb 28

[Bill Godshall]

Connecticut bill (HB 5286) would require all e-cig products (including components and accessories that contain no nicotine) manufactured, imported or sold in Connecticut to contain labels covering 60% of package listing the “purported contents and nicotine yield”. Referred to the Joint Committee on Public Health, public hearing scheduled for February 28.
Bill Status 
AN ACT REQUIRING LABELING OF ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES.


We need to get lots of folks testifying at the Feb 28 hearing, which is being held by the Joint (i.e. both House and Senate) Health Cmte.

Another reason why many vapers, vape shops, and e-cig manufacturers/importers/retailers must aggressively oppose state manufacturing, packaging or labeling legislation.

The purpose of this bill is destroy the e-cig industry in Connecticut and worldwide (under the false guise of informing and protecting e-cig consumers in Connecticut).



(b) (1) No person shall manufacture, package, sell, offer to sell, distribute, or import for sale or distribution within the state any electronic nicotine delivery system, the package of which fails to bear a label stating the contents and nicotine yield of such electronic nicotine delivery system.

(2) Such label shall be located on the front of the package containing an electronic nicotine delivery system underneath any cellophane or other clear wrapping. The text of the label statement shall be in conspicuous and legible seventeen point type, unless the text of the label statement would occupy more than seventy per cent of the front of the package, in which case the text may be in a smaller conspicuous and legible type size, provided at least sixty per cent of the front of the package is occupied by required text. The text shall be black on a white background, or white on a black background, in a manner that contrasts, by typography, layout or color, with all other printed material on the package and shall be legible through the package's cellophane or other clear wrapping.

(c) Any person selling, offering for sale or distributing in this state any electronic nicotine delivery system required to be labeled as provided in this section shall be responsible for ensuring that such electronic nicotine delivery system is so labeled, except a retailer of electronic nicotine delivery systems shall not be in violation of this subsection for packaging that:

(1) Contains a label listing the purported contents and nicotine yield; (2) is supplied to the retailer by a manufacturer, importer or distributor of electronic nicotine delivery systems; and (3) is not altered by the retailer in a way that is material to the requirements of this section.


(d) The provisions of this section shall be enforced by the Commissioner of Consumer Protection.

(e) Any person who knowingly violates any provision of this section shall be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed one thousand dollars per day, per product. Calculation of such civil penalty shall not be made or multiplied by the number of individual packages of the same product displayed or offered for retail sale. Civil penalties assessed under this section shall accrue and be assessed per each uniquely named, designated or marketed product.

 

[2coils]

OMG! WHO ACTUALLY THINKS THIS CRAP UP! Devious People! We are no longer an anti smoking society. NOW AN Anti nicotine society. This bill has no good intentions. AGAIN going far over the scope of the state, as far as im concerned. THOSE WHO WELCOMED REGULATION, HERE WE GO, ITS COMING. There will be no reasonable standards without a hell of a fight!

 

[ut1205]

Do these people lay awake at night thinking up this crap? A label covering 60% to 70% of the packaging? Even cigarettes (or any other product) don't have to do that.

 

[squee]

Do these people lay awake at night thinking up this crap? A label covering 60% to 70% of the packaging? Even cigarettes (or any other product) don't have to do that.

I think headline is confusing 2 different things. What it's saying is, you have to have a label on a package, in 17pt type, stating that it contains pg, vg, flavors, and the amount of nicotine. If you have a starter kit or Blu or whatever, that label won't take up that much room - and that's fine. BUT, if you are selling a package of cartridges, that label might take up the whole package - so, if it would take up 70% or more of your package, you can reduce the typeface size so that it takes up no more than 60% (meaning you can't have it in teeny tiny type)

 

[FlamingoTutu]

I get the gist of this but does this bill, as written, strike you as one of the most poorly thought out ones ever written?

“(1) "Electronic nicotine delivery system" means an electronic device that may be used to simulate smoking by delivering nicotine or other substance to a person inhaling from the device and includes, but is not limited to, an electronic cigarette, electronic cigar, electronic cigarillo or electronic pipe, and any related device and any cartridge or other component of such device;”

How would you know the nicotine content of a battery? They’d have to label drip tips too. Not to mention O-rings, cotton, wire, wick, mesh and so on. Will this have to go on the nicotine inhalers too? Looks like they may be illegal for Connecticut pharmacies to import/sell too but maybe they stepped around that by using "electronic device." Bet BP helped out with the wording on that sentence.

