American Lung Association

[Storyspinr]

Good luck with the speech, $hua. Let us know how it goes. There is nothing more fun than messing with people's minds. Siegel has another blog today on the ALA and it's assault on the e cig. In his last paragraph he mentions the Big Pharma funding...I'd say the ALA has l.5 million reasons to destroy the e cig.

When I get time, I'll see if I can find any listing of Johnson and Johnson donations to these groups; I've searched before, without much luck. The Robert Woods Johnson Foundation, funded by stock in J&J, has long been supporting smoking bans and I'd be willing to bet they're helping push for a ban on e cigs.

 

[Vocalek]

The annoying thing about ALA is that if you ever email them, they put you on their hit list for donations. I got an email from them for Mother's Day:

From: American Lung Association <YourFriends@lungusa.org>
Sent: Thu, May 6, 2010 4:17:34 PM
Subject: Honor a special woman and support women's health

When you make a tribute gift to the Lung Association in honor of a loved one, you'll be able to email your honorees a charming and meaningful e-card in time for Mother’s Day to let them know you’ve made a donation in their name.

This was my response:

To: American Lung Association <YourFriends@lungusa.org>

Subject: Re: Honor a special woman and support women's health

The best gift I can give my 88-year old mother, who depends on me to pay her bills, take care of her pills, grocery shop, and take her to doctor appointments is my continued good health.

I find it abominable that the American Lung Association's president, Mr. Connor, urges me to stop using the tool that has kept me smoking-abstinent now for over a year.

So many of us consumers are reporting the same results -- ability to stay off tobacco cigarettes, improved lung function, disappearance of coughing and wheezing --- that I find it impossible to buy into the fear-mongering being put forth by the ALA. Face it: electronic cigarettes are saving lives and could save many more. Stop the insane campaign to have these products removed from the market. Instead, tell the FDA to heed the advice given by Federal court judge Richard Leon and begin regulating the products for safety and purity as a tobacco product.

This product was never intended to be a treatment for any disease. Its pupose is to function as a reduced-harm alternative to inhaling real tobacco cigarette smoke.


Elaine K
Springfield, VA


P.S. There will be no support of any kind -- especially monitary -- coming from me, my family, and my friends until the American Lung Association begins to live up to its mission statement. Removng effective tools for smoking abstinence from the marketplace is counter to that mission.

Apparently, <YourFriends@lungusa.org> didn't know what to do with this, so they sent it on to their "info" group. I got this back (any of this sound familiar?)

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: INFO <info@lungusa.org>
Sent: Tue, May 11, 2010 12:17:13 PM
Subject: RE: Honor a special woman and support women's health

Thank you for your email to the American Lung Association. Until the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determines that e-cigarettes are safe for consumers, the American Lung Association urges consumers not to use these products.

The FDA conducted a limited study in July 2009 and found that the products contained carcinogens and toxic chemicals, including the ingredients found in anti-freeze. A study conducted at Virginia Commonwealth University and published in February 2010 found that e-cigarettes deliver little or no nicotine to users.

For additional information on this topic, we recommend you consult the FDA’s website at - FDA Warns of Health Risks Posed by E-Cigarettes

Thank you for contacting us.

I think I may have used too many words in my response back.

Thank you for your canned response. Until the American Lung Association stops trying to ban the only product that allows me to refrain from smoking tobacco cigarettes, I am urging all my friends and family not to support your organization.

The FDA's incomplete and unprofessional toxicology report misled thousands of smokers into continuing to light up their Marlboros and Kools instead of switching to a product that is up to 99% less harmful. This estimate is based on a comparison of the number and quantity of toxins and carcinogens.

The FDA determined that Chantix was safe, but that didn't turn out to be true. The FDA has hinted that electronic cigarettes are unsafe, but there have been no reports of serious adverse events in the 6 years the products have been on the world market.

