[ Just paste broken links shown in purple directly into your browser - the extra line doesn't matter. Pls. PM me if you have more recent info. about proposed/actual legislation, if you think I've missed an important story, or if you want more tweaks to the formatting program. ]
4/17/14 - 4/19/14 Media Roundup
1) CASAA Alert: Newtown MA hearing tomorrow 7:45PM on vaping=smoking ban as well as a number of other restrictions on vaping:
CASAA: Local Alert! Newton, Massachusetts Ordinance E-Cigarette Use Ban, Flavor Ban, Restrict Place of Sale, Increase Age of Purchase to 21
2) CASAA Alert: Weds April 30 hearing on CA's AB 1500 which would (among other things) ban interstate sales:
CASAA: Call to Action! California Ban on Internet Sales (AB 1500) and Ban on E-Cigarette Usage (SB 648)
3) Much speculation/info. on looming US FDA regulations coming out of Center For tobacco Products Head Mitch Zeller's presentation at the annual meeting of the American ...'n for Cancer Research, and a special issue of the journal Tobacco Control. (See the first major section.)
4) US (GP) MD from GA actually recommends vaping to patients who can't quit. 6) Vaping=smoking indoor/outdoor bans threatened in: Flagstaff AR, Forest Grove OR. City of Artesia CA contemplating licensing restrictions. Littleton MA health board considering an increase in the age for vaping and tobacco cigarettes to 21, on the grounds that 18-20 y.o.s are more likely to provide these forbidden items to minors.
5) Dr. Rodu shows how Dutra & Glantz skew their results in the minor-gateway-to-tobacco paper by using a more stringent definition of "smoker."
6) Despite a recommendation from a Lausanne U. study, the Swiss Respiratory Society and Swiss Paediatric Pulmonary Society both said that a ban on vaping sales shouldn't be lifted, because not enough is known about vaping, and BT is buying into it (yes, they really did make the latter point, albeit not in so many words).
7) Chicago IL youth smoking rate at all-time low of 11%.
8) Reuters does story on complaints about vaping reported to the FDA during March of this year, sets off a flurry of pieces about charger fires, exploding batteries, and so forth. These had the salutary effect of slowing down the second outbreak of alleged "cancer link" pieces, and for some reason they were eclipsed by a wave of coverage about the Los Angeles ban going into effect. See collection at the end.
Coverage: Switzerland, UK, US states: MA, NJ, GA, OH, IL, AZ, OR, CA
Also: Dr. Siegel on Banzhaff's despicable press release; Gary Cox takes on the Scientific American hit job (see the previous media roundup) and the WHO's decision to treat vaping as tobacco cigarette smoking.
***
PENDING FDA REGULATION
Your Correspondent has to admit being a little confused about precisely what FDA regulation might mean, particularly when one considers that applying the docutrine of substantial equivalence in any coherent way would likely result in the end of vaping (as Bill G. has pointed out). So the best that I can do is to lay out various sources of "tea leaves:"
1) This piece covered Mitch Zeller's remarks at the annual meeting of the American ...'n for Cancer Research:
E-cigarettes light up controversy | American News
2) C.V. Phillips analyzes articles in the special edition of Tobacco Control devoted to FDA regulation:
FDA reveals its views on ecigs in new publication | Anti-THR Lies and related topics
and:
FDA reveals its views on ecigs in new publication (part 2) | Anti-THR Lies and related topics
3) There are several threads in the legislation forum: Legislation News
Such as: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...op-fda-giving-e-cig-industry-big-tobacco.html
AND:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...upplement-prohibitionist-tobacco-control.html
4) For what little it may be worth, here's what Glantz claims that he anticipates - which might be illuminating if one could take his speculations at face value (i.e. reflecting his undoubtedly extensive contacts). So YMMV: http://www.tobacco
.ucsf.edu/obama-administration-should-release-draft-fda-e-cig-rule-level-playing-field-between-tobacco-industr
***
STUDIES, BLOGS, ETC.
Title: UCSF Redefines Youth Smoking; Journals Peer-Review Fails
(Dr. Rodu's blog)
http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2014/04/ucsf-redefines-youth-smoking-journals.html
Points out that a more stringent definition of "teen smoker" was used in the Dutra & Glantz minor-gateway-to-smoking junk study published in JAMA Pediatrics. Why does this matter? Think of it like this. Suppose you were comparing the likelihood that someone is a smoker, given that they had used NRT versus the likelihood that they're a smoker given that they had not used NRT. Imagine further that your definition of "smoker" is 1/2 PAD in one case, and 2 PAD in another case. The likelihood that someone is a 2 PAD smoker, given that they've tried NRT is much greater than the likelihood that someone is a 1/2 PAD smoker given that they've tried NRT. So if you want to show that people are more likely to be n PAD smokers, given that they've tried NRT, you want a relatively high value for n. Then you can come up with a conclusion that someone who has tried NRT is much likelier to be a 2 PAD smoker than someone who hasn't tried NRT. In the twisted statistical realm of Dutra & Glantz in which correlation is causality, this shows an "association" between NRT and being a heavy smoker. If you allow for a looser definition of "smoker" (e.g. 1/2 PAD vs. 2 PAD) then you don't get such a powerful headline. This is exactly the point of Dutra & Glantz: minors who have tried vaping are "seven times more likely" to be "smokers" than minors who have not tried vaping. In effect, you are selecting for those minors who are (to quote Dr. Rodu) more likely to be "experimental" or "risk takers." (In common American palance, the "bad kids" - i.e. "naughty" if you speak non-US English.)
Title: Quick outsources to Rodu and Grant
(C.V. Phillips' blog)
Quick outsources to Rodu and Grant | Anti-THR Lies and related topics
C.V. comments on Rodu's blog (above), and the Gaurdian article on the decision by a European medical journal to refuse any papers that are directly or indirectly funded by the tobacco industry (see UK section below).
Title: Anti-Smoking Advocate Claims that Inhaling Small Amounts of Nicotine Can Be Deadly
(Dr. Siegel's blog)
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/04/anti-smoking-advocate-claims-that.html
Siegel refutes three outrageous claims in Prof. John Banzhaff's April 2nd press release, namely that:
(1) inhaling nicotine in small amounts can be deadly;
(2) breathing in tobacco smoke for 30 minutes raises a nonsmoker's risk of a heart attack to that of a smoker; and
(3) inhaling PG can cause seizures.
Title: IN MY VIEW: Why Attacking Tobacco Companies for Giving their Cigarette Brands Color Labels Makes No Sense
(Dr. Siegel's blog)
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot
.com/2014/04/in-my-view-why-attacking-tobacco.html
This is a follow-up to the discussion regarding the tobacco companies' decision to use color-based labelling for certain cigarettes. For background, see a previos blog post:
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/04/anti-smoking-researchers-attack-tobacco.html
Title: WHO did what?!
(ECF's InfoZone)
WHO did what?! - ECF InfoZone
Gary Cox on the WHO's apparent intention to recommend that vaping be regulated just like tobacco smoking, under the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, as reported by the Financial Times (and in this space, on 4/14).
Title: Financial Times and Scientific American weigh in
(ECF's InfoZone)
Financial Times and Scientific American weigh in - ECF InfoZone (Gary Cox on the Financial Times article reviewed below in the UK section (first one), and the Scientific American hit job piece reviewed in this space in the last media summary ("Are E-Cigarettes Safe? - Even without tobacco, the poorly regulated devices may pose unique dangers").
Title: Bill Godshall Update 2014-04-17
(Bill Godshall's site)
Bill Godshall Update 2014-04-17
Bill's updates for 4/11/14 through 4/17/14.
***
SWITZERLAND
Title: Experts challenge e-cigarettes study
(Europe-wide general English-language news 'zine based in Stockholm Sweden) http://www.thelocal
.ch/20140417/experts-challenge-e-cigarettes-study
British and American readers will recognize all the usual talking points here:
1) There isn't enough evidence available on vaping therefore public health fears, unknowns and concerns - which all scientests share - conclusively demonstrate that vaping must be taxed and regulated in exactly the same way as cigarette smoking.
2) Because BT has bought into the vaping market ... the science tells us that X must be more plausible - if not outright fact - where X is any negative assertion that was once relevant to cigarette smoking but is now being applied to vaping. (No, I'm not kidding ... here we go):
"Two Swiss medical organisations have rejected calls to overturn the ban on sales of electronic cigarettes in Switzerland. [...] In March, a Lausanne University study concluded that the sale of all e-cigarettes should be allowed, with restrictions. However on Wednesday, the Swiss Respiratory Society (SSP) and its sister organization the Swiss Paediatric Pulmonary Society (SSPP) said the sales ban should not be lifted, as not enough is yet known about the effects of smoking e-cigarettes. [...] The smoking of e-cigarettes in Switzerland should be treated similarly to conventional smoking, argued the SSP/SSPP, with a ban on the distribution of e-cigarettes to minors - regardless of nicotine content - restrictions on smoking e-cigarettes in public places and a ban on advertising and sponsorship. The SSP/SSPP also called for e-cigarettes to be subjected to the same taxes as tobacco products. The federal government exempted e-cigarettes from such taxes two years ago. [...] 'The e-cigarette market is dominated to a large extent by the tobacco industry. The similarity of the product with conventional cigarettes and its promotion by the same industry constitutes a fundamental conflict.' [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
***
UK
Title: E-cigarettes: no smoke without fear [Survey article]
(Int'l bus. mag) http://www.ft
.com/intl/cms/s/2/ed185b54-c5e0-11e3-a7d4-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2zCVupif5
http://www.ft
.com/cms/s/2/ed185b54-c5e0-11e3-a7d4-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2zCVupif5
[Also see Gary Cox's analysis here:]
Financial Times and Scientific American weigh in - ECF InfoZone
Clearly the writers lack the level of intimate familiarity with the industry that one would hope to find, but this isn't some two-bit US tumbleweed town rag piece produced by an ignorant cub reporter who has a dozen other similar articles to churn out before lunch.
The author does make a few minor errors:
1) This contention seems to support the typical anti-vaping "dual use" position, and there's no evidence to suggest that it's true - in fact the data shows that vapers are increasingly quitters, not consumers who adopt the technology soley for reasons of convenience:
"While improved technology by small e-cigarette producers was important to winning over consumers, ultimately it was the outlawing of smoking in public places that prompted the growing demand."
2) The writers also presumes that the UK's NHS and MPRH are serious when they say that they want to regulate vaping as cessation therapy by 2016. While readers of this space may be aware that both BAT and Nicolite have submitted such applications, the date is only 20 months away, and the glacial pace of this kind of complex regulation on both sides of the Atlantic seems likely to continue. It's always easiest for government health and other officials to pass simple taxes and use or sales prohibitions than it is to issue regulations that cover medicinal use.
Readers who are unfamiliar with the situation in the UK will find this survey article's coverage of the public health debate interesting, those familiar with the situation here in the US will recognize many similarites. For example, both UK and US opponents share the views that:
a) Vaping is a strategy initiated or at least being brought to fruition by BT to keep smokers hooked on smoking and/or nicotine by encouraging minors to become consumers and existing smokers to maintain a status of dual users. In the mythical world of vaping opponents, only two types of vapers matter: dual users (vapers who still smoke tobacco cigarettes) and minors who have started vaping and are becoming tobacco cigarette smokers. Furthermore the vaping industry is the big tobacco industry - they are one and the same.
b) Although this article doesn't mention that UK anti-vapers are convinced that vaping is per se dangerous in the same way as US anti-vapers are (some of whom will argue that vaping is just as dangerous as tobacco cigarette smoking), both share the conviction that vaping has no cessation value. In other words, hardly any vapers actually quit smoking and the cessation argument is a myth based on anectdotes which is a product of big tobacco propaganda and/or wishful thinking on the part of vapers.
c) Finally there are some interesting comments about the rule of the UK vaping community's activism, and its at least partly successful efforts to push back against the self-serving fabrications of UK's Tobacco Control Industry (although the author doesn't mention the financial interests of those who are spreading the falsehoods in the UK, ECF readers are doubtless aware that many pocketbooks are threatened by the success of vaping as harm reduction).
All in all, this is a balanced piece writen in accordance with top-quality journalistic standards. Not the sort of thing that many US mainstream outlets would be inclined to produce on this subject.
