WHAT OTHER AREAS OF COMPLIANCE ARE WE SEEING
MOVEMENT ON?
Recently-published guidance has been sent out in advertising, but
I for one, still see a lot of confusion around this area and I think this
may form the basis of the article in the next issue.
Short-fill enforcement has picked up pace across the country
with several high-profile visits and enforcement actions being
undertaken. It’s worth having a look at the article in the last issue
on short-fill regulations, if you need to remind yourself. Short-fill
products are covered by the General Products Safety Regulations
2005 (GPSR). If your short-fill products are not assessed for safety
‘in-use’, you could face fines up to £25,000 or possibly jail time.
A summary of the report states “the popular conception is that
short-fill products are unregulated.” This is incorrect. Whilst short-
fill products are not directly covered by any specific EU legislation,
such as the TPD, their safety is governed by the GPSR. That
requires a consideration of how they are advertised, as well as the
standards expected by consumers and the standards applicable
to other products in the sector. These factors indicate that those
affected by the legislation, including manufacturers and distributors,
should have regard to TPD, even though it only applies directly to
products that contain tobacco. (Reference: Dai Davis, a Solicitor
and Chartered Engineer, was also National Head of Information
Technology Law at Eversheds.)
CBD IS ALSO COMING UNDER REGULATION
Many vape companies are now selling CBD in the market place, but
it’s worth remembering, it is also covered by wide-ranging regulations.
HERE ARE SOME PRINCIPLE LEGAL ASPECTS OF CBD:
• It is not illegal in the UK.
• You are not allowed to make any medical claims, unless you
apply for a medical licence.
• THC (the illegal component) must be below 0.2 percent for
industrial use.
• Finished products are covered by the Controlled Drugs Act
1985; levels must be below 1mg in the final product.
• The Foods Standard Agency says that levels must be below
0.2 percent for finished food product. This contradicts the
Controlled Drugs Act, so this is a grey area.
• It’s not legal to use isolate for products for oral consumption;
distillate/oil-based products should be used
• Products are covered by GPSR 2005 and thus require a
toxicology assessment in addition to having an emissions test
conducted.
DEVICE CONCERNS: PODS AND SQUONKERS
Devices is the area in which I receive the most questions about
compliance.
Squonkers have been given to me to comment on. In my
opinion, they are not compliant as they have a tank that is
above 2ml. Counter arguments have been made that the tanks
are not tanks, but reservoirs or refill containers. That defence
hasn’t convinced me to change my mind and I have turned down
the opportunity to do compliance testing on them. The MHRA
recently validated this when they published their opinion that
‘squonkers are not compliant due to the squonk tank’.
A lot of companies are now selling their products in pod format.
Some companies are putting their product in the pods and
selling them without ensuring they are compliant. Firstly, if you
sell a liquid in a kit with a device – this includes selling it as a
pre-filled pod refill – then you need to conduct emissions testing
in that device. Next, you need to notify your 2ml pod (and it can’t
be more than 2ml) and pay a new notification for it – it’s not just
another presentation under your 10ml notification.
SALT CONCERNS
As with companies shifting to putting products in pods, you
can’t just switch from normal nicotine to salt nicotine and carry
on – it’s a radically new formulation so you need to revisit your
emissions testing and either update your notification (if you are
replacing your traditional nicotine product) or notify it as a new
product if you are adding it to the range.
These are all the issue we are seeing as we are entering the age
of enforcement we need to make sure we are ticking the boxes.
VM18 | 55