1 A child resistance cap and a warning that the product contains nicotine is sufficient.

1 A safety warning should be enough. Do not leave where children and pets may get into

1 A simple text only: "WARNING: THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS NICOTINE" would be ideal.

1 A standardized text warning should be required. Nothing more.

1 A streamline standard of just text would be the best way.

1 Adults know what they are getting. Child safety lids are good enough

1 All the FDA needs to do is warn about liquid nicotine exposure to children and pets.

1 As with medications an insert could be provided outlining the dangers of exposure to children.

1 BOTH

1 Bkth should be included. This would create a two step protective system to protect children.

28 Both

1 Both

1 Both I feel should be required.

1 Both a warning and a child resistant cap

1 Both are fine as long as we are not limiting the availability of these products to adults.

1 Both are good.

1 Both common sense

1 Both crp and warning labels

1 Both for liquid nicotine. Concentrated nicotine can be dangerous if mishandled.

1 Both if we're going to do it right both safety and warning should be applied .

1 Both not every one can read

1 Both on containers large enough

1 Both on liquid nicotine, as this is the most dangerous part of electronic cigarettes.

1 Both required

1 Both should be employed

1 Both should be required

1 Both should be required on all bottles

3 Both should be required.

1 Both should be required. A small warning on the bottle and child proof packaging only.

1 Both should be used

1 Both should be used

1 Both should be used.

1 Both the child resistant cap and the warning should be required

1 Both warnings and safety protection.

1 Both would be fine, but make sure that the warning labels present facts not fiction.

1 Both, as young children cannot read.

1 Both, because children can't always reason that something is harmful using info grafts.

1 Both, because common sense

1 Both, because it needs to be know that it should be kept from children and pets!

1 Both, better safe than sorry

1 Both, but intervention should be minimal.

1 Both, common sense

3 Both.

1 Both. It is safer for children to see a symbol rather than read.

1 Both. Both bases are covered this way. Double protection for children and pets.

1 Both. Keep children from consuming nicotine.

1 Both. Nicotine warnings serve to inform, child-resistant packaging serves a self-evident end.

1 Both. Some children can not read.

1 Both. The industry has already implemented this practice without regulation.

1 Both. Warnings are no use to children that cannot read but can still open containers.

1 Child resistant packing makes since the rest of what I read. Is stupid

1 Child proof cap should be sufficient without the need for warning labels.

1 Child proof caps & simple warning. Parents should take responsibility for their children

1 Child proof container

1 Child resistance cover innocent children, and text informs ignorant adults.

1 Child resistant packaging and a general warning should suffice.

1 Child resistant packaging has priority.

1 Child resistant packaging only.

1 Child resistant packaging should take priority.

1 Child safety caps and keep out of reach of children warnings.

1 Clear juice and a child proof cap should be required

1 Colors and symbols are not needee however the text is a must

1 Dumb.

1 I agree having both is beneficial.

1 I believe both are good in keeping the general public safe.

1 I believe both should be inforced

1 I believe both should be part of each other.

1 I believe both would benefit the safety

1 I do believe that child safety caps should be mandatory and some type of written warning.

1 I do not possess evidence that would suggest either method is more effective than the other.

1 I do not see a problem any vape store I been too do ID and do not sale to minors.

1 I explained it earlier

1 I feel a plane nicotine exposure lake, and child proof cap is more then enough.

1 I feel that both should be required to keep children safer around these products

1 I feel the warning labeled and resistance should be there. That's it though

1 I have no objection to child protection and warnings. Most companies already follow this practice

1 I have no problem with the nicotine warnings or the child proof bottles.

1 I text warning would be good, there is not a need for the color.

1 I think a warning and a child safety cap is probably a good idea.

1 I think child resistance containers would be appropriate enough

1 I think that a safety warning will sufice.

1 I think the current warnings and child prof bottles are sufficient.

1 I think warnings and crc are both needed

1 I think. Oth woild be good but the warning should be in rather small text

1 Just a sime exposure warning like the side of a pack of smokes

1 Just kep away from children, alot of people use 0 nicotine.

1 Just text explaining the nicotine

1 Just the label all bottles are already child resistant

1 Just warnings printed on bottle is suffiecient.

1 NO FDA Regulation.

The vaping industry self regulates

1 Na

1 Nah

2 Neither

1 Neither

1 Neither should be required. It's not the duty of nicotine manufacturers to safe guard children.

1 Neither.

1 Neither. FDA should just stay out of it.

Want data or evidence? Go into a vape shop.