Title: Tobacco industry-funded research, peer review, and nannying
(UK nat'l paper) http://www.theguardian
.com/science/occams-corner/2014/apr/17/tobacco-industry-funded-research-peer-review-nannying
The European Journal of Public Health has decided not to accept any publications which are partly funded by the tobacco industry. Quoting the journal, the author says:
"'In reaching this decision, we are fully aware of the arguments that, as long as there is full disclosure of conflicts of interest, readers can decide for themselves about how to interpret the findings in published papers. Moreover, the peer review process should remove those papers that are seriously flawed or fraudulent.' The authors of this editorial statement (which sadly is not freely available) then add, 'Yet we know from experience that this view is naïve.' [boldface added]"
The author astutely points out that a huge fraction ("two-thirds") of the UK research is funded by BP. And as most of us vapers know, the US Tobacco Control Industry funds all of the junk studies intended to alarm the public about vaping. It will be interesting to see if this trend spreads to other medical journals. It's bad enough that vapers have the virtually the entire US public health and medical establishment as well as all levels of government fully committed to ending vaping as we know it today - by any means necessary.
***
US NATIONAL - GENERAL
Title: China and the Toll of Smoking [Editorial]
(US nat'l paper) http://www.nytimes
.com/2014/04/18/opinion/china-and-the-toll-of-smoking.html?hp&rref=opinion
NYT editorial board endorses warning labels as a helpful step towards reducing the prevelance of smoking in China. How thoughtful.
Title: E-Cigarette Bans Are Absurd
(NYC-based "alternative" 'zine) http://www.policymic
.com/articles/2773/e-cigarette-bans-are-absurd
Finally, a sensible article from policymic. The last piece on vaping in that 'zine simply regurgitated an extremely flawed artile from motherboard regarding the "cancer link" - both were covered in this space in the 4/14/14 summary. Not one word of junk.
Title: Electronic Cigarettes May Be Gateway to Tobacco Smoking
(American Psychiatric Assn.) http://psychnews.psychiatryonline
.org/newsArticle.aspx?articleid=1862282
This article focuses on the discredited Dutra & Glantz analysis as if it was all that psychiatrists needed to know about dealing with teen smoking. In a nutshell Dutra & Glantz's paper argued that teens who had tried vaping were "seven times more likely" to become tobacco cigarette smokers - thus implying that correlation is causation, as in the theory that hemline lenghts cause stock market fluctuations. For more analysis, see: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/03/conclusion-of-new-glantz-study-on.html
What's extremely troubling about this article is not only that it accepts the "minor gateway to smoking" argument, but it assumes that minors who vape should be treated like drug addicts by mental health professionals.
1) "'This is an exploding product on the market--being marketed to both adults and youth,' said Douglas Ziedonis, M.D., M.P.H., a substance abuse expert and chair of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. 'Flavors, such as cinnamon apple and strawberry, and the vibrant colors in which e-cigarettes are sold, make them appealing to children and teens.'
[...]
Ziedonis said that the study's findings illustrate that once an individual begins using nicotine products and becomes addicted to nicotine, that person is likely to desire the 'full range' of effects, which are provided by regular cigarette smoking. [boldface added]"
2) "Jill Williams, M.D., director of the Division of Addiction Psychiatry at Rutgers University Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and an expert in nicotine addiction, told Psychiatric News that these findings are particularly concerning since the rates of conventional smoking have been declining to record lows over the last several years. 'Behavioral health professionals, including psychiatrists, should do more to assess and treat their adolescent and adult patients for tobacco dependence, just as they would for any other substance use disorder,' said Williams, who emphasized that e-cigarettes should not be used as a cessation aid, since they have not been evaluated with the same level of rigor as evidence-based approaches to smoking cessation. 'The exact chemical components of the vapor are largely unknown and can vary among devices and manufacturers. . . and we should remain skeptical' of their value in smoking-cessation programs. [boldface added]"
While few if any vapers would stand up and cheer for the idea that minors should vape anything (nic-free or otherwise), the advice in this piece will undoubtedly filter down to mental health professionals everywhere who deal with minors - encouraging them to:
a) Assume that minors who vape are tobacco cigarette smokers.
b) Treat minors who vape like drug addicts.
Will this scientifically-unjustified form of exaggerated hysteria serve the cause of public health? Does it make sense to tell a 16 y.o. that a nic-free vaping device is no different than a syringe full of h3roin, or at least recommend to parents and other adults in a supervisory role that no effective distinction exists between the two? Will America start putting teens in jail for vaping nic-free "e-hookahs," in order to get them "clean and sober?"
Title: E-cigarettes: Their Popularity Exceeds Our Knowledge [Official Johns Hopkins U. hit job]
(Johns Hopkins U. via Yahoo health news) http://health.yahoo
.net/experts/heartsmartliving/e-cigarettes-their-popularity-exceeds-our-knowledge
Yet another hit job by a reassuring medical school prof. (He's gotta know what he's talking about, right?) This is almost a top-rated professional ANTZ piece, and is particularly insidious because of the deceptive nature of the presentation.
Are you caught up in the buzz surrounding e-cigarettes? Wondering if they will help you quit smoking? Or if they are a safer alternative to a conventional cigarette habit?
(Translation: "Are you confused? Let me help you. I'm a doctor. And I'm a professor. Just relax and let me substitute my informed professional judgement for your fears.")
"Where those of us in the public health community were once unified in the fight against smoking, we have now become a community divided about the future of e-cigarettes."
(More nonsense. There is no division. The US public health community and MDs everywhere stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the Tobacco Control Industry, in their cynical determination to wipe out vaping as we know it, through junk science and public disinformation at the cost of thousands of smokers' lives. And the writer/doctor/professor is one of them. Read on ...)
1) "[Section: 'Are E-cigarettes becoming a gateway for children and teens?']
[...]The biggest concern is that their use among teenagers is going up while no change in conventional cigarette use has been detected. This suggests that e-cigarettes are drawing in new users towards nicotine addiction and possibly smoking. [boldface added]"
(Uhm, wait a second. Wasn't the point of this piece to help folks who might be confused about vaping, and whether they should try it for cessation? Or is the goal here to encourage the casual reader to accept the minor-gateway-to-tobacco argument, and make smokers less likely to try a product with bad societal effects?)
2) "[Heading: 'Smoke for the nicotine, die from the tar?']
Lacking the tobacco from conventional cigarettes, e-cigarettes eliminate a substance that has been proven as the primary culprit in adverse health effects. Nicotine, which has relatively minor adverse health effects, is the main attraction of e-cigarettes. However, another ingredient, propylene glycol--the vapor that e-cigarettes emit--is a lung irritant and has been a cause for concern for those inhaling it over time. Also, e-liquids, the liquid solvents which are a key ingredient in e-cigarettes, are considered neurotoxins by health experts. However, the magnitude of e-cigarette's direct health concerns is controversial. Are they really that bad? [boldface added]"
(Putting aside the nonsense about PG, which is used in FDA-approved therapies, or the fact that 100% VG e-liquids are available, the good Dr.-Professor makes an interesting point. It's the e-liquid itself which is considered a neurotoxin. And that has nothing to do with nicotine or PG, e-liquid is a separate component, right? Or ... not?)
Oh yes, and wasn't this section supposed to be about the fact that vaping is less dangerous than smoking? Which is it?
3) "[Section: 'What have the early studies shown?'"
Suffice to say that the Grana et al. junk letter is described as a "high-profile study". (No, it wasn't. The letter describes the results of an on-line survey, and was not peer-reviewed. Furthermore the "e-cigarette users" were smokers who only reported that they had tried vaping at least once and/or had no reported intention of quitting. And finally, if just a few of the 88 smokers who may have just vaped as little as one puff had actually quit smoking, the results would've been entirely different, as noted by Dr. Siegel: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/03/new-study-on-electronic-cigarettes-by.html
I'll spare you the rest of "what the studies show" because naturally the next one is Dutra & Glantz (you know: minors who have tried vaping are "seven times more likely" to become tobacco cigarette smokers). This analysis was so pathetic that even the Legacy Foundation and the ACS disowned it. But the good Dr. evidently doesn't care about the difference between causation and correlation, or at least is quite happy to gloss over it - as long as it will help stamp out vaping.)
"There is still a lot to be learned about the consequences of e-cigarettes. However, there is no arguing that the recent exponential rise in sales, most notably among youths, has most public health officials worried that we are moving backwards after years of successfully fighting tobacco smoking. [boldface added]"
We should all be grateful to the Dr.-Professor for reviewing what little is known about vaping. We can see now that there is no evidence that it's less dangerous than smoking, that it doesn't help smokers quit, and also that it's a gateway to tobacco cigarette use for teens. Clearly vaping is a bad thing, and all smokers should avoid it.
"As a preventive cardiologist, I am always trying to find ways to help my patients quit smoking. With no conclusive scientific evidence pointing towards the effectiveness of e-cigarettes in aiding smoking cessation, I have not recommended these to anyone in my practice. [boldface added]"
(It's good to hear that he's looking out for the interests of his patients, isn't it? Clearly they'd be better off if they didn't vape, and did everything else to try to quit, so long as they took his advice. And if they died in the meantime of a heart attack or lung cancer because they were still smoking ... at least they would've had a concerned clinician by their side, who just happens to be a medical school professor at Johns Hopkins to boot. How much more fortunate could they possibly be?)
So-o, what does he recommend, to folks who want to quit smoking?
"However, one thing I do think is helpful for these patients is to keep a smoking journal. If you are committed to quitting smoking, keep track of how bad you need each cigarette--rate this on a scale of 1 to10, 10 being an absolute must. I think you'll be surprised how many e-cigarettes you smoke just because of the habit (with needs less than 5). Start by only smoking when the need is above a 5, then gradually move up until you are only smoking when your need is a 10. Feel free to comment on your progress as you use your smoking journal by tweeting at me, using my twitter handle: @MichaelJBlaha. Good luck! [para break omitted, boldface added]"
This article was licenced to Yahoo! Health by Johns Hopkins U., which receives royalties, according to the italics at the end. It was also "compiled by The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine with editorial supervision by one or more of the members of the faculty of the School of Medicine."
Title: Tobacco Lobby Opens a New Playbook for E-Cigarettes
(US Nat'l News mag) http://www.nationaljournal
.com/daily/tobacco-lobby-opens-a-new-playbook-for-e-cigarettes-20140417
While the writing and the overall level of analysis here are vastly more sophisticated than the average piece of googled rubbish produced by a typical tumbleweed-town cub reporter, the writer's ignorance about the vaping industry is just as manifest. As with all other articles that aren't written in order to specifically cover the Durbin Report, this piece takes its conclusions for granted. It also presumes that the entire vaping industry is covered by the report and/or is synonymous with BT. Contains this quite from Dr. Siegel:
"Essentially this is a big victory for the big tobacco companies,' said Boston University School of Public Health professor Michael Siegel, speaking of tobacco regulation [i.e. the PACT act?]. 'They can claim correctly that they comply with FDA standards. And it also detracts Congress from passing real regulation that would deal with tobacco.' [boldface added]"
However the premise that BT is doing essentially nothing to oppose anti-vaping regulations (whether sensible or otherwise) is basically correct, as readers of this space know from an excellent piece reported here in the 4/14 media summary by CSPNet's Melissa Vonder Haar:
http://www.cspnet
.com/category-management-news-data/tobacco-news-data/articles/dont-get-smoked-out-e-cig-regulations
Title: Cancer Society and Tobacco [Letter to the ed.]
(US nat'l paper) http://www.nytimes
.com/2014/04/17/opinion/cancer-society-and-tobacco.html
ACS CEO Seffrin scolds Walgreens for continuing to sell tobacco products, while arguing that the $6M donated by Walgreens customers to ACS is no justification. What caught my eye was this sentence:
"Every dollar donated at checkout helped prevent or mitigate suffering from cancer."
Au contraire, Mr. Seffrin. Some of the money given to the ACS is used to fight THR through direct or indirect lobbying of the media, the public, and of course elected officials. For more on this flap, also see Dr. Siegel's blog:
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/04/american-cancer-society-sells-out-its.html
***
US NATIONAL - TOBACCO INDUSTRY ECONOMICS & VIABILITY
Title: With p0t and e-cigarettes, Big Tobacco is just waiting to inhale emerging markets
http://www.washingtontimes
.com/news/2014/apr/16/with-pot-and-e-cigarettes-big-tobacco-is-just-wait/
So-o this is what the writer seems to believe that we might be excited about:
"'Bottom line, the long-held investor perception of tobacco as a sunset industry is wrong,' said David Sealy, senior equity research analyst at the Boston Co. and author of an analysis released Wednesday of the changes sweeping the industry. The major tobacco companies, including RJ Reynolds, Lorillard and Altria Group, the parent company of Philip Morris USA, are poised to benefit from these 'potential game-changers for the growth-challenged tobacco industry.' [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
[boldface added][/I]"
But here are some caveats. Let's start with mar!juana:
"Sixteen states have decriminalized mar!juana use, 20 states have allowed medical mar!juana use and Colorado and Washington have fully legalized mar!juana use. Mr. Sealy said these trends, plus polling that cites 58 percent of Americans support mar!juana legalization, signal 'snowballing' to move toward national legalization. 'The momentum behind mar!juana legalization has not been lost on the marketplace. To date, the market has focused mostly on speculative small caps, but if legalization becomes official federal policy, Big Tobacco will end up dominating the mar!juana market,' he said in the report. [para break omitted, boldface added]"
(Note the qualifiation - if legalization becomes federal policy. Your Correspondent can't see that happening any time before the 2020 redistricting cycle. The story - and perhaps Sealy's analysis - also fails to mention the looming regulatory issues surrounding vaping, which begin with the apparent crusade on the part of the American Tobacco Control Industry to either eliminate or "medicalize" vaping.)
