Electronic cigarette companies not to be trusted

[mpetva]

Electronic cigarette companies not to be trusted - Opinion

 

[jamie]

It's definitely an opinion, cuz there are sure few facts to be found in that amateur blather. Sheesh.

 

[PlanetScribbles]

So, writing an 'opinion piece' gives you the right to talk bollox? I'll remember that one.
Might come in handy in the future.

 

[kristin]

I posted my typical novel-comment, lol! I think it's moderated though, since it didn't show up yet.

Mr. Lor,

If someone is going to form an opinion, especially a journalist, wouldn't it be that professional's due diligence to know all of the facts?

You asked, "why would the U.S. Food and Drug Administration oppose it?"

The first investigative move of a journalist, when confronted with an counter-intuitive behavior by the government or industry, is to "follow the money." Have you read in the news of the drug which shows so much promise in cancer treatment, yet no drug companies are doing the studies on this? Why would that happen?

Follow the money - there is no profit in it as a patent-free drug, so monitary gain (or lack of it) trumps public health.

E-cigarettes are a threat to two major revenue streams - pharmaceutical company nicotine cessation profits and government tobacco taxes.

Consider that in the 3 years they have been available in the U.S. (7 years on the world market,) the FDA has reported no serious illness or injury linked to e-cigarette use. The FDA report announced in July 2009 didn't find toxic levels of any chemical nor dangerous levels of possible carcinogens. Yet they are making every effort to discourage the public from using the devices by misleading them to believe that they contain dangerous "anti-freeze" chemicals and dangerous levels of "carcinogens."

If they were being honest with the public, they would have told them that the levels of carcinogens they found are the same as those found in the FDA-approved nicotine patch. I don't recall ever seeing a warning that the levels of carcinogens in the patch were dangerous, so why the warning for those same levels in e-cigarettes? It's obvious that they don't contain "anti-freeze" or we'd have reports of DEG poisoning from the millions of e-cigarette users around the world. Levels of DEG found in one e-cigarette were way too low to be dangerous and propylene glycol - used to make anti-freeze LESS toxic - is FDA-approved for human consumption and is GRAS (Generally Regarded As Safe.)

So, the evidence to date shows e-cigarettes to be non-toxic, have extremely low levels of carcinogens (especially compared to cigarettes) and there have been no reports of serious illness or injury, yet the FDA calls them potentially dangerous and wants them off the market. Where is the logic? Where is the supporting evidence?

You said, "the user is to take a smaller dosage of nicotine over time to help quit the nicotine addiction."

While this is true for pharmaceutical NRTs, this is not the case for e-cigarettes. For the majority of e-cigarettes users surveyed, the devices are used as intended - to continue to use nicotine - not wean off of it.

Nicotine use, absent the smoke, is no more dangerous than caffeine use. That is why even smokeless tobacco has been scientifically shown to have 98-99% less risk than smoking cigarettes. That is why pharmaceutical companies are petitioning the FDA to allow their gums and lozenges to increase the nicotine dosage and allow for long-term use.

Consider the recent CDC report that smoking quit rates have stagnated. Even with all of the efforts of anti-tobacco groups, people still smoke. Rather than expecting people to quit using nicotine, the smarter route is to use a harm reduction approach. Encouraging nicotine users to greatly reduce their exposure to toxins, rather than quit nicotine altogether, would have a significant impact on public health - reducing risks up to 99%.

Reduced harm is accepted in public health and safety - consider that low-fat products are encouraged, rather than quitting fat altogether. Consider that using sealt belts are encouraged, rather than quitting driving altogether. Consider that condoms are encouraged, rather than quitting sex altogether. Consider that taking a cab or having a designated driver is encouraged, rather than quitting drinking altogether. This is NOT a new or complicated concept.

When you hear e-cigarette users talk of "quitting smoking," they are being quite literal - they quit smoking - but they did NOT quit nicotine use. According to surveys, most e-cigarette users have no intention of quitting nicotine and they shouldn't have to - anymore than people are expected to quit other low risk behaviors such as social drinking, sex, coffee, driving their cars or eating Ben & Jerry's ice cream.

E-cigarettes are overwhlemingly advertised as smoking alternatives - they alter the behavior of smoking, they do not treat a disease.

Consider drunk driving. Science has given us the IIS (Ignition Interlock System). This device stops alcoholics from one of the most dangerous behaviors associated with alcohol addiction - drunk driving - yet it does not treat alcoholism itself.

