IBVTA’s evidence to the Vaping APPG

The IBVTA was invited to give evidence at the APPG on Vaping on Wednesday June 23rd.

During the evidence session our Engagement and Stewardship Lead aimed to support the session with a view of what good regulation for vaping in the UK could look like, now that the UK has an opportunity to drive a clearer influence on our own policies.

The IBVTA’s recommendations and justifications for raising the limits on nicotine concentrations and increasing bottle and tank sizes were submitted to the DHSC as part of our response to the TRPR Post Implementation Review (PIR) earlier this year. Those justifications were overseen by our Steering Committee, and solely based on a thorough assessment of risk due to nicotine toxicity, and not, as has recently been claimed, in order to jockey for market share.

The IBVTA takes a pragmatic approach to UK regulatory limits on nicotine concentration permitted in e-liquid. Our proposal is guided by the latest scientific consensus on the toxicity of nicotine. It has to balance the requirement for the safety of all members of the public, including children, from accidental/intentional exposure, whilst realising the opportunity to provide heavy smokers with the nicotine strength they need to successfully quit.

It is misleading and inaccurate to claim that the IBVTA called for the nicotine limits to stay at 20 mg/ml. We have in our submission to the DHSC PIR thoroughly justified our call to raise the maximum nicotine content for refill containers in a volume ≤ 10 millilitres, and setting a more conservative maximum nicotine content for refill containers in a volume ≤ 20 millilitres.

This would allow for stronger e-liquids to be available for those smokers who are not satisfied with the current maximum nicotine strength of 20mg/ml and allow vapers to buy larger bottles of e-liquid in lower strengths.

The IBVTA and its members are committed to making the most effective products possible, according to safety standards that give a reasonable level of consumer protection. Our scientists believe some of the requests for change by consumer groups may compromise those standards, so we are unable to support them in full.