1 Neither.... kids can't read

14 No

1 No



2 No

1 No labels 18 and older

1 No Answer

1 No answer

1 No it will be a waste of time and money

1 No nicotine isn't killing people tobacco was killing people!

1 No use both

2 No.

1 No.

1 No. It's up to the parents

1 No. People know what it is

1 No. There's already warning labels on the bottle.

4 None

1 None, leave it alone....

1 None, this goes against all free market principals.

1 None. If people are concerned, they should not bring it into their homes.

1 None. Stay out of people's business.

1 Nothing

1 Nothing thats bad enough

3 One or the other

1 Only a symbol. A universal symbol will help everyone know what the dangers are.

1 Only child resistance. A toddler can't read anyway

1 Only child resistant packaging

1 Only child resistant packaging is needed

1 Only child resistant tops

1 Only child-resistant packaging should be required, it's already the industry standard.

1 Only exposure

1 Only one and.not the other

1 Only one.

1 Only text

1 Only text.

1 Only the child restraint

1 Pakageing because the liquid can be consumed and kids cannot read.

1 Prefer not answer

1 Purely liquid nicotine should have both child resistant caps and textual warnings.



1 Resistant caps only, people don't read warnings. Source: I'm a human

1 Should be both

1 Simple text warning only

1 Simple warning labels and child proof containers on nicotine products.

2 Text

1 Text is more than adequate.

1 Text is suficient

1 Text only

1 Text warning

1 Text with in reason as to not increase production cost

1 The FDA should not require either of these practices.

1 The FDA shouldn't regulate this product.

1 The commin size bottle foesnt have room for all this useless information

1 The levels of nicotine should be displayed

1 The warning and child proof bottles should be used

1 There should be both warnings and child resistant packaging.

1 There should be child proofing and warnings

1 They should both be required

1 They should have warning labels and child proof caps.

1 They should not

1 They should. Nicotine is still dangerous to children in low doses

1 This product contains nicotine. Keep away from children and pets.

1 Use both child resistant packages and small warnings, but no graphics.

1 Vhild resistant bottles

1 Warning and child-resistant packaging

1 We don't need the exposure, but the companies already do the safety lids

1 What are the differences between what your asking?

1 Words are clear, pictures aren't always clear and easy to understand

3 Yes

1 Yes

1 Yes both

1 Yes both of them should be used.

1 Yes they should

1 Yes, both should be implemented. Text warning with poison number & child-resistant bottles.

1 Yes, these products were invented to reduce harm and I believe we should support that movement.

1 Yes.

I think that would be sufficient enough.

1 a text is suitable, same as it is on regular cigarette packaging.

5 both

1 both

1 both should be required to make the products as safe to handle as possible.

1 both there is no evidence. we need warnings and child proof caps

1 both, because young kids can't read.

1 child-resistant

1 just child-resistant packaging should be enough

1 just exposure warnings

1 manufacturers already have warnings and safety precautions in place

1 nicotine exposure warning only text

3 no

1 no



1 none

1 none.

1 only child resistant packaging

1 should require both but it is not anyone is going to really read the labeling anyways

1 text only

1 yes to both

1 yes. Doesn't harm us 18 or older and just helps to ensure safety and understanding

1 child resistant packaging only. Looks can be deceiving!! if a bottle of e liquid looks like candy its just as appealing to adults as it is to children however only adult can buy this and being in this industry since 2008 it does work!! If the bottles did not mimic the flavors half the adults wouldn't consider buying a fruity flavor

1 Yes liquid nicotine should have both nicotine exposure warnings and child resistant packaging like most e-liquid company's are already doing

1 Parents should do a better job keeping any kind of dangerous substance away from there kids..and if they do get their hands on it the child proof cap should do the rest!!



1 Both, under 18 shouldn't be using tobacco products. All people should know of harmful substances entering their bodies

1 Because nicotine in liquid format is a poison, warnings should be evident for children and or pets, keeping them safe is our goal. Warnings are necessary since people are ignorant 50% of the time.

1 Alarmist warnings would falsely inflate the perception of risk for harmless vapor products which have the potential to completely eliminate smoking within the next decade. Enthusiastic & unreserved promotion of vapor products is the only acceptable path forward

1 One or the other, simply because even alcohol isn't moderated that well. If warning labels don't work for anything else, it's probably not going to work with E-juice. I would vote that child proof caps are the best route of action.

1 The FDA should not be involved. Child resistant packaging is a joke. I have known people to give their child a prescription bottle to open because the adult was unable to open it themselves. And young children do not read, nor care about warning labels. So what is the point of these regulations!

1 I think that Child - resistant packaging will suffice. Are children going to or be able to read the labels?

1 I feel that both on a bottle of pure nicotine being mass produced wouldn't be a problem. Also on bottles of mixed e liquid that contain a small amount of nicotine should have the text label of warning

1 Neither should be required - exposure warnings may not make sense for all packaging, and are known (similar to that of caffeine, or any other number of packages the FDA does not involve itself with,) and mitigating the risk of engagement with product is the responsibility of parents and not the government.

1 Yes both exposure warnings and child proof packaging should be used, young children cannot read and may not know what nicotine is.

1 The FDA should not be requiring either! Tobacco products are not CHILD SAFE so why target nicotine products? Nicotine products are just as inaccessible to children as traditional tobacco products if not more so. If they must pursue this then exposure warnings to remind people of the danger should be more than enough

1 Both should be applied. If the bottle is locked and the it is unappealing visually a child will have no interest in it. Leaving it purely for the adults who are intended to use the product properly and enjoy it

1 Both should be included to mitigate as much potential danger as possible. The FDA cannot stop the end-users from defeating the packaging, but a suitable warning can always be given.