 

[squee]

I get the gist of this but does this bill, as written, strike you as one of the most poorly thought out ones ever written?

Nah, you wanna see a badly written bill, check out the one from FL that was to ban online gambling but actually made all use of the internet illegal. And that one actually passed into law before anyone realized what they'd done! Oops

“...and any related device and any cartridge or other component of such device;”

How would you know the nicotine content of a battery?

LOL I assume they were doing that instead of listing cartos, clearos, tanks, rda, etc... Probably thinking "or whatever the heck they come out with next". Smileomizer, anyone?

Thing is, I don't have any real objections to proper labeling of products - I like knowing what's in the item I'm buying. What bugs me about this is, where are all the massive labels for other products? Cigarettes don't have them. Cigars don't have any at all. Alcohol? Ya need to squint to find the proof pct on some bottles. How about GMO labeling on food stuffs? Or instead of these labels on the front of all ecig products, how about they just have to hand you a little pamphlet in 2pt font about the ingredients and possible side effects like they do with pharma products?

 

[DPLongo22]

Unfortunately, given the political landscape in this fair (to poor) state, this trash-of-a-bill will fly through like Taco Bell meal after a night of heavy tequila drinking.

 

[Plumes.91]

While labeling doesn't sound like such a bad thing to most of us, I'm sure... Do you think Janty, Kanger, or any other e-cigarette manufacturer is going to change their packaging for one US state? No, they aren't. Which would make sale of their products illegal within Connecticut. (Unless the shop actually creates labels for the products they sell.. But, if I'm not mistaken, this bill Bans that as well)

So, this is basically making it illegal to sell e-cigarettes (namely cig-alikes, because, they cannot control advanced items) in CT. So I am assuming the residents of CT are going to fight this hard as possible, yes? Please PM me if you are from CT. Anyone involved in this gathering, please PM me. Thank you.

 

[DPLongo22]

I would love to attend, Plumes, but I'm afraid that I'm unable to do so. I've already written my representatives, but I highly doubt they even read my BS any longer.

And I hate to sound like a defeatist, but 52 years in this state and I'm trying hard to recall the regulation that didn't pass. In "slanted" states (such as CT, CA, etc.), the inherent belief appears to that laws are written to prevent "crimes", not to establish & punish them. Therefore it's common to over-legislate, accompanied by a feeling of accomplishment, with each new passing regulation.

They will celebrate this as if they've discovered a cure for cancer. It's what they do here.

So, bring on the Taco Bell and please keep the bathroom clear.

 

[George.B]

While I agree that a ban for minors is a good thing, The labeling proposal is ridiculous. Vendors have hundreds if not thousands of items which by themselves contain no nicotine, and never will. Concerning the yield requirement, has a nicotine yield ever been successfully quantified? I have seen a mg concentration on nicorette inhalers, but not a yield on their packaging.
Alcohol is far more harmful than vaping, but we don't see the same labeling requirements for their packaging or related items.

 

[Plumes.91]

BUMP. This is a serious Bill. If they ban sale of e-cigs without manufacturer labeling, ALL cig-alikes will be banned in CT except the name-brand e-cigs, such as the ones owned and sold by Big Tobacco. This is one of the most destructive bills I've ever read & this needs immediate attention from the entire ECF community! Tell me you guys are taking this seriously!!

If this bill doesn't deserve a yellow headline at the top of each and every page, I don't know what does. This is a huge hit to e-cigarettes & I hope this wont set precedent for other states. This needs to be stickied if I understand this bill correctly. This bill will make it so that only manufacturers/distributers that follow these specific labeling laws will be able to sell e-cigarettes within CT. This is an obvious BT lobbying bill.

#J0ker #classwife #HELPCT!