Some facts about sales/revenues:
1) Altria (formerly PMI) reports 0.6% decline in net revenue, and US domestic cigarette shipment volume down 4%.
2) Lorilard reports Newport and Maverick combined sales increased by $158M, and vaping sales (mostly Blu?) increased by $169M.
3) "A report out this week by Moody's Investors Service said e-cigarettes will not have a significant impact on the tobacco industry in the next couple of years because the product makes up only 1 percent to 2 percent of the total U.S. tobacco market. [...]'It would take sustained growth over years for it to have any meaningful impact on credit metrics of U.S. tobacco companies,' [says vice president and senior analyst of Moody's Investors Service corporate finance group Nancy Meadows]. [para break omitted, boldface added]"
Title: Has Altria Entered The Electronic Cigarette Market Just In Time?
(US individual investor site) http://www.trefis
.com/stock/ahii/articles/234823/has-altria-entered-the-electronic-cigarette-market-just-in-time/2014-04-17
Despite the intriguing title, there's very little information here for investors who are knowledgeable about the industry, or curious vapers for that matter. It also seems that the author is unaware of what one might call the disruption's disruption, namely the growth of non-cigAlike options. At most we learn that Altria (formerly PMI) is in the vaping market to say, and that it fully expects that the brand loyalty that helped it so much in the halcyon "Marlboro" days will be achievable with acquisitions like Green Smoke or new launches such as Mark Ten. There's also no mention of PMI's decision to invest "up to $688M" in tobacco heating technology (as reported by the WSJ and in this space on 3/29 - also see the 4/16 media round-up). The article's conclusion doesn't answer its titular query:
"All said, the electronic cigarette industry will likely prove disruptive to the long-standing business models of big tobacco, but this does not mean the current incumbents stand to lose market share of the smoking industry as a whole. Having said this, big tobacco has so far been relatively slow to market, and this may yet prove to have been a window of opportunity for the first movers such as American Heritage."
Title: How Altria Plans to Keep Delivering Returns
(US individual investor site) http://www.fool
.com/investing/general/2014/04/17/how-altria-plans-to-keep-delivering-returns.aspx
The short answer is:
1) Keep raising prices on tobacco cigarettes, even as the number of smokers declines by about 3-4% per year.
2) Maintain a commanding market share in cigars and smokeless ("OTP") products.
3) Get into the vaping market. (Essentially nothing is said about this, it's too bad that Motley Fool only has one reporter who seems to know anything about vaping.)
---
US: MASSACHUSETTS
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Littleton [heatlh] board mulls e-cig [but not tobacco cig?]
restrictions [increasing age to 21 because 18, 19 and 20 year old adults are presumed to violate the law] (Littleton MA US local paper)
21 y.o. limit proposed to health board because adults aged 18-20 are collectively guilty of providing access to minors:
"The movement began last year, spearheaded by pediatrician Lester Hartman of Needham. Hartman says that 21 is a good age to mark the restriction's end because anyone younger might have access to helping those in high school get a hold of the product. The main problem with e-cigarettes, said Hartman, is that no one knows yet what the long-term risks are. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]" The article doesn't mention tobacco cigaretes, presumably those are still available to 18-20 y.o.s under the proposed ordinance.
[ HB 3726 would ban vaping wherever smoking is banned, see CASAA call: CASAA: Call to Action! Massachusetts E-Cigarette Usage Ban -- HB 3726 (formerly HB 3639) (UPDATED) ]
---
US: NEW JERSEY
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: E-cigarette use raises concerns
(Rutgers U. New Brunswick NJ US student paper) http://www.dailytargum
.com/news/e-cigarette-use-raises-concerns/article_1fc91e1e-c6ac-11e3-952d-0017a43b2370.html
Student-written article contains all the junk that the writer could google, including an unqualified endorsement of the Durbin report's conclusions, the CDC's minor statistics (presented without context), and CDC dir. Tom Frieden's Press Release indicating that "unclear whether they will increase or decrease the use of traditional cigarettes," (how refreshing it is to hear all the evidence available on the subject), and the myth that vaping is merely another way that tobacco cigarette smokers can get nicotine.
Having finished with her Googling, the writer then very responsibly turns the story over to the "experts," who just happen to be (surprise), the director of the Rutgers Tobacco Dependence Program and the clinic coordinator of the Tobacco Dependence Program.
From there, one would imagine that things go even further downhill, although the director of the dependence program is willing to risk this:
"'If we do study them, and it turns out that they are more helpful than harmful, then banning them isnt in the interest of public health either,'"
(At least he allows for the possibilty that vaping may be a benefit to public health. Most folks in his position will refuse to admit anything remotely like that.)
The clinic coordinator is more in line with the Tobacco Control Industry's talking points:
"Richardson thinks e-cigarettes should have been regulated as medical devices, but previous court decisions prevented that. Her next best hope is that the FDA will act on marketing, will require package ingredient lists and provide health providers and educators with guidelines and clear information to pass on to e-cigarette users. Until then, the tobacco industry is the only one winning. 'Right now, the people benefitting are the people selling an unregulated product that people are inhaling into their lungs.' [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
What your correspondent can say for sure is that when the writer graduates, we'll have another yet another cub reporter out there who knows how to serve the public through careful coverage of a story. Isn't that what the press is supposed to do?
[ NJ's house bill A1080 was originally proposed as a ban on tobacco smoking in parks and beaches, but was immediately ammended to include vaping as soon as it got on to the house floor. Passed by the house last month, now ready for the Sen:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ng-all-public-parks-beaches.html#post12349761
Also, Gov. Christie says he wants to tax vaping at the same rate as analogs, and S1867 has been introduced in the Sen. for that purpose:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ual-2-70-pack-cigarette-tax.html#post12450301
And:
CASAA: Call to Action! New Jersey's Governor Christie is Proposing a Tax on E-Cigarettes at the Same Rate as Combustible Cigarettes (Significantly UPDATED 3-27-14) ]
---
US: GEORGIA
Title: Local doctors weigh in on smoking vs. e-cigarettes, vaping [A US MD actually *recommends* vaping as a less harmful alternative!]
(Macon GA US NBC affiliate) http://www.41nbc
.com/story/d/story/local-doctor-weighs-in-on-smoking-vs-e-cigarettes/49802/GgpOu-Gyg0aynBTHrU-1mw
A US MD recommends vaping to his patients? He's actually willing to say that vaping has fewer harmful effects, instead of "We just don't know whether it's more dangerous. Use FDA-approved methods instead?" Hard to believe ...
"'I'm getting the sensation of smoking but none of the harmful side effects,' said [new vaper and former 2 PAD tobacco cigarette smoker Amber] Newbern. Based on his research, Dr. Darl Rantz, a family practice doctor, would agree. He said you just have to look at the numbers. 'There's about 700 toxins in a cigarette. 70 of those toxins are carcinogenic meaning they can incite cells to become cancerous,' said Rantz. In one brand of an e-cigarette Rantz used as an example, only one ingredient stood out as harmful, nicotine. 'The research shows that nicotine itself is not carcinogenic, but that decreases the cells resistance in the ability to fight cancer,' said Rantz. [...] Dr. Rantz, who says he's treated more than 40 patients who are in the process of quitting or have quit smoking, recommends them to his patients because they're far less toxic than the real thing. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
But that was too good to be true. The digent reporter had to get a second view which isn't hard to find:
"However, the jury is still out for some. Lung specialist at the Medical Center of Central Georgia, Dr. Bruce Burns said it's too early to tell what long term effects are of e-cigarettes and vapors. 'These may turn out to be a safe short term solution to get you off cigarettes, but you know we just don't know. So that's kind of the conundrum we're faced with,' said Burns. Dr. Burns said recommends his patients try to change their behavior rather than substitute cigarettes for the mechanical versions.[para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
(Yep. Quit, or die.)
[ GA's SB 347 and HB 251 are simple minor bans, but with internet age verification requirements. HB 251 bas passed the house. Ready for Nathan Deal's sig. ]
---
US: OHIO
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Vaping not better than quitting smoking [opinion by Dr. Timothy Angel, Health Commissioner, Ross County Health District]
(Chillicothe OH US local paper) http://www.chillicothegazette
.com/article/20140416/OPINION03/304160006?odyssey=mod|mostcom
For a US MD, let alone one employed by an American government, this is a major concession:
"Are e-cigs safer than tobacco cigarettes? Maybe. But if you had to choose between fighting a tiger or fighting a lion, or fighting neither, which would you choose? Just because vaping might - and I mean might - be a little safer than smoking does not make it safe." [emphasis in original]"
But this is hardly a pro-vaping piece:
1) "Nicotine, whether from an e-cig or a tobacco cigarette, is extremely addictive and cancer-promoting. It's associated with birth defects and developmental disorders. Some studies are finding that, just like tobacco, e-cigs contain formaldehyde (which is used as a fungicide, germicide, and a disinfectant), diethylene glycol (a poisonous compound also found in antifreeze) and other harmful metals and compounds, many of which are cancer-causing. [Uh what was that about nicotine and cancer? And yes, that was probably FDA '09 there with the DEG]"
2) "The Ross County Health District does not recommend vaping as an alternative to smoking tobacco products. We recommend regulation and labeling of these products be done as soon as possible, and like tobacco cigarettes, e-cigarettes should never be sold to minors. [B[Stories about the potentially harmful misuse of the e-cig cartridges and the nicotine they contain are already surfacing.[/B] [Hmm, what does this minor poisoning thing have to do with cessation? Or is it just some other bad aspect of vaping? boldface added]"
3) "For the health and safety of our residents, we advise avoiding smoking completely, regardless of the type of product. [boldface added]"
Not that any of this is too surprising. Citizen tax dollars are spent to have gov't MDs like him do everything possible to keep smokers smoking tobacco cigarettes. But the word "maybe" was a big surprise, other government MDs have refused to even make the comparision - on the grounds that vaping is can never a plausible choice because it's not approved as cessation therapy.
[ Gov. Kasich has proposed a 49% tax on vaping, see:
CASAA: Call to Action! Ohio's Governor Kasich is Proposing a Tax on E-Cigarettes and Smokeless Tobacco at an Outrageous 49% of Wholesale
and this ECF thread:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...cigs-increasing-cigarette-otp-tax-budget.html ]
---
US: ILLINOIS
Title: CDC Studies: Decline in Youth Smoking, Increase in E-cigarette Poisoning
(Nonprofit 'zine associated with Chicago Trib IL US) http://www.chicago-bureau
.org/cdc-studies-decline-youth-smoking-increase-e-cigarette-poisonings/
CDC data release shows that Chicago minor tobacco cigarette smoking rate is down to 11% - a 1/5 decline since 2011.
"... though another study found that e-cigarette use and poisonings increased, particularly among children younger than five years old."
Presumably this badly-written phrase means that more teens are vaping, but that there is an increase of vaping-releated "poisionings" among children less than 5 (or are we talking about poison control center calls, instead of results?).
"The mayors office continues efforts to discourage teenagers from smoking. Emanuel added a 50-cent per package cigarette tax increase to the 2014 budget to discourage the purchase of cigarettes in Chicago."
It seems that the purpose of this 'zine is to mentor aspiring journalists (i.e. students). Some of these folks may have a little to learn from wire service practices about how to write unbiased stories.
[ Most serious threat in IL right now is HB 5689, which has passed the house, and which would ban the sale of e-liquid until the IL Health Dep't issues standards:
CASAA: Call to Action! Illinois Bill Would Ban Sale of Liquid for E-Cigarettes Until Illinois Department of Public Health Establishes Packaging Standards
And this thread:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-e-cig-products-sold-il-protect-children.html
IL is also considering two bills that require vaping supplies (but not non-cigarette tobacco) to be behind the counter (HB 5868 = SB 3268), see: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...counter-exempts-tobacco-specialty-stores.html Also worth watching: SB2659, which would ban smoking in cars containing a minor - however the definition doesn't currently include vaping (and is still in the Public Health Cmte, with a status of "postponed." See: Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for SB2659 ]
---
US: ARIZONA
Title: Coconino County aims to put more teeth in ban on e-cigarettes in public places [City of Flagstaff mayor wants vaping=smoking use ban]
(Phoenix AZ ind. radio station) http://ktar
.com/22/1723998/County-aims-to-put-more-teeth-in-ecig-ban
Apparently there's some issue with Cocino co.'s ord., and the goal is to redraft it in order to cover "any vaporizing device that contains nicotine."