1 I believe both a degree of warning and child-resistant packaging should be utilized to deter children from accidental overdose. Children who can't read will not be able to open the bottle and children who may be interested in the liquid will in theory read the warning label. Parents should be educating their children (we do) as well to avoid accidental ingestion.

1 Child-resistant packaging is a must. Nicotine exposure warnings aren't entirely necessary. I see the point for them, but if someone is using an e-cigarette, it's generally for the purpose of breaking a smoking habit. If they've smoked, they're already well aware of the dangers of nicotine.

1 Child resistant package should be implemented but there is no needs for a warning label. Nicotine has the same effect on the body as caffeine (when taken in the right doses). Child resistant packaging would keep children away from it and keep them from ingesting too much. Adults do not have this problem and understand the limits of what they can have because they do not drink it. If they have too much nicotine, the same things that happen when they have too much caffeine will happen (lightheadedness/dizziness) and this lets them know it's time to put down their electronic cigarette for a while.

1 Almost all Liquid nicotine bottles already have warnings about the harmful effects of nicotine. I do support the requirement that liquid nicotine products be in child resistant containers.

1 For 100% liquid nicotine, throw every label and child proof lid you can on there. But for e juice that contains no more than 36mg per ml of nicotine, a child proof lid is plenty.

1 The people buying this product know that there is nicotine in it. They should also know that it isn't safe for children. "common sense" instead of trying to control the problem, fix it by educating the ignorant people who leave the product where children can reach.

1 Neither should be required. Warning labels aren't read. Child proof cap I could see because of all the bad parents. But the FDA will punish everyone for a few bad parents

1 Packaging should read keep of of reach of children/pets. As I said before this is a product for Adults.

1 None, and there should not be any sort of warning labels applied while the FDA has a clear and present conflict of interest regarding the regulation of electronic cigarettes or other advanced personal vaporizer devices.

1 Both would be fine or at very least just the child proof packaging. Which multiple complains already do both currently.

1 I think if the packaging has got a child safety cap it should only have a nicotine mg count on it.

1 Just nicotine exposure warnings. People should be responsible enough to keep e-liquid out of reach of their children.

1 There are specific risks associated with nicotine for both adults and children. Adults should be made aware of potential risks associated with nicotine, based on scientific studies, and young children should be deterred from opening packages.



1 Both forms should occur as both are again already applied to other items in the household of this nature. There is no special status needed here. Same standards and guidelines as anything else.

1 With respect to liquid nicotine ONLY, The FDA should require both exposure warnings (text) warnings and child-resistant packaging ONLY!

1 Both can be considered. Children won't heed text or graphics but the written warnings should be there for adults.

1 Child resistant caps should be required, warning labels should be required. Specific colored labeling should NOT be a requirement.

1 Child resistant packaging because it simply keeps the child out of the product. It is not the job of the U.S. government to do the homework on nicotine liquid for the consumer. It only will raise costs for the small business owner to giant company and the costs get passed down to the consumer. Who will they blame? The government.

1 No they should not as the whole eliquid community of businesses have been self regulating and have already made these moves on their own.

1 You shouldn't be regulating the liquid manufacturing considering there's nothing harmful about it

1 An exposure warning and a childproof system is best, in care parent is not responsible enough to protect the child.

1 They should both be required, just a basic. Black writing warning label just as cigarettes. And I will agree completely.

1 With any liquid nicotine 36mg per ml and over, you should require a skull and crossbones poison warning with poison control information. In 48mg per ml liquid nicotine & over, the same plus ocular & dermal exposure warnings.



Always use the warning to keep out of reach of children & pets at any nicotine level.

1 It should NOT be nicotine exposure warnings, it should simply be a child resistant packaging, contains nicotine warning.

1 Just one..... Kind of a given, you wouldn't leave your bleach or other toxic chemicals out for your kids to drink or eat,

1 Child resistant packaging should suffice, many far more dangerous items already approved exist in the world today.

1 Both. If a child unable to read were to obtain a container with a written warning but no other physical deterrent, what would keep them from opening it?

1 I do agree that the FDA should have nicotine exposure warnings and child resistant packaging. Fear mongering should be left out of the equation!



1 Both should be used. Nicotine in it's pure form can be toxic even if it is diluted. it should mostly warn people to not ingest the liquid. Child proof caps simply because safety

1 Child resistant packaging is the only action that can be done, warning labels people tend to ignore

1 I think both is ok. liquid nicotine manufacturers are already providing both those things along with ingredients lists, born on dates and batch numbers.

1 Neither people should be bright enough that if you are going to have such substance to keep it away from children you dont put child resistant packages on chewing tobacco or cigarettes or liquor.

1 In keeping packaging unattractive to children, plain worded labels with limited colors, without any graphics and child-proof lids would be sufficient. This includes the warning labels. Children are drawn to bright colors and pictures. If labels are generic, they will have no interest. My experience raising children in a home with medicines and household cleaners equipped with child-resistant packaging is what I base my opinion on.

1 No, if someone is ignorant enough to allow a child to expose themselves to liquid nicotine, then that someone should have not reproduced in the first place.

