Mr Kirk LaPointe,
I write to you, as the CBC Ombudsman, to express my extreme disgust with the poor quality of journalism and complete lack of any research, even surface research. I also write to express my disdain with our national news source for allowing it to be used as a vehicle for pharmaceutical companies to promote and disseminate misinformation with the goal of dissuading people from using an alternative to their products while hiding behind the guise of “Health Concerns”. I will start by saying that I am not a paid or unpaid representative of any e-cig/PV/E-Liquid company person. I am, however, a member of CASAA (Consumer Advocates for Smokefree Alternatives Association). I have not, however, been asked by CASAA to approach you and am doing so on my own behalf.
My complaint is in regards to the article posted on the 5th of September entitled “Banned e-cigarettes on sale in Regina stores” that can be found on your website at the following address,
Banned e-cigarettes on sale in Regina stores - Health - CBC News . Below I will pick the article apart piece by piece to show the complete lack of research that was placed in this article and to point out the inaccurate and fallacious statements that were made.
First, however I will point out what I believe to be the greatest issue with this article. This article quotes almost no source material and only uses one “professional” opinion. What the reporter failed to mention is that Janice Burgess, who “helps people quit smoking” works for PACT (Partnership to Assist with Cessation of Tobacco) and PAS (Pharmacists' Association of Saskatchewan). Coupled with the fact that she’s been the keynote speaker at two Pfizer-funded conferences in the past few years (Oct 22nd, 2009: "Smoking Cessation - Strategies and Opportunities" and Feb 6th, 2011: "Smoking Cessation - Kick ....") and she suddenly stops becoming a patients advocate and becomes a pharmaceutical advocate. Is there a reason that the CBC reporter failed to mention that she's financially beholden to the pharmaceutical industry that would stand to lose profits if E-cigs were given market authorization. Also can a woman whose personal livelihood stands at risk if people are allowed a healthier alternative to smoking really be considered to be able to give a balanced and reasonable viewpoint on a device that would affect her job?
To the article…
The opening phrase of the article “Electronic cigarettes are illegal and unreliable as a quit-smoking tool, according to Health Canada, but they’re still easy to buy in Regina stores.” is incorrect and misleading. Electronic cigarettes, more commonly called PV’s (personal vaporizers) are NOT currently illegal. Health Canada(HC) has merely issued warning letters and advisories against them, but the devices and the nicotine bearing juice are not illegal to own or use. The reliability of the devices is currently considered by HC to be unknown and untested, and is not considered to be “unreliable” by HC as reported. This is a significant difference as it marks the difference between HC citing knowledge of the devices(which it does not do) and HC citing a lack of knowledge (which it does). In fact the HC advisory that is issued to the public (
Health Canada Advises Canadians Not to Use Electronic Cigarettes - Health Canada Advisory 2009-03-27) states categorically, “these products may pose health risks and have not been fully evaluated for safety, quality and efficacy by Health Canada”. This is quite different from “unreliable” as the CBC reporter states.
The next paragraph that is false is the following: “E-cigarettes are available online, although Health Canada and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which regulate the cigarettes as drugs, have not approved them for sale.” The US FDA does NOT regulate e-cigs as drugs or drug delivery devices. They worked very hard for many years to do so but ultimately were told by the US Supreme Court that they had no basis for doing so. In fact, it lost every court case that it faced in the US. Let me be clear, the FDA lost every Case and in the US PV’s and E-Juice are treated as Tobacco Products.
Further issues in the following paragraph “In fact, Health Canada says it doesn’t approve any form of electronic cigarette for sale in Canada. And there is no proof e-cigarettes help smokers give up tobacco, the department says.”. Despite PV’s meeting HC’s own Schedule F exemptions from drug status which states that nicotine is not prohibited by or controlled by Schedule F in any way when it is "in a form to be administered orally by means of an inhalation device delivering 4 mg or less of nicotine per dosage unit.", HC has stated that PV’s are not exempt and therefore they claim PV’s must gain market authorization from HC. When approached HC will give no rationale or reasoning for it. Further to that, there are no reputable vendors that sell PV’s as a “quit Smoking Device”. Rather, they sell them as alternatives to smoking, just as chewing tobacco and Snus are alternatives.
My final issues revolve around the statements of Ms Burgess: “Janice Burgess of Regina, who helps people quit smoking, says not enough research has been done on electronic cigarettes. She worries the vapor is a risk to others, just as second-hand tobacco smoke is. “People around the person using the e-cigarette will be exposed to whatever is in the liquid cartridge,” she said.”. The question is, what does she consider to be “enough research” There are at least 4 different studies that have been conducted by various universities, the University of Alberta in Canada and The Boston School of Public Medicine in the US to name just two, that I’m personally aware of. Then there are the various studies that have been performed by independent laboratories at the request of the PV industry, at least 5 or 6 that I am aware of at this time. If you would like copies of the studies, I would be more than happy to forward you a full copy of each. My question is, is that not enough? How many studies were conducted independently to approve those items actually being sold as Nicotine Replacement Therapies and specifically how many studies were performed on the “orally inhaled” NRT known commercially as the “Nicotrol® Inhaler” and were any of them “independent” or University studies?
Frankly, the work presented is shoddy and ridden with errors; I’ve only taken a few hours to write this email to you, while at work and completing other tasks… I’ve done minimal research and only scratched the surface of what is likely available content and yet I was able to provide accurate statements. Is this really too much to ask of from a reporter? I recognize that I stand on one side of a divide as a PV user and advocate; however I thought that the CBC was better at reporting and verifying facts. Even when taking a stance on one side of any particular “truth” I would have thought that the CBC reporter and his /her department editor would have taken the time to do their own research to verify the “facts” it publishes.
I am asking for a personal detailed response to this letter (pro-forma is insufficient) and a public retraction of the article on the basis of factual inaccuracies. I do thank you for taking the time to read my letter and look forward to hearing your response.
Sincerely,