For additional information on this topic, I recommend you consult the following scientific documents:

• Exponent Lab Techncal Review and Analysis of FDA Report: "Evaluation of e-cigarettes". http://www.casaa.org/files/Exponent Response-to-the-FDA-Summary.pdf
• Ben Thomas Group Tobacco-Specific Nitrosamines (TSNAs) in NJOY Electronic Cigarettes https://docs.google.com/fileview?id...2ItNDY1NC00N2MxLWJmYTctMWExNGU4ZjgwYWUz&hl=en
• Health New Zealand Safety Report on the Ruyan® e-cigarette Cartridge and Inhaled Aerosol http://www.healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport30-Oct-08.pdf
• Health New Zealand E-Cigarettes harmless inhaled or exhaled Ecigarette mist harmless, inhaled or exhaled

Thank you for contacting me.

Elaine K
Springfield, VA

A day will come when the truth on electronic cigarettes irrefutably proves their safety and benefits to existing tobacco smokers. On that day, organizations such as yours will be shown to be the enemy of everyone seeking an escape from the prison of tobacco addiction. Additionally, your reputation as an organization that truly cares about the health and well-being of others will be irreversibly tarnished. This is not a probability; it is a certainty. Remember these words because they will come back to haunt you.
--"Unperson", E-Cigarette-Forum member
​

 

[(So) Jersey Girl]

The annoying thing about ALA is that if you ever email them, they put you on their hit list for donations. I got an email from them for Mother's Day:

Brilliant. I hope you don't mind if I steal your response if and when I ever get a response to the email I sent them on 4/26.

 

[Vocalek]

Brilliant. I hope you don't mind if I steal your response if and when I ever get a response to the email I sent them on 4/26.

Steal away. Let's have some fun and start sending them canned messages back.

 

[(So) Jersey Girl]

Steal away. Let's have some fun and start sending them canned messages back.

I would but they haven't sent me any canned messages to respond to yet! And I'm not surprised they sent you a solicitation. If you look at my response to Trailblazer, I actually predicted this would happen.

 

[autumnbreeze]

Great job, Elaine! I got the same response from the "info" people at the ALA, too. So as I mentioned in my OP, I emailed Erika Sward with no response from her yet. So, I emailed her again today. Here's what I wrote (it's kinda long):

Dear Erika Sward,

I am writing in response to the ALA's position on electronic cigarettes. The purpose of the email is to inform you of the facts and truths about electronic cigarettes because it appears that the ALA is terribly misinformed.

Many ecig users have sent emails to info@lungusa.org asking that the ALA reconsider it's position. Many of them, including myself, are receiving the same canned response:


"Thank you for your email to the American Lung Association. Until the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determines that e-cigarettes are safe for consumers, the American Lung Association urges consumers not to use these products.

The FDA conducted a limited study in July 2009 and found that the products contained carcinogens and toxic chemicals, including the ingredients found in anti-freeze. A study conducted at Virginia Commonwealth University and published in February 2010 found that e-cigarettes deliver little or no nicotine to users.

For additional information on this topic, we recommend you consult the FDA’s website at - FDA Warns of Health Risks Posed by E-Cigarettes

Thank you for contacting us."


First and foremost, It appears that the ALA has a conflict of interest when advising smokers to stick with nicotine products that the FDA has determined to be "safe" for consumers. Considering that the ALA receives a substantial amount of money from Pfizer, the manufacturer of several smoking cessation drugs, the ALA's conflict of interest is quite apparent. I would hope the ALA would announce their 1.5 million dollar conflict of interest and not let funding skew their opinion of a product that competes with a company they're receiving funding from. Unfortunately, I have yet to see a press release in which the ALA sites their (substantial) conflict of interest.

Regarding the FDA study mentioned in the ALA's canned response: You will find that even the FDA's report on the testing they did on the liquid used for electronic cigarettes to be far safer than cigarettes. The lab report that accompanied the July, 2009 press release from the FDA does show some levels of carcinogens and toxins. Tobacco specific nitrosamines (carcinogens) were available at "detectable" levels in only five of the eighteen cartridges tested. The report defines "detectable" as 141 parts per billion for across-the-board detection. Each specific nitrosamine has its own detectable limit. Assuming that a cartridge contains all four nitrosamines tested for, the total amount of nitrosamines in the cartridge would be (assuming a cartridge capacity of 1ml, which by all accounts is very high) 141 nanograms. One Marlboro cigarette contains 11,190. If an electronic cigarette user inhales 3 ml of liquid per day (also a high estimate), they are at most inhaling 423 nanograms of nitrosamines in a day. By comparison, a half-a-pack-a-day smoker is inhaling 111,900 nanograms of those same chemicals every day. In the worst-case scenario, it would take a heavy electronic cigarette user almost a year to equal the exposure to these chemicals of just one day of cigarette use for a light smoker. Keep in mind, this is only if the user is using one of the 5 samples the FDA found containing these TSNA's. There were thirteen other samples that didn't contain any TSNA's. So it's fair to state that many people are using a product that is safer than other FDA approved NRT's on the market.