1 Child-resistant packaging is paramount and warnings are secondary. Younger children will not heed labels and therefore the child-resistant packaging will prevent them from opening liquid nicotine so easily. The warnings serve to protect teens who could open the bottles if they so wish.

1 No I don't think that a graphic will help that it has nicotine in it just have the label people still smoke and people still drink and they both have warnings on them it won't stop people from doing it this is just a safer alternative to smoking

1 both should be considered but the warnings should only include text stating to keep out of reach of children

1 Only one or the other should be required. Small graphics would be more suitable to most small packaging, but may not be easy to comprehend.

1 I can see small text being added in case of exposure, and child-resistant packaging, as well. As I have stated: the liquid I purchase is child-resistant.

1 The FDA shouldn't have any mandate or requirements in any matter of these products. The industry currently has a capable and functioning Organization that has been overseeing Liquid production and packaging, and that body should bee given the Official Duty or regulating this industry. This regulating body is the American Eliquid Manufacturing Standards Association (AEMSA). They have begun long ago putting together smart and effective regulations to ensure safety. This organization is made up of highly knowledgeable industry individuals who understand the product and how it is actually made. Any regulations and governing over this industry should come from the AEMSA.

1 Both. Uninformed users of the product should be informed by the warning label and children should be protected from harm via the protect mechanisms.

2 No, do not mess with anything regarding e-liquid, or E-cigarettes. They are produced to help smokers quit. It has helped my husband and myself. We are 6 years smoke free. I do not agree with any changes to something that helps the quality of life. If adults choose to use E-liquid they are fully aware of the consciences if children get ahold of it. It is the juice makers responsibility to produce safe caps and the consumers responsibility to keep away from children. Our choice not Fda's, or governments.

1 no. It's common sense to keep it out of the reach of children. The government is losing money by this not being federally regulated. It's all about the money which is ridiculous. People are switching to a safer way of getting nicotine with fewer to no health consequences. Leave it alone.

1 Most manufacturers of E Liquid here in California have already adopted to put the Prop 65 labels on their products or it is already on the label with warnings

1 Both, the packaging to detract children from accidental exposure and the warning for parents/consumers to know what to expect in the case of an accidental exposure.

1 There is already child proof push and turn lids on more then 95% of the eliquids on the market. No cartoon type graphics, nor are childeren allowed to purchase them.

1 Just text. If I get gas for my lawnmower and put it in a red plastic gas can at the gas station, there is no earnings our graphics on my gas can. Just as harmful to a kid.

1 It is a parents responsibility to keep any harmful product away from children. How can the FDA put other health warnings on the label? They don't even have the research to back up what they are saying. Tax nicotine but other than that they need to leave the Ecig industry alone. Let educated consumers make their own choices.

1 The Food and Drug Administration SHOULD NOT require child-restraint packaging or nicotine exposure warnings.

1 I feel like both are reasonable. Tamper evident seals and push to turn lids are both appropriate methods of child resistant packaging. Using hard top lids with plastic bottles vs glass dropper bottles are safer and easier to ship and handle. These bottles also have almost no risk of damage from handling. My experience as a user of these products is my evidence.

1 Both would be sufficient for liquid nicotine since it basically eliminates any risks associated with it.

1 Require child proof caps and labels saying "may contain nicotine keep out of reach of childeren"

1 I believe neither proposed regulation should be mandated. The reason behind my choice is because the industry is self-regulating already. There is already child-proof caps and warnings on the juice used in the atomizers.

1 Both should be required. Warning labels only work for those who can read them. Child resistant packaging acts as a double safeguard for children too young to read the warning labels.

1 Yes. All nicotine containing products should have child resistant packaging. Most manufacturers already do.

1 It should be noted that the products contain nicotine the bottles should have childsafe caps and tamper evedent ring . their should not be any grafix required other thin 18+

1 Vaping has helped me quit the use of all tobacco products. I have slowly stepped down my nicotine level. If I had not done this I believe that the use of tobacco products would have taken my life.

1 Both because the warning should be there for everybody to see and the safety so that people or children that can't read cannot open it

1 Both should be required . If your gonna do it do it right . Child proof caps , warning labels in print are fine and will help if they are required.

1 I feel that e liquid that contains nicotine should be harder to open for children somewhat like pill containers

1 Quit adding additional burden to the shoulders of responsible people and furthering the nanny state. If people aren't watching their children those children shouldn't be with irresponsible parents. You are stepping too far away from the issue and violating the rights of the American people.

1 Both. Make it so kids can't get in and let people who can read have that info available on the package

1 They should include both, as majority of companies already do. But that should be the only warning. Its common sense, safety is all we need. No regulation of flavors and such, because that is an enjoyable part of it for adults.

1 Text will not do much, child resistant packaging will. A child who wants something is not going to stop and read that they can't.

1 I think a child restart lid and a warning to the effect of keep out of reach of children or use responsibly is sufficient. I mean there are things way more poisonous to children that do now of these things.

1 I think, liquid NICOTENE should be packaged with a nicotine warning, and child resistant. BUT, e-liquid that DOESN'T CONTAIN nicotine, should not even be considered in the same category as that which does contain nicotine.

