MHRA Cancels Consultation with Carl Phillips Regarding Electronic Cigarettes

The UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the United Kingdom's version of the FDA, wants to classify electronic cigarettes as a drug device. To that end they had scheduled a consultation meeting where they hoped to gain support from expert testimony for their recent proposal of giving e-cigarette manufacturers just two weeks to license the product as a drug under their jurisdiction, a process which usually takes two years.

In response to the anticipated domination of the meeting by drug company and anti-smoking activist group funded "experts", world renowned tobacco control expert Prof. Carl Phillips, MPP PhD, an Associate Professor at the University of Alberta School of Public Health and a leading e-cigarette and harm reduction policy champion, planned to attend, at his own expense, to explain the true public health benefits and the real science of electronic cigarettes to the MHRA.

However, initially he was refused access as an independent party and had to take a temporary consultant position with E-Cigarette Direct, the UK distributor for Njoy. reportedly for less than the price of a takeaway order of chips, to gain entry to the meeting and be heard by the government as a recognized industry expert.

Now the MHRA, recently criticized by a parliamentary select committee for it's close relationship with the pharmaceutical industry who feel ecigs threaten their NRT profits, has suddenly canceled the meeting with only six days to go claiming the timing of the meeting violated their own rules about meeting during a general election.

This has raised questions in the industry about the government's motives since Prof. Phillips was in the country originally to attend a harm reduction conference and will most likely not be able to attend a future meeting. Is the MHRA delaying until he leaves to avoid hearing any expert support for e-cigarettes? Why did they just now, with only six days to go, notice their meeting violated their own rules? Who pointed out the meeting violated the rules and what is their motivation for a delay?

All these questions remain unanswered as does the question of how the cancellation of this meeting might affect the future of electronic cigarettes in the UK and when a new meeting might be scheduled.