E-cigarettes stop one of the most dangerous aspects of nciotine use - inhaling toxic smoke - but they are not intended to treat nicotine addiction. Just because some people use it that way - like they would chew on toothpicks or suck on a straw - that does not make it the product's primary, intended use.

Regarding the companies which add ingredients for weight loss or erectile dysfunction, you wish to toss the baby with the bathwater. Yes, there are some unethical e-cigarette companies out there and some of them make outrageous claims. These companies are why the FDA was created and there are many laws already in place to address them. However, the FDA is attempting to lump ethical companies in with the bad ones.

If a company that sells bottled water started adding additional drugs to the product and claiming that it cures cancer, would it be logical for the FDA to ban ALL bottled water, even from those companies which make no claims or additions? Yet, that is what they are doing to e-cigarette companies and what you seem to support.

Finally, you say, "If monetary gain is the only logical explanation, then it is clear that e-cig companies cannot be trusted."

Are you really this naive? What do you think pharamaceutical companies are? They certainly aren't charities and given the avoidance of a potentially life-saving cancer drug - due to lack of potential profit - I can surmise that pharmaceutical companies only care about profits, as well. You could say that the FDA is there to keep them honest, but considering all of the news these days of FDA-approved drugs that are killing and severely injuring people and that the FDA only requires a little black box of warnings that no one ever reads, their competence in their given duties is extremely suspect.

Public health groups (such as the ALA, ACS and AHA) which heavily promote pharmaceutical products, receive huge amounts of funding from pharmaceutical companies. These groups have become huge organizations themselves, with highly-paid executives. Are you sure they are still looking out for us at these highest levels? (I have no doubt that the unpaid volunteers at low levels do, but they blindly follow orders from the executives.)

These groups have also actively turned down proposed legislation to ban e-cigarette sales to minors, in order to further their agenda to ban e-cigarettes to adults. If they are so concerned about these getting into the hands of minors, why would they turn down legislation addressing this concern? If the FDA is concerned about minors and regulation, all they would have to do is classify e-cigarettes as tobacco products, rather than continuing this fight to classify them as the drug treatments they aren't. E-cigarettes would immediately be subject to the same restrictions and regulation as other tobacco products - no sales to minors, limited advertising, etc. Yet the FDA continues it's irrational goal of catagorizing a product intended to safely sustain nicotine use as a nicotine additicion treatment - which is as logical as regulating coffee as a drug for treating fatigue and requiring the same pharmaceutical production standards.

There is no reason to mistrust the majority of e-cigarette companies. In fact, most are small business owners who discovered e-cigarettes as smokers, believe in them and saw their potential. While they should be regulated - as far as reasonable production standards, product consistancy and accurate labeling - they don't warrant any more distrust than any other company.

If you would like to know more of the facts, so you may make an informed opinion next time, please don't hesitate to contact us (CASAA) or check out our web site. It is our (unpaid) mission to inform the public of the truth about smokeless, reduced-harm alternatives.

 

[James Wall]

Thank you Kristin for a great response. I hope it posts.

Here is my response.

"Mr. Lor, while I do appreciate that the one company that added the weight loss and erectile disfunction drugs certainly reflects poorly on the e-cig industry, I feel that your article reads as a condemnation of the industry as a whole. Companies producing e-cigs in the US are operating in what is currently an unregulated industry. This is through no fault of their own, in fact many are pushing for legitimization, however the FDA is refusing to regulate this tobacco-derived product as a tobacco product in order to attempt to ban it as a drug delivery device. As to the safety of the product itself, there have been numerous studies in other countries, where they have been on the market for years, showing their safety and even their effectiveness. The problem is that as long as the FDA refuses to do what it already has the ability to do there will continue to be an unscrupulous individual or two that try to add Tadalifil or what have you to this product. Like any other product, consumers should make themselves aware of what they are purchasing and research who they are buying it from. I believe advising the potential consumer to be cautious and do their research would have been much more useful than condemning the entire industry."

On a seperate note, does anyone else find it amusing that some articles will argue that nicotine is being delievered by e-cigs and is "highly addictive" and then recommend that people quit "cold turkey" because some people can do that so it must be more psychological?

 

[D103]

As always, excellent letter Kristin. I really hope it gets posted.

