Cont.

(D) flavorless:

This is quite possibly the most important and damaging portion of this proposed legislation. One assumes that by “flavorless” you mean restricting flavorings to only tobacco flavorings. The issue with this is that all e-juice is inherently literally flavorless. It is comprised of VG, PG, and nicotine if applicable. These base chemicals are flavorless and subtly sweet by themselves but are essentially flavorless. Any flavor e-juice, be it tobacco, bakery or fruit are then created by adding flavorings to the base mix of the e-juice. Unlike a cigarette that tastes like a cigarette unless you add flavoring to it, e-juice must be flavored to taste like anything. All e-juice, even tobacco flavored, is still flavored. Most of the tobacco flavorings available on the market do not taste like tobacco because the flavor of a burning cigarette is very hard to replicate without combustion. Most of the tobacco flavored e-juice has more of a nutty note than that of a real cigarette. This is why most people prefer fruit flavored electronic cigarettes.

This portion of the legislation is based off of the incorrect assumption that children are the only ones that want or use flavors outside of tobacco flavorings. As an e-juice manufacturer, we have a unique insight into what flavors our customers actually want and why. We have heard it argued that candy/fruit flavors cater to children. We have a strict policy of only selling to adults 18 years or older. All of the shops that carry our juice check ID for each sale. This gives us the ability to look at our sales figures and determine what flavors ADULTS are buying. We have found that our top seller is our fruit flavor “Rawberry” which is a berry blend. After speaking with customers in various vape shops across the state and country we found that a vast majority of vapers mostly purchased fruity flavors followed by bakery (cakes and cookie) type flavors. Most people indicated that they really didn’t enjoy tobacco flavors and chose to distance themselves from the flavors associated with smoking. A vast majority of vapers are ex-smokers. Many slowly lower their nicotine intake until they are weaned off of nicotine altogether. Forcing people to only vape tobacco flavors in a misguided attempt to protect children is the same as saying that a recovering alcoholic can’t purchase a soda because children enjoy sweet drinks. We wouldn’t say that they can only drink Odules. Why then would we use the same line of logic for ex-smokers? The idea is absurd and will only drive people back to smoking cigarettes. If you value the lives of your constituents you should not be forcing them back to their old dangerous habits.

In this state we have alcoholic drinks (another adult product) in every flavor imaginable. The reason for this is not because companies are catering to kids. The reason is that adults are human and enjoy things that taste good. Each person has their own personal taste that they are entitled to. Condemning a person to smoking cigarettes because they enjoy fruity or candy flavored electronic cigarettes is not only unfair it is unnecessary and irresponsible.

(E) subject to standards for contaminants and strict quality control of manufacturing:

While the electronic cigarette industry has done very well at self regulating and keeping our products as safe as possible, it is to be expected that at some point there would be regulations placed on manufacturing. This is a massive undertaking that if done improperly could ruin the industry and force sales into a completely unregulated black market. The FDA is currently researching and working on a set of electronic cigarette regulations that the country would have to abide by. Given the FDA’s massive budget, the country-wide data set from which to draw conclusions, and the top-tier researchers and academics, it would make sense to let the FDA create regulations for the manufacturing of electronic cigarettes. The electronic cigarette industry is already a $2 billion dollar industry that is set to grow exponentially over the coming years. As the industry grows, so will the cost of regulation grow. The burden of this regulation will fall on the CT taxpayers in an already fiscally difficult time. By allowing the FDA to regulate electronic cigarettes it will lead to A) More concise and uniform requirements B) Regulations based on well funded research currently being conducted by the FDA vs. premature notions of what is necessary and C) The ability for manufacturers from other states to create products that can be marketed to the entire country (including CT). The vast majority of vape shops here in CT carry

products that were made in other states. By creating regulations before the FDA has a chance to deem a country-wide set of standards it will leave most of the vape shops in the state with a full stock of juice they can no longer legally sell and nowhere to get it while the local companies rush to meet the requirements of any new regulations. This would force most if not all vape shops in the state to close their doors, creating hundreds of people without jobs. This can all be avoided by waiting for the FDA to release their set of regulations for the electronic cigarette industry. When the FDA releases these regulations, companies in CT will have abide by them as well as the rest of the country. By jumping the gun and coming out with our own set of regulations we will only cost CT companies money while trying to keep up with the continually changing regulations and wasting CT taxpayer money by trying to rush ahead of the FDA.

(F) carry labels disclosing the materials used in the electronic cigarettes and the sources of such materials, and

Industry-wide labelling requirements are among the set of regulations that the FDA is currently researching and coming to a conclusion on. While having ingredients listed on the label is already an industry standard, listing the sources of said materials is not only not pertinent from a consumer standpoint, it would serve to make the label even more confusing and hard to read. The labels on 15 and 30ml bottle are small and can only fit a certain amount of information. This should be reserved for important warnings like “May contain nicotine, keep from children and pets” and nicotine strength.

(G) carry warning labels on the health consequences of inhaling its contents, similar to those warnings required with regard to cigarettes, and

Until the FDA finishes it’s studies on the health effects of electronic cigarettes, any health implications printed on the labels would be speculation based on whatever scientific studies are out right now. For the same reason we are not legally allowed to say anything positive regarding electronic cigarettes from a health standpoint, we are also restricted in what we can say about the negatives of long term electronic cigarette use. While the vast majority of health studies involving nicotine were arrived at from studying nicotine ingestion through smoking, these studies wouldn’t be an accurate source to base negative health claims. New and pointed studies specifically targeted at realistic electronic cigarette use are needed before a consensus of negative health implications can be made and printed. Putting a scientifically unsubstantiated health claim on our bottle, positive or negative, could leave manufactures open to legal actions. We can only state the FDA’s official stance on this which they have not arrived at.

(2) the Department of Public Health to adopt regulations to implement the requirements with regard to electronic cigarettes.

With the recent budget cuts and difficult financial situation in the state on CT, it seems irresponsible for the CT residents to be forced to hold the bill for an unnecessary and unsustainable electronic cigarette regulation. The time, money, and effort could save more lives by being spent on more immediate health issues in the state that have recently had their budgets cut. The FDA is currently addressing everything included in this piece of legislation and more. Through federal taxes, CT citizens are already paying for electronic cigarette research and subsequent FDA regulations. The FDA is better suited to regulate this industry as they can implement an industry standard that the entire country can adhere to. While there are some large corporations involved in the electronic cigarette industry, the vast majority of businesses involved are small to medium sized businesses. While larger corporations can afford the costs of an ever changing regulatory landscape, the smaller businesses involved will be destroyed by the costs. Rushing to regulate this environment is reckless and could crush this industry in CT while forcing countless CT ex-smokers back to cigarettes and their deadly effects. Not only will this literally lead to the deaths of many CT residents, the preventable and known health care costs of smoking will add an additional tax burden to an already struggling economy. Whether we are talking about lives or money, Connecticut residents cannot afford the unintended harmful consequences of this bill passing. If you have any questions please feel free to contact us. We would love the opportunity to speak with further on this issue.

Thank you for your time,

Dave Estes and Jeff Burness

Pheye Labs LLC