"The [county's] public ban applies to restaurants, bars, sidewalks, parks and other businesses, [assistant chief health officer] Oxtoby said. If the County Board of Supervisors approves the updated definition of vaporizing devices in the ordinance, cities like Flagstaff would have to choose whether they want to follow along. Oxtoby said Coconino County introduced the ban because nicotine is addictive and preliminary studies suggest e-cigarettes contain carcinogens, so second-hand smoke may be harmful. 'Vulnerable populations like those who are pregnant and those who have respiratory conditions or heart disease, we feel that they shouldn't be exposed to those in public places,' he said.
[...]
Flagstaff Mayor Jerry Nabours said he would need more information to look into the ordinance, but he said with what he knows now he would vote for a public ban on e-cigarettes. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
[ No threats in the AZ legislature, which will be adjorned shortly ("early April") ]
---
US: OREGON
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Smoking [, vaping] and tobacco ban on city properties to move to Forest Grove City Council [April 23 report to Public Safety Advisory Comm'n]
(Portland OR US local paper) http://www.oregonlive
.com/forest-grove/index.ssf/2014/04/smoking_and_tobacco_ban_on_cit.html
City of Forest Grove Parks & Rec. Comm'n votes unanimously to ban all tobacco and vapor products on all city property (except sidewalks?). No doorway perimeter was mentioned. Parks Dir. says that he hasn't "heard any public opposition to the ban." No specific reason is given, but these two points are mentioned:
1) "The commission discussed the policys scope in its first hearing on the issue in March. [Parks Dir.] Gamble said parks staff spends two hours a week picking up cigarette butts from shelters at Lincoln, Thatcher, Bard and Rogers parks. [boldface added]"
2) "The recommendation for a ban will make its way to the Public Safety Advisory Commission next Wednesday, April 23 for review, then to the Forest Grove City Council."
The piece links to a related article, which mentions cigarette butts, and contains this quote from the Parks Dir.
"'The trend is clear,' Gamble said. 'It's something we have to consider.'"
The related article does contain one person's complaint about "smoke" - but neither contains any reference specifically to vaping.
The Parks & Rec. Commn will inform the "Public Safety Advisory Council" on 4/23, with the full City Council hearing to occur in "late May."
[ The OR legislature is no longer in session. Both HB 4073 (a simple minor sales/possession ban) and HB 4073 (vaping=smoking extension to clean indoor air act) died this year, in part because the ANTZ org.s may have overplayed their hand. ]
---
US: CALIFORNIA
Title: Artesia City Council Enters E-Cigarette Fray
(Los Cerritos CA US local paper) http://www.loscerritosnews
.net/2014/04/17/%EF%BB%BF-artesia-city-council-enters-e-cigarette-fray/
Brief note indicating that the city of Artesia is considering "a resolution that will impose a business regulatory permit requirement on the sale of e-cigarette." Whether this will morph into a vaping=smoking indoor/outdoor use ban, or is a way to restrict the number of vape shops is unclear.
[ CA is under threat from a wide variety of legislation, such as an internet sales ban: http://www.e-cigarette-forum
.com/forum/legislation-news/548077-oh-no-its-alive-ca-no-shipping-bill-ab1500-assigned-committee.html ]
***
COLLECTION: "E-CIGARETTE INJURIES ON THE RISE" - BYSTANDER EFFECTS, ASTHMA COMPLICATIONS, EXPLOSIONS, ETC.
Also discussed on this ECF thread:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...nts-submitted-fda-about-e-cigs-past-year.html
Reuters started the ball rolling, with this story:
Title: RPT-Reports of e-cigarette injury jump amid rising popularity, U.S. data show
(Reuters) http://www.reuters
.com/article/2014/04/17/usa-health-ecigarettes-idUSL2N0N82G320140417
Title: Injuries from e-cigarettes increase amid rising popularity
(US Nat'l news network) http://www.foxnews
.com/health/2014/04/17/injuries-from-e-cigarettes-increase-amid-rising-popularity/
Title: Reports of e-cigarette injury jump amid rising popularity, U.S. data show
(Chicago IL US local paper) http://articles.chicagotribune
.com/2014-04-17/features/sns-rt-us-usa-health-ecigarettes-20140416_1_e-cigarette-use-e-cigarettes-conventional-cigarettes
Title: E-Cigarettes May Not Be As Safe As You Think
(US nat'l news web site) http://www.huffingtonpost
.com/2014/04/17/more-ecigarette-injuries_n_5165480.html
My best guess is that this story was crafted by Reuters in the context of of anticipated FDA regulation. In other words, the variegated nature of complaints is itself evidence of the kind of inconsistency and unpredictability that regulation is intended to eliminate. Unfortunately, the piece got picked up by many other media outlets as another "There's No End to the Evil Caused By E-Cigarettes!" piece.
This article covers a public records request to the FDA apparently made by Reuters to the FDA for complaints about vaping which were filed between March '13 and March '14. There were "more than 50," which is certainly enough for a minor media blitz. Reuters was fairly careful about the description:
"The health problems were not necessarily caused by e-cigarettes. And it is not clear that the rate of adverse events has increased. In 2011, about 21 percent of adult smokers had used e-cigarettes, according to federal data, more than double the rate in 2010. Still, David Ashley, director of the office of science at the FDA's tobacco division, said the uptick is significant, especially in light of a recent report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showing an increase in the number of e-cigarette-related calls to poison control centers. 'Both together does suggest there are more instances going on,' he said. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
The reported incidents broke down into three categories:
1) User effects:
"The complaints from the public filed with the FDA cited trouble breathing, headache, cough, dizziness, sore throat, nose bleeds, chest pain or other cardiovascular problems, and allergic reactions such as itchiness and swelling of the lips."
2) Bystander effects:
"One person told the FDA that while eating dinner at a restaurant a customer at the next table was smoking an e-cigarette. 'The vapor cloud was big enough to come over my table and the e-cig smoker was 'huffing' it voraciously,' the person, whose name was redacted, wrote. 'I got dizzy, my eyes began to water and I ended up taking my food to go because of the intense heartbeat I began to develop.' One woman wrote that her husband began smoking e-cigarettes liberally in his car and home after being told they were safe and that the vapor was 'just like water.' 'My 4-year-old has had a raspy voice since he started but I really didn't think anything of it till last night my husband was just puffing away on that thing for hours and I woke up wheezing and unable to breathe.' [para breaks omitted]"
3) Explosions:
"One smoker began using e-cigarettes following dental surgery after the dentist said quitting smoking would speed the healing process, according to a report filed last October with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission that was forwarded to the FDA. 'It blew up in my mouth while inhaling, burning my stitches and gum, lip and fingers,' the report said. [para break omitted]"
4) Overheating:
""Others complained of over-heating devices. 'The electric cigarette gets hot when you use it and alters the taste buds,' wrote one consumer. 'I just recently realized what was turning my taste buds black.' [para break omitted]"
Under the heading "MADE IN CHINA" (isn't everything?), we find this:
"Most e-cigarettes are made in China and sold under more than 300 brands in the United States, some through retail stores, others online. The quality of the products is inconsistent, however, making it difficult to tease out the cause of any health problems.[...]It is not possible to draw general conclusions from individual case reports, but there is a growing recognition that the inconsistent quality of the devices, aside from any risk inherent in the inhalation of nicotine vapor, poses potential safety risks. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
So that's what the point apparently was (i.e. it was advocacy, not journalism). But as I indicated before, this was an excuse for another media mini-blitz.
---
COLLECTION: "E-CIGARETTE INJURIES ON THE RISE" - UNIQUE STORIES
Only Mother Jones was willing to expend some time on the story, instead of paraphrasing the Reuters piece:
Title: Should You Be Worried About Your E-Cigarette Exploding?
(US nat'l news mag.) http://www.motherjones
.com/environment/2014/04/e-cigarettes-explode-fda-timeline
Title: Should You Be Worried About Your E-Cigarette Exploding?
(Carson City NV US nonprofit community web site) http://www.pcccarson
.org/?p=4954
Credit is due to the MJ reporters who took the time to explain the issue:
"Specifically, it's e-cigarettes' lithium-ion batteries that combust. These batteries are also found in laptops and cellphones. But with e-cigarettes, the batteries are especially prone to overheating because smokers use incompatible chargers, overcharge the e-cigarettes, or don't take sufficient safety precautions. For example, many e-cigarettes are made to plug into a USB port, which smokers may take to mean the devices can be safely charged with a computer or iPad charger. But if left too long in a common USB port, some e-cigarette batteries can fry."
The story goes on to list sixteen incidents of charger fires/explosions that have been reported in the media since April 2012.
Title: FDA Expressed Concern on E-Cigarette Smoking after Increase in Complaint Rate
(Memphis TN US-based but BP-funded consumer health site) http://www.newsonwellness
.com/2014/04/fda-expressed-concern-e-cigarette-smoking-increase-complaint-rate/
A paraphrased version of the FDA story which mixes in the Durbin report allegations:
"After major issues brought to limelight, research is conducted on the impact of electronic cigarette smoking. Recently a controversy has been released that E- cigarette companies are targeting youth of the country by manufacturing them in flavours like cherry, chocolate and candy. Further they are also sponsoring a lot of youth related programs. Critics are of the opinion that this would act as a gateway for young to start smoking real cigarettes."
[And yes, this is inept prose - apparently the writing was outsourced to a non-native speaker who was trained to speak British English. I've seen this before, writing is outsourced no less than any consumer good.
---
COLLECTION: "E-CIGARETTE INJURIES ON THE RISE" - SELECTIVE PARAPHRASING OF THE REUTERS PIECE
Title: E-cigarettes, dangerous or not? Even the FDA isn't sure
(US tech. mag.) http://www.techtimes
.com/articles/5717/20140417/e-cigarettes-dangerous-or-not-even-the-fda-isnt-sure.htm
Title: Reports show rise in incidence of e-cigarette injuries
(UK cosmetic dentistry advertising site directed at consumers) http://www.cosmeticdentistryguide
.co.uk/news/reports-show-rise-in-incidence-of-e-cigarette-injuries-2036
Title: Reports of e-cigarette injury jump amid rising popularity, U.S. data show
(Jordanian general news site) http://medicsindex.ning
.com/profiles/blog/show?id=5826870%3ABlogPost%3A378675&commentId=5826870%3AComment%3A378781&xg_source=activity
Title: E-Cigarette Injuries on the Rise
(MA Med. Society) http://www.jwatch
.org/fw108737/2014/04/18/e-cigarette-injuries-rise
Only three paragraphs in this one, but the writer picked out the parts that are presumably of interest to clinicians (either for diagnostic or perhaps ideological reasons):
"Complaints included difficulty breathing, headache, cough, dizziness, sore throat, nose bleeds, chest pain, and allergic reactions. One woman noted that her young son's voice had been raspy since his father started using the devices. In addition, one consumer reported that an e-cigarette 'blew up in my mouth while inhaling, burning my ... gum, lip and fingers,' while another blamed the devices for blackened taste buds."
Title: Harm from E-cigarettes Increase as Their Popularity Rises
(US site that appears to collect potentially legally-actionable health-related reports) http://www.newsinferno
.com/harm-from-e-cigarettes-increase-as-their-popularity-rises/
Title: Injuries and Health Problems from E-cigarettes Rise as They Gain Populatiry
(Seems to be published by the same org. as the above site) http://www.publichealthwatchdog
.com/injuries-and-health-problems-from-e-cigarettes-rise-as-they-gain-populatiry/
These two stories are identical except for their titles
Title: e-cigarettes Injuries increasing
(Some New Delhi India news collection site) http://www.delhidailynews
.com/news/Injuries-from-e-cigarettes-use-increasing-1397749035/
Title: E-Cigarette Injury Reports on the Rise
(Partnership for a Drug-Free America web site) http://www.drugfree
.org/join-together/tobacco/e-cigarette-injury-reports-on-the-rise
***
GOOGLE TIPS
To see whether there are bad things happening where you live, try this Google search (example for Rhode Island) -
rhode site:casaa.org
(Replace rhode with a single word that describes your city, county, or state. For ex., if you live in Eau Claire, WI - you might use "Claire" to see if something is being proposed at the city level. Don't forget the : (colon), and be sure that there's nothing before or after the colon (not even spaces or tabs.)
