I just emailed Consumer Reports the following letter. Since so many legislators lobbying for bans on e-cigs are relying only on the FDA's weak 2009 "study", and with few, if any, in-depth, reliable, scientific studies by totally unbiased organizations available to provide any kind of definitive findings on the safety (or lack thereof) of electronic cigarettes, I felt maybe an organization like the Consumers Union would be the best one to contact. They are a very well-respected organization with no ties to any commercial organizations. They are fully independent, and are not influenced by governmental issues, such as preserving tax revenue.
If they take the challenge to test e-cigs, they will do it well and with no holds barred. Maybe they will provide us with the ammunition we need to help sway legislators to veto proposed bans. And maybe they'll find that the legislators were right all along, and we all need to stop vaping right away.
If you agree with this approach, I encourage you to make a similar request of Consumer Reports. They won't bother if they see electronic cigarettes as nothing more than a fad or a niche product.
"To Whom it May Concern:
As a long-time smoker, I spent many years, and a good deal of money, trying various smoking cessation products. I tried the patch, the nicotine gum, and Chantix. None of these products worked for me, as none of them addressed what was as much of a psychological addiction as it was a nicotine addiction. So in an effort to reduce the harm tobacco was doing to my body, I tried electronic cigarettes (e-cigs).
Electronic smoking, or vaping, is similar to smoking traditional cigarettes, or analogs. With an e-cig, a battery is connected to a device called an atomizer, which is, in turn, connected to a cartridge or bottle filled with a liquid (e-juice) that contains nicotine, flavorings, and either propylene glycol (PG) or vegetable glycerin (VG). The design of e-cigs can vary greatly, but the general concept is the same. You activate the battery by either drawing on it or by pushing a button. As you take a drag, the e-juice is pulled onto the heating element of the atomizer, which turns the e-juice into a vapor that can be inhaled. The process feels like smoking, in that you get a throat hit from it. When you exhale, you produce a cloud of vapor that is essentially odorless and quickly dissipates into the air.
E-cig manufacturers claim that their products are safer than smoking analogs because there is no combustion and they do not contain sufficient levels of carcinogens to be considered dangerous to humans. Although nicotine itself is believed to be a carcinogen at high levels, the amount in e-juice is not enough to cause cancer. According to many medical professionals, its not the nicotine in analogs that causes cancer. Its the other chemicals and the combustion of them that is the problem. In addition, PG is generally recognized as safe for human consumption (GRAS) by the FDA, and most e-juice manufacturers only use flavorings that the FDA also considers to be GRAS.
However, GRAS, as it relates to the chemicals used in the manufacture of e-juice, is a term used by the FDA to describe chemicals safe to ingest, not necessarily safe to inhale. There have been few scientific studies on the safety of these chemicals when inhaled at any quantity, let alone the potentially high quantities inhaled by vapers.
Current estimates have the e-cig industry generating approximately $100 million in sales worldwide. An estimated 30,000 people pick up vaping every year. After a recent appearance on The David Letterman Show by e-cig user and actress Katherine Heigl, one e-cig vendor claimed a 10% jump in website hits.
Currently, many state and local governments are proposing bans on e-cigs. A ban on sales was enacted in Oregon and another is expected to pass in New York. The New York State Assembly Health Committee passed a resolution to ban e-cigs on January 25, 2011. The whole state assembly is expected to pass this bill next, before sending it to the New York State Senate. New Jersey and Suffolk County, NY, included e-cigs in their bans on smoking in public places.
However, none of the legislative movements to ban e-cigs so far have been based on anything close to scientific research, but rather have been quite possibly driven by the economic need to continue generating tax revenue on sales of cigarettes. One ban that was passed in the California legislature was quickly vetoed by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger because of the lack of real scientific evidence to support claims that e-cigs are dangerous.
