Health Groups offer Guidance on e-cigs in the workplace

[WhiteHighlights]

Sigh. I am tired of all the negative news. This piece from the Society for HR Management just adds to it: Health Groups Offer Guidance on E-Cigarettes in the Workplace

The rapid growth in the popularity of e-cigarettes is a cause for concern, according to organizations involved in a collaborative effort to develop guidance for employers regarding worksite tobacco policies.
Their recommendations can be found in “Guidance to Employers on Integrating E-Cigarettes/Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems into Tobacco Worksite Policy,” published in the March 2015 issue of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. The paper represents the work of a large group of health professionals from the private and public sector—including nonprofit organizations, colleges and universities, research organizations, and wellness program providers—who reviewed the most current research on the use and effects of e-cigarettes.

Checking the Guidance - here is the author listing:

Author Information


From the American Heart Association (Dr Whitsel), Washington, DC; University of California (Dr Benowitz), San Francisco; The University of Louisville (Dr Bhatnagar), Louisville, Ky; University of Auckland (Dr Bullen), Auckland, New Zealand; Population Health Alliance (Mr Goldstein), Washington, DC; University of Michigan (Ms Matthias-Gray and Ms Palma-Davis), Ann Arbor; Health Enhancement Research Organization (Dr Grossmeier), Edina, Minn; Performance pH (Mr Harris), Holland, Ohio; Johnson & Johnson (Dr Isaac); US Preventive Medicine/American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (Dr Loeppke), Elk Grove Village, Ill; American College of Preventive Medicine (Dr Manley), Washington, DC; Health Enhancement Research Organization, Population Health Alliance (Ms Moseley), Edina, Minn; ArcelorMittal/American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (Dr Niemiec), Elk Grove Village, Ill; Interactive Health (Mr O'Brien); HealthPartners/Harvard University (Dr Pronk); Bravo Wellness (Mr Pshock), Cleveland, Ohio; Prevention Partners/American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine/Duke University (Dr Stave), Durham, NC; and StayWell Health Management (Dr Terry), Saint Paul, Minn.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Emphasis mine on the no conflicts of interest and there are others that I'd question. I'm not surprised at the recommendations are to consider e-cigs as tobacco, screen for e-cig use, make e-cig users eligible to participate in cessation programs

I'm still working my way through the JOEM piece. It's long, filled with a lot of 'would, could, may' language and throwing everything at it - not FDA approved, save the children, concern for particulates, health effects based on acute exposure etc etc. I had to shake my head when 'anecdotal incidences' for atrial fibrillation were also cited. With all that FUD, something has to stick to the wall, right?

I did not break the link to the Journal as there is good info and many references in the text, including Dr. F and diacetyl, which is reasonable (IMHO as a possible risk that one may want to be aware of). It's interesting to see how it is all presented as a scholarly piece. mods, let me know if this rises to the level of junk and I should break the link.

 

[Jman8]

Their justifications for banning eCigs in the workplace

The inability of employers to distinguish between conventional and e-cigarettes may make it difficult to monitor employee cigarette use and to implement and enforce tobacco-free policies. A lack of enforcement of e-cigarettes in tobacco-free areas may