Member

Amendment 148B also strikes me as helpful. It would ensure that regulations were based on an understanding of relative harm, not merely the absolute presence of certain chemicals. That nuance is surely important; it reflects the overall aim of harm reduction and encourages both the use and development of products that are demonstrably less harmful than conventional cigarettes. Amendment 148D works in the same spirit. Similarly, Amendment 148E seeks to embed harm reduction directly into the regulatory framework. It would ensure that, when making regulations about ingredients, the Secretary of State must take into account the safety of a product as compared to cigarette smoke. That, too, is sensible because it encourages innovation and improvement in reduced-risk products; it also guards against disproportionate restrictions that might inadvertently eliminate safer alternatives.