You should also know that a New Zealand study showed the Tobacco-Specific Nitrosamine levels (TSNA's) in the FDA approved NRT's to be the same in e-cigarettes. However, they are significantly higher in traditional cigarettes.
TSNA's (in nanograms)
Nicotine Patch: 8
E-Cigarette: 8
Marlboro cigarette: 11,190

Reference here: Untitled Document

As for the Virginia Commonwealth University study that is mentioned in the ALA's canned response, if you read the link below, Dr. Eissenberg, who performed and published the study, admitted to performing the study incorrectly. After a lengthy discussion with several electronic cigarette users, he purchased an ecig for himself and did in fact find that nicotine is delivered to the body when used properly. http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/e-cigarette-news/69409-cnn-com-today.html Dr. Eissenberg's screen name: teissenb

There are arguments that we don't know what happens when propylene glycol, the substance referenced in the ALA's canned response, is inhaled. We do in fact know what happens when people inhale propylene glycol. It is used in asthma medications and has been since the 1950's, resulting in no adverse health effects.
Reference here: Albuterol Syrup Official FDA information, side effects and uses.

Also, you can view under section #3 of the Material Safety Data Sheets that under "inhalation" they list: "No adverse health effects via inhalation."
Reference here: PROPYLENE GLYCOL

Many organizations, including the ALA, claim that electronic cigarettes are being marketed to minors because they come in candy and fruit flavors. Though there is no evidence that companies are specifically targeting young people, there may be unscrupulous companies that could try. Organized vapers' advocacy groups such as the Vaper's Coalition (Vapers Coalition - Protecting your Right to Vape), which represents National Vaper's Club (http://www................/) and the Consumer Advocates for Smokefree Alternatives Association (CASAA | The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association), support the prohibition of sales to minors under 18 years of age.

In another survey, only 13% of adult e-cigarette users have NEVER tried a candy-flavored, fruit or beverage-flavored nicotine liquid.
Reference here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=HrpzL8PN5cP366RWhWvCTjggiZM_2b8yQJHfwE9UXRNhE_3d.

It's somewhat obtuse to think that candy flavored anything is only for teens or children. There are many adult products that come in candy-flavors including laxatives and many medications. I urge you to walk down the medicine aisle of your local drug store and see how many adult products come in appealing flavors, which you deem to be for children only.

I, personally, only like the candy and fruit flavored liquids and I am 32 years of age.

You may respond to this email, the same as many others, claiming that we do not know the effects of e-cigarettes therefore they should not be used until the effects are known. You would be correct in this statement, assuming that you mean that the long-term negative effects are unknown. There are a myriad of beneficial effects that users (vapers) report, including the ability to breathe better, a reduced cough, and overall improved health and fitness. Users do report some negative health effects: a dry mouth or throat, nausea or dizziness, and weight gain. (http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-10-231.pdf page 17) For comparison, the side effects of various NRTs are: "skin irritation -- redness and itching, dizziness, racing heartbeat, sleep problems or unusual dreams, headache, nausea, vomiting, muscle aches and stiffness" (the patch), "bad taste, throat irritation, mouth sores, hiccups, nausea, jaw discomfort, racing heartbeat" (the gum). (ACS :: Guide to Quitting Smoking)

Once again, please compare all of these with the side effects of nicotine withdrawal: "dizziness (which may only last 1 to 2 days after quitting), depression, feelings of frustration, impatience, and anger, anxiety, irritability, sleep disturbances, including having trouble falling asleep and staying asleep, and having bad dreams or even nightmares, trouble concentrating, restlessness or boredom, headaches, tiredness, increased appetite, weight gain, constipation and gas, cough, dry mouth, sore throat, and nasal drip, chest tightness". (ACS :: Guide to Quitting Smoking) As you can see, the side effects most reported by electronic cigarette users are consistent with the known side effects of both NRTs and nicotine withdrawal.

