Liberal Vision

New study shows #e-cig vapour as good as clean air

Due to pressure of time, because it’s important, and because no main stream media seems to have reported the findings as we publish, we are “Doing a BBC”  [as we call it] by simply printing a press release verbatim. Well, if it is good enough for the BBC eh?

We will update as more info/critical observations/analysis becomes available.

Released by British American Tobacco 14th July 2015:

Human respiratory tissue test reveals e-cigarette vapour
produced similar result as air

Six hours of exposure to cigarette smoke resulted in near-complete cell death, but the same exposure to e-cigarette vapour did not affect tissue viability.

14 July 2015, Southampton, UK.  e-cigarette vapour from two different types of e-cigarette had no cytotoxic impact on human airway tissue, according to new research published in In Vitro Toxicology DOI: 10.1016/j.tiv.2015.05.018.

Scientists at British American Tobacco and MatTek Corporation used a unique combination of tests to investigate the potential adverse effects of e-cigarette vapour on airway tissue compared with cigarette smoke. ‘By employing a combination of a smoking robot and a lab-based test using respiratory tissue, it was possible to demonstrate the ability to induce and measure aerosol irritancy and to show that the different e-cigarette aerosols used in this study have no cytotoxic effect on human airway tissue,’ says spokesperson Dr Marina Murphy.

This new methodology could be used to help develop product standards for these kinds of products in the future.

E-cigarette vapour can contain nicotine, humectants, flavourings and thermal degradation products, so it is important to understand the potential impact on biological systems. Until now, there have been no aerosol studies of potential adverse effects of e-cigarette vapour on in vitro models that so closely mimic the structure, function and exposure of normal human airway tissue.

The researchers combined a commercially available 3D model of respiratory epithelial tissue and the popular VITROCELL smoking robot, an aerosol exposure system, to assess the irritant potential of e-cigarette vapour from two commercially available e-cigarettes on human airway tissue. The results show that, despite hours of aggressive and continuous exposure, the impact of the e-cigarette vapour on the airway tissue is similar to that of air. Furthermore, the study represents an initial move towards socialising and debating potential industrial guidelines.

The airway tissue model – EpiAirway – comprises human tracheal/bronchial epithelial cells that have been cultured to form differentiated layers resembling epithelial tissue of the respiratory tract. The VITROCELL system mimics the exposure when humans inhale by delivering emissions from cigarettes or e-cigarettes or just air to the EpiAirway tissues.

The researchers first tested the biological system with known irritants applied in liquid form. Then they exposed EpiAirway tissues to cigarette smoke or aerosol generated from  two types of commercial e-cigarettes for up to six hours. During that time, cell viability was measured every hour using an established colorimetric test. The amount of particulate mass deposited on the cells’ surface was also quantified (using dosimetry tools) to prove that smoke or vapour had reached the tissue throughout exposure. The longer the time the cells were exposed, the bigger the dose they received in an incremental manner.

The results show that cigarette smoke reduces cell viability to 12% (near complete cell death) after six hours. In contrast, neither of the e-cigarette aerosols showed any significant decrease in cell viability. Despite 6 hours of continuous exposure, the results were similar to those of control cells exposed to only air.  Even with this aggressive exposure, the e-cigarette vapours did not reduce cell viability.

‘Currently there are no standards concerning the in vitro testing of e-cigarette aerosols,’ said Marina Trani, Head of R&D for British American Tobacco’s next generation nicotine products. But, she adds, ‘our protocol could prove very useful in helping the process by which these guidelines might progress.’

This study shows that, in this human airway tissue model, cytotoxicity is unaffected by aerosols from two different types of e-cigarette, but further studies will be needed to compare the  effects of other different commercially available products, formats and formulations.”

Press release ends. But here is the picture:

Tags: e-cigarettes, e-cigs, vapers

BMA: it it moves tax it, if it still moves ban it

In its latest attempt at extreme social engineering, the increasingly preposterous British Medical Association (the trade union for doctors and medical students) is today demanding a 20% tax on sugary drinks “to subsidise the cost of fruit and vegetables”.