1 Tobacco and other chemical warnings, not nicotine warning. No child proof packaging required. I say this not because of the obvious cost associated with the industry having to conform, but because I have two healthy children.

1 I believe that both should be required, because regardless of packaging, adults who do not wish to consume nicotine should be warned that they are doing so, as well as the ability of parents to teach their children to avoid anything bearing whichever symbol is deemed most appropriate for nicotine products.

1 I don't have an answer for this.

Common sense says either one would be sufficient, but we all know that not everyone has that.

1 I support both. It should be made aware to the consumer that this I not a product to be left in the open.

1 Both a warning and child resistant packaging will be enough, small exposure warnings and maybe a small graphic element will do for information, the child resistant package (like a push to open) should be only an extra way to keep children safe from it.

1 Both should be included, although fear mongering beyond nicotine large-dose poison risk should be avoided. A large-dose poison risk warning and child-resistant packaging are minor things that can be done to help safeguard users and children.

1 Only one requirement, because these products must be physically put into or attached to other mechanical devices for the product to work efficiently. The only possible exposure is if someone accidentally drank eliquid. But that can also be said of household cleaners like winded or lysol. There are NO child proof packaging on my household cleaning bottles which contain OVER 32 Oz of toxic chemicals, and a 5 year old could buy it at the grocery store. Eliquid is sold in very small quantities and would not do the same damage to the body as any household cleaners.

1 none should be required as makers are already using childproof caps and have nic warnings due to the way the vape community regulates itself as to not give a reason to be regulated.

1 If by "liquid nicotine", you mean e-liquid meant for use in vaporizer devices, then I think the industry should adopt standards on its own, only asking the FDA for guidance if needed. However, if by "liquid nicotine", you mean actual high-concentration nicotine solution meant for manufacturers of e-liquids to use in making their products, then warnings should be unnecessary as the manufacturer ought to have the MSDS on hand.

1 Child resistant packaging should be optional. Many companies choose to use it already, but some don't. A child or pet eating a pack of cigarettes would be (at least) equally as harmful, yet child resistant packaging is not a requirement here. The consumers of liquid nicotine are, on the whole, well aware of the risks, and keep items well out of range of dangerous areas. Adding a text warning to bottles would only further ensure consumers were aware of the risk, and empower them to continue making wise decisions on where to place their private property, for the safety and we'll being of their loved ones.



Again, cigarettes aren't child proof. Let's be logical, shall we?

1 I think that anyone using the product, being over 18 years of age, should/would already know the risks therefore no warnings are necessary. So if anything is required it should only be the child resistant packaging.

1 first consider; what child safety warning/device to you have on tobacco cigarettes containing Nicotine?

1 I think both should be required, a strong warning, the number for poison control, and child resistant caps are more than reasonable requirements, especially since accidental consumption is the main concern.

1 A textual warning and prohibitive mechanisms are all that are necessary, Imagery is only to scare.

1 Nicotine is a poison and should be labeled as such. Poisons should be kept out of the reach of children and no container design should be relied upon for this purpose.

1 I believe both are reasonable measures, it should be safe from those that can't read (children/pets) and apparent to those that can (and can open the packaging) what the dangers of its misuse are, and who to contact if something goes wrong, much like any other household cleaning product, I don't believe a full msds for each product is necessary, but reasonable warnings against its misuse and who to contact if something does happen only seems reasonable.

1 I helped raise six children, i know how their little hands want to touch everything, so there should be a safety cap on nicotine products as well as warnings of ingesting

1 Perhaps a 16x16 pixel graphic of a skull.



Child proof packaging for liquids larger than 30ml and with a concentration above 6 milligrams per milliliter should be necessary.

1 I believe everyone at this point knows the risk they are taking by using a nicotine based product. It any warning should be required it should be the risk to children.

1 Both, warnings to educate valid users and child resistant packaging to help prevent accidental use by a child

1 I feel that companies should be required to present a text warning as well as child proof packaging.

1 No warnings other than the presence of nicotine should be used in packaging. see http://acsh.org/2014/01/whats-story-effects-nicotine-human-health-2/

1 Only Child resistant tops are needed for the Eliquid bottles. The rest should be the responsibility of the user to keep out of children's hands. There isn't this many restrictions on cigarette packs, so why put it on Eliquids?

1 Warnings on pure nicotine would be useful, although pure nicotine is already marked very well. Child sensitive packaging on the above item would make sense but on novelty products such as eliquid, I do not believe it should be required.

1 I believe it should be implemented only because this is a route to quit the habit people must understand the health issues just like they would with everything around us today....

1 Both would be ideal as this would give a clear representation that the product is potentially harmful while reducing the harm when a child is in contact with the substances.

1 How far should the FDA go to protect people? Maybe we need an FDA rep to dole out any products that may harm us. Once again, you are going overboard here. Child proof caps on a bottle of Oxycontin are acceptable, but we need more for a bottle of e-liquid. Reality check people

1 Both should be required. Not all children read. Also vapor is new product that unfortunately some people assume carries no risk. I believe it is less risky then smoking, however it still carries risk. Some people need to be reminded.

