Important: Your continued use of this forum indicates acceptance of the forum rules. Please make sure you have read and understand these rules.

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Latest Update from MHRA re Notifications
dodderer Offline
Senior Member
******

Posts: 2,128
Likes Given: 306
Likes Received: 2,729 in 976 posts
Joined: Jul 2012
Reputation: 9
Sex: Male
Location: Leeds
Post: #1
Latest Update from MHRA re Notifications
Just seen this on twitter

https://glosvaper.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12...l?spref=tw

shows >18,000 notifications received.

I was dubious they would get anywhere near the 12,000 estimated when setting fees so....a bit of an eye-opener Clapping

PS a sample of notifications - also ex-twitter

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/sy...oducts.pdf
(This post was last modified: 21/12/16 07:41 PM by dodderer.)
21/12/16 07:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply Return to top
FlavourArtUK Offline
Vaping Pioneer since 13-10-2008
******
Vendors

Posts: 4,933
Likes Given: 2,024
Likes Received: 8,129 in 2,611 posts
Joined: Jul 2012
Reputation: 143
Sex: Male
Location: Blackburn
Post: #2
RE: Latest Update from MHRA re Notifications
It's possible that they have included all of the foreign manufacturers who have had to notify
with the MHRA as well as in their own EU countries? Even though FA liquids were notified in Italy,
they still had to be notified to the MHRA to be sold in the UK, which cost £150 x 150 SKUs.

John.

√-1 2^3 ∑ π and it was delicious!
İmage
21/12/16 08:05 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply Return to top
dodderer Offline
Senior Member
******

Posts: 2,128
Likes Given: 306
Likes Received: 2,729 in 976 posts
Joined: Jul 2012
Reputation: 9
Sex: Male
Location: Leeds

Thread Starter

Post: #3
RE: Latest Update from MHRA re Notifications
Ouch - and in all the other EU countries they sell into presumably?
21/12/16 08:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply Return to top
ceedee Offline
Senior Member
****

Posts: 574
Likes Given: 1,873
Likes Received: 409 in 246 posts
Joined: Feb 2014
Reputation: 9
Sex: Male
Location: Bath
Post: #4
RE: Latest Update from MHRA re Notifications
(21/12/16 08:57 PM)dodderer Wrote:  Ouch - and in all the other EU countries they sell into presumably?

Yep, so much for market harmonisation and simplifying red-tape...

Facepalm
22/12/16 02:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply Return to top
Janimal Offline
Senior Member
****
Vendors

Posts: 267
Likes Given: 387
Likes Received: 54 in 35 posts
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation: 4
Sex: Female
Location: Farnborough
Post: #5
RE: Latest Update from MHRA re Notifications
Yes.
And these are only the initial notifications - there are 1000's in the pipeline. The list is going to be updated as they go forward. The MHRA is doing this list as an interim measure, due to the EU portal not working properly yet.

Jan
Sweet Cloud
. We are a real shop selling quality UK sourced products. http://www.sweetcloud.co.uk
22/12/16 06:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply Return to top
bobbydazlers Offline
Senior Member
****

Posts: 400
Likes Given: 18
Likes Received: 144 in 99 posts
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 0
Sex: Male
Location: harlow
Post: #6
RE: Latest Update from MHRA re Notifications
from the tone of the announcement it certainly appears to me that the MHRA are bending over backwards to make this difficult transition as pain free as possible in an effort to keep products on the market and ensure the continued use of e-cigs.
its a pity government body's from some other countries are not like minded in this respect.
nobody would like to have to go through this to remain legal but if it means the difference between staying in business or closing down I think its worth the effort and expense, I am certainly happy to pay more then I do to keep vaping if I have to, sure its nice that at the moment its a lot cheaper then smoking but even if it ends up costing the same amount it should not matter, monetary cost should not be an all important factor to vaping (although for some it quite often is) the most important factor is the benefits to your health rather then the cost involved.
if it means going back to smoking and paying a lot more anyway why not stick with the less harmful option even if it costs the same.
of course its natural to hope this doesn't make vaping that much more expensive but you should not make cost the No.1 reason to vape, if it happens to be less expensive that's just a nice bonus.

I will probably get slammed for saying this but that's the way I feel.

what we definitely do not want to see is vaping becoming MORE expensive then smoking, that would be a very bad thing.


İmage

O pointy birds, o pointy pointy,
Anoint my head, anointy-nointy.
(This post was last modified: 04/01/17 11:24 AM by bobbydazlers.)
04/01/17 11:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply Return to top
Loganberry Offline
Senior Member
******

Posts: 4,941
Likes Given: 5,149
Likes Received: 2,037 in 1,270 posts
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 15
Sex: Undisclosed
Location: Bruton Somerset
Post: #7
RE: Latest Update from MHRA re Notifications
(21/12/16 08:05 PM)FlavourArtUK Wrote:  It's possible that they have included all of the foreign manufacturers who have had to notify
with the MHRA as well as in their own EU countries? Even though FA liquids were notified in Italy,
they still had to be notified to the MHRA to be sold in the UK, which cost £150 x 150 SKUs.