What they don’t mention, but what Christopher Snowdon points out, is that:

“The BMA don’t mention that their soda tax will cost the public £1 billion a year, nor do they acknowledge that it would be deeply regressive. Indeed, they want to make it more even more regressive by taxing fizzy drinks (which are disproportionately purchased by people on low incomes) and use the money to subsidise fruit and vegetables (which are disproportionately purchased by people on high incomes). Nice.”

You may be surprised at that. Particularly when you consider that the BMA rejected a fat tax back in the summer of 2012 because:

“The idea of a fat tax on unhealthy food was rejected because it would have an unfair impact on people from a disadvantaged background.”

How is a tax on sugary drinks any different from a tax on fat? [Joined up  thinking ? I don’t think so]. But then again we should not be surprised at the lack of consistency in BMA proposals, or the absence of science-based thinking when it comes to its policies. This publicity-hungry, industry-hating trade union seems to have a policy of acting first and thinking afterwards.

This, after all, is the body that secretly awards its senior staff pay hikes of up to 137% – without bothering to inform its members. And a body that seems to have scant regard for the truth – with BMA spokespeople taking to the air to spout downright lies in support of their extreme views on ecigs and smoking.

That particular trait, of “massaging the facts” to suit the narrative, is displayed yet again today with its claims on sugar. As reported by Mr Snowdon:

“In the pages of The Guardian, their spokeswoman, Sheila Hollins, resorts to flat out lying…

“We know from experiences in other countries that taxation on unhealthy food and drinks can improve health outcomes, and the strongest evidence of effectiveness is for a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages.”

…..”[Mr Snowdon writes] the evidence on sugary drinks, in particular, is consistent in finding little, if any, change in patterns of consumption and no change at all in ‘health outcomes’, including obesity (see here and here for a summary).”

It is also the body that has consistently promoted a whole raft of policies which are potty at best and downright dangerous at worst. Here is a taster of some of its recent ludicrous proposals:

Ecigs – In December 2013 the BMA wrote to a number of football clubs urging them to end sponsorship deals with e-cigarette companies “smoking products” and to ban the use of e-cigarettes at their football grounds. [Err no e-cigs are not a “smoking product” – do at least get your facts right].

ECigs – The BMA has also been at the forefront of those demanding that all e-cigarettes are forced to be licensed medicinal product, and in the BMA’s 2014 annual meeting, it’s members called on governments to prohibit ‘vaping’ on e-cigarettes in public places where smoking is prohibited. [Hmm send them outside to smoke real cigarettes rather than vaping indoors – that will improve health [not].

Alcohol – In Jan 2015 the BMA demanded that politicians introduce a minimum unit price for alcohol. [Errm thought you were against regressive taxes? So middle classes can drink their French Chardonnay, but those on low incomes should be priced out of the market. This is prohibition for the working classes.]

Alcohol – In June 2015 the BMA called on all UK governments to introduce “clear and unambiguous” health warnings on alcohol. It also called on additional measures that “limit the affordability, availability and promotion of alcohol”. [Just to be clear will you restrict when I buy my alcohol from Ocado, or when they deliver it? Oh I forgot, you only wish to restrict those on low incomes from buying alcohol, not the middle classes with a credit card and an au pair at home to take delivery].

Alcohol – In June 1025 the Scottish BMA called on a ban on all alcohol advertising on television before 9pm “watershed”. [That might have worked in the 1970’s – but honestly.. in 2015?].

Alcohol – In July 2014 BMA in Northern Ireland called for a reduced hours of sale for alcohol. [Yep, let’s drive consumption out of pubs with responsible landlords and towards drinking in the home, because that is bound to work [not].

Smoking – In June 2015 – rather than vote FOR the legalisation of cannabis, the trade union voted for a BAN on the sale of all cigarettes to those born after 2000. Yes really, by 2030 you would” need ID to prove you were 31, not 30, to buy cigarettes”. [Well it was only a matter of time before they called for prohibition… Because that obviously works [not].

… that is to list but a few of BMA’s proposals. There are many more.

The BMA demand for a tax on sugar is yet another head-line grabbing, ill-thought through, plan, all too similar to those above: demonise industry; hit those on low incomes; tax where you can and ban where you can’t.  It is an archaic approach not fit for the 21st century.

