Despite the fact that there are no known harms to bystanders from the aerosol from vapour devices, and that many people are using them to quit smoking, only one council, Enfield, has a policy which encourages the use these devices, which are estimated to be a total least 95% safer than smoking tobacco cigarettes.
The key findings of the report are:
Clearly there are situations where for either operational, public image, or other reasons it may be inappropriate to allow staff to vape, but there is absolutely no excuse for a blanket ban in line with smoking legislation, much less a policy which requires non smokers or those trying to quit with vapour devices to go to a smoking shelter to vape. Indeed on that subject Public Health England says the following:
"It is never acceptable to require vapers to share the same outdoor space with smokers. Where a designated outdoor smoking area has been provided in a public place or workplace, vapers should be allowed to vape elsewhere."
The Public Health England advice entitled 'Use of E-cigarettes in Workplaces' lists five key considerations when setting policy:
The policies set by the vast majority of local authorities in the UK ignore some or all of the recommendations by Public Health England, have no justification and will discourage people from switching from smoking to vaping. This is unacceptable. The Freedom Association report includes a handy list of local authorities and their policies - we suggest you locate yours and write them a polite and appropriate letter. If you live in the London Borough of Enfield please write to them to congratulate them for being a beacon of common sense in a sea of lazy thinking. The full report is available here.
Update: our friends at Vapers in Power have made it easy for you to do just that:
INNCO global members support UKCTAS in their critique of the WHO FCTC policy on e-cigarettes.
Today, the International Network of Nicotine Consumer Organisations (INNCO) added its support to a critical report released this morning by leading academics attached to the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies (UKCTAS), in response to the WHO’s FCTC latest report on e-cigarettes (or ENDS as the WHO inexplicably insist on calling them).
The report by the WHO forms the basis for discussions at the forthcoming Conference of the Parties (COP7) in Delhi 7-12 November on the global Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). The FCTC’s 180 signatories will decide on future global policy relating to cigarettes and other combustible tobacco products, smokeless tobacco and e-cigarettes.
The last EU meeting to finalise the collective 28-member EU position on e-cigarettes took place earlier this week in Brussels.
Atakan Befrits, INNCO’s press officer said “Reports suggest the EU statement will not contain any positive statements on the risk reduction e-cigarettes offer for smokers, despite recent evidence reviews by Public Health England and the Royal College of Physicians that showed enormous benefits for those who switch”.
INNCO called upon all EU Ministers of Health to give immediate attention to the issues raised in the UKCTAS critique of the WHO report, stating - It is important that the EU collective response to e-cigarettes reflects the positive health benefits conferred on smokers who switch to safer nicotine products and these benefits, as well as potential risks, are assessed objectively.
Judy Gibson, the Steering Group Coordinator of INNCO said “The WHO’s current policy on e-cigarettes is more likely to endanger public health instead of improving it. Once again the WHO remains resolute in refusing to acknowledge scientific evidence and opinions from the world’s leading experts in tobacco addiction. This needs to change - now."
In preparation for the Conference of the Parties of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control meeting in India next month a report was prepared for WHO on Electronic Nicotine Delivery Devices (ENDS) and related products. The report is available online at: http://www.who.int/fctc/cop/cop7/FCTC_COP_7_11_EN.pdf
John Britton, director of the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, together with colleagues has prepared a response to the WHO report, which can be read in full here.
John Britton said: "In our view the WHO report takes a somewhat unbalanced view of ENDS, in particular by failing to consider or discuss the potential of these products to complement tobacco control policy by providing smokers who have proved unwilling or unable to quit smoking with an effective and far less harmful means of consuming nicotine. Experience in the UK indicates that the availability of electronic cigarettes is proving beneficial to public health. It is important that these benefits, as well as potential risks, are assessed objectively in the formulation of WHO policy."
Let's hope that that is a message that the UK delegation, whoever they may be, will take to COP7.
Top Scientists Hire Libel Lawyers To Sue The Times - full press release issued by the claimants.
- The Times had accused scientists devoted to ending smoking of being in the pay of big tobacco companies
- The newspaper has already been forced to publish a detailed apology to one of the experts it named
- Cancer Research UK has refused to back The Times’ description of the charity’s viewpoint
A group of senior scientists and public health experts has hired libel specialists at Lewis Silkin to sue The Times for making highly defamatory allegations.