 

[bassnut]

I posted my typical novel-comment, lol! I think it's moderated though, since it didn't show up yet.

Great comment as usual, Kristin but still not showing yet.
Maybe to large?

 

[HippyJonny]

Very well written piece, Kristin. Someone should post this in the library to ready-fire at any other media articles with misguided opinions.

However, this being a city college paper, I would take the opinion with a grain of salt. With the advent of the Internet, 18 year olds writing for the school paper get their articles posted online. I'm sure the author had midterms to study for and was simply too busy to really research this subject. I'm sure a lesson will be learned from this.

 

[kristin]

It didn't tell me it was too many words or characters when I submitted it. It looks like comments stalled at the 5 that were posted, unless no one else tried to comment?

 

[5cardstud]

I tried but it said they had to okay it before posting. They need to label that site as fiction.

 

[rolygate]

Kristin, that is an excellent reply - really well-written and effective. Could you post this as a resource somewhere, for people to use in other cases where necessary?

It deserves to be more widely available.

 

[kristin]

Thank you, but it's kind of specific to that article, Chris. But I could probably edit it to be an overall response to the typical "misinformed" article we come across and repost it in the CASAA forum. Is that sort of what you had in mind?

 

[Vocalek]

I posted, too.

 

[rolygate]

Kristin - yes, that would be fine. It is a good reply - reasoned, sane, effective - to that type of article, and we are going to see a hundred more of those.

Not everyone knows the facts, or can encapsulate them well in a response, so it's useful material.

 

[kristin]

How is this?

If a journalist is going to write about a topic, wouldn't it be that professional's due diligence to know all of the facts?

A common question about e-cigarettes is, "If they are safe, why would the U.S. Food and Drug Administration oppose it?"

When confronted with a counter-intuitive behavior by the government or an industry, the first step is to "follow the money."

The media recently reported the story behind a promising cancer drug, dichloroacetate (DCA). While studies show that it has had great success in treating some cancers in lab rats, no pharmaceutical company is interested in financing human trials. It seems this drug is unpatentable, so drug companies cannot profit from it as a cancer treatment.

Follow the money - there is no profit in it as a patent-free drug, so monitary gain (or lack of it) trumps public health.

E-cigarettes are a threat to two major revenue streams - pharmaceutical company nicotine cessation product profits and government tobacco taxes.

Consider that in the 3 years they have been available in the U.S. (7 years on the world market,) the FDA has reported no serious illness or injury linked to e-cigarette use. The FDA report announced in July 2009 didn't find toxic levels of any chemical nor dangerous levels of possible carcinogens. Yet they are making every effort to discourage the public from using the devices by misleading them to believe that they contain dangerous "anti-freeze" chemicals (diethylene glycol) and dangerous levels of "carcinogens."

If they were being honest with the public, they would have told them that the levels of carcinogens they found are the same as those found in the FDA-approved nicotine patch. The FDA has issued no warnings that the levels of carcinogens in the patch were dangerous, so why the warning for those same levels in e-cigarettes? It's obvious that they don't contain "anti-freeze" or we'd have reports of DEG poisoning from the millions of e-cigarette users around the world. Levels of DEG found in one e-cigarette were way too low to be dangerous and propylene glycol - used to make anti-freeze LESS toxic - is FDA-approved for human consumption and is GRAS (Generally Regarded As Safe.)

So, the evidence to date shows e-cigarettes to be non-toxic, have extremely low levels of carcinogens (especially compared to cigarettes) and there have been no reports of serious illness or injury, yet the FDA calls them potentially dangerous and wants them off the market. Where is the logic? Where is the supporting evidence? Follow the money.

The only evidence of danger from e-cigarettes to date is the threat to pharmaceutical profits and government tax revenues.

Another common misconception is that e-cigarettes are to be used in the same manner as pharmaceutical treatments for nicotine addiction and that users are expected to eventually "wean" themselves off of nicotine altogether.

While this is true for pharmaceutical nicotine reduction therapies (NRTs), this is not the case for e-cigarettes. For the majority of e-cigarettes users surveyed, the devices are used as intended - to continue to use nicotine - not wean off of it.

Nicotine use, absent the smoke, is no more dangerous than caffeine use. That is why even smokeless tobacco has been scientifically shown to have 98-99% less risk than smoking cigarettes. That is why pharmaceutical companies are petitioning the FDA to allow them to increase the nicotine dosage and allow for long-term use of their gums and lozenges - products which receive direct competition from the lozenges and strips made by tobacco companies. That is why GlaxoSmithKline petitioned the FDA to have those smokeless tobacco products banned, while simultaniously asking to expand their own smokeless nicotine market.