1 A warning stating the product may contain Nicotine with Child proof caps and tamper seals is enough

1 They should require both.



Any product that contains a potentially dangerous chemical needs to clearly say that on the label (this is for both adults and children)



Any product that contains a potentially dangerous chemical AND appeals to children (meds looking like candy, liquid nicotine that smells like candy) should contain childproof packaging.

1 Basic general warning & Push down and turn child proof caps (Which is already effectively being used on the majority of liquid nicotine bottles)

1 there should be a keep our of reach of childeren and pets warning and child resistant pakaging that can only be opened by an adult



1 Both should be present. With child-resistant bottles and a warning it should send a clear message to the consumer to be cautious.

1 Both. They have different objectives. The Child Resistant Packaging is to prevent accidental consumption by those who can't read or don't know otherwise, while the nicotine exposure warnings serve to help educate users who can read.

1 Honestly I don't think there needs to be warnings about the nicotine in these products. If anything, make sure to have child resistant bottles.

1 FDA should require both exposure warnings and child-resistant packaging. Although warnings can be stated clearly on the label, it does necessarily deter children from being able to open and accidentally consume its contents. Having both will ensure safety for consumers and children.

1 I'd say both. The packaging keeps younger children out of the bottles and the warming labels educate adults and older children on the dangers of the liquid contained within.

1 I believe some companies are already using both effectively, and some companies are doing both, voluntarily already.

1 Text warnings and child resistant packaging is good, graphical warnings many be difficult to fix on a small package.

1 I feel like both are a good idea. Adults should know what they get themselves into, and children shouldn't be allowed access until they are legally old enough to decide for themselves.

1 No. It's not necessary, other than trying to scare people into a panic a typical moron should have enough common sense to read up on it or use caution.

1 The vaping community has be self governing long before the FDA (Big Tobacco/Big Pharma chose to get involved we do just fine on our own.

1 No action of the FDA required. All products that I have seen already contain warnings and safety measures. The FDA should not mandate nor force burdensome regulations on an industry that already is taking more than adequate precautions!

1 Both should be required if the product has nicotine. With the 0mg products, I don't think that it needs the Waring about nicotine because there isn't any. Also, most of the products I have bought have labels stating there is nicotine in the product and to be careful.

1 Both should be required on bottles over a certain size and perhaps where it not possible to have both it would be acceptable to have one label/deterrent



This way if someone is unable to print labels including the text message ( as it is too small a bottle ) they can still sell that product.



Often eliquid comes in 10-15ML bottles that would be hard to have both deterrents

1 I think there should be both a warning label about nicotine and child resistant packaging because the nicotine warning isn't just for children.

1 A lot of people do not read warnings. You could just place a small symbol as a reminder of the risks and that would be perfect

1 I believe both should be enforced. Some people won't read a label unless there is a Saftey cap that makes them think about why the cap is there.

1 I believe that vaping has saved my life. I am a responsible parent who was addicted to cigarettes, but never smoked in my house, car, or around my children. First and foremost I believe it is a parents responsibility to protect and educate their children. They should keep all harmful products away from small children. Most of the liquid I purchase is already in childproof containers, the industry seems to be taking it upon themselves to self govern. I think childproof packaging should be implimented in the future, but the requirements shouldn't be so strict and swift to eliminate small businesses across the country! For articles to come out saying that candy like flavorings are being marketed to children is infuriating. I am a 36 year old, mother of two boys, and the only reason I was successful at quitting smoking cigarettes was because of the flavors! I enjoy candy flavor, fruity flavors, and dessert flavors. My doctor is amazed at the improvement with my health. I am passionate about vaping, because after seeing two of my grandparents die from lung cancer, I truly believe vaping saved my life. Listen to the public, please don't try to over regulate a blossoming industry out of existance. Locally owned small businesses are the ones who will suffer and loose everything if the FDA over steps its authority.

1 I believe it places a burden on the manufacturer to add text and child-proof packaging, but not unreasonably so unless the child-proof-packaging law is stringent on brand/type. Again, this goes back to recognizing that child-proof lids are made by multiple manufacturers.

1 I feel that nicotine exposure warning and tamper proof packaging should be required. Once again, it is up to the consumer to inform their children

As with alcohol, the 'fruity'candy flavors are not secondary protected to prevent children to access them. Once the consumer gets the product out of the store, it is the consumers actions that will protect their children.

1 I think it should only pertain to child resistant packaging to e-liquids only. My opinion is based on the fact that I am a parent and we should be responsible enough to protect our children. Other than that, we are all adults who are intelligent enough to make informed decisions on our own without the interference of the government taking this inherent freedom away from us. Cigarettes have already killed and maimed enough Americans but, now we have the tools we need to help us lead healthier lives. Too much government regulation will effectively kill innovation in the Vaping Community and with that will come the over taxing of an already broken health care system. Innovation in the E-cig market means a reduction in deaths, and health care costs. This means that both federal and local governments can focus on more important issues such as rebuilding the American Infrastructure.

1 I feel that companies should use child proof containers but not the labels. Anyone using these products should no the danger of them.