The experts who have devoted their careers to helping to reduce the death toll from smoking, were accused by the paper of being in the pay of tobacco companies. On Wednesday 12 October 2016 under the headline “Tobacco giants fund vaping studies”
The Times wrongly accused the experts of accepting money from the tobacco companies for their work and castigated them as being “Experts making a packet” The Times has already withdrawn that description and apologised to one of the experts it defamed - the former head of Action on Smoking and Health, Clive Bates.
Yet it has not apologised to any of the other experts whom it falsely accused of accepting “tens of thousands of pounds from tobacco companies to carry out research into e-cigarettes”
The Times story led its coverage with the claim that Cancer Research UK had “condemned the scientists” for allegedly taking funding for vaping research. However Cancer Research UK’s Tobacco Control Manager George Butterworth has refused to support The Times report saying that “we don’t condemn any researchers.”
“This is personal,” said Professor Karl Fagerstrom who is world famous in addiction science, and created the Fagerstrom Test for Cigarette Dependence.
“My life’s work has been built on helping reduce the death toll from tobacco smoking. Yet The Times has portrayed me and my colleagues as hirelings of big tobacco. The Times has chosen to traduce our reputations. Now it is time for the paper to profusely apologise or face a battle it will not win,” said Professor Fagerstrom. The Times claimed that he had been paid for research on e-cigarettes. However Professor Fagerstrom has never done any research on e-cigarettes.
"We are some of the world’s best known experts on tobaccco harm reduction. Between us we have published more than 1,000 academic papers. Yet The Times has grotesquely smeared us in a story informed by the ideologue Martin McKee who has never published a single research paper on e-cigarettes” said Professor Riccardo Polosa one of the other academics accused by The Times of publishing e-cigarette research funded by tobacco money.
“The Times should examine carefully its motives for this scurrilous attack. Reducing the uptake of safer tobacco alternatives such as e-cigarettes and snus will inevitably result in more deaths from real cigarettes, currently the biggest killer in the world today. Is this really what they want?” asked Professor David Nutt of Imperial College London who was the lead author of a seminal study that which endorsed e-cigarettes and other forms of tobacco harm reduction. The Times suggested this report was tainted by tobacco money.
Yet the biggest mistake by The Times was not to research the background of the other expert it attacked - Professor David Sweanor of the Centre for Health Law, Policy and Ethics at the University of Ottawa. As well as being a distinguished public health academic and longstanding anti-smoking activist, he is a philanthropist with a fortune made from lawsuits against tobacco companies.
“My reputation has been trashed by The Times. Despite ample evidence of my independence it claimed that I am beholden to big tobacco companies. It is like saying that Robin Hood was in the pay of the Sheriff of Nottingham. I have to fight this,” added Professor Sweanor.
Jonathan Coad, the partner at Lewis Silkin who will be doing the work said; “The long record of irresponsible journalism about matters of grave public interest on the part of this discredited newspaper group continues , as does the failure of IPSO to properly regulate the British press.”
Over the weekend of 14th October, 'Vaper Expo, The Return' saw two NNA Trustees - Dave Dorn and Andy Morrison - address the expo-goers from the main stage. They spoke about how much we need vaper support, A Billion Lives and other matters that really need vapers to get behind and lend their voices and support.
Amazingly, though, the Vaper Expo organisers, who are very, very supportive of the work we do, arranged a donation of £3,300 to the NNA, an amount that will enable us to do much more good work.
At the same time Vapourtrails.tv ran two live shows and featured the work of the NNA extensively - Andy Morrison spoke and collected new sign-ups on their stand.
We are massively grateful to Vaper Expo for not only hosting us, but also raising so much awareness of the NNA - and the donation is gratefully received and will be faithfully applied.
NNA is very proud to be one of the founding members of a new international network of nicotine consumer organisations, INNCO.
Building on the successes achieved by EVUN in Europe, vaping advocacy has now gone global, in a bid to ensure that the voices of consumers are heard loud and clear, wherever they may be in the world.
In its first press release INNCO has criticised the World Health Organisation for its lack of transparency and refusal to engage with the most important stakeholders of all - consumers. Read the full press release here.
The risks and benefits of e‑cigarettes are uncertain but there is emerging evidence that e‑cigarette use may substantially reduce the burden of disease caused by smoking.