Consider the recent CDC report that smoking quit rates have stagnated. Even with all of the efforts of anti-tobacco groups, people still smoke. Rather than expecting people to quit using nicotine, the smarter route is to use a harm reduction approach. Encouraging nicotine users to greatly reduce their exposure to toxins, rather than quit nicotine altogether, would have a significant impact on public health by reducing risks up to 99%.

Reduced harm is accepted in public health and safety - consider that low-fat products are encouraged, rather than expecting people to quit eating fat altogether. Consider that using sealt belts is encouraged, rather than quitting driving altogether. Consider that condoms are encouraged, rather than quitting sex altogether. Consider that taking a cab or having a designated driver is encouraged, rather than quitting drinking altogether. This is NOT a new or complicated concept.

When you hear e-cigarette users talk of "quitting smoking" they are being quite literal - they quit smoking, but they did NOT quit nicotine use. According to surveys, most e-cigarette users have no intention of quitting nicotine and they shouldn't have to - anymore than people are expected to quit other low risk behaviors such as social drinking, sex, coffee, driving their cars or eating Ben & Jerry's ice cream.

E-cigarettes are overwhlemingly advertised as smoking alternatives - they alter the behavior of smoking, but they do not treat a disease.

Consider drunk driving. Science has given us the IIS (Ignition Interlock System). This device stops alcoholics from one of the most dangerous behaviors associated with alcohol addiction - drunk driving - yet it does not treat alcoholism itself.

E-cigarettes stop one of the most dangerous aspects of nicotine use - inhaling toxic smoke - but they are not intended to treat nicotine addiction. Just because some people use it that way - as they could chew on toothpicks or suck on a straw to quit their nicotine use - that does not make it the product's primary, intended use.

Some oppponents to e-cigarettes point to companies which add ingredients for weight loss or erectile dysfunction and claim this as a reason to close down e-cigarette companies. This amounts to tossing the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, there are some unethical e-cigarette companies out there and some of them make outrageous claims. These companies are why the FDA was created and there are many laws already in place to address them. However, the FDA is attempting to lump ethical companies in with the bad ones.

If a company that sells bottled water started adding additional ingredients to the water and claimed that it cures cancer, would it be logical for the FDA to ban ALL bottled water, even from those companies which make no claims or additions? Yet, that is what they are doing to e-cigarette companies.

Finally, public health groups claim that FDA-approved nicotine cessation products are a better choice and e-cigarette companies only care about profits. This is implying that the FDA and the pharmaceutical companies actually have our best interests as a priority.

Pharmaceutical companies certainly aren't charities and given the avoidance of that potentially life-saving cancer drug - due to lack of potential profit - it can be surmised that pharmaceutical companies only care about profits, as well. You could say that the FDA is there to keep them honest, but considering all of the news these days of FDA-approved drugs that are killing and severely injuring people and that the FDA only requires a little black box of warnings that no one ever reads, their competence in their given duties is extremely suspect.

Those public health groups (such as the ALA, ACS and AHA), which heavily promote pharmaceutical products, receive huge amounts of funding from pharmaceutical companies. These groups have become massive organizations themselves, with highly-paid executives. Are you sure they are still looking out for us at these highest levels? while the typical, low-level volunteer may be concerned about public health, they take their orders from executives whose income is directly linked to pharmaceutical companies.These groups have also actively opposed proposed legislation to ban e-cigarette sales to minors, in order to further their agenda to remove e-cigarettes completely from the market. If they are so concerned about these getting into the hands of minors, why would they turn down legislation addressing this concern?

If the FDA is concerned about minors and regulation, all they would have to do is classify e-cigarettes as tobacco products, rather than continuing this fight to classify them as the drug treatments they aren't. E-cigarettes would immediately be subject to the same restrictions and regulation as other tobacco products - no sales to minors, limited advertising, etc. Yet the FDA continues toward it's irrational goal of catagorizing a product intended to safely sustain nicotine use as a nicotine additicion treatment - which is as logical as regulating caffeine as a drug treatment for fatigue and requiring coffee distributors to meet the same production standards as pharmaceutical drugs.

