Vapouround magazine Issue 02 | Page 28

NEWS The Tobacco Products Directive and E-cigarettes – the end of a golden age? By Tom Pruen, Chief Scientific Officer at ECITA A s everyone should be aware, the revised Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) starts taking effect from May 2016, and all products must be compliant with it by May 2017. But what does this actually mean? The problem is, that we still don’t really know – but what we do know is mostly bad news. The TPD requires notification of various things to a government appointed body, and in the case of the UK, this is the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). Historically, the e-cigarette industry and MHRA have not enjoyed a good working relationship, but there are some signs that this may be changing (this is the only good news in an otherwise gloomy forecast). The list of what needs to be notified is, in theory, common across all of Europe, a ‘Common Notification Format’ (CNF). Notably, however, while the CNF requires “Name of the emission produced during the testing of the product” and “Quantity of emissions produced during the process of using the product based on the measurement method used,” there is no guidance on what emissions should be sought. Modern analytical chemistry is very good at finding even tiny traces of chemicals in almost any kind of sample, so to keep costs and time to a reasonable level, it’s useful to know what to look for. Without a list of such things (usually referred to as analytes of interest), the prospect is for identifying everything present in the emissions, regardless of how low the level, or if there is any perceived risk. As if that wasn’t bad enough, to give a quantity of emissions requires additional testing, and these have to be tailored to the specific chemicals being sought. The more chemicals to measure quantities of, the more expensive the testing will be, and the longer it will take. Since the CNF doesn’t give a list of analytes of interest, it’s quite likely that each member state will create its own – making the CNF both uncommon and uncertain. So far, there is also not a UK list of analytes of interest, so we don’t even know what the UK position is. There is worse though – the CNF also requires “Description of the measurement methods used to assess consistent dosing and nicotine uptake, including reference to the relevant approved standard, when available.” Dose is a very fraught term with respect to electronic cigarettes – the way the product is used has almost as much bearing on the nicotine delivery as the actual nicotine content. Worse still, in the medicinal world, “dosage and uptake” is determined by Pharmacokinetic (PK) testing. 24 WINTER EDITION VAPOUROUND MAGAZINE Since this is a test on people, it is expensive, with a cost upwards of £100,000 per test. Providing this for every single product would quickly become prohibitively expensive for almost every company in the market. But an alternative view (and one that was suggested to the European Commission) is to look at how much nicotine is delivered to vapour in a single defined puff. This would cost more like £1,000 per product. The cost per product notification, therefore, depends on information that we don’t have, but could vary between a couple of thousand pounds per product (already too much for some of the smaller businesses in this market) to quarter of a million pounds (which is too much for pretty much every business in the market). Regardless of what the scale of costs is, there is one clear outcome of this – the number of products available will fall – and fall sharply. But it still gets worse than this – there is a TPD requirement for the tanks/atomisers to be “leak free”. What this means in practise isn’t clear, since the TPD gives responsibility to the European Commission to design a technical specification for a ‘leak free’ mechanism. The group working on this is not expected to report back until the 2nd quarter of 2016 – too late for this design to be incorporated into products prior to the TPD taking effect. It’s also entirely possible (and in fact likely) that this mechanism will be incompatible with ALL existing designs, removing all the currently available products from the market. The CNF matters here too. Notifications have to take place 6 months before placing products on the market, except for products already on the market on 20th May 2016, in which case there is a grace period until 20th November 2016. However, with the ‘leak-free’ issue, it could well be that there won’t be any existing designs that are TPD compliant, removing this exemption. Everything that isn’t TPD compliant, and notified by 20th November 2016, has to be taken off the market by May 2017, at the latest. Will there be time to incorporate the new mechanism and get it notified by that date? We don’t, and can’t know. We don’t even know what this mechanism will look like, let alone say how easy it will be to incorporate it into existing designs. Since a product has to be notified 6 months in advance of selling it, at a considerable (but uncertain) cost, we won’t be seeing new tanks or devices with the frequency we do now. Exactly what the e-cigarette market will look like after the TPD is uncertain, but it is implausible to think that it will have the variety and innovation we see today. The future is uncertain, but it’s looking very bleak.