August 2nd saw the launch of a public consultation in New Zealand following a statement from the Ministry of Health:
The New Zealand Health Ministry recognises that the legal status of e‑cigarettes is confusing, that the laws are not routinely enforced, and that ‘There is emerging evidence that e‑cigarette use may substantially reduce the burden of disease caused by smoking’. Further, the Ministry of Health ‘proposes to make legislative changes that will maximise the potential benefits of e‑cigarettes and minimise potential risks to smokers and to the wider population.’
NNA have responded to the consultation, and you can read our full response here.
NNA (UK) strongly urge any vaper who has not submitted a response to the consultation to do so ahead of the closing date for submission - 5PM Monday 12 September 2016.
Yesterday NNA attended the National Symposium on e-cigarettes entitled "A new era for tobacco harm reduction", which was jointly organised by Public Health England and Cancer Research UK.
The symposium was very well attended with some 200 delegates including regulators, Directors of Public Health and various practitioners, researchers, consultants and representatives from numerous health interest groups and charities.
In the morning there were presentations from Alison Cox and Professor Linda Bauld from CRUK, Profs John Britton, Ray Niaura, Ann McNeill, Maciej Goniewicz (who now seems comfortable in his role of always being 'the baddy') and Peter Hajek. The afternoon brought presentations from Alette Addison of the Department of Health, Dr Debbie Robson of KCL, and finally a panel discussion which included our trustee, Lorien Jollye.
For avid followers of the vaping debate, most of the information presented was not new. However, as always with these events the real value is always in the bringing together of people, and the introduction of new people to the issues surrounding harm reduction and this event was no exception.
A range of issues were discussed, some of the more notable being the need to continue to build a good evidence base in the UK in order to be able to influence policy both here and abroad, the assertion by the department of health that the UK has already complied with the guidelines laid down by the World Health Organisation at COP6, and a plea from Dr Andy McEwen, that we take a realistic approach to research surrounding vapour products, and always involve the real experts, consumers, in study design and methodology.
Public Health England chose the symposium to launch their new framework guidance for policy making on the use of e-cigarettes in public places and work places, which can be downloaded here.
The new advice from Public Health England expands on the '5 questions' guidance offered by ASH together with the CIEH and makes clear the need for employers and the managers of public spaces to differentiate between vaping and smoking, and to support smokers who are using vapour products in order to stop smoking.
Overall, the feeling at the event was very positive towards the concept of harm reduction via the use of vapour products with very few dissenting voices. That is not to say that those voices do not exist, or that there is not still work to be done. But there were areas of broad agreement, and a willingness to at least talk about the matters on which there were differences of opinion.
In a vote taken at its annual conference the British Medical Association has called for a ban on vaping in public spaces such as bars and restaurants because of fears over renormalisation of smoking behaviour, and what they perceive as the 'risks of passive vaping'. This is despite the fact that there is no evidence at all, anywhere, that their fears have any foundation in reality.
NNA's complaint about a misleading anti-e-cigarette advertisement has been upheld by Advertising Standards Authority.
Following a question about the UK's implementation of the TPD asked by Anne Main MP (Conservative member for St Albans) during Prime Ministers Questions David Cameron responded by saying that he would look into the legislation carefully. We felt that it was essential that Mr Cameron received an independent view of the failings of this particular piece of EU legislation and together with Clive Bates, NNA associate and director of Counterfactual Consulting, wrote to Mr Cameron accordingly. You can read our letter here.