You can also try replacing site:casaa.org with e-cigarette to find out what the media is reporting in your area. This is usually most helpful if you use the search tools to search by date. (CASAA doesn't generally issue calls or alerts until a bill is out of a state legislative committee, or is scheduled for a local city or county hearing.)
4/17/14 - 4/19/14 Media Roundup
1) CASAA Alert: Newtown MA hearing tomorrow 7:45PM on vaping=smoking ban as well as a number of other restrictions on vaping:
CASAA: Local Alert! Newton, Massachusetts Ordinance E-Cigarette Use Ban, Flavor Ban, Restrict Place of Sale, Increase Age of Purchase to 21
2) CASAA Alert: Weds April 30 hearing on CA's AB 1500 which would (among other things) ban interstate sales:
CASAA: Call to Action! California Ban on Internet Sales (AB 1500) and Ban on E-Cigarette Usage (SB 648)
3) Much speculation/info. on looming US FDA regulations coming out of Center For tobacco Products Head Mitch Zeller's presentation at the annual meeting of the American ...'n for Cancer Research, and a special issue of the journal Tobacco Control. (See the first major section.)
4) US (GP) MD from GA actually recommends vaping to patients who can't quit. 6) Vaping=smoking indoor/outdoor bans threatened in: Flagstaff AR, Forest Grove OR. City of Artesia CA contemplating licensing restrictions. Littleton MA health board considering an increase in the age for vaping and tobacco cigarettes to 21, on the grounds that 18-20 y.o.s are more likely to provide these forbidden items to minors.
5) Dr. Rodu shows how Dutra & Glantz skew their results in the minor-gateway-to-tobacco paper by using a more stringent definition of "smoker."
6) Despite a recommendation from a Lausanne U. study, the Swiss Respiratory Society and Swiss Paediatric Pulmonary Society both said that a ban on vaping sales shouldn't be lifted, because not enough is known about vaping, and BT is buying into it (yes, they really did make the latter point, albeit not in so many words).
7) Chicago IL youth smoking rate at all-time low of 11%.
8) Reuters does story on complaints about vaping reported to the FDA during March of this year, sets off a flurry of pieces about charger fires, exploding batteries, and so forth. These had the salutary effect of slowing down the second outbreak of alleged "cancer link" pieces, and for some reason they were eclipsed by a wave of coverage about the Los Angeles ban going into effect. See collection at the end.
Coverage: Switzerland, UK, US states: MA, NJ, GA, OH, IL, AZ, OR, CA
Also: Dr. Siegel on Banzhaff's despicable press release; Gary Cox takes on the Scientific American hit job (see the previous media roundup) and the WHO's decision to treat vaping as tobacco cigarette smoking.
***
PENDING FDA REGULATION
Your Correspondent has to admit being a little confused about precisely what FDA regulation might mean, particularly when one considers that applying the docutrine of substantial equivalence in any coherent way would likely result in the end of vaping (as Bill G. has pointed out). So the best that I can do is to lay out various sources of "tea leaves:"
1) This piece covered Mitch Zeller's remarks at the annual meeting of the American ...'n for Cancer Research:
E-cigarettes light up controversy | American News
2) C.V. Phillips analyzes articles in the special edition of Tobacco Control devoted to FDA regulation:
FDA reveals its views on ecigs in new publication | Anti-THR Lies and related topics
and:
FDA reveals its views on ecigs in new publication (part 2) | Anti-THR Lies and related topics
3) There are several threads in the legislation forum: Legislation News
Such as: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...op-fda-giving-e-cig-industry-big-tobacco.html
AND:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...upplement-prohibitionist-tobacco-control.html
4) For what little it may be worth, here's what Glantz claims that he anticipates - which might be illuminating if one could take his speculations at face value (i.e. reflecting his undoubtedly extensive contacts). So YMMV: http://www.tobacco
.ucsf.edu/obama-administration-should-release-draft-fda-e-cig-rule-level-playing-field-between-tobacco-industr
***
STUDIES, BLOGS, ETC.
Title: UCSF Redefines Youth Smoking; Journals Peer-Review Fails
(Dr. Rodu's blog)
http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2014/04/ucsf-redefines-youth-smoking-journals.html
Points out that a more stringent definition of "teen smoker" was used in the Dutra & Glantz minor-gateway-to-smoking junk study published in JAMA Pediatrics. Why does this matter? Think of it like this. Suppose you were comparing the likelihood that someone is a smoker, given that they had used NRT versus the likelihood that they're a smoker given that they had not used NRT. Imagine further that your definition of "smoker" is 1/2 PAD in one case, and 2 PAD in another case. The likelihood that someone is a 2 PAD smoker, given that they've tried NRT is much greater than the likelihood that someone is a 1/2 PAD smoker given that they've tried NRT. So if you want to show that people are more likely to be n PAD smokers, given that they've tried NRT, you want a relatively high value for n. Then you can come up with a conclusion that someone who has tried NRT is much likelier to be a 2 PAD smoker than someone who hasn't tried NRT. In the twisted statistical realm of Dutra & Glantz in which correlation is causality, this shows an "association" between NRT and being a heavy smoker. If you allow for a looser definition of "smoker" (e.g. 1/2 PAD vs. 2 PAD) then you don't get such a powerful headline. This is exactly the point of Dutra & Glantz: minors who have tried vaping are "seven times more likely" to be "smokers" than minors who have not tried vaping. In effect, you are selecting for those minors who are (to quote Dr. Rodu) more likely to be "experimental" or "risk takers." (In common American palance, the "bad kids" - i.e. "naughty" if you speak non-US English.)
Title: Quick outsources to Rodu and Grant
(C.V. Phillips' blog)
Quick outsources to Rodu and Grant | Anti-THR Lies and related topics
C.V. comments on Rodu's blog (above), and the Gaurdian article on the decision by a European medical journal to refuse any papers that are directly or indirectly funded by the tobacco industry (see UK section below).
Title: Anti-Smoking Advocate Claims that Inhaling Small Amounts of Nicotine Can Be Deadly
(Dr. Siegel's blog)
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/04/anti-smoking-advocate-claims-that.html
Siegel refutes three outrageous claims in Prof. John Banzhaff's April 2nd press release, namely that:
(1) inhaling nicotine in small amounts can be deadly;
(2) breathing in tobacco smoke for 30 minutes raises a nonsmoker's risk of a heart attack to that of a smoker; and
(3) inhaling PG can cause seizures.
Title: IN MY VIEW: Why Attacking Tobacco Companies for Giving their Cigarette Brands Color Labels Makes No Sense
(Dr. Siegel's blog)
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot
.com/2014/04/in-my-view-why-attacking-tobacco.html
This is a follow-up to the discussion regarding the tobacco companies' decision to use color-based labelling for certain cigarettes. For background, see a previos blog post:
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/04/anti-smoking-researchers-attack-tobacco.html
Title: WHO did what?!
(ECF's InfoZone)
WHO did what?! - ECF InfoZone
Gary Cox on the WHO's apparent intention to recommend that vaping be regulated just like tobacco smoking, under the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, as reported by the Financial Times (and in this space, on 4/14).
Title: Financial Times and Scientific American weigh in
(ECF's InfoZone)
Financial Times and Scientific American weigh in - ECF InfoZone (Gary Cox on the Financial Times article reviewed below in the UK section (first one), and the Scientific American hit job piece reviewed in this space in the last media summary ("Are E-Cigarettes Safe? - Even without tobacco, the poorly regulated devices may pose unique dangers").
Title: Bill Godshall Update 2014-04-17
(Bill Godshall's site)
Bill Godshall Update 2014-04-17
Bill's updates for 4/11/14 through 4/17/14.
***
SWITZERLAND
Title: Experts challenge e-cigarettes study
(Europe-wide general English-language news 'zine based in Stockholm Sweden) http://www.thelocal
.ch/20140417/experts-challenge-e-cigarettes-study
British and American readers will recognize all the usual talking points here:
1) There isn't enough evidence available on vaping therefore public health fears, unknowns and concerns - which all scientests share - conclusively demonstrate that vaping must be taxed and regulated in exactly the same way as cigarette smoking.
2) Because BT has bought into the vaping market ... the science tells us that X must be more plausible - if not outright fact - where X is any negative assertion that was once relevant to cigarette smoking but is now being applied to vaping. (No, I'm not kidding ... here we go):
"Two Swiss medical organisations have rejected calls to overturn the ban on sales of electronic cigarettes in Switzerland. [...] In March, a Lausanne University study concluded that the sale of all e-cigarettes should be allowed, with restrictions. However on Wednesday, the Swiss Respiratory Society (SSP) and its sister organization the Swiss Paediatric Pulmonary Society (SSPP) said the sales ban should not be lifted, as not enough is yet known about the effects of smoking e-cigarettes. [...] The smoking of e-cigarettes in Switzerland should be treated similarly to conventional smoking, argued the SSP/SSPP, with a ban on the distribution of e-cigarettes to minors - regardless of nicotine content - restrictions on smoking e-cigarettes in public places and a ban on advertising and sponsorship. The SSP/SSPP also called for e-cigarettes to be subjected to the same taxes as tobacco products. The federal government exempted e-cigarettes from such taxes two years ago. [...] 'The e-cigarette market is dominated to a large extent by the tobacco industry. The similarity of the product with conventional cigarettes and its promotion by the same industry constitutes a fundamental conflict.' [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
***
UK
Title: E-cigarettes: no smoke without fear [Survey article]
(Int'l bus. mag) http://www.ft
.com/intl/cms/s/2/ed185b54-c5e0-11e3-a7d4-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2zCVupif5
http://www.ft
.com/cms/s/2/ed185b54-c5e0-11e3-a7d4-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2zCVupif5
[Also see Gary Cox's analysis here:]
Financial Times and Scientific American weigh in - ECF InfoZone
Clearly the writers lack the level of intimate familiarity with the industry that one would hope to find, but this isn't some two-bit US tumbleweed town rag piece produced by an ignorant cub reporter who has a dozen other similar articles to churn out before lunch.
The author does make a few minor errors:
1) This contention seems to support the typical anti-vaping "dual use" position, and there's no evidence to suggest that it's true - in fact the data shows that vapers are increasingly quitters, not consumers who adopt the technology soley for reasons of convenience:
"While improved technology by small e-cigarette producers was important to winning over consumers, ultimately it was the outlawing of smoking in public places that prompted the growing demand."
2) The writers also presumes that the UK's NHS and MPRH are serious when they say that they want to regulate vaping as cessation therapy by 2016. While readers of this space may be aware that both BAT and Nicolite have submitted such applications, the date is only 20 months away, and the glacial pace of this kind of complex regulation on both sides of the Atlantic seems likely to continue. It's always easiest for government health and other officials to pass simple taxes and use or sales prohibitions than it is to issue regulations that cover medicinal use.
Readers who are unfamiliar with the situation in the UK will find this survey article's coverage of the public health debate interesting, those familiar with the situation here in the US will recognize many similarites. For example, both UK and US opponents share the views that:
a) Vaping is a strategy initiated or at least being brought to fruition by BT to keep smokers hooked on smoking and/or nicotine by encouraging minors to become consumers and existing smokers to maintain a status of dual users. In the mythical world of vaping opponents, only two types of vapers matter: dual users (vapers who still smoke tobacco cigarettes) and minors who have started vaping and are becoming tobacco cigarette smokers. Furthermore the vaping industry is the big tobacco industry - they are one and the same.
b) Although this article doesn't mention that UK anti-vapers are convinced that vaping is per se dangerous in the same way as US anti-vapers are (some of whom will argue that vaping is just as dangerous as tobacco cigarette smoking), both share the conviction that vaping has no cessation value. In other words, hardly any vapers actually quit smoking and the cessation argument is a myth based on anectdotes which is a product of big tobacco propaganda and/or wishful thinking on the part of vapers.
c) Finally there are some interesting comments about the rule of the UK vaping community's activism, and its at least partly successful efforts to push back against the self-serving fabrications of UK's Tobacco Control Industry (although the author doesn't mention the financial interests of those who are spreading the falsehoods in the UK, ECF readers are doubtless aware that many pocketbooks are threatened by the success of vaping as harm reduction).
All in all, this is a balanced piece writen in accordance with top-quality journalistic standards. Not the sort of thing that many US mainstream outlets would be inclined to produce on this subject.
