Dear Erika Sward,
I am writing in response to the ALA's position on electronic cigarettes. The purpose of the email is to inform you of the facts and truths about electronic cigarettes because it appears that the ALA is terribly misinformed.
Many ecig users have sent emails to
info@lungusa.org asking that the ALA reconsider it's position. Many of them, including myself, are receiving the same canned response:
"Thank you for your email to the American Lung Association. Until the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determines that e-cigarettes are safe for consumers, the American Lung Association urges consumers not to use these products.
The FDA conducted a limited study in July 2009 and found that the products contained carcinogens and toxic chemicals, including the ingredients found in anti-freeze. A study conducted at Virginia Commonwealth University and published in February 2010 found that e-cigarettes deliver little or no nicotine to users.
For additional information on this topic, we recommend you consult the FDA’s website at - FDA Warns of Health Risks Posed by E-Cigarettes
Thank you for contacting us."
First and foremost, It appears that the ALA has a conflict of interest when advising smokers to stick with nicotine products that the FDA has determined to be "safe" for consumers. Considering that the ALA receives a substantial amount of money from Pfizer, the manufacturer of several smoking cessation drugs, the ALA's conflict of interest is quite apparent. I would hope the ALA would announce their 1.5 million dollar conflict of interest and not let funding skew their opinion of a product that competes with a company they're receiving funding from. Unfortunately, I have yet to see a press release in which the ALA sites their (substantial) conflict of interest.
Regarding the FDA study mentioned in the ALA's canned response: You will find that even the FDA's report on the testing they did on the liquid used for electronic cigarettes to be far safer than cigarettes. The lab report that accompanied the July, 2009 press release from the FDA does show some levels of carcinogens and toxins. Tobacco specific nitrosamines (carcinogens) were available at "detectable" levels in only five of the eighteen cartridges tested. The report defines "detectable" as 141 parts per billion for across-the-board detection. Each specific nitrosamine has its own detectable limit. Assuming that a cartridge contains all four nitrosamines tested for, the total amount of nitrosamines in the cartridge would be (assuming a cartridge capacity of 1ml, which by all accounts is very high) 141 nanograms. One Marlboro cigarette contains 11,190. If an electronic cigarette user inhales 3 ml of liquid per day (also a high estimate), they are at most inhaling 423 nanograms of nitrosamines in a day. By comparison, a half-a-pack-a-day smoker is inhaling 111,900 nanograms of those same chemicals every day. In the worst-case scenario, it would take a heavy electronic cigarette user almost a year to equal the exposure to these chemicals of just one day of cigarette use for a light smoker. Keep in mind, this is only if the user is using one of the 5 samples the FDA found containing these TSNA's. There were thirteen other samples that didn't contain any TSNA's. So it's fair to state that many people are using a product that is safer than other FDA approved NRT's on the market.
You should also know that a New Zealand study showed the Tobacco-Specific Nitrosamine levels (TSNA's) in the FDA approved NRT's to be the same in e-cigarettes. However, they are significantly higher in traditional cigarettes.
TSNA's (in nanograms)
Nicotine Patch: 8
E-Cigarette: 8
Marlboro cigarette: 11,190
Reference here:
Untitled Document
As for the Virginia Commonwealth University study that is mentioned in the ALA's canned response, if you read the link below, Dr. Eissenberg, who performed and published the study, admitted to performing the study incorrectly. After a lengthy discussion with several electronic cigarette users, he purchased an ecig for himself and did in fact find that nicotine is delivered to the body when used properly.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/e-cigarette-news/69409-cnn-com-today.html Dr. Eissenberg's screen name: teissenb
There are arguments that we don't know what happens when propylene glycol, the substance referenced in the ALA's canned response, is inhaled. We do in fact know what happens when people inhale propylene glycol. It is used in asthma medications and has been since the 1950's, resulting in no adverse health effects.
Reference here:
Albuterol Syrup Official FDA information, side effects and uses.
Also, you can view under section #3 of the Material Safety Data Sheets that under "inhalation" they list: "No adverse health effects via inhalation."
Reference here:
PROPYLENE GLYCOL
Many organizations, including the ALA, claim that electronic cigarettes are being marketed to minors because they come in candy and fruit flavors. Though there is no evidence that companies are specifically targeting young people, there may be unscrupulous companies that could try. Organized vapers' advocacy groups such as the Vaper's Coalition (
Vapers Coalition - Protecting your Right to Vape), which represents National Vaper's Club (
http://www................/) and the Consumer Advocates for Smokefree Alternatives Association (
CASAA | The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association), support the prohibition of sales to minors under 18 years of age.
In another survey, only 13% of adult e-cigarette users have NEVER tried a candy-flavored, fruit or beverage-flavored nicotine liquid.
Reference here:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=HrpzL8PN5cP366RWhWvCTjggiZM_2b8yQJHfwE9UXRNhE_3d.
It's somewhat obtuse to think that candy flavored anything is only for teens or children. There are many adult products that come in candy-flavors including laxatives and many medications. I urge you to walk down the medicine aisle of your local drug store and see how many adult products come in appealing flavors, which you deem to be for children only.
I, personally, only like the candy and fruit flavored liquids and I am 32 years of age.
You may respond to this email, the same as many others, claiming that we do not know the effects of e-cigarettes therefore they should not be used until the effects are known. You would be correct in this statement, assuming that you mean that the long-term negative effects are unknown. There are a myriad of beneficial effects that users (vapers) report, including the ability to breathe better, a reduced cough, and overall improved health and fitness. Users do report some negative health effects: a dry mouth or throat, nausea or dizziness, and weight gain. (
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-10-231.pdf page 17) For comparison, the side effects of various NRTs are: "skin irritation -- redness and itching, dizziness, racing heartbeat, sleep problems or unusual dreams, headache, nausea, vomiting, muscle aches and stiffness" (the patch), "bad taste, throat irritation, mouth sores, hiccups, nausea, jaw discomfort, racing heartbeat" (the gum). (
ACS :: Guide to Quitting Smoking)
Once again, please compare all of these with the side effects of nicotine withdrawal: "dizziness (which may only last 1 to 2 days after quitting), depression, feelings of frustration, impatience, and anger, anxiety, irritability, sleep disturbances, including having trouble falling asleep and staying asleep, and having bad dreams or even nightmares, trouble concentrating, restlessness or boredom, headaches, tiredness, increased appetite, weight gain, constipation and gas, cough, dry mouth, sore throat, and nasal drip, chest tightness". (
ACS :: Guide to Quitting Smoking) As you can see, the side effects most reported by electronic cigarette users are consistent with the known side effects of both NRTs and nicotine withdrawal.
I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to read my email and reviewing the truths and facts. I hope that you will urge the ALA to change it's stance on electronic cigarettes. If the ALA truly cares about people and their lungs and not just the millions of dollars they receive from pharmaceutical companies, they will reconsider their false and illogical claims against electronic cigarettes. They will stop sending people to LIE to legislators about electronic cigarettes as they've done in Illinois for example. I also respectfully request that the ALA stop making false statements to media outlets.
Until the ALA stops it's efforts to have electronic cigarettes banned, they will not receive any donations from me, my friends, my family and thousands of other ecig users.
Thank you for your time and prompt attention to this matter. I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
April