External press release from @campaign100kFatal Motion Tabled In House Of Lords To Stop E-Cigarette RegulationsA member of the House of Lords has today tabled a “fatal motion” designed to stop harsh restrictions on e-cigarettes becoming law. The provisions of Article 20 of the Tobacco Products Directive, which come into effect, , will be suspended if peers agree to the motion. (Order Paper)It has been proposed by Lord Callanan who in 2013, as then leader of the ECR group in the European Parliament, led the successful vote by MEPs to prevent compulsory medicinal regulation of e-cigarettes. His move comes after the planned regulations came under intense criticism in a debate in the Lords last week.Lord Callanan’s motion gives the Government the opportunity to address the remaining problems with the legislation.These include the:Ban on stronger nicotine e-cigarettes: Department of Health officials have said that this risks pushing vapers back to smoking. Some 252,000 vapers currently use the higher levels of nicotine which will be banned.Ban on most advertising: the Department of Health estimates that 90% of e-cigarette advertising will be banned. However, last month the Royal College of Physicians called for e-cigarettes to instead be promoted “as widely as possible” as increasing numbers of smokers falsely believe that vaping is as dangerous as smoking.Consumer advocates have welcomed the Parliamentary move: “the 2.8 million vapers in the UK will be thrilled if David Cameron takes this opportunity to remove the flaws in this EU regulation which would force so many vapers back to smoking,” said Sarah Jakes of the New Nicotine Alliance.“Our network of shops are private sector stop smoking centres. The government estimates that the regulations could reduce the choice of products by 96%. It doesn’t take a genius to work out the consequences,” said Shayne Adams, of retail chain Flavour Vapour.Contacts:
Debate on E-Cigarette Regulation
- The health minister said he wanted lax implementation of vaping rules. He hoped “enforcement will be more Italian than traditionally British” Lord Prior of Brampton Hansard transcript
- The shadow health minister said it was “obvious that the Government themselves do not support them [the rules on vaping]” Lord Hunt of Kings Heath - Shadow Health Minister Hansard transcriptDepartment of Health’s Impact Assessment DH April 2016
- “There is a risk that due to the potential price increase and reduction of choice of e- cigarettes, people will choose to switch back to smoking” (paragraph 207)
- “if users can’t get the desired nicotine level from e-cigarettes they may switch to cigarettes” (paragraph 200)
- the number of e-cigarette products on the market could fall 96% from 25,000 to 1,000 (Annex B page 74 )
- the rules could reduce e-cigarette advertising by 90% (paragraph 176)
- “There is a risk that a black market will develop with potentially harmful e-cigarette products” (paragraph 208)Royal College of Physicians Report RCP Report April 2016
- "Promoting e-cigarettes... as widely as possible, as a substitute for smoking, is therefore likely to generate significant health gains in the UK” page 189
- forcing e-cigarette packaging to carry big health warnings is “illogical” - page 160E-Cigarettes Regulations of Tobacco Product Directive (Article 20)
- come into effect on UK regulations through these
- ban stronger e-cigarettes (nicotine above 20mg/ml)
- ban e-liquid bottles above 10ml
- ban e-cigarette ‘tanks’ above 2ml
- ban most advertising
The needs of more than a quarter of a million people don't matter, according to ASH.
According to a report by Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) out today [link], the needs of 252,000 UK vapers don't matter because most people will only be mildly affected by the arbitrary restrictions imposed by article 20 of the TPD. That is a truly astounding attitude, especially in light of the fact that the expected reduction in smoking prevalence delivered by the entire TPD, including the tobacco provisions, is just 2% over 5 years, which in the UK translates to 183,000 people.
NNA would like to congratulate the tobacco industry on this historic day.
In a move which many thought too glorious to contemplate, the tobacco industry was finally handed the US e-cigarette industry on a plate by the FDA when the long awaited deeming regulations were announced today. They will have to wait two years though, to reap the rewards.
For years now the FDA has been fighting valiantly to resist the mountain of existing evidence which supports the benefits to smokers of switching to e-cigarettes and was forced to go to the extreme measure of funding its own studies in order to show what some have known all along - that the e-cigarette industry exists only to kill our babies. What better guardians for such an industry than the tobacco companies?
Under the new regulations the only products which will be exempt* from the extraordinarily onerous and financially crippling application requirements are those which were on the market prior to 2007. For those not in the know, that narrows it down pretty much to a cigalike type e-cigarette such as Ruyan. You know, the one for which Imperial tobacco owns the patent via its offshoot Fontem.
To ensure that none of the current products (the ones which the nicotine addled vapers suggest actually work) get onto the market to muddy the waters the FDA specifically say 'don't bother applying'. Well what they actually said was more long winded than that (499 pages) but that is the summary. The FDA anticipate that they have erected sufficient barriers to prevent modular products from being able to comply.
There was something to celebrate for the US vape industry though, they will still be able to sell lanyards and screwdrivers. Unfortunately for them, cigalike type products require neither screwdrivers nor lanyards however we anticipate that these items might find a new market with spectacle wearers.
So that's it. God bless America, the land of the free**. The US vaping industry will be dead in two years time and many of its customers will be similarly fixed in the years which follow. The beers are on you tonight Reynolds et al.
* traditional cigarettes will naturally be exempt and unaffected by these regulations.