There is no reason to mistrust the majority of e-cigarette companies. In fact, most are small business owners who discovered e-cigarettes as smokers, believe in them and saw their potential. While they should be regulated - as far as reasonable production standards, product consistancy and accurate labeling - they don't warrant any more distrust than any other company.

If you would like to know more of the facts, so you may make an informed opinion next time, please don't hesitate to contact us (CASAA) or check out our web site. It is our (unpaid) mission to inform the public of the truth about smokeless, reduced-harm alternatives.

 

[DaveP]

Great work Kristin. It's a shame that we can't get a comprehensive, unbiased test of Ecigs. I'm concerned that the FDA is too busy or too biased to care and is just spouting the rhetoric from their first rushed testing of a seized shipment as gospel.

 

[kristin]

No matter what they found in that first test, they obviously would have twisted it. It had nothing to do with being rushed, IMO. As I said in my comment, the FDA didn't find toxic levels of any chemicals nor dangerous levels of carcinogens, yet they still made it sound like e-cigarettes are a health risk. They completely ignored and brushed over what they DIDN'T find. So, as the AAPHP pointed out, it's not what they actually found or didn't find, it's what they SAID about what they found that matters!

 

[MichaelOz]

Debunk

- Cancer, heart attacks, strokes - these are a few of the many commonly known affects of tobacco - more importantly the act of burning and inhaling it.

- why would the U.S. Food and Drug Administration oppose it? Kristin covered this already.

- The tobacco industry has led to an interesting invention Mmm last time I checked the e-cig was invented by Hon Lik, a pharmacist and inventor living in China after his father died of lung cancer.

- But it is foolish to believe in these claims. Yes completely foolish, lets forget everything we know about science. Lets ignore all the independent research been done on PG. Lets rule out chemical analysis of eliquid. Lastly lets dismiss the testimonies of doctors and ex-smokers who feel more healthy. Would be extremely foolish to consider x-ray evidence of ex-smokers (now vapers) after 1 year of vaping.

Similar to the nicotine patch, the e-cig delivers nicotine to users to satisfy their craving. In theory, the user is to take a smaller dosage of nicotine over time to help quit the nicotine addiction. Unlike the nicotine patch, it also satisfies the user in the physical act of smoking because they are actually holding and inhaling the product. Ah, I guess thats why its so effective....

There is one obvious dilemma about the e-cig. "It still delivers nicotine," Yes it does, however my understanding is nicotine alone won't kill you. Smoking however will almost certainly kill you.

The e-cig is a battery-operated cigarette that includes an atomizer to convert chemical contents in a cartridge into vapor form to be inhaled by the user. No smoke or combustion is involved, leading to a misleading impression that it is a safer alternative. Depending on the variable contents in the cartridge, usually nicotine, it may potentially be more hazardous than the common cigarette. Someone didn't take science at school, thats all I can say. For an e-cig to be potentially more hazardous than a regular cigarette it needs to potentially contain the same level of toxins or more than a regular cigarette. I think I'll take my chances any day with e-cigs.

Now I'll personally add that I'm in month 4 of quitting smoking completely in favor of vaping since then I no longer wake up at night gasping for oxygen. I no longer have circulation issues in my legs. My wive is extremely happy I no longer stink of smokes. I don't wake up in the morning feeling like I want to puke my guts out. I no longer have a smokers cough. And I haven't experienced any side effects of PG/VG. Vaping was my last resort, I turned to vaping because I believed I would be dead soon if I carried on smoking. So to the author of this horse crap I've just read put that in your pipe and smoke it!

 

[bassnut]

Very well written piece, Kristin. Someone should post this in the library to ready-fire at any other media articles with misguided opinions.

However, this being a city college paper, I would take the opinion with a grain of salt. With the advent of the Internet, 18 year olds writing for the school paper get their articles posted online. I'm sure the author had midterms to study for and was simply too busy to really research this subject. I'm sure a lesson will be learned from this.

Ordinarily I'd agree but it starts to get scary (to me) when an 18 year old is sporting the same FDA "disinfomercial" that's been cropping up in the more mainstream outlets.
It's like if a lot or writers were using the "N" word or some other bigoted term in the worst possible context in a large media campaign. Someone has to speak up each and every time.
I nominate Kristin and Elaine!

 

[Bustastew]

Kristin that was so damn fun reading! If that douche doesn't post it, then karma should get him at the next intersection =)