1 As a vaper I believe that there should be a warning and childproof packages. The safer we are in preventing drastic circumstances the less likely people are to overreact and seek total outlaw of said product.

1 These should both be required on liquid nicotine solutions. Children have no need to be in/using these bottles, and parents/adults should be informed that this product is indeed a poison, and a list of ALL chemicals, nicotine level, etc.

1 Only one most or all of the containers require a fair amount of presser an twisting action to open my younger siblings can no open the containers I have

1 I believe a child resistant cap, along with a succinct risk stated associated with pure nicotine on the bottle, would be sufficient.

1 Both.

From personal experience, people tend to gloss over the text warning labels on products, especially when they're at a point where they feel comfortable with them. Graphics, however, still tend to catch the eye and serve as a reminder of the potential dangers at hand.

1 Both because you use both on prescription drugs. If that's deemed safe enough for highly addictive and dangerous drugs, it's safe enough for liquid nicotine.

1 Caps are all that's needed. We don't need to tell people there is nicotine in tobacco. It's common sense. The same goes for the e-liquid

1 Both. I dont want my kid in it also if teens do it they need to know whats in it and their consequences.

1 The FDA should not require any warnings or special packaging. Most professional liquid nicotine manufacturers already utilize child-resistant packaging. Warning labels are appearing more and more frequently on liquid nicotine containers as well. It is a process called self regulation.

1 Most people who do not use this product will not understand the color code so leave it off. Text would work best

1 Both should be required as they provide a reasonable function at minimal inconvenience to the user. These are both currently considered standards in the liquid nicotine market. I would just hope that the labeling would not be obnoxious and therefore be ignored by everyone.

1 Please look into more easily attainable E-cigarettes found at the gas station with no child proof mechanisms, only a cardboard and plastic container.

1 Both should be included, mostly because this helps protect the companies from being liable to something they couldn't really control. Things like these are caused by the disconcern of the parents or owners of the product. Because, only at a certain age ( say 10 years of age ) will even read the warnings of the label. Even then, it is no guarantee that anyone at all will read a warning label. Frankly no one cares about a warning, they will do what they want with or without a warning.

1 Child resistant packaging. Adults who purchase the product know what it is and don't need a label warning them.

1 Both, nicotine exposure warnings and child-resistant packaging, should be implemented for the safety of children and those that are unaware of any potential risks of the product.

1 both. since most companies are already doing both, it wont be a big deal,but allow for specialty noncompliant containers with nonliability disclaimers for secialty products i.e. limited run liquid, specialty liquids,collectors bottles.

1 Both, child proof packaging and a broad nicotine warning should be required in order to prevent small children from accessing the product and warn users the product contains nicotine

1 By the time a person reaches the legal age they know what not to leave within the reach of children. The other percentage is just being careless or don't care. No matter what you put on the label it's not going to make a difference. No pictures and leave it simple KEEP OUT OF THE REACH OF CHILDREN



If there has to be a picture keep it small and simple. Skull and crossbones comes to mind.

1 Though I have no evidence to supply you with, resistant packaging should be sufficient. Provided people remember to use it. No label can save us from people who ignore warnings or safeties designed to protect us.

1 Both should be required. Child resistant packaging is there for those whom are too young to read and/or adequately comprehend the risks of exposure. Textual information is for the consumers benefit, not children.

1 They should be required to put wArning labels on the bottles as far as keeping them out of the reach of children, and squeeze and twist locks. Anything above this would be going too far and over stepping boundaries.

1 Both. I have often had unassuming people touch my bottle of liquid nicotine out of curiosity without asking first, only to have me instruct them to wash their hands because they don't know the dangers of concentrated nicotine. Only the dangers of smoking dried tobacco are well known, not the dangers of handling liquid nicotine.

1 Yes, with the use of CRC and CRD & a warning label you decrease the chance of accidental exposure. All liquid nicotine labels should contain at least the following.

This product contains nicotine, keep away from children & pets; 18+ to use or buy; Shake well before every use; Poison Control #: 800-222-1222.

1 I believe just stating that the product contains nicotine and to keep away from children and pets. Is good

1 Both should be required, and both are currently being used effectively on the majority of ejuice bottles already.

1 One or the other, there is no need to over saturate the product with expensive changes there by raising the price and making it unworthy to people wanting to quit smoking.

1 I Believe the children most at risk are not yet able to read, therefore cold proof packaging will be more effective than written text.

1 Yes. This way it is harder to access for the child and if accessed the parents can know how to handle situation

1 My company already has a prop 65 warning as well as KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN. Also with a child resistant dropper for the bottles.

1 Nicotine is being found to have healing properties in Alzheimers patients, and is also being found by you the FDA to not be the thing in ciggerettes to be the problem once thought it was.

1 Neither. Adults should be responsible enough to keep the liquid out of children's reach. No labels are needed.

1 If the FDA deemed it to be necessary to either have child resistant packaging or a warning label, then it should be both. Once a product is in a consumer's hand, there is no guarantee that the child resistant packaging will be used properly, but the additional feature of a warning label would serve as a constant reminder to the consumer to be aware of what they are handling.