I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to read my email and reviewing the truths and facts. I hope that you will urge the ALA to change it's stance on electronic cigarettes. If the ALA truly cares about people and their lungs and not just the millions of dollars they receive from pharmaceutical companies, they will reconsider their false and illogical claims against electronic cigarettes. They will stop sending people to LIE to legislators about electronic cigarettes as they've done in Illinois for example. I also respectfully request that the ALA stop making false statements to media outlets.

Until the ALA stops it's efforts to have electronic cigarettes banned, they will not receive any donations from me, my friends, my family and thousands of other ecig users.

Thank you for your time and prompt attention to this matter. I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

April

 

[autumnbreeze]

That's weird. Why did my National Vapers Club link turn out all funny?

 

[$hua]

Ok so I just finished writing my speech for tomorrow night... i thought i would take a moment and post it here to get some feed back from everyone... please keep in mind that this is a first draft. please if you are going to be critical, use positive critisism (aka constructive critisism)... i will be delievering this speech tomorrow night in augusta Ga... i know its going to be recorded by the instructor.. ill see if he will give me a copy to post on youtube.

moral.. please be kind, its taking some courage to share this content with you..

Also the bit at the end of the speech is just an outtro... i wont really have a booth set up in the lobby.... i mean really.



Blueprint: April 29th 2010 New York state legislation passed a bill to ban the sale and distribution of a device known as an electronic cigarette.
FIRST I’m going to discuss what an electronic cigarette is and how it works, SECOND I’m going to address who is behind the ban and the reasons for the ban, and LAST im going to discuss the potential impact to both smokers and non smokers.

First, an electronic cigarette , also known as a “e-cigarette” , some people refer to it as a electronic nicotine inhaler is a device that is used as a substitution to a traditional cigarette. It is important for me to point out that it is marketed as a substitute to the cigarette and not a smoking cessation device like the patch or gum. The electronic cigarette delivers nicotine to the user by vaporizing a nicotine based solution. It works by using a rechargeable battery to heat an atomizer; this atomizer contains a coil that heats up enough to turn a liquid to a vapor. The user inhales this vapor, which contains the nicotine solution and in many cases it satisfies the desire to smoke a cigarette. I could spend several hours talking about the anatomy of these devices and their uses but let’s move on to why New York is banning this device…


Almost two weeks ago, New York state legislation spear headed by Senator Jeffrey Klein passed a bill into law that bans the sales and distribution of the electronic cigarette. Senator Klein’s reasons for the ban are largely based on a press release by the FDA . The FDA’s press release from test it conducted was released in July 2009. The FDA’s test included 26 electronic devices, of the 26, 1 device was found to have a carcinogenic chemical known as diethylene glycol.. a chemical found in anti freeze. Now I think its important to point out that diethylene glycol is found in several FDA approved nicotine cessation devices such as the patch and an inhaler made by the pharmaceutical company Pfizer. (more on Pfizer in a moment) it is also found in traditional cigarettes only at 5,000 times the amount found in the 1 out of 26 electronic devices that the FDA tested. The FDA as well as the American Lung Association are also concerned about the potential risk of marketing to minors as well as the concern that the electronic cigarette is misrepresented as a stop smoking device. These are the primary reasons that New York legislation has chosen to ban the electronic cigarette. Aside from Senator Kleins stated reasons, I also think its fair to inform you that Pfizer a leading producer of smoking cessation devices such as a nicotine therapy patch and a pill called wellbutrin, listed on a 2009 political contributions report as having contributed money to many of New York State representatives, and on page 27 of this .pdf report the name Jefferry Klein and a dollar amount can be found, in addition to this report on a 4th quarter 2009 Medical organization contribution report, the American Lung Association can be found listed as a recipient of grants in various amounts totally nearly 1 million dollars. Again both of these reports can be found on Pfizers own website. Is public health the real reason behind this ban, or private interests?