John.

That's a lot of money to find. How much would you need to increase the price of a 10ml bottle, to pay back a quarter of a million pounds investment in 4 years, assuming sales remain at 2016 levels and taking interest charges into account?
04/01/17 11:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply Return to top
Stevethesax Offline
Out, damn'd spot
*****

Posts: 1,268
Likes Given: 331
Likes Received: 1,785 in 587 posts
Joined: Jul 2012
Reputation: 28
Sex: Male
Location: Hampshire
Post: #8
RE: Latest Update from MHRA re Notifications
(04/01/17 11:10 AM)bobbydazlers Wrote:  ...but even if it ends up costing the same amount it should not matter, monetary cost should not be an all important factor to vaping...


Bollocks to that!

There's absolutely no reason on Earth why it should cost anywhere even approaching the cost of smoking. Not from a raw materials point of view, nor a markup perspective....and least of all an ethical one.

Are we supposed to be grateful that we might be allowed to pay through the nose for the privilege of partaking in an action that's precisely what the government has been nagging us to to do for the last couple of decades?

Vaping is naturally substantially cheaper than smoking (assuming you don't grow a stupid beard and end up buying everything you've ever seen a review of on some numpty's cloudblowing 'bro' review site), and that's how it should remain.
04/01/17 07:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply Return to top
[-] The following 2 users Like Stevethesax's post:
malister (05/01/17), nisam (05/01/17)
MDC Offline
Senior Member
******

Posts: 4,773
Likes Given: 212
Likes Received: 1,852 in 1,463 posts
Joined: Feb 2014
Reputation: 17
Sex: Male
Location: Nottingham
Post: #9
RE: Latest Update from MHRA re Notifications
(04/01/17 07:27 PM)Stevethesax Wrote:  
(04/01/17 11:10 AM)bobbydazlers Wrote:  ...but even if it ends up costing the same amount it should not matter, monetary cost should not be an all important factor to vaping...


Bollocks to that!

There's absolutely no reason on Earth why it should cost anywhere even approaching the cost of smoking. Not from a raw materials point of view, nor a markup perspective....and least of all an ethical one.

Are we supposed to be grateful that we might be allowed to pay through the nose for the privilege of partaking in an action that's precisely what the government has been nagging us to to do for the last couple of decades?

Vaping is naturally substantially cheaper than smoking (assuming you don't grow a stupid beard and end up buying everything you've ever seen a review of on some numpty's cloudblowing 'bro' review site), and that's how it should remain.

Vaping was cheaper than smoking until I began stocking up on stuff ready for TPD. Last year probably cost me as much or more, but I should be OK for the next 10 years, so things should even out.
04/01/17 07:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply Return to top
QuinnDexter Offline
Uberfool
******

Posts: 4,265
Likes Given: 1,691
Likes Received: 4,079 in 1,974 posts
Joined: Apr 2014
Reputation: 17
Sex: Male
Location: The Space/Time continuum
Post: #10
RE: Latest Update from MHRA re Notifications
Even with the quite large collection of mods, atties, wires, tools, flavourings and the litres of 72mg NIC I've stashed away, I've still spent less than a third of what smoking would have cost me in the same time, and that's the way it should stay.
Smoking is artificially expensive deliberately under the justification that the sin tax applied to it will help to reduce the number of people smoking. It undoubtedly has worked, as did the indoor bans, but it stalled years ago. One of the reasons vaping took off so well in the UK is that it saves people a fortune. The majority of smokers in the UK are on low incomes - the poorer someone is, the more humble their background, the greater the likelihood they will take up the habit. If you take away the cost incentive then the huge amount of progress vaping has already made in helping people get away from digging themselves a smoky grave will slow down massively too.
Nobody could make a reasonable argument that continuing to kill yourself with tobacco is preferable to a healthier life as a vaper, but the same is true of morbid obesity compared to slimmed down fitness and look at how well we're doing fighting that trend. Our "leaders" could choose to subsidise healthy foods, provide state sponsored nutrition and cooking education and free or heavily subsidised public gyms - instead they choose to slap a sin tax on sugary drinks - why encourage people when you can punish them?? Ditch those carrots boys, I've got a f**king big stick!!
If you are poor you are more likely to smoke, to eat fatty foods whilst not exercising, and to die younger. The more incentives we give, including financial, to people on low incomes in order to live healthier lives, the greater the benefit to them and to society as a whole. Healthy workers are more productive, for more years, are less drain on health and social care and above all are happier and therefore more likely to vote for the political party who helped them achieve that prosperity - it's that carrot effect again. Of course if a government's priorities are making a bunch of rich c**ts even richer by taking away the jobs from those low income workers, cutting benefits from those they have already made jobless and abusing the sick and disabled, they probably prefer them all to die young - less drain on the public services they're busy trying to demolish.

04/01/17 10:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply Return to top
[-] The following 4 users Like QuinnDexter's post:
ceedee (05/01/17), Major_Hazzard (04/01/17), nisam (05/01/17), Wonko (14/01/17)
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)