Title: Tobacco industry-funded research, peer review, and nannying
(UK nat'l paper) http://www.theguardian
.com/science/occams-corner/2014/apr/17/tobacco-industry-funded-research-peer-review-nannying
The European Journal of Public Health has decided not to accept any publications which are partly funded by the tobacco industry. Quoting the journal, the author says:
"'In reaching this decision, we are fully aware of the arguments that, as long as there is full disclosure of conflicts of interest, readers can decide for themselves about how to interpret the findings in published papers. Moreover, the peer review process should remove those papers that are seriously flawed or fraudulent.' The authors of this editorial statement (which sadly is not freely available) then add, 'Yet we know from experience that this view is naïve.' [boldface added]"
The author astutely points out that a huge fraction ("two-thirds") of the UK research is funded by BP. And as most of us vapers know, the US Tobacco Control Industry funds all of the junk studies intended to alarm the public about vaping. It will be interesting to see if this trend spreads to other medical journals. It's bad enough that vapers have the virtually the entire US public health and medical establishment as well as all levels of government fully committed to ending vaping as we know it today - by any means necessary.
***
US NATIONAL - GENERAL
Title: China and the Toll of Smoking [Editorial]
(US nat'l paper) http://www.nytimes
.com/2014/04/18/opinion/china-and-the-toll-of-smoking.html?hp&rref=opinion
NYT editorial board endorses warning labels as a helpful step towards reducing the prevelance of smoking in China. How thoughtful.
Title: E-Cigarette Bans Are Absurd
(NYC-based "alternative" 'zine) http://www.policymic
.com/articles/2773/e-cigarette-bans-are-absurd
Finally, a sensible article from policymic. The last piece on vaping in that 'zine simply regurgitated an extremely flawed artile from motherboard regarding the "cancer link" - both were covered in this space in the 4/14/14 summary. Not one word of junk.
Title: Electronic Cigarettes May Be Gateway to Tobacco Smoking
(American Psychiatric Assn.) http://psychnews.psychiatryonline
.org/newsArticle.aspx?articleid=1862282
This article focuses on the discredited Dutra & Glantz analysis as if it was all that psychiatrists needed to know about dealing with teen smoking. In a nutshell Dutra & Glantz's paper argued that teens who had tried vaping were "seven times more likely" to become tobacco cigarette smokers - thus implying that correlation is causation, as in the theory that hemline lenghts cause stock market fluctuations. For more analysis, see: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/03/conclusion-of-new-glantz-study-on.html
What's extremely troubling about this article is not only that it accepts the "minor gateway to smoking" argument, but it assumes that minors who vape should be treated like drug addicts by mental health professionals.
1) "'This is an exploding product on the market--being marketed to both adults and youth,' said Douglas Ziedonis, M.D., M.P.H., a substance abuse expert and chair of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. 'Flavors, such as cinnamon apple and strawberry, and the vibrant colors in which e-cigarettes are sold, make them appealing to children and teens.'
[...]
Ziedonis said that the study's findings illustrate that once an individual begins using nicotine products and becomes addicted to nicotine, that person is likely to desire the 'full range' of effects, which are provided by regular cigarette smoking. [boldface added]"
2) "Jill Williams, M.D., director of the Division of Addiction Psychiatry at Rutgers University Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and an expert in nicotine addiction, told Psychiatric News that these findings are particularly concerning since the rates of conventional smoking have been declining to record lows over the last several years. 'Behavioral health professionals, including psychiatrists, should do more to assess and treat their adolescent and adult patients for tobacco dependence, just as they would for any other substance use disorder,' said Williams, who emphasized that e-cigarettes should not be used as a cessation aid, since they have not been evaluated with the same level of rigor as evidence-based approaches to smoking cessation. 'The exact chemical components of the vapor are largely unknown and can vary among devices and manufacturers. . . and we should remain skeptical' of their value in smoking-cessation programs. [boldface added]"
While few if any vapers would stand up and cheer for the idea that minors should vape anything (nic-free or otherwise), the advice in this piece will undoubtedly filter down to mental health professionals everywhere who deal with minors - encouraging them to:
a) Assume that minors who vape are tobacco cigarette smokers.
b) Treat minors who vape like drug addicts.
Will this scientifically-unjustified form of exaggerated hysteria serve the cause of public health? Does it make sense to tell a 16 y.o. that a nic-free vaping device is no different than a syringe full of h3roin, or at least recommend to parents and other adults in a supervisory role that no effective distinction exists between the two? Will America start putting teens in jail for vaping nic-free "e-hookahs," in order to get them "clean and sober?"
Title: E-cigarettes: Their Popularity Exceeds Our Knowledge [Official Johns Hopkins U. hit job]
(Johns Hopkins U. via Yahoo health news) http://health.yahoo
.net/experts/heartsmartliving/e-cigarettes-their-popularity-exceeds-our-knowledge
Yet another hit job by a reassuring medical school prof. (He's gotta know what he's talking about, right?) This is almost a top-rated professional ANTZ piece, and is particularly insidious because of the deceptive nature of the presentation.
Are you caught up in the buzz surrounding e-cigarettes? Wondering if they will help you quit smoking? Or if they are a safer alternative to a conventional cigarette habit?
(Translation: "Are you confused? Let me help you. I'm a doctor. And I'm a professor. Just relax and let me substitute my informed professional judgement for your fears.")
"Where those of us in the public health community were once unified in the fight against smoking, we have now become a community divided about the future of e-cigarettes."
(More nonsense. There is no division. The US public health community and MDs everywhere stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the Tobacco Control Industry, in their cynical determination to wipe out vaping as we know it, through junk science and public disinformation at the cost of thousands of smokers' lives. And the writer/doctor/professor is one of them. Read on ...)
1) "[Section: 'Are E-cigarettes becoming a gateway for children and teens?']
[...]The biggest concern is that their use among teenagers is going up while no change in conventional cigarette use has been detected. This suggests that e-cigarettes are drawing in new users towards nicotine addiction and possibly smoking. [boldface added]"
(Uhm, wait a second. Wasn't the point of this piece to help folks who might be confused about vaping, and whether they should try it for cessation? Or is the goal here to encourage the casual reader to accept the minor-gateway-to-tobacco argument, and make smokers less likely to try a product with bad societal effects?)
2) "[Heading: 'Smoke for the nicotine, die from the tar?']
Lacking the tobacco from conventional cigarettes, e-cigarettes eliminate a substance that has been proven as the primary culprit in adverse health effects. Nicotine, which has relatively minor adverse health effects, is the main attraction of e-cigarettes. However, another ingredient, propylene glycol--the vapor that e-cigarettes emit--is a lung irritant and has been a cause for concern for those inhaling it over time. Also, e-liquids, the liquid solvents which are a key ingredient in e-cigarettes, are considered neurotoxins by health experts. However, the magnitude of e-cigarette's direct health concerns is controversial. Are they really that bad? [boldface added]"
(Putting aside the nonsense about PG, which is used in FDA-approved therapies, or the fact that 100% VG e-liquids are available, the good Dr.-Professor makes an interesting point. It's the e-liquid itself which is considered a neurotoxin. And that has nothing to do with nicotine or PG, e-liquid is a separate component, right? Or ... not?)
Oh yes, and wasn't this section supposed to be about the fact that vaping is less dangerous than smoking? Which is it?
3) "[Section: 'What have the early studies shown?'"
Suffice to say that the Grana et al. junk letter is described as a "high-profile study". (No, it wasn't. The letter describes the results of an on-line survey, and was not peer-reviewed. Furthermore the "e-cigarette users" were smokers who only reported that they had tried vaping at least once and/or had no reported intention of quitting. And finally, if just a few of the 88 smokers who may have just vaped as little as one puff had actually quit smoking, the results would've been entirely different, as noted by Dr. Siegel: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/03/new-study-on-electronic-cigarettes-by.html
I'll spare you the rest of "what the studies show" because naturally the next one is Dutra & Glantz (you know: minors who have tried vaping are "seven times more likely" to become tobacco cigarette smokers). This analysis was so pathetic that even the Legacy Foundation and the ACS disowned it. But the good Dr. evidently doesn't care about the difference between causation and correlation, or at least is quite happy to gloss over it - as long as it will help stamp out vaping.)
"There is still a lot to be learned about the consequences of e-cigarettes. However, there is no arguing that the recent exponential rise in sales, most notably among youths, has most public health officials worried that we are moving backwards after years of successfully fighting tobacco smoking. [boldface added]"
We should all be grateful to the Dr.-Professor for reviewing what little is known about vaping. We can see now that there is no evidence that it's less dangerous than smoking, that it doesn't help smokers quit, and also that it's a gateway to tobacco cigarette use for teens. Clearly vaping is a bad thing, and all smokers should avoid it.
"As a preventive cardiologist, I am always trying to find ways to help my patients quit smoking. With no conclusive scientific evidence pointing towards the effectiveness of e-cigarettes in aiding smoking cessation, I have not recommended these to anyone in my practice. [boldface added]"
(It's good to hear that he's looking out for the interests of his patients, isn't it? Clearly they'd be better off if they didn't vape, and did everything else to try to quit, so long as they took his advice. And if they died in the meantime of a heart attack or lung cancer because they were still smoking ... at least they would've had a concerned clinician by their side, who just happens to be a medical school professor at Johns Hopkins to boot. How much more fortunate could they possibly be?)
So-o, what does he recommend, to folks who want to quit smoking?
"However, one thing I do think is helpful for these patients is to keep a smoking journal. If you are committed to quitting smoking, keep track of how bad you need each cigarette--rate this on a scale of 1 to10, 10 being an absolute must. I think you'll be surprised how many e-cigarettes you smoke just because of the habit (with needs less than 5). Start by only smoking when the need is above a 5, then gradually move up until you are only smoking when your need is a 10. Feel free to comment on your progress as you use your smoking journal by tweeting at me, using my twitter handle: @MichaelJBlaha. Good luck! [para break omitted, boldface added]"
This article was licenced to Yahoo! Health by Johns Hopkins U., which receives royalties, according to the italics at the end. It was also "compiled by The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine with editorial supervision by one or more of the members of the faculty of the School of Medicine."
Title: Tobacco Lobby Opens a New Playbook for E-Cigarettes
(US Nat'l News mag) http://www.nationaljournal
.com/daily/tobacco-lobby-opens-a-new-playbook-for-e-cigarettes-20140417
While the writing and the overall level of analysis here are vastly more sophisticated than the average piece of googled rubbish produced by a typical tumbleweed-town cub reporter, the writer's ignorance about the vaping industry is just as manifest. As with all other articles that aren't written in order to specifically cover the Durbin Report, this piece takes its conclusions for granted. It also presumes that the entire vaping industry is covered by the report and/or is synonymous with BT. Contains this quite from Dr. Siegel:
"Essentially this is a big victory for the big tobacco companies,' said Boston University School of Public Health professor Michael Siegel, speaking of tobacco regulation [i.e. the PACT act?]. 'They can claim correctly that they comply with FDA standards. And it also detracts Congress from passing real regulation that would deal with tobacco.' [boldface added]"
However the premise that BT is doing essentially nothing to oppose anti-vaping regulations (whether sensible or otherwise) is basically correct, as readers of this space know from an excellent piece reported here in the 4/14 media summary by CSPNet's Melissa Vonder Haar:
http://www.cspnet
.com/category-management-news-data/tobacco-news-data/articles/dont-get-smoked-out-e-cig-regulations
Title: Cancer Society and Tobacco [Letter to the ed.]
(US nat'l paper) http://www.nytimes
.com/2014/04/17/opinion/cancer-society-and-tobacco.html
ACS CEO Seffrin scolds Walgreens for continuing to sell tobacco products, while arguing that the $6M donated by Walgreens customers to ACS is no justification. What caught my eye was this sentence:
"Every dollar donated at checkout helped prevent or mitigate suffering from cancer."
Au contraire, Mr. Seffrin. Some of the money given to the ACS is used to fight THR through direct or indirect lobbying of the media, the public, and of course elected officials. For more on this flap, also see Dr. Siegel's blog:
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/04/american-cancer-society-sells-out-its.html
***
US NATIONAL - TOBACCO INDUSTRY ECONOMICS & VIABILITY
Title: With p0t and e-cigarettes, Big Tobacco is just waiting to inhale emerging markets
http://www.washingtontimes
.com/news/2014/apr/16/with-pot-and-e-cigarettes-big-tobacco-is-just-wait/
So-o this is what the writer seems to believe that we might be excited about:
"'Bottom line, the long-held investor perception of tobacco as a sunset industry is wrong,' said David Sealy, senior equity research analyst at the Boston Co. and author of an analysis released Wednesday of the changes sweeping the industry. The major tobacco companies, including RJ Reynolds, Lorillard and Altria Group, the parent company of Philip Morris USA, are poised to benefit from these 'potential game-changers for the growth-challenged tobacco industry.' [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
[boldface added][/I]"
But here are some caveats. Let's start with mar!juana:
"Sixteen states have decriminalized mar!juana use, 20 states have allowed medical mar!juana use and Colorado and Washington have fully legalized mar!juana use. Mr. Sealy said these trends, plus polling that cites 58 percent of Americans support mar!juana legalization, signal 'snowballing' to move toward national legalization. 'The momentum behind mar!juana legalization has not been lost on the marketplace. To date, the market has focused mostly on speculative small caps, but if legalization becomes official federal policy, Big Tobacco will end up dominating the mar!juana market,' he said in the report. [para break omitted, boldface added]"
(Note the qualifiation - if legalization becomes federal policy. Your Correspondent can't see that happening any time before the 2020 redistricting cycle. The story - and perhaps Sealy's analysis - also fails to mention the looming regulatory issues surrounding vaping, which begin with the apparent crusade on the part of the American Tobacco Control Industry to either eliminate or "medicalize" vaping.)