1 Only child restraint packaging should be necessary. I feel like we know what nicotine does to our bodies which is why we switched from cigarettes to E-Cigarettes instead. It would be more logical to just make it where a child can't access it instead of wasting the time and money to put warnings on everything when we already know the dangers.

1 Both!!! Child resistant caps so that children can't accidentally open the bottles and drink them or get the juice on their skin. Text labels with color symbols so that adults are aware of the dangers and can make their own choice if they want to use that product or not considering allt he warnings.

1 Adults know the risks, children shouldnt have it, its just common sense. All this is about is ways for it to be taxed and controled

1 The packaging already contains wording that it has/does not have nicotine. Also the packaging is already child resistant .

1 I say both would be beneficial for everyone, labels with correct text on them, not propaganda, and child resistant bottles.

1 Warnings only. People around children need to be responsible for how they should leave things around them.

1 Both. People should be informed of what risks they may be taking on. Child-resistant caps work well for children who may not read yet.

1 Just Child resistant packaging. Chidren dont read labels again personal responsibility for your own kids. I have been able to go 0 Nic. after being a smoker 2 packs Marlboro a Day This is a revolution and only big Tobacco is gettting hurt.

1 A clear and visible warning to alert the consumer, and to prevent frivolous lawsuits should be enough to protect both manufacturer and consumer. This would (in theory) place the burdon on the consumer to be responsible for keeping the product safe.

1 Both. The warning labels for those who do not know, but can read. The child proof packaging for children.

1 There should be a general broad warning that the product "may" contain nicotine. And the packaging should be child-resistant

1 The FDA should limit its requirement to text warning of ocular and dermal exposure and squeeze and turn child resistant packaging. Other requirements are not useful as they only add cost, they do not offer increased effectiveness.

1 I feel both should be used, as much of the industry is already has already self-regulated to follow these factors (e.g. child-resistant caps and warnings on labels)

1 These products contain nicotine. Please be advised of the dangers of nicotine before using these products. Nicotine is addictive and also poisonous. Please use caution when using our products. Only use products as intended and never modify. Keep ALL e cig related items out of reach of children and animals.

1 Label bulk containers only. Don't sell to minors. Everyone else can take personal responsibility for their actions.

1 Having both is reasonable. Please keep the warnings somewhat discreet or on the back of the label

1 The child resistant packaging is sufficient. Warning labels are only required and a necessity for those people who are looking to sue for their own benifit. This product is intended for use by adults, the same as analog tobacco.

1 I would think having both would not hurt. Though at least just having child resistant packaging would be fine

1 As a responsible vaper, there should be basic nicotine poisoning labels and basic child proof packaging for liquid nicotine.

1 The purpose of these precautions should be to mitigate child exposure. Warning labels will not help with mitigating exposure, sine most children will not read these labels. A child proof cap, however, will work and HAS worked to prevent access of potentially harmful substances to children.

1 It should have both nicotine exposure warnings and child resistant packaging. This is to keep adults informed and to prevent children from ingesting nicotine.

1 I think largely the industry is doing a very commendable job at self regulating but there are still young upstart companies bucking trends of providing safety warnings and packaging so regulations should be considered for adequate warnings for liquids and safety packaging

1 I believe child-resistant packaging is the most important consideration that the FDA needs to make, no studies need to be conducted to know that we must make it difficult for a child to open a nicotine product. Exposure warnings are not nearly as important since most adults do not even read these warnings (no matter how large they are), most smokers can not tell you what the waning on the side of their cigarette pack says. Warnings should be focused on being informative in the event of a problem, for example *Warning - Ingestion of 5mg of nicotine per lb of body weight can lead to medical issues*

1 If a child drinks a small container of eliquid it wont kill them. A large bottle could. A child can't read. So child proofing would be the best option of the 2.

1 I have no issue with including both. They address different things. I will say however that the childproof lids will do far more to actually improve the safety of the product. People who vape are asked what nicotine level they would like when they purchase since juices are offered in many strengths. So the nicotine warning is repetitive and almost unnecessary.

1 only child resistant packaging is needed, children don't understand warnings and adults don't need them

1 No again... just dont let your kids be grabbing your stuff it is simple. There is no child-proofing on cigarettes. Come on. It is common sense. If it has nicotine dont leave it in a place where your kids can get to it.

1 No. Because the government should stay out of peoples business. The last idiots to turn everything over to the government was the American Indian and we all know how well that worked out for them.

1 No, people know what they are putting in their body, it's not up to the government to determine what we can and can't choose for ourselves. The chances of a child getting ahold of the packaging or the product is slim to none. Even with labels and child safety packaging people are still going to use it regardless.

1 The child resistant packaging should be the only element existent. The comprehension and literacy rate is significantly lower in smaller children (especially those who have come into contact with liquid nicotine), so providing a more fail-safe method of preventing the contact would decrease the rate of exposure among smaller children.



1 It shouldn't be regulated by the FDA. They shouldn't require any of this, for it is already taken care of by the shops themselves. The bottles already state that there are possible nicotine contents in the liquid. Plus there are already child resistant tops on the bottles.