EU EU ENVI committee 'workshop' on e-cigarettes - May 7th

[elpa]

Hi there,
I have just watched the meeting and I would like to pass some quick remarks:

1. I don't think the e-cigs makers are being singled out, but that more generally the claims and agenda of the "new" e-cig industry are being taken with a grain of salt (altough they were not referring to a specific representative of the e-cig industries). The argument that the e-cig industry is somewhat akin to cig industry does hold some water, for e-cigs and liquids vendors do indeed have a vested interest in people not stopping their vaping.

2. The point that tobacco cigarettes wouldn't be marketable, if they were to be introduced today, for reason of health concerns, is a particularly interesting one, as it kind of suggest that no further regulation on tobacco cigs is possible (including maybe a wholesale ban) for "historical reason" of the fact tobacco cigs were marketed well before any health concern was arisen and regulation introduced.

I read it as plain admission that no such product as a tobacco cigarette should be marketed right now. It's stunning.

Yet, a product such as e-cigs that, we all hope, will be repeatedly proved to be considerably less harmful than cigarettes, is now in the center of attention, whereas it appears that no further attention should be dedicated to cigarettes.

How comes? After all, aren't cigarettes another nicotine vector, altought an arguably far more dangerous one? Why shouldn't they be sold in pharmacies, if e-cigs were to be sold, hypothetically, in pharmacies?

I have this tingling sensation that the cig industry may be quite interested into having the e-cigs becoming the equivalent of tobacco cigs, if e-cigs were to be sold without limitations, for that may lift the restrictions on tobacco cigs. In other words, the tobacco lobby may be interested into turning the e-cigs into a trojan horse, something nobody actually wants because we all know tobacco cigs ARE actually harmful.

On the flip side, big tobacco may be quite interested into making e-cigs an heavily "quality controlled" product, for they would be the only one with enough financial strenght to setup and respect very stringent pharma rules.

I do have some experience in lobbying, would others in the forum with such experience like to comment on my rather "tangential" views?

 

[Oliver]

Hi Elpa,

It's all about realpolitik. The reason cigarettes are protected (as they surely are) is for historical, cultural and, of course, economic reasons. Their continued presence on the market is due to grandfathering - ie. Whenever a directive is issued, a date is set and any product being regulated that was not on the market prior to that date is not allowed on the market.

This is precisely what happened with the 2001 TPD, and is why there have been no new tobacco products on the market in the last 10 years in the EU. A good example of a non-cigarette grandfathered tobacco product is Snus, which is only allowed in Sweden because it was widely available and used prior to the cut-off date (the Swedes also lobbied hard for it to be allowed, but that's another story). Snus is also commonly cited as a good example of the unintended consequences of poorly considered regulation; in trying to protect consumers from new forms of tobacco, they removed a form of tobacco that is vastly safer than cigarettes, thus protecting the existing market.

As to whether it's a surprising admission - I don't think so. I think it's commonly accepted that tobacco's continued availability is absurd but inevitable, given the issues relating to consumer choice etc. It's also sensible given the history of prohibition. Regulatory authorities have taken the view that the best way to deal with tobacco is to leave it available to consumers, but to tackle the use via the medical approach, education, restrictions on point of sale, and by taxation. It's this approach that has run out of steam, and needs novel approaches (ecigs, for example) to make a difference.

Regarding e-cigs, then, we are at a strange juncture. My belief is that most of the commission/committee members are so coloured by the historical issues of tobacco marketing that they cannot see the benefits of e-cigarettes, which they (at least initially, before it is explained to them) view as being equivalent.

There is also the issue of nicotine and addiction, which people still view as being the central issue - again, for historical reasons, since the focus has been for the last 20 or 30 years on the addictive nature of tobacco and what can be done to deal with it. Unfortunately, the medicalisation of the issue has made very little inroads into actually treating nicotine dependence. If it had, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. Indeed, the research I've read seems to suggest that lowered smoking rates are not because of people quitting, but because fewer people start smoking - so we have to conclude that this is success of education rather than treatment.

And education works both ways, it would seem. It's now incumbent on us, e-cigarette users, to educate the regulators and I'm happy to say that this is happening - but more is needed, all the way across Europe.

 

[Oliver]

Hi there,
1. I don't think the e-cigs makers are being singled out, but that more generally the claims and agenda of the "new" e-cig industry are being taken with a grain of salt (altough they were not referring to a specific representative of the e-cig industries). The argument that the e-cig industry is somewhat akin to cig industry does hold some water, for e-cigs and liquids vendors do indeed have a vested interest in people not stopping their vaping.

This is true, but by the same token, e-cigarette manufacturers also have a vested interest in not killing their users. If we want to be cynical about it, this is both because they want the users to continue to make purchases, and also because they are not protected in the same way that tobacco companies are (again, for historical reasons - people now know about the dangers of cigarettes, so if they succumb to them, tobacco companies are not responsible, or so goes the argument).