Class Action Lawsuit Did Not Know Vapor Contained Nicotine
- Thread starter WharfRat1976
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I'm aware that ingested (at a dose too high to not be vomited out immediately) nicotine can be toxic, but I certainly have not come across any reputable studies that show nicotine as a carcinogen. Anyone have a link?
Me either. I've seen tons that say it's as safe as caffeine though.
The source in the OP misstates the case. The plaintiff is NOT suing because there's nicotine in ejuice:
"Named plaintiff Jerod Harris claims that the Reynolds American Inc. subsidiary violated California state consumer protection and unfair competition laws by marketing Vuse electronic cigarettes in a way that fails to inform customers of the potential health risks incurred by using the products, specifically, inhalation of the carcinogens formaldehyde and acetaldehyde.
In an earlier time, they were called "Ambulance Chasers" because they'd follow ambulances to the hospital, after accidents to try and get clients. They were considered just about the lowest of bottom feeders.
Nowadays all they have to do is advertise
For some reason, nicotine is a carcinogen in California, and only causes birth defects there. NT has had that on their labels awhile now due to that labeling law.
I suspect the CA lawsuit has more to do with hey, look, its not on these products! We can make money!
I suspect the CA lawsuit has more to do with hey, look, its not on these products! We can make money!
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/50-years-of-progress/sgr50-chap-5.pdf
Human Studies
Very little human data are on human cancer risk relating to nicotine. The Lung Health Study is the only study that provides information about long-term users of NRT (Murray et al. 2009). This study was not designed to directly examine nicotine’s potential cancer risk. It was a 5-year randomized trial to assess the effects of smoking cessation and reduction on chronic lung disease and lung function. Among 5,887 persons initially enrolled, the researchers continued to follow them for an additional 7 years (n = 3,220). Study participants were offered NRT without consideration of randomization or study design. Although they were encouraged to use NRT for only 6 months, many continued to use it long term. A total of 75 lung cancers were diagnosed among smokers and quitters of the extended surveillance group, but the use of NRT was not associated with lung cancer (or other cancers).
Summary
There is insufficient data to conclude that nicotine causes or contributes to cancer in humans, but there is evidence showing possible oral, esophageal, or pancreatic cancer risks.
---
The 75 cancers out of 3,220 - were smokers or ex-smokers - but the use of NRT (nicotine only) was not associated with lung or other cancers. That's a pretty bright differentiation. In vivo (humans) they were not 'associated' or 'causative'. Only in vitro (glass) is there an 'association' - as are thousands of substances - considered 'agents', 'tumor promoters' and other associations, but not carcinogenic.
Wiki: nicotine
In vitro studies have associated it with cancer, but carcinogenicity has not been demonstrated in vivo. There is inadequate research to demonstrate that nicotine is associated with cancer in humans.
----
In vitro (within glass - ie test tube) vs. in vivo (within the living). The in vitro 'association' isn't 'causative' but like many substances that aren't carcinogenic, they are 'associated' with other substances that are - either as tumor 'promoters', or simply are substances seen, again without causation, and are not considered at any level of carcinogenicity.
Last edited:
This isn't exactly a new story.
Here's a link to an older thread about the same case.
Class action lawsuit based on junk science
Here's a link to an older thread about the same case.
Class action lawsuit based on junk science
Yes, my comments were both facetious and cynical. Didn't you see the sarcasm imogie?
CA is a special place, and prop 65 is just about the best example of how a well meaning initiative can go horribly wrong. The list of chemicals/substances that can potentially cause cancer OR birth defects OR reproductive problems is currently 23 pages long. There are a few glaring problems with this list. The first is that there are various avenues for a chemical to be added to the list, not all of which actually require scientific proof(think classified by the FDA). The second is that there is almost no attention given to amounts present. And of course, the most obvious problem in CA, is that the warning is so all encompassing that it is ubiquitous and therefore utterly ignored.
Some of my favorites:
Alcoholic beverages
Aspirin
Mustard Gas
Wood Dust
Salted Fish, Chinese style
Oral Contraceptives
Unleaded Gasoline
the story is centered around a California law (prop 65) ; it says pepsi was sued ;
it's not specific to vape.
Here is a prop 65 label California style.
Yep, its on some of my juice as well. Apparently it should be on all of them, lest they get sued.
My understanding is formaldehyde is even in the air we breathe,
naturally. I may be in error yet if that is the case, do we need to
label the air as well?
So from prior documentation the "population" studied were, either previously or currently smokers. Now, I am still not convinced that smoking cigarettes is a "sure fire" way to get cancer (my personal view is that heredity and stress load have a much higher correlation - although not necessarily causation), but it seriously questions whether nicotine has anything to do with it.
As a child of a parent afflicted with diagnosed Alzheimers and the papers that Dr. Quick of the Parkinson's institute have illustrated - the very last thing I want to do as a vaper is cut back on my nicotine intake.
It's actually a product of respiration. So it's in our breath as we exhale. All of us Californians should have a prop 65 warning tattooed on our foreheads, apparently.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