It claims to want a comprehensive approach to “tackling obesity” and, it says, it sees  its role as “supporting the government and other stakeholders in taking action“. Sorry, but that claim rings hollow. You only have to read the foreword of the latest booklet to see the BMA’s primary objective – to end the relationship between Government and [one of the key stakeholders] industry.

“Addressing the commercial influences that have such a strong impact on diet will be key.”

“These range from the way unhealthy food and drink products are promoted and made widely available and affordable, to industry influence on the development of food and nutrition policies.”

“Without a stronger regulatory framework, commercial interests will continue to overshadow public health interests.”

“Many of these [measures] will not sit comfortably with the government’s approach to partnership working with industry.”

“My belief is that it is commercial interests that are excessively influencing people’s decisions about their diet.”

“How can we expect a child to develop normative behaviours about eating healthily when so many of the messages they are exposed to promote the opposite?

I don’t know which supermarket BMA bigwigs shop in, but when I go into a supermarket my problem is choice, not lack of it. Alongside normal coke I am offered Diet Coke [No sugar] “Coca Cola Zero” [No sugar] “Coca Cola Life” [Lower calorie sweetened using natural sources].. oh and “Caffeine Free” [also “lower calorie”]… and all with calorie content clearly shown on the tin.. if I care to look. I can also buy in a range of sizes from 150ml mini-cans, all the way up to 1.75 litre bottles, if I wish to limit portion size at any point.

And just in case that is not enough for you Coca Cola has, since 2012, reduced the average calories per litre in its sparkling drinks by 5.3% ; reduced the calorie and sugar content of Sprite, Dr Pepper, Fanta Fruit Twist and Glaceau Vitaminwater by more than 30% ; and increased its marketing budget in zero calorie colas by 52%. All as part of its “responsibility deal” with Government. I can also go to the Coca Cola calorie counter, where I see what exercise I can do to work of the calories in one can (11 minutes of squash or 32 minutes of pilates, (or if you prefer 19 minutes of stair climbing or 70 minutes of ironing) to work off 139 calorie can of normal Coca Cola.

Where is the praise from the BMA about how much has been achieved? How much of that would have been achieved if Government had opted to demonise the industry rather than working with it?

Moving away from all things fizzy, how much more could be achieved if this Government-industry relationship was extended to e-cigs and tobacco? Think of the public health advances that could be achieved if  Government worked with the tobacco industry on reduced risk products [such as PMI’s “heat not burn” products] rather than absurdly excluding them from an increasing number of conversations?

It is time for doctors to take back the BMA, sacking the self-serving fat cats at the top of this body, banging on like an old record about taxes and bans and little else. Surely they can see that the BMA is a fast-fossilizing dinosaur, desperately determined to remove all voices from the health debate except its own, regardless of the consequences. If they can’t see it, or won’t do anything about it, then public health is truly not safe in their hands.

Tags: alcohol, BMA, Cigarettes, Coca Cola, e-cigarettes, e-cigs, smoking, sugar tax

EU challenge – it’s about time

H/T Velvet Glove Iron Fist has flagged up a new campaign that is up and running… and most intriguing…

Totally Wicked, the British e-cigarette company, is challenging the EU’s Tobacco Products Directive’s regulation of e-cigarettes. The company’s challenge is based on the view that

“Article 20 of the TPD represents a disproportionate impediment to the free movement of goods and the free provisions of services, places electronic cigarettes at an unjustified competitive disadvantage to tobacco products, fails to comply with the general EU principle of equality, and breaches the fundamental rights of electronic cigarette manufacturers and users.”

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) will hear the case later this year. In the meantime the guys and girls at Totally Wicked are looking to gather as many signatures as possible to demonstrate to the CJEU, come the glorious day, that this is not just a single self-interested UK company having a whinge.