Last I want to discuss what this means for the people of New York and potentially people worldwide. Most immediately the impact this will have upon the citizens of New York is most evident with a simple search of an internet forum know as e-cigarette-forum.com, upon browsing this site you find testimonies of those who live in new York and are faced with returning to a smoking cigarettes, a product that is destroying their health, and the health of everyone in the immediate contact with them, not to mention the countless “inconveniences” that accompany cigarette smoking. Like one woman who’s 80 year old mother depends on her to go about daily life, and without the use of an electronic cigarette in place of a traditional cigarette faces impending health issues herself. Or We could take a look at the World Health Organizations web site as see statics regarding the impact of smoking on the world. For example according to the WHO website as of May 2009, worldwide, every 8 seconds someone dies because of cigarette smoking. You will also find that there are more than 4,000 chemicals in a cigarette most of those are carcinogenic, in most cases there are 3-4 ingredients in the liquid solution used by an electronic cigarette. Smoking related diseases cost the US more than 150 million dollars annually, regardless if you are a smoker, or have a family member that is a smoker, regardless if you have a dire concern for your health or the public health , the fact remains that with such high costs related to cancer causing cigarettes everyone is paying a tax for their use. The truth of the matter is that there has not been conclusive testing to determine that the e-cigarette is detrimental to anyone’s health.. however the facts are overwhelming regarding cigarette smoking.


If any of you have additional questions or comments, we will have a both set up in the lobby with pamphlets and brochures, please feel free to stop by and speak to one of our representatives. Thank you and please drive home safe

/end wall of text

you have less than 24hrs to give me thoughts/suggestions/ideas.....

thank you,
Joshua

Edited: Fixed Speech layout to read as paragraphs....

 

[autumnbreeze]

Sounds great, Joshua! Great job pointing out the connections between the senators and Pfizer.

The only thing I would change in the first paragraph, instead of wording it First, Second, Last, I'd say something like, "First I’m going to discuss what an electronic cigarette is and how it works, then I’m going to address who is behind the ban and the reasons for the ban, and finally im going to discuss the potential impact to both smokers and non smokers." I know it's just semantics, but the first, second, last just didn't sound right to me.

Also when you say, "It is important for me to point out that it is marketed as a substitute to the cigarette and not a smoking cessation device like the patch or gum." You might want to state WHY it's important for you to point this out.

There's so much to say in such a short amount of time so I'm not sure if you're able to throw in why they feel it's being marketed to minors (candy/fruit flavored juices) and then say something like, "How many of you in here still like chocolate or fruit?" (way back when I took public speaking in college I remember being taught that asking questions was a great way to engage the crowd.) That might show them how ridiculous the marketed to minors claim is.

And maybe you could say to hit it home, "The truth of the matter is that there has not been conclusive testing to determine that the e-cigarette is detrimental to anyone’s health. In the 5 years that ecigs have been in use there is not a single reported case of a serious illness or death caused by ecigs. The same cannot be said for traditional cigarettes." or something along those lines.

This is awesome and I really look forward to seeing a youtube video if one becomes available! Good luck. Don't be nervous! This is a product you believe in so it makes it easier to know you're not talking a bunch of bs.

 

[yvilla]

Joshua, you really need to make some minor, but still very important changes to your presentation. The NYS Assembly passed its version of the bill to ban the sale of ecigs - A9529 - on April 21. But, the identical Senate version of the bill - S7234 - has not been voted on yet.

The Assembly sponsor of the bill is Linda Rosenthal. The Senate sponsor of the bill is Jeffrey Klein.

We are still fighting mightily against the passage of this bill into law. We are working hard on NYS Senators. And it will not be law unless and until both houses pass it, and even then, the Governor could stop it with a veto, if he were so inclined. So please don't present it as a done deal yet!

 

[$hua]

yvilla....

My apologizes... i will make these corrections to my speech to be both valid and accurate. last thing i want to do is misrepresent my self or my causes.. im still relatively new to all of this ( about 9 days vaping now) and to be honest ive been on the verge of information overload, and my funds are certainly exhausted...

**autumnbreeze

I will have 4-6min to deliver this speech... 2 rounds of recording the delivery both coming in about 5min each.. i think i can find a way to work a sentence in to pose a question in regards to the fda and ala concerns with the flavored juices being marketed towards minors.

thank you for the input folks...

 

[CES]

Good luck $hua! I hope the speech goes well- thanks for choosing e-cigs as your topic. Post a link to the utube video here when you're done.