 

[Plumes.91]

I would love to talk to someone that knows what happened with the last CT bill that banned vaping in public places. What happened with that one? Why does Los Angelus get a yellow headline sticky for their Public Places ban? I don't think we ever got one. I think we need some support for this bill that would quite effectively ban sale of unbranded e-cigarettes. (any kits sold by brick & mortars)

Please give CT some attention moderators! This is a BIG Bill, not only for CT but for the nation.

 

[squee]

Okay, so I'm re-reading this and 2 things pop out at me:

1. It seems like it's saying that if it doesn't have a label, you have to label it - okay. But the 17pt type thing is unenforceable because it doesn't specify a font. As we all know, 17pt in one font can be quite tiny and in another, HUGE.

2. This section:

(c) Any person selling, offering for sale or distributing in this state any electronic nicotine delivery system required to be labeled as provided in this section shall be responsible for ensuring that such electronic nicotine delivery system is so labeled, except a retailer of electronic nicotine delivery systems shall not be in violation of this subsection for packaging that:

(1) Contains a label listing the purported contents and nicotine yield; (2) is supplied to the retailer by a manufacturer, importer or distributor of electronic nicotine delivery systems; and (3) is not altered by the retailer in a way that is material to the requirements of this section.

Seems to be saying that a retailer on non-labeled items has to label them. BUT, if your item is already labeled by the manufacturer, even though that label may not comply with the size requirements, etc.. then it's fine. So if a shop puts together starter kits themselves, they have to label it accordingly - and if they sell kits from Njoy or Blu or whatever that have their own labels, that's fine.

Am I reading that right or...?

 

[George.B]

I believe they are thinking a 17 point font in helvetica, or whatever generically readable font is available like that. As far as labeling, I think they have lumped everything together under the name "electronic delivery system" which infers that vendors would have to put their labels on everything.

 

[Bovinia]

Okay, so I'm re-reading this and 2 things pop out at me:

1. It seems like it's saying that if it doesn't have a label, you have to label it - okay. But the 17pt type thing is unenforceable because it doesn't specify a font. As we all know, 17pt in one font can be quite tiny and in another, HUGE.

2. This section:


Seems to be saying that a retailer on non-labeled items has to label them. BUT, if your item is already labeled by the manufacturer, even though that label may not comply with the size requirements, etc.. then it's fine. So if a shop puts together starter kits themselves, they have to label it accordingly - and if they sell kits from Njoy or Blu or whatever that have their own labels, that's fine.

Am I reading that right or...?

As worded, it appears to me that they have Vape Shops specifically in mind, and not necessarily the prepackaged (Blu, NJoy) kits that are sold in quickie stores, tobacco shops etc. It would put a huge burden on the vape shops who buy wholesale, and mix juices in house.

Plumes, the ban bill died last year. The deadline expired before it was brought back for the vote.

 

[classwife]

#J0ker #classwife #HELPCT!

What does this mean ?

 

[Bovinia]

Classie, I think it's referring to adding this notice to the Call to Action header in yellow at the top of every ECF page

 

[sonicdsl]

BUMP. This is a serious Bill. If they ban sale of e-cigs without manufacturer labeling, ALL cig-alikes will be banned in CT except the name-brand e-cigs, such as the ones owned and sold by Big Tobacco. This is one of the most destructive bills I've ever read & this needs immediate attention from the entire ECF community! Tell me you guys are taking this seriously!!

If this bill doesn't deserve a yellow headline at the top of each and every page, I don't know what does. This is a huge hit to e-cigarettes & I hope this wont set precedent for other states. This needs to be stickied if I understand this bill correctly. This bill will make it so that only manufacturers/distributers that follow these specific labeling laws will be able to sell e-cigarettes within CT. This is an obvious BT lobbying bill.

#J0ker #classwife #HELPCT!

Plumes - if you need help with something, or have a question, you should PM one of us, or use the contacts page (linked at the top and bottom of every page).

I happened to see this, so I did bring it to the attention of Rolygate & SJ (they are the ones with the functionality to do that).

 

[sonicdsl]

I can't find a Call To Action from CASAA on this, did anyone see one that I missed?

 

[Bovinia]

I didn't Sonic, I just saw it here tonight. Thank you for giving this your attention.