Some facts about sales/revenues:
1) Altria (formerly PMI) reports 0.6% decline in net revenue, and US domestic cigarette shipment volume down 4%.
2) Lorilard reports Newport and Maverick combined sales increased by $158M, and vaping sales (mostly Blu?) increased by $169M.
3) "A report out this week by Moody's Investors Service said e-cigarettes will not have a significant impact on the tobacco industry in the next couple of years because the product makes up only 1 percent to 2 percent of the total U.S. tobacco market. [...]'It would take sustained growth over years for it to have any meaningful impact on credit metrics of U.S. tobacco companies,' [says vice president and senior analyst of Moody's Investors Service corporate finance group Nancy Meadows]. [para break omitted, boldface added]"
Title: Has Altria Entered The Electronic Cigarette Market Just In Time?
(US individual investor site) http://www.trefis
.com/stock/ahii/articles/234823/has-altria-entered-the-electronic-cigarette-market-just-in-time/2014-04-17
Despite the intriguing title, there's very little information here for investors who are knowledgeable about the industry, or curious vapers for that matter. It also seems that the author is unaware of what one might call the disruption's disruption, namely the growth of non-cigAlike options. At most we learn that Altria (formerly PMI) is in the vaping market to say, and that it fully expects that the brand loyalty that helped it so much in the halcyon "Marlboro" days will be achievable with acquisitions like Green Smoke or new launches such as Mark Ten. There's also no mention of PMI's decision to invest "up to $688M" in tobacco heating technology (as reported by the WSJ and in this space on 3/29 - also see the 4/16 media round-up). The article's conclusion doesn't answer its titular query:
"All said, the electronic cigarette industry will likely prove disruptive to the long-standing business models of big tobacco, but this does not mean the current incumbents stand to lose market share of the smoking industry as a whole. Having said this, big tobacco has so far been relatively slow to market, and this may yet prove to have been a window of opportunity for the first movers such as American Heritage."
Title: How Altria Plans to Keep Delivering Returns
(US individual investor site) http://www.fool
.com/investing/general/2014/04/17/how-altria-plans-to-keep-delivering-returns.aspx
The short answer is:
1) Keep raising prices on tobacco cigarettes, even as the number of smokers declines by about 3-4% per year.
2) Maintain a commanding market share in cigars and smokeless ("OTP") products.
3) Get into the vaping market. (Essentially nothing is said about this, it's too bad that Motley Fool only has one reporter who seems to know anything about vaping.)
---
US: MASSACHUSETTS
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Littleton [heatlh] board mulls e-cig [but not tobacco cig?]
restrictions [increasing age to 21 because 18, 19 and 20 year old adults are presumed to violate the law] (Littleton MA US local paper)
21 y.o. limit proposed to health board because adults aged 18-20 are collectively guilty of providing access to minors:
"The movement began last year, spearheaded by pediatrician Lester Hartman of Needham. Hartman says that 21 is a good age to mark the restriction's end because anyone younger might have access to helping those in high school get a hold of the product. The main problem with e-cigarettes, said Hartman, is that no one knows yet what the long-term risks are. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]" The article doesn't mention tobacco cigaretes, presumably those are still available to 18-20 y.o.s under the proposed ordinance.
[ HB 3726 would ban vaping wherever smoking is banned, see CASAA call: CASAA: Call to Action! Massachusetts E-Cigarette Usage Ban -- HB 3726 (formerly HB 3639) (UPDATED) ]
---
US: NEW JERSEY
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: E-cigarette use raises concerns
(Rutgers U. New Brunswick NJ US student paper) http://www.dailytargum
.com/news/e-cigarette-use-raises-concerns/article_1fc91e1e-c6ac-11e3-952d-0017a43b2370.html
Student-written article contains all the junk that the writer could google, including an unqualified endorsement of the Durbin report's conclusions, the CDC's minor statistics (presented without context), and CDC dir. Tom Frieden's Press Release indicating that "unclear whether they will increase or decrease the use of traditional cigarettes," (how refreshing it is to hear all the evidence available on the subject), and the myth that vaping is merely another way that tobacco cigarette smokers can get nicotine.
Having finished with her Googling, the writer then very responsibly turns the story over to the "experts," who just happen to be (surprise), the director of the Rutgers Tobacco Dependence Program and the clinic coordinator of the Tobacco Dependence Program.
From there, one would imagine that things go even further downhill, although the director of the dependence program is willing to risk this:
"'If we do study them, and it turns out that they are more helpful than harmful, then banning them isnt in the interest of public health either,'"
(At least he allows for the possibilty that vaping may be a benefit to public health. Most folks in his position will refuse to admit anything remotely like that.)
The clinic coordinator is more in line with the Tobacco Control Industry's talking points:
"Richardson thinks e-cigarettes should have been regulated as medical devices, but previous court decisions prevented that. Her next best hope is that the FDA will act on marketing, will require package ingredient lists and provide health providers and educators with guidelines and clear information to pass on to e-cigarette users. Until then, the tobacco industry is the only one winning. 'Right now, the people benefitting are the people selling an unregulated product that people are inhaling into their lungs.' [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
What your correspondent can say for sure is that when the writer graduates, we'll have another yet another cub reporter out there who knows how to serve the public through careful coverage of a story. Isn't that what the press is supposed to do?
[ NJ's house bill A1080 was originally proposed as a ban on tobacco smoking in parks and beaches, but was immediately ammended to include vaping as soon as it got on to the house floor. Passed by the house last month, now ready for the Sen:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ng-all-public-parks-beaches.html#post12349761
Also, Gov. Christie says he wants to tax vaping at the same rate as analogs, and S1867 has been introduced in the Sen. for that purpose:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ual-2-70-pack-cigarette-tax.html#post12450301
And:
CASAA: Call to Action! New Jersey's Governor Christie is Proposing a Tax on E-Cigarettes at the Same Rate as Combustible Cigarettes (Significantly UPDATED 3-27-14) ]
---
US: GEORGIA
Title: Local doctors weigh in on smoking vs. e-cigarettes, vaping [A US MD actually *recommends* vaping as a less harmful alternative!]
(Macon GA US NBC affiliate) http://www.41nbc
.com/story/d/story/local-doctor-weighs-in-on-smoking-vs-e-cigarettes/49802/GgpOu-Gyg0aynBTHrU-1mw
A US MD recommends vaping to his patients? He's actually willing to say that vaping has fewer harmful effects, instead of "We just don't know whether it's more dangerous. Use FDA-approved methods instead?" Hard to believe ...
"'I'm getting the sensation of smoking but none of the harmful side effects,' said [new vaper and former 2 PAD tobacco cigarette smoker Amber] Newbern. Based on his research, Dr. Darl Rantz, a family practice doctor, would agree. He said you just have to look at the numbers. 'There's about 700 toxins in a cigarette. 70 of those toxins are carcinogenic meaning they can incite cells to become cancerous,' said Rantz. In one brand of an e-cigarette Rantz used as an example, only one ingredient stood out as harmful, nicotine. 'The research shows that nicotine itself is not carcinogenic, but that decreases the cells resistance in the ability to fight cancer,' said Rantz. [...] Dr. Rantz, who says he's treated more than 40 patients who are in the process of quitting or have quit smoking, recommends them to his patients because they're far less toxic than the real thing. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
But that was too good to be true. The digent reporter had to get a second view which isn't hard to find:
"However, the jury is still out for some. Lung specialist at the Medical Center of Central Georgia, Dr. Bruce Burns said it's too early to tell what long term effects are of e-cigarettes and vapors. 'These may turn out to be a safe short term solution to get you off cigarettes, but you know we just don't know. So that's kind of the conundrum we're faced with,' said Burns. Dr. Burns said recommends his patients try to change their behavior rather than substitute cigarettes for the mechanical versions.[para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
(Yep. Quit, or die.)
[ GA's SB 347 and HB 251 are simple minor bans, but with internet age verification requirements. HB 251 bas passed the house. Ready for Nathan Deal's sig. ]
---
US: OHIO
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Vaping not better than quitting smoking [opinion by Dr. Timothy Angel, Health Commissioner, Ross County Health District]
(Chillicothe OH US local paper) http://www.chillicothegazette
.com/article/20140416/OPINION03/304160006?odyssey=mod|mostcom
For a US MD, let alone one employed by an American government, this is a major concession:
"Are e-cigs safer than tobacco cigarettes? Maybe. But if you had to choose between fighting a tiger or fighting a lion, or fighting neither, which would you choose? Just because vaping might - and I mean might - be a little safer than smoking does not make it safe." [emphasis in original]"
But this is hardly a pro-vaping piece:
1) "Nicotine, whether from an e-cig or a tobacco cigarette, is extremely addictive and cancer-promoting. It's associated with birth defects and developmental disorders. Some studies are finding that, just like tobacco, e-cigs contain formaldehyde (which is used as a fungicide, germicide, and a disinfectant), diethylene glycol (a poisonous compound also found in antifreeze) and other harmful metals and compounds, many of which are cancer-causing. [Uh what was that about nicotine and cancer? And yes, that was probably FDA '09 there with the DEG]"
2) "The Ross County Health District does not recommend vaping as an alternative to smoking tobacco products. We recommend regulation and labeling of these products be done as soon as possible, and like tobacco cigarettes, e-cigarettes should never be sold to minors. [B[Stories about the potentially harmful misuse of the e-cig cartridges and the nicotine they contain are already surfacing.[/B] [Hmm, what does this minor poisoning thing have to do with cessation? Or is it just some other bad aspect of vaping? boldface added]"
3) "For the health and safety of our residents, we advise avoiding smoking completely, regardless of the type of product. [boldface added]"
Not that any of this is too surprising. Citizen tax dollars are spent to have gov't MDs like him do everything possible to keep smokers smoking tobacco cigarettes. But the word "maybe" was a big surprise, other government MDs have refused to even make the comparision - on the grounds that vaping is can never a plausible choice because it's not approved as cessation therapy.
[ Gov. Kasich has proposed a 49% tax on vaping, see:
CASAA: Call to Action! Ohio's Governor Kasich is Proposing a Tax on E-Cigarettes and Smokeless Tobacco at an Outrageous 49% of Wholesale
and this ECF thread:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...cigs-increasing-cigarette-otp-tax-budget.html ]
---
US: ILLINOIS
Title: CDC Studies: Decline in Youth Smoking, Increase in E-cigarette Poisoning
(Nonprofit 'zine associated with Chicago Trib IL US) http://www.chicago-bureau
.org/cdc-studies-decline-youth-smoking-increase-e-cigarette-poisonings/
CDC data release shows that Chicago minor tobacco cigarette smoking rate is down to 11% - a 1/5 decline since 2011.
"... though another study found that e-cigarette use and poisonings increased, particularly among children younger than five years old."
Presumably this badly-written phrase means that more teens are vaping, but that there is an increase of vaping-releated "poisionings" among children less than 5 (or are we talking about poison control center calls, instead of results?).
"The mayors office continues efforts to discourage teenagers from smoking. Emanuel added a 50-cent per package cigarette tax increase to the 2014 budget to discourage the purchase of cigarettes in Chicago."
It seems that the purpose of this 'zine is to mentor aspiring journalists (i.e. students). Some of these folks may have a little to learn from wire service practices about how to write unbiased stories.
[ Most serious threat in IL right now is HB 5689, which has passed the house, and which would ban the sale of e-liquid until the IL Health Dep't issues standards:
CASAA: Call to Action! Illinois Bill Would Ban Sale of Liquid for E-Cigarettes Until Illinois Department of Public Health Establishes Packaging Standards
And this thread:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-e-cig-products-sold-il-protect-children.html
IL is also considering two bills that require vaping supplies (but not non-cigarette tobacco) to be behind the counter (HB 5868 = SB 3268), see: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...counter-exempts-tobacco-specialty-stores.html Also worth watching: SB2659, which would ban smoking in cars containing a minor - however the definition doesn't currently include vaping (and is still in the Public Health Cmte, with a status of "postponed." See: Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for SB2659 ]
---
US: ARIZONA
Title: Coconino County aims to put more teeth in ban on e-cigarettes in public places [City of Flagstaff mayor wants vaping=smoking use ban]
(Phoenix AZ ind. radio station) http://ktar
.com/22/1723998/County-aims-to-put-more-teeth-in-ecig-ban
Apparently there's some issue with Cocino co.'s ord., and the goal is to redraft it in order to cover "any vaporizing device that contains nicotine."