 

[$hua]

Ok here are the edits: speech adjusted to reflect accurate information and more clarified reasoning....
These are edited snippets to reflect your input... the rest of the speech in on a diffrent page... page 5 i think it is...


Blueprint: April 29th 2010 New York state legislation proposed a bill to ban the sale and distribution of a device known as an electronic cigarette.
FIRST I’m going to discuss what an electronic cigarette is and how it works, then I’m going to address who is behind the ban and the reasons for the ban, and finally im going to discuss the potential impact to both smokers and non smokers.

......It is important for me to point out that it is marketed as a substitute to the cigarette and not a smoking cessation device like the patch or gum, the users of this device acknowledge that it is used in lieu of a traditional cigarette and not as a means to prevent or terminate the use of nicotine.

....Almost two weeks ago, New York state legislation spear headed by Senator Jeffrey Klein proposed a bill that would ban the sale and distribution of the electronic cigarette. Senator Klein’s reasons for the ban are largely based on a press release by the FDA . ...

..... The FDA as well as the American Lung Association are concerned about the potential risk of marketing to minors, they claim that the flavored nicotine solutions such as “cherry” “chocolate” or “banana” are too easily marketed to children as well as the concern that the electronic cigarette is misrepresented as a stop smoking device. Ladies and Gentlemen I ask you, how likely are you to start smoking because your cigarette now taste like thin mint cookies?

yea i mention thin mint juice.. thanks dawn this stuff is stellar had to point it out in my speech....

thanks again everyone....

 

[Posidon]

Found some more fun stuff about the ALA (related to biofuels).



Exposing the American Lung Association INANE


The American Lung Association promotes environmentalism over health INANE


From the second link.

“Does anybody else see something wrong with this picture? The very same pollutants that the ALA are using as their arguments against second hand smoke are the same pollutants that are being spit out by biofuels. I’m starting to smell a disparity here. But let’s look at some of the other disparities, shall we.”

 

[mtb]

I am not sure if this would help or hurt the cause. I stopped smoking cigarettes about 20 years ago. After five years of abstinence, I puffed on pipes and cigars until about three years ago. And...I never inhaled them. really. (I hear your giggles but it's the truth) The only reason I stopped were the nasty effects of burning tobacco. I just didn't want to chance getting some horrid disease.

After spending as much time as I deemed necessary reading everything I could get my eyes on, (a couple of weeks) I determined there was no evidence that vaping, especially with zero or very low nicotine level liquids, was in any way harmful or even addicting. I approached both of my most trusted physicians.. my internist and cardiologist. They both concurred with me. (Oh was that a happy day) I now happily puff e-pipes and cigars and some e-cigs too, all with zero nic liquids. And it's so much more enjoyable than tobacco, because I can lead a healthy lifestyle and indulge in a very relaxing, satisfying experience. How fantastic!

I'll help support the cause by writing my representatives in Washington and the state capital and the various health organizations. And I'll hope common sense prevails. But I doubt that many of the elected officials will take the time to investigate the facts. There are a lot of dollars potentially at stake. And until the bucks fall into the right pockets, some people are not going to be happy with vaping.

 

[$hua]

And I'll hope common sense prevails.

When has common sense ever prevailed?

 

[Vocalek]

Joshua: There are a few inaccuracies in this text

The FDA’s test included 26 electronic devices, of the 26, 1 device was found to have a carcinogenic chemical known as diethylene glycol.. a chemical found in anti freeze. Now I think its important to point out that diethylene glycol is found in several FDA approved nicotine cessation devices such as the patch and an inhaler made by the pharmaceutical company Pfizer. (more on Pfizer in a moment) it is also found in traditional cigarettes only at 5,000 times the amount found in the 1 out of 26 electronic devices that the FDA tested.