This brings me to the point of this letter. There are a few scientific studies on the actual safety of e-cigs. The most detailed study to date is one by Heath New Zealand, which confirmed the claims of the industry that e-cigs are a relatively safe alternative to smoking. The Boston University School of Public Health recently released their findings that e-cigs are considerably less harmful than traditional cigarettes and are no more harmful than currently approved nicotine replacement therapies. Conversely, a quick and dirty 2009 study by the FDA found carcinogens and toxic chemicals such as diethylene glycol, an ingredient used in antifreeze in samples of e-juice. However, the findings of the FDA have been called into question by the c-cig industry. The alleged discovery of diethylene glycol came from one sample out of many, and it is possible that it was actually PG that was in the sample tested. PG is also found in anti-freeze but, as stated above, is FDA approved for human consumption. Additionally, the carcinogens mentioned in the FDA report were nitrosamines, which are also present in FDA approved smoking cessation aids, such as Nicorette gum.
There is a need for the public, and our legislators, to be properly educated on the possible risks and possible benefits of switching to e-cigs from analogs. In-depth testing and unbiased reporting by a respected, qualified organization, such as the Consumers Union, is vital to enable legal actions to be based on actual facts and not political spin. Testing by the government is likely to be biased in favor of the tobacco lobby and the need to maintain tobacco-related tax revenue. Testing sponsored by the e-cig industry is also likely to be biased in that positive findings could help increase profits by leading to more sales and limited government oversight. Your organization, with its proven track record of operating in the best interests of public safety, is alone in the ability to handle such testing with honesty and integrity.
I implore you, on behalf of countless former smokers, to please test the safety of electronic cigarettes. I am not asking for Consumer Reports to endorse these devices. I, and thousands of other former smokers, simply want an unbiased, scientific determination of their relative safety as it pertains to the claims of the c-cig industry, state and local governments, and the FDA.
You can learn more about electronic cigarettes, and find information on vendors and products for testing, by visiting http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com. While it may seem than e-cigs are a niche product, and as such are not deserving of your attention, I believe any time spent on that forum will convince you otherwise.
For the record, I am neither a manufacturer nor a vendor of e-cigs or any products associated with them. I am simply a consumer who is concerned about my health and that of the many thousands of e-cig users, worldwide. If your testing finds that e-cigs are not harmful, you could provide vital information to help stop irrational legislative bans on what could be a life-saving device. If you find them to be harmful, you could help thousands of vapers worldwide by encouraging them to abandon a dangerous practice. Either way, you would be providing a valuable service for many thousands of Americans and, possibly, millions of people around the world.
Thank you for your time. I hope that you will take the challenge to put the debate over e-cigs to rest, one way or another."
If they take the challenge to test e-cigs, they will do it well and with no holds barred. Maybe they will provide us with the ammunition we need to help sway legislators to veto proposed bans. And maybe they'll find that the legislators were right all along, and we all need to stop vaping right away.
If you agree with this approach, I encourage you to make a similar request of Consumer Reports. They won't bother if they see electronic cigarettes as nothing more than a fad or a niche product.
"To Whom it May Concern:
As a long-time smoker, I spent many years, and a good deal of money, trying various smoking cessation products. I tried the patch, the nicotine gum, and Chantix. None of these products worked for me, as none of them addressed what was as much of a psychological addiction as it was a nicotine addiction. So in an effort to reduce the harm tobacco was doing to my body, I tried electronic cigarettes (e-cigs).
Electronic smoking, or vaping, is similar to smoking traditional cigarettes, or analogs. With an e-cig, a battery is connected to a device called an atomizer, which is, in turn, connected to a cartridge or bottle filled with a liquid (e-juice) that contains nicotine, flavorings, and either propylene glycol (PG) or vegetable glycerin (VG). The design of e-cigs can vary greatly, but the general concept is the same. You activate the battery by either drawing on it or by pushing a button. As you take a drag, the e-juice is pulled onto the heating element of the atomizer, which turns the e-juice into a vapor that can be inhaled. The process feels like smoking, in that you get a throat hit from it. When you exhale, you produce a cloud of vapor that is essentially odorless and quickly dissipates into the air.
E-cig manufacturers claim that their products are safer than smoking analogs because there is no combustion and they do not contain sufficient levels of carcinogens to be considered dangerous to humans. Although nicotine itself is believed to be a carcinogen at high levels, the amount in e-juice is not enough to cause cancer. According to many medical professionals, its not the nicotine in analogs that causes cancer. Its the other chemicals and the combustion of them that is the problem. In addition, PG is generally recognized as safe for human consumption (GRAS) by the FDA, and most e-juice manufacturers only use flavorings that the FDA also considers to be GRAS.