"The [county's] public ban applies to restaurants, bars, sidewalks, parks and other businesses, [assistant chief health officer] Oxtoby said. If the County Board of Supervisors approves the updated definition of vaporizing devices in the ordinance, cities like Flagstaff would have to choose whether they want to follow along. Oxtoby said Coconino County introduced the ban because nicotine is addictive and preliminary studies suggest e-cigarettes contain carcinogens, so second-hand smoke may be harmful. 'Vulnerable populations like those who are pregnant and those who have respiratory conditions or heart disease, we feel that they shouldn't be exposed to those in public places,' he said.
[...]
Flagstaff Mayor Jerry Nabours said he would need more information to look into the ordinance, but he said with what he knows now he would vote for a public ban on e-cigarettes. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
[ No threats in the AZ legislature, which will be adjorned shortly ("early April") ]
---
US: OREGON
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Smoking [, vaping] and tobacco ban on city properties to move to Forest Grove City Council [April 23 report to Public Safety Advisory Comm'n]
(Portland OR US local paper) http://www.oregonlive
.com/forest-grove/index.ssf/2014/04/smoking_and_tobacco_ban_on_cit.html
City of Forest Grove Parks & Rec. Comm'n votes unanimously to ban all tobacco and vapor products on all city property (except sidewalks?). No doorway perimeter was mentioned. Parks Dir. says that he hasn't "heard any public opposition to the ban." No specific reason is given, but these two points are mentioned:
1) "The commission discussed the policys scope in its first hearing on the issue in March. [Parks Dir.] Gamble said parks staff spends two hours a week picking up cigarette butts from shelters at Lincoln, Thatcher, Bard and Rogers parks. [boldface added]"
2) "The recommendation for a ban will make its way to the Public Safety Advisory Commission next Wednesday, April 23 for review, then to the Forest Grove City Council."
The piece links to a related article, which mentions cigarette butts, and contains this quote from the Parks Dir.
"'The trend is clear,' Gamble said. 'It's something we have to consider.'"
The related article does contain one person's complaint about "smoke" - but neither contains any reference specifically to vaping.
The Parks & Rec. Commn will inform the "Public Safety Advisory Council" on 4/23, with the full City Council hearing to occur in "late May."
[ The OR legislature is no longer in session. Both HB 4073 (a simple minor sales/possession ban) and HB 4073 (vaping=smoking extension to clean indoor air act) died this year, in part because the ANTZ org.s may have overplayed their hand. ]
---
US: CALIFORNIA
Title: Artesia City Council Enters E-Cigarette Fray
(Los Cerritos CA US local paper) http://www.loscerritosnews
.net/2014/04/17/%EF%BB%BF-artesia-city-council-enters-e-cigarette-fray/
Brief note indicating that the city of Artesia is considering "a resolution that will impose a business regulatory permit requirement on the sale of e-cigarette
[ CA is under threat from a wide variety of legislation, such as an internet sales ban: http://www.e-cigarette-forum
.com/forum/legislation-news/548077-oh-no-its-alive-ca-no-shipping-bill-ab1500-assigned-committee.html ]
***
COLLECTION: "E-CIGARETTE INJURIES ON THE RISE" - BYSTANDER EFFECTS, ASTHMA COMPLICATIONS, EXPLOSIONS, ETC.
Also discussed on this ECF thread:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...nts-submitted-fda-about-e-cigs-past-year.html
Reuters started the ball rolling, with this story:
Title: RPT-Reports of e-cigarette injury jump amid rising popularity, U.S. data show
(Reuters) http://www.reuters
.com/article/2014/04/17/usa-health-ecigarettes-idUSL2N0N82G320140417
Title: Injuries from e-cigarettes increase amid rising popularity
(US Nat'l news network) http://www.foxnews
.com/health/2014/04/17/injuries-from-e-cigarettes-increase-amid-rising-popularity/
Title: Reports of e-cigarette injury jump amid rising popularity, U.S. data show
(Chicago IL US local paper) http://articles.chicagotribune
.com/2014-04-17/features/sns-rt-us-usa-health-ecigarettes-20140416_1_e-cigarette-use-e-cigarettes-conventional-cigarettes
Title: E-Cigarettes May Not Be As Safe As You Think
(US nat'l news web site) http://www.huffingtonpost
.com/2014/04/17/more-ecigarette-injuries_n_5165480.html
My best guess is that this story was crafted by Reuters in the context of of anticipated FDA regulation. In other words, the variegated nature of complaints is itself evidence of the kind of inconsistency and unpredictability that regulation is intended to eliminate. Unfortunately, the piece got picked up by many other media outlets as another "There's No End to the Evil Caused By E-Cigarettes!" piece.
This article covers a public records request to the FDA apparently made by Reuters to the FDA for complaints about vaping which were filed between March '13 and March '14. There were "more than 50," which is certainly enough for a minor media blitz. Reuters was fairly careful about the description:
"The health problems were not necessarily caused by e-cigarettes. And it is not clear that the rate of adverse events has increased. In 2011, about 21 percent of adult smokers had used e-cigarettes, according to federal data, more than double the rate in 2010. Still, David Ashley, director of the office of science at the FDA's tobacco division, said the uptick is significant, especially in light of a recent report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showing an increase in the number of e-cigarette-related calls to poison control centers. 'Both together does suggest there are more instances going on,' he said. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
The reported incidents broke down into three categories:
1) User effects:
"The complaints from the public filed with the FDA cited trouble breathing, headache, cough, dizziness, sore throat, nose bleeds, chest pain or other cardiovascular problems, and allergic reactions such as itchiness and swelling of the lips."
2) Bystander effects:
"One person told the FDA that while eating dinner at a restaurant a customer at the next table was smoking an e-cigarette. 'The vapor cloud was big enough to come over my table and the e-cig smoker was 'huffing' it voraciously,' the person, whose name was redacted, wrote. 'I got dizzy, my eyes began to water and I ended up taking my food to go because of the intense heartbeat I began to develop.' One woman wrote that her husband began smoking e-cigarettes liberally in his car and home after being told they were safe and that the vapor was 'just like water.' 'My 4-year-old has had a raspy voice since he started but I really didn't think anything of it till last night my husband was just puffing away on that thing for hours and I woke up wheezing and unable to breathe.' [para breaks omitted]"
3) Explosions:
"One smoker began using e-cigarettes following dental surgery after the dentist said quitting smoking would speed the healing process, according to a report filed last October with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission that was forwarded to the FDA. 'It blew up in my mouth while inhaling, burning my stitches and gum, lip and fingers,' the report said. [para break omitted]"
4) Overheating:
""Others complained of over-heating devices. 'The electric cigarette gets hot when you use it and alters the taste buds,' wrote one consumer. 'I just recently realized what was turning my taste buds black.' [para break omitted]"
Under the heading "MADE IN CHINA" (isn't everything?), we find this:
"Most e-cigarettes are made in China and sold under more than 300 brands in the United States, some through retail stores, others online. The quality of the products is inconsistent, however, making it difficult to tease out the cause of any health problems.[...]It is not possible to draw general conclusions from individual case reports, but there is a growing recognition that the inconsistent quality of the devices, aside from any risk inherent in the inhalation of nicotine vapor, poses potential safety risks. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
So that's what the point apparently was (i.e. it was advocacy, not journalism). But as I indicated before, this was an excuse for another media mini-blitz.
---
COLLECTION: "E-CIGARETTE INJURIES ON THE RISE" - UNIQUE STORIES
Only Mother Jones was willing to expend some time on the story, instead of paraphrasing the Reuters piece:
Title: Should You Be Worried About Your E-Cigarette Exploding?
(US nat'l news mag.) http://www.motherjones
.com/environment/2014/04/e-cigarettes-explode-fda-timeline
Title: Should You Be Worried About Your E-Cigarette Exploding?
(Carson City NV US nonprofit community web site) http://www.pcccarson
.org/?p=4954
Credit is due to the MJ reporters who took the time to explain the issue:
"Specifically, it's e-cigarettes' lithium-ion batteries that combust. These batteries are also found in laptops and cellphones. But with e-cigarettes, the batteries are especially prone to overheating because smokers use incompatible chargers, overcharge the e-cigarettes, or don't take sufficient safety precautions. For example, many e-cigarettes are made to plug into a USB port, which smokers may take to mean the devices can be safely charged with a computer or iPad charger. But if left too long in a common USB port, some e-cigarette batteries can fry."
The story goes on to list sixteen incidents of charger fires/explosions that have been reported in the media since April 2012.
Title: FDA Expressed Concern on E-Cigarette Smoking after Increase in Complaint Rate
(Memphis TN US-based but BP-funded consumer health site) http://www.newsonwellness
.com/2014/04/fda-expressed-concern-e-cigarette-smoking-increase-complaint-rate/
A paraphrased version of the FDA story which mixes in the Durbin report allegations:
"After major issues brought to limelight, research is conducted on the impact of electronic cigarette smoking. Recently a controversy has been released that E- cigarette companies are targeting youth of the country by manufacturing them in flavours like cherry, chocolate and candy. Further they are also sponsoring a lot of youth related programs. Critics are of the opinion that this would act as a gateway for young to start smoking real cigarettes."
[And yes, this is inept prose - apparently the writing was outsourced to a non-native speaker who was trained to speak British English. I've seen this before, writing is outsourced no less than any consumer good.
---
COLLECTION: "E-CIGARETTE INJURIES ON THE RISE" - SELECTIVE PARAPHRASING OF THE REUTERS PIECE
Title: E-cigarettes, dangerous or not? Even the FDA isn't sure
(US tech. mag.) http://www.techtimes
.com/articles/5717/20140417/e-cigarettes-dangerous-or-not-even-the-fda-isnt-sure.htm
Title: Reports show rise in incidence of e-cigarette injuries
(UK cosmetic dentistry advertising site directed at consumers) http://www.cosmeticdentistryguide
.co.uk/news/reports-show-rise-in-incidence-of-e-cigarette-injuries-2036
Title: Reports of e-cigarette injury jump amid rising popularity, U.S. data show
(Jordanian general news site) http://medicsindex.ning
.com/profiles/blog/show?id=5826870%3ABlogPost%3A378675&commentId=5826870%3AComment%3A378781&xg_source=activity
Title: E-Cigarette Injuries on the Rise
(MA Med. Society) http://www.jwatch
.org/fw108737/2014/04/18/e-cigarette-injuries-rise
Only three paragraphs in this one, but the writer picked out the parts that are presumably of interest to clinicians (either for diagnostic or perhaps ideological reasons):
"Complaints included difficulty breathing, headache, cough, dizziness, sore throat, nose bleeds, chest pain, and allergic reactions. One woman noted that her young son's voice had been raspy since his father started using the devices. In addition, one consumer reported that an e-cigarette 'blew up in my mouth while inhaling, burning my ... gum, lip and fingers,' while another blamed the devices for blackened taste buds."
Title: Harm from E-cigarettes Increase as Their Popularity Rises
(US site that appears to collect potentially legally-actionable health-related reports) http://www.newsinferno
.com/harm-from-e-cigarettes-increase-as-their-popularity-rises/
Title: Injuries and Health Problems from E-cigarettes Rise as They Gain Populatiry
(Seems to be published by the same org. as the above site) http://www.publichealthwatchdog
.com/injuries-and-health-problems-from-e-cigarettes-rise-as-they-gain-populatiry/
These two stories are identical except for their titles
Title: e-cigarettes Injuries increasing
(Some New Delhi India news collection site) http://www.delhidailynews
.com/news/Injuries-from-e-cigarettes-use-increasing-1397749035/
Title: E-Cigarette Injury Reports on the Rise
(Partnership for a Drug-Free America web site) http://www.drugfree
.org/join-together/tobacco/e-cigarette-injury-reports-on-the-rise
***
GOOGLE TIPS
To see whether there are bad things happening where you live, try this Google search (example for Rhode Island) -
rhode site:casaa.org
(Replace rhode with a single word that describes your city, county, or state. For ex., if you live in Eau Claire, WI - you might use "Claire" to see if something is being proposed at the city level. Don't forget the : (colon), and be sure that there's nothing before or after the colon (not even spaces or tabs.)
You can also try replacing site:casaa.org with e-cigarette to find out what the media is reporting in your area. This is usually most helpful if you use the search tools to search by date. (CASAA doesn't generally issue calls or alerts until a bill is out of a state legislative committee, or is scheduled for a local city or county hearing.)
