E-smoke without fire (Ireland)

[Bill Godshall]

E-smoke without fire
E-smoke without fire - The Irish Times - Sat, Nov 27, 2010

Folks can send a letter-to-the-editor to correct inaccurate claims
lettersed@irishtimes.com

Letters to editors are far more important that posting comments on the website, as the letters are often published in print editions of the newspapers (while online comments aren't).

 

[kristin]

OK, Bill, I sent a letter to the editor:

Kristin Noll-Marsh
CASAA Secretary
Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association
United States


re: E-smoke without fire 11-27-2010

Dear Editor,

This article regarding e-cigarettes is very unbalanced and typical rhetoric.

Stating that "research into the long-term health effects of inhaling nicotine vapour is limited" is simply untrue. Nicotine inhalers have been available on the world market for years. The base liquid - propylene glycol - has been studied and approved for human inhalation world-wide. It is the same product used in theatrical fog, nightclub "smoke," emergency fire training for fire fighters and airline employees, haunted house rides and hospital air sanitizers.

While the FDA did find "detectable" levels of carcinogens, they were only found when scrutinized at parts-per-trillion. (Most testing is only to parts-per-million.) Nearly the exact same trace levels can be found in FDA-approved nicotine patches. If those levels are acceptable for pharmaceutical nicotine patches, why are they of a concern for e-cigarettes? Additionally, there were no toxic levels of any chemical found in the FDA testing. They found non-toxic levels (approximately 1%) diethylene glycol in ONE out of 18 samples tested, in the liquid only - not in the actual vapor. They found no traces of any other harmful chemicals and diethylene glycol has not been found in any further testing by several labs. To flatly say that" toxic chemicals" were found, without further explanation, is misleading and untruthful.

Ms. Maher stated, “They might be without the 4,000 other chemicals that are in cigarettes but you’re still getting nicotine and perhaps in greater dosages. If you’re just ordering them online you could end up increasing your addiction.”

It's unconscionable for a health professional to so downplay the health benefits for a smoker to stop consuming "the 4,000 other chemicals" and to exaggerate the the dangers of smokeless nicotine. Science has long proven that nicotine, absent the smoke, poses health risks similar to that of caffeine - which could also be considered "addictive," yet is still considered "acceptable risk" by most people. If something is no worse for you than a cup of coffee, what is the concern about it being "more" addictive? Being addicted to something isn't the danger - the danger lays in that to which someone is addicted. Additionally, 2-3 studies have already shown that while the liquid may contain higher nicotine levels, the delivery method of mist vs. smoke causes less nicotine to be delivered less efficiently. These studies show that, puff-to-puff, e-cigarettes deliver far less nicotine than traditional cigarettes. Ms. Maher's comment about "increasing your addition" is baseless and simple nonsense which sounds scary.

The concept of harm reduction is not new. Public health officials routinely encourage us to reduce our health risks by eating reduced fat and reduced sugar foods, wearing seat belts while driving and helmets while riding. E-cigarettes are not a cure for nicotine addiction, they are a reduced harm alternative to use nicotine without smoking. Removing thousands of chemicals and dozens of carcinogens, while continuing to use a relatively harmless nicotine liquid or smokeless tobacco product, is the way to improve the health of nicotine/tobacco users. If they cannot or will not quit, the smartest advice to give them is to use a reduced harm product such as e-cigarettes or smokeless tobacco. It's no different than advising someone with weight issues to eat reduced-fat products. To continue to insist that smokers must abstain from all nicotine use - a policy which has been shown to have only a 10% success rate for those who quit without pharmaceutical aids and a less than 7% for those who use gums, patches and the like - is a policy which has stalled smoking abstinence completely. It's time for public health groups to apply the same reduced harm logic they have for food and high-risk activities to tobacco and leave their nicotine and smokeless tobacco prohibitionist stance behind. Those interested in further reducing their risk from smoking should visit CASAA.org for more information and the truth about smokeless alternatives.

Sincerely,
Kristin Noll-Marsh
CASAA Secretary
Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association
http://cassa.org

"Our mission is to ensure the availability of effective, affordable and reduced harm alternatives to smoking by increasing public awareness and education; to encourage the testing and development of products to achieve acceptable safety standards and reasonable regulation; and to promote the benefits of reduced harm alternatives."

 

[Bill Godshall]

I sent the following letter to the Irish Times.


Thank you for publishing the 11/27/10 article "E-smoke without fire", as electronic cigarettes have helped hundreds of thousands of smokers quit or sharply reduce cigarette consumption.

For clarification, the US FDA's laboratory test found the same levels of carcinogens in e-cigarettes that are in FDA approved nicotine gums and patches. Also, just one so-called toxic chemical was found in just one of the 19 e-cigarette samples FDA tested, and it was found at a nontoxic trace level.

Unfortunately, the FDA's press release misrepresented its own lab test results in order to mislead and scare the public, to retaliate against two e-cigarette companies that had sued the agency, and to defend the FDA's attempted ban on the products by inappropriately classifying them as unapproved drug devices. In January, Federal Judge Richard Leon ruled in favor of the e-cigarette companies and against the FDA https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2009cv0771-54 The case is now being considered by the DC Court of Appeals.

In contrast to the article's quote attributed to Kathy Maher, the only two published studies both found that e-cigarettes emit far less nicotine than tobacco cigarettes, and even less nicotine than nicotine gum. As such, there is no evidence that e-cigarette usage can lead to addiction. Meanwhile, both studies found that e-cigarettes are effective at relieving smokers cravings.

Based upon existing evidence, e-cigarettes appear to be at least 99% less hazardous than tobacco cigarettes, and many smokers prefer these smokefree cigarette alternatives over nicotine gum, lozenges or patches.

Bill Godshall
Executive Director
Smokefree Pennsylvania
1926 Monongahela Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15218 USA
412-351-5880
FAX 412-351-5881
smokefree@compuserve.com

 

[Bill Godshall]

I suggest keeping letters to editors of newspapers short. Otherwise, they either won't be published, or the editor will edit out entire paragraphs and sentences.

 

[kristin]

That is short for me, lol! Hopefully, they'll just contact someone from CASAA for a statement.

 

[Our House]

Great letters guys.

 

[KDK]

Thanks for sticking up for e-cigs, YOU GUYS ARE GREAT! Please continue!!