Problems:
Cartridges, not devices, were tested
# of cartridges that were tested
DEG is not the carcinogen
DEG is not found in FDA-approved nicotine cessation products (not "devices")

The Facts:

• FDA tested 18 cartridges from two companies, Smoking Everywhere and NJOY.
• These are the same two companies that have sued the FDA. (coincidence?)
• FDA also tested the nicotine content from an FDA-approved prescription Nicotrol inhaler
• FDA did NOT do any comparison testing to tobacco cigarettes or the smoke from tobacco cigbarettes.
• The "carcinigens" referred to in the FDA's press release were Tobacco-Specific Nitrosamines (TSNA's)
• FDA also found a toxin - Diethylene Glycol (DEG), which in this context would be more accurately described as "a chemical added to tobacco to keep it moist."
• The toxin Diethylene Glycol is NOT found in FDA-approved nicotine products.
• The FDA found 1% of DEG in the liquid of one of the 18 cartridges. However, FDA did not find DEG in the vapor.
• The carcinogenic substances TSNAs are found in FDA-approved nicotine cessation products in very tiny amounts (equal to the amount FDA found in the e-cigarette liquid)

Dr. Murray Laugesen of Health New Zealand tested one brand and found that the quantity of TSNA in the liquid is equal to the quantity found in the medicinal nicotine patch (8 nanograms). He mentioned that a Marlboro contains 11,180 nanopgrams. http://www.healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport30-Oct-08.pdf

To date, there have been at least 11 other studies conducted on e-cigarette liquid and vapor. The Truth About Ecigs

None of the tests conducted by other labs have found DEG in either the liquid or the vapor.

 

[Vocalek]

NOTE: When I say "device" I am referring to the entire product assembled: battery attached to atomizer and cartridge attached to atomizer. I don't believe FDA actually tested a device in operation. One of the photos they used in their promo material shows them trying to insert the cartridge end of a fully assembled device into the battery charger.

If you read the actual lab report, it describes the method they used to extract liquid from the cartridges for testing and the method used to vaporize the liquid from some of the cartridges. They didn't use an e-cig to do their vaporization. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ScienceResearch/UCM173250.pdf

 

[kristin]

Elaine already gave you the info, but I wanted to specifically break it down for you:

You said:

The FDA’s test included 26 electronic devices, of the 26, 1 device was found to have a carcinogenic chemical known as diethylene glycol.. a chemical found in anti freeze. Now I think its important to point out that diethylene glycol is found in several FDA approved nicotine cessation devices such as the patch and an inhaler made by the pharmaceutical company Pfizer. It is also found in traditional cigarettes only at 5,000 times the amount found in the 1 out of 26 electronic devices that the FDA tested.

The actual facts are:

The FDA’s test included 26 18 electronic cigarette cartridges and devices of the 26 18, only 1 device cartridge was found to contain less than 1% of acarcinogenic chemical known as diethylene glycol, a chemical which is sometimes found in anti freeze. Now I think its important to point out that diethylene glycol is found in several FDA approved nicotine cessation devices such as the patch and an inhaler made by the pharmaceutical company Pfizer. It is also found in traditional cigarettes only at 5,000 times the amount found in the 1 out of 26 electronic devices that the FDA tested. Subsequent testing by several independent labs has found no diethylene glycol in any cartridges. The FDA also announced it found trace amounts of tobacco-specific nitrosamines or TSNAs, which at high levels, may be carcinogenic. Now I think it's important to point out that these same TSNAs are found to be at comparable levels in several FDA approved nicotine cessation products such as the patch and an inhaler made by the pharmaceutical company Pfizer. They are also found in traditional cigarettes at over 1,300 times those amounts!

Here is the corrected paragraph:

The FDA’s test included 18 electronic cigarette cartridges and of the 18, only 1 cartridge was found to contain less than 1% of a chemical known as diethylene glycol, which is sometimes found in anti freeze. Subsequent testing by several independent labs has found no diethylene glycol in any cartridges. The FDA also announced it found trace amounts of tobacco-specific nitrosamines or TSNAs, which at high levels, may be carcinogenic. Now I think it's important to point out that these same TSNAs are found to be at comparable levels in several FDA approved nicotine cessation products such as the patch and an inhaler made by the pharmaceutical company Pfizer. They are also found in traditional cigarettes at over 1,300 times those amounts!

I would also add:

Additionally, what the FDA did NOT find is of significance. It did not find the 4,000 toxic ingredients nor the 50 to 60 human carcinogens that can be found in traditional cigarettes.