We reckon the campaign deserves our support. Why ? If for no other reason, its good to see a company with cajones…. putting its money where its mouth is. And of course there are the more tangible reasons. The EU e-cigarette rules as the stand will result in much less choice for consumers, render e-cigarettes useless for many heavier smokers/vapers, threaten the very livelihood of smaller entrepreneurial businesses and almost certainly have the effect of driving vapers into the shadow economy. Some of the specifics:

• The proposed 2ml tank capacity limit means that a significant proportion of most popular products will be unavailable across many countries in the EU.
• Harsh regulations around fluid and emissions testing mean that small entrepreneurial e-liquid manufacturers will go out of business, significantly reducing consumer choice.
• The 20 mg/ml nicotine strength limit means that e-cigarettes will be less likely to satisfy the nicotine demands of  many consumers.
• Demanding “leak free refilling” will result in the vast majority of current refillable products disappearing, to be replaced by e-cigarettes with the same generic and standardised filling mechanism. Goodbye innovation, hello Trabant.
• Advertising restrictions will limit consumers ability to make informed decisions and for manufacturers to put their products to the wider market.
• and so on… you get the picture…

For more information on the campaign and to sign up click here.

Tags: e-cigarettes, e-cigs, Totally Wicked

Nick Clegg should say No Thank EU

A couple of days ago I re-read the “Liberal Democrat Manifesto for Europe”. On the summary page it says

“Liberal Democrats don’t believe in one-size-fits-all solutions. This is because Liberal Democrats believe that individual people, families and their communities know best about the things that affect them, so decision should be taken by them, not by distant politicians and bureaucrats in Westminster or Brussels.

That is why we insist that Europe does not act when national, regional or local action is more effective.”

I assume that is still the party position (given that the web site is still live).

I am sure that most Liberal Democrats agree that on matters of public health this is especially true.  Decision-making should wherever possible, be taken at national, regional or local level, not left to the whims of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.

I am also sure that the party will agree that if the UK parliament has been deliberately denied the opportunity to scrutinise any European legislation, (having refused to provide a waiver on scrutiny), then that legislation should not be allowed to proceed until such times as it has.

All that being the case I will be asking Nick, as Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Democrats, to take action on a rather scandalous state of affairs.

Back in June, Conservative MP and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, Anna Soubry was summoned, very hastily, to attend a General Council meeting in Luxembourg on 21^st June. The purpose of the meeting was to agree, with other health ministers from around Europe, the “general approach” to be taken on the revised Tobacco Products Directive.

Soubry requested waivers from the scrutiny committees in both Houses. The Lords agreed but the Commons European Scrutiny Committee said no on the grounds that there was insufficient time (less than two weeks) to examine the very many (and complex) issues involved. Soubry decided to over-ride the House of Commons scrutiny committee, and played a full and “crucial” role in the discussions on Europe-wide regulation at the June 21^st meeting.

The Directive is now due to be voted on by MEPs in the first week of September. This vote too has been hastily forced up the agenda (scheduled for October, it has now been moved to early September).

Voters in Britain will rightly wonder what is going on. Why is Brussels in such a hurry to get this legislation rushed through? Why has UK parliament been denied the right to examine the proposed EU laws? Why are most of the public wholly unaware of the proposals and therefore prevented from expressing their views on the matter? Why indeed is Europe forcing through laws banning swathes of products that no UK government has sought fit to do?

No wonder Euro-scepticism is on the rise. No wonder at least half of the adult population believe that the UK would be better off outside of the EU if this is how legislation is introduced.

The scrutiny committee has already summoned Soubry to explain herself (and a very sad and sorry affair it was too). The chair (Bill Cash MP) has stated :

“We consider that insufficient information was made available to the committee to enable it to scrutinise the Commission’s proposals”

“Negotiations on the draft Directive appear to have proceeded at unwarranted haste given its far-reaching implications”

“The draft Directive remains under scrutiny”

That begs the question how on earth can MEPs vote on the Directive proposals in early September when the Directive is still under scrutiny in the UK Parliament?

I will be asking Nick to take action. This is a cast-iron chance to make the words in the manifesto count; make it clear that EU laws that by-pass proper scrutiny in Westminster will not be tolerated.

I will be asking Nick to:

1. 1. Work with others (including Lib Dem MEPs) to ensure that the EU delay any vote on this Directive (which has been rushed through faster than a high-speed train) until such times as Westminster has been given sufficient time to examine the proposals contained in the Directive. There is no good reason to force this through in September when, for want of a few weeks or so, the ministers can re-convene and discuss this proposal with the benefit of more time, consideration and proper parliamentary scrutiny. Then, and only then should MEPs be given the opportunity to vote on the proposals.
2. 2. Ensure that decision-making on UK public health remains with elected politicians here in the UK, not Brussels bureaucrats.