However, GRAS, as it relates to the chemicals used in the manufacture of e-juice, is a term used by the FDA to describe chemicals safe to ingest, not necessarily safe to inhale. There have been few scientific studies on the safety of these chemicals when inhaled at any quantity, let alone the potentially high quantities inhaled by vapers.
Current estimates have the e-cig industry generating approximately $100 million in sales worldwide. An estimated 30,000 people pick up vaping every year. After a recent appearance on The David Letterman Show by e-cig user and actress Katherine Heigl, one e-cig vendor claimed a 10% jump in website hits.
Currently, many state and local governments are proposing bans on e-cigs. A ban on sales was enacted in Oregon and another is expected to pass in New York. The New York State Assembly Health Committee passed a resolution to ban e-cigs on January 25, 2011. The whole state assembly is expected to pass this bill next, before sending it to the New York State Senate. New Jersey and Suffolk County, NY, included e-cigs in their bans on smoking in public places.
However, none of the legislative movements to ban e-cigs so far have been based on anything close to scientific research, but rather have been quite possibly driven by the economic need to continue generating tax revenue on sales of cigarettes. One ban that was passed in the California legislature was quickly vetoed by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger because of the lack of real scientific evidence to support claims that e-cigs are dangerous.
This brings me to the point of this letter. There are a few scientific studies on the actual safety of e-cigs. The most detailed study to date is one by Heath New Zealand, which confirmed the claims of the industry that e-cigs are a relatively safe alternative to smoking. The Boston University School of Public Health recently released their findings that e-cigs are considerably less harmful than traditional cigarettes and are no more harmful than currently approved nicotine replacement therapies. Conversely, a quick and dirty 2009 study by the FDA found carcinogens and toxic chemicals such as diethylene glycol, an ingredient used in antifreeze in samples of e-juice. However, the findings of the FDA have been called into question by the c-cig industry. The alleged discovery of diethylene glycol came from one sample out of many, and it is possible that it was actually PG that was in the sample tested. PG is also found in anti-freeze but, as stated above, is FDA approved for human consumption. Additionally, the carcinogens mentioned in the FDA report were nitrosamines, which are also present in FDA approved smoking cessation aids, such as Nicorette gum.
There is a need for the public, and our legislators, to be properly educated on the possible risks and possible benefits of switching to e-cigs from analogs. In-depth testing and unbiased reporting by a respected, qualified organization, such as the Consumers Union, is vital to enable legal actions to be based on actual facts and not political spin. Testing by the government is likely to be biased in favor of the tobacco lobby and the need to maintain tobacco-related tax revenue. Testing sponsored by the e-cig industry is also likely to be biased in that positive findings could help increase profits by leading to more sales and limited government oversight. Your organization, with its proven track record of operating in the best interests of public safety, is alone in the ability to handle such testing with honesty and integrity.
I implore you, on behalf of countless former smokers, to please test the safety of electronic cigarettes. I am not asking for Consumer Reports to endorse these devices. I, and thousands of other former smokers, simply want an unbiased, scientific determination of their relative safety as it pertains to the claims of the c-cig industry, state and local governments, and the FDA.
You can learn more about electronic cigarettes, and find information on vendors and products for testing, by visiting http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com. While it may seem than e-cigs are a niche product, and as such are not deserving of your attention, I believe any time spent on that forum will convince you otherwise.
For the record, I am neither a manufacturer nor a vendor of e-cigs or any products associated with them. I am simply a consumer who is concerned about my health and that of the many thousands of e-cig users, worldwide. If your testing finds that e-cigs are not harmful, you could provide vital information to help stop irrational legislative bans on what could be a life-saving device. If you find them to be harmful, you could help thousands of vapers worldwide by encouraging them to abandon a dangerous practice. Either way, you would be providing a valuable service for many thousands of Americans and, possibly, millions of people around the world.
Thank you for your time. I hope that you will take the challenge to put the debate over e-cigs to rest, one way or another."