 

[kristin]

First, an electronic cigarette , also known as a “e-cigarette” , some people refer to it as a electronic nicotine inhaler is a device that is used as a substitution to a traditional cigarette. It is important for me to point out that it is marketed as a substitute to the cigarette and not a smoking cessation device like the patch or gum. The electronic cigarette delivers nicotine to the user by vaporizing a propylene or vegetable glycol-based nicotine solution. It works by using a rechargeable battery to heat an atomizer; this atomizer contains a coil that heats up enough to turn a liquid to a vapor. The user inhales this vapor, which contains the nicotine solution and in many cases it satisfies the desire to smoke a cigarette. I could spend several hours talking about the anatomy of these devices and their uses but let’s move on to why New York is attempting to ban this device…


Almost two weeks ago, New York state legislation spear headed by Senator Jeffrey Klein passed a bill into law that bans the sales and distribution of the electronic cigarette. (See Yvilla's comments) Senator Klein’s reasons for the ban are largely based on a July 2009 press release by the FDA . The FDA’s misleading press release from test it warned consumers that preliminary testing revealed toxic chemicals and carcinogens, but did not specify the levels found The FDA’s test included 26 electronic devices, of the 26, 1 device was found to have a carcinogenic chemical known as diethylene glycol.. a chemical found in anti freeze. Now I think its important to point out that diethylene glycol is found in several FDA approved nicotine cessation devices such as the patch and an inhaler made by the pharmaceutical company Pfizer. (more on Pfizer in a moment) it is also found in traditional cigarettes only at 5,000 times the amount found in the 1 out of 26 electronic devices that the FDA tested. (See previous post) The FDA ,as well as the American Lung Association, are also concerned about the potential risk of marketing to minors as well as the concern that the electronic cigarette is misrepresented as a stop smoking device. However, as I mentioned before, electronic cigarettes are largely marketed as smoking alternatives. Additionally, surveys of electronic cigarette users show that 77.7% of users are former smokers over the age of 30 and not minors.

These are the primary reasons that New York legislation has chosen to ban the electronic cigarette. Aside from Senator Kleins stated reasons, I also think its fair to inform you that Pfizer a leading producer of smoking cessation devices such as a nicotine therapy patch and a pill called wellbutrin, listed on a 2009 political contributions report as having contributed money to many of New York State representatives, and on page 27 of this .pdf report the name Jefferry Klein and a dollar amount can be found, in addition to this report on a 4th quarter 2009 Medical organization contribution report, the American Lung Association can be found listed as a recipient of grants in various amounts totally nearly 1 million dollars. Again both of these reports can be found on Pfizers own website. Is public health the real reason behind this ban, or private interests?


Last I want to discuss what this means for the people of New York and potentially people worldwide. Most immediately the impact this will have upon the citizens of New York is most evident with a simple search of an internet forum know as e-cigarette-forum.com, upon browsing this site you find testimonies of those who live in new York and are faced with returning to a smoking cigarettes, a product that is destroying their health, and the health of everyone in the immediate contact with them, not to mention the countless “inconveniences” that accompany cigarette smoking. Like one woman who’s 80 year old mother depends on her to go about daily life, and without the use of an electronic cigarette in place of a traditional cigarette faces impending health issues herself. Or We could take a look at the World Health Organizations web site as see statics regarding the impact of smoking on the world. For example according to the WHO website as of May 2009, worldwide, every 8 seconds someone dies because of cigarette smoking. You will also find that there are more than 4,000 chemicals in a cigarette most of those are carcinogenic, in most cases there are 3-4 ingredients in the liquid solution used by an electronic cigarette. Smoking related diseases cost the US more than 150 million dollars annually, regardless if you are a smoker, or have a family member that is a smoker, regardless if you have a dire concern for your health or the public health , the fact remains that with such high costs related to cancer causing cigarettes everyone is paying a tax for their use. The truth of the matter is that there has not been conclusive testing to determine that the e-cigarette is detrimental to anyone’s health, however in the 5 years that they have been on the world market there have been no reports of illness or injury due to electronic cigarette use. But the facts are overwhelming regarding traditional cigarette smoking.


If any of you have additional questions or comments, we will have a both set up in the lobby with pamphlets and brochures, please feel free to stop by and speak to one of our representatives. Thank you and please drive home safe