Earlier this week the smokers’ group Forest launched a new campaign No Thank EU seeking to give the British people a voice on this piece of desperately hurried and deeply flawed EU legislation.

But it should not be left to Forest to bang on doors demanding  that the EU be made to pause whilst elected politicians here in the UK (and elsewhere I have no doubt) are actually given sufficient time to review carefully what is proposed.  Nor should it be Forest’s job to fight to ensure that decision-making on matters of UK public health remains in the UK.

This is an ideal opportunity for Nick in particular, and the party more generally, to demonstrate to voters that being Pro-European does not mean remaining silent when Brussels gets it wrong. To show that liberals are willing and able to stand up to Europe when UK parliamentary processes are circumvented or when the Commission moves beyond its remit.

I understand that smoking is a controversial topic and that some Liberal Democrats believe that any measures that may reduce smoking rates should be embraced. But this view is deeply flawed if they are willing to allow proper process to be casually caste aside in the process. Those who are passionate about the need for yet more smoking legislation and support the EU measures proposed should lobby for their inclusion in the Liberal Democrat manifesto – not hide behind Brussels bureaucrats. That is how democracy works, surely?

I have listed the key EU proposals below. I know that Lib Dem MEPs are already deeply concerned about the proposals on e-cigarettes contained in this Directive and have spoken out about it publicly on several occasions. But speaking out about some aspects of the Directive, or seeking amendments come the September vote, doesn’t go far enough.

It’s like agreeing to play a game of football knowing that the hosts of the game have changed all the rules and given themselves a 3 goal advantage. To play the game legitimises the new rules. That won’t help the 1.3 million+ vapers or 10 million+ smokers and it will outrage many ordinary voters who will wonder what on earth the EU will be allowed to railroad through next.

This is bad legislation, rushed through to avoid proper scrutiny. I am asking Liberal Democrats individually and collectively, and the leader specifically, to make a stand.

Signing the petition would be helpful so please do go ahead and sign. But I am also asking the party to show that when necessary it is willing to stand up to the EU, and to coalition ministers who have chosen to play fast and loose with parliamentary process.

What the EU proposes and Westminster hasn’t been allowed to examine:

As well as forcing all e-cigarettes to become classified as medicinal products Europe-wide, the EU Tobacco Products Directive proposes:

• A  ban on menthol and ‘slim’ cigarettes throughout Europe.
• Larger health warnings on packs and pouches covering  75 per cent of the front and back.
• Standardisation of cigarette pack size and shape
• A ban on packs of ten cigarettes
• A ban on all smaller pouches of roll your own tobacco

For more information on these proposals, visit “What’s at Stake” on the campaign website.

For additional reading on the Tobacco Products Directive see this article “A dog’s breakfast” by Clive Bates (former director of ASH (Action on Smoking and Health).

Angela Harbutt is Campaigns Manager for No Thank EU (www.NoThankEU.com), launched on July 29.

Tags: e-cigarettes, EU, European Union, Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, tobacco, Tobacco Products Directive

Anna Soubry: A one woman walking disaster

Here’s a short (3 minute) video showing a few extracts from evidence Anna Soubry gave the HOC European Scrutiny Committee on 17 July 2013.

She was called to appear before the Committee because she went to the EU General Council of ministers on June 21st to agree the general approach on the EU Tobacco Products Directive. She did this, and negotiated the UK position having totally bypassed the statutory UK parliamentary processes.  That meant stifling any debate on ecigs in UK parliament. That is pretty serious. To then to appear confused (and wrong) about what she actually agreed on e-cigarettes is  truly astounding. Surely the UK must go back to the EU and say that Soubry has been sacked and the UK position on the Directive is yet to be decided.

If you are interested, you can see all of her evidence here.  It seems to confirm that this Directive has been rushed through solely on the grounds that some folks wanted to ensure it was done during the Irish presidency. Nice for the Irish President – looking for a personal legacy. Bad for everyone else.

 

 

 

Tags: Anna Soubry MP, e-cigarettes, Ecigs, EUTPD2, Tobacco Products Directive