**degree of freedom is dependent on your level of agreement with government policy
In case anyone is wondering..
***this post is satire. NNA does not congratulate the tobacco industry or anyone else who will profit from these ill founded and in terms of health, dangerous regulations.
It is with disappointment that we read the final outcome of the Court of Justice of the European Union clarifying that the revised Tobacco Products Directive, including Article 20 related specifically to e-cigarettes, is lawful. The stated goal of the revised TPD is to facilitate the smooth functioning of the internal market for tobacco and related products, taking as a base a high level of protection of human health.
To that end, a revision of the TPD was subsequently passed by the EC to be made into legislation by the 28 Member States. Article 20 has been classified as burdensome and disproportionate by many. The Article 20 legal challenge sought to overturn the portion of the Directive related to e-cigarettes in order to make way for more proportionate regulation of the industry which would serve public health.
The resulting ruling from the CJEU places an undue burden on the industry that is predominantly made up of small business by enforcing a cumbersome, fragmented and expensive notification system for new and existing products that meet the stringent requirements of the Directive to reach the market.
With limits on cross-border sales - i.e. some Member States are set to prohibit cross-border sale - the directive enables the Member States to ensure that the rules on conformity are not circumvented - and additional "identified and potential risks" have led to the CJEU invoking an application of the precautionary principle that, unfortunately did not take into account the risks created by the Directive.
Despite two substantive reports on the evidence, along with appropriate guidance it is disappointing the CJEU has ruled against the challenge.
Sarah Jakes, NNA Trustee said:
"The Government's own impact assessment of the directive showed that there is a very real risk that the provisions which relate to e-cigarettes will deter smokers from switching to vaping and may push some vapers back to smoking. It is a very sad day when a government is 'forced' to implement law which will harm the health of its citizens."
The judgement in full can be read on the CJEU website.
It is with great satisfaction that we read this new report from a source so widely respected as the Royal College of Physicians*. The past two years have seen a slew of ill-considered and poorly conducted research hit the headlines regarding vaping and there can be no doubt that the perception of both smokers and non-smokers will have been impacted regards the relative harms of vaping vs smoking. This report should go some-way to redressing that balance as it makes clear that the benefits of e-cigarette use has not only been positive but has helped many smokers move away from combustible cigarettes. More importantly that smokers have done this under their own steam and without intervention or cost to the tax-payer.
We hope that Public Health organisations and governments across the globe will see this, alongside last year’s Public Health England report, and use it to inform their treatment of e-cigarettes and recognise the importance of treating them as different from their burnt counterparts. In the UK alone there are 9 million smokers who deserve to be told the truth about alternative nicotine delivery devices such as e-cigarettes. Trustee and board member, Lorien Jollye says ‘The evidence is quite clearly telling us that not only are e-cigs safer than smoking but they are helping smokers. Knee-jerk fearmongering has to be put to bed and smokers need to be empowered to switch’.
With the implementation of the EU’s Tobacco Products Directive looming, it is imperative that moves are made to see a review of this legislation enacted as soon as is possible. It is becoming more and more clear that the heavy restrictions on devices, nicotine strengths, and the ability for companies to actually market to their target audience is going to cost lives. This is far from the ‘light touch regulation’ the public was told it was.
The RCP report is unequivocal in its support for smokers being encouraged to switch their habit to one which carries, at most, a mere 5% of the risk. On a subject as serious as this we need to be guided by evidence and not ideology and as such The New Nicotine Alliance applauds the RCP for this timely review.
*Tobacco Advisory Group of the Royal College of Physicians. Nicotine without smoke—tobacco harm reduction. Royal College of Physicians, 2016.
Ok, vapers reading this will know that that is the pre-watershed version of that particular rallying cry..
Thanks to a friend and supporter of NNA, Chinese e-cigarette manufacturer Innokin heard about NNAs work with stop smoking services and wanted to help. We do not take donations from anyone in the nicotine industries, so the best way for Innokin to help would be to help stop smoking services help smokers to stop smoking. Even this though is not as simple as it should be, because currently there are no medicinally licensed ecigs on the market which stop smoking services could prescribe, and it's likely that any that do gain medicinal authority will be bland cousins compared to those on the consumer market.
Andy Morrison, lead for the NNA in Scotland, is assisting with a new study funded by the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation (RCLCF) exploring e-cigarettes for smoking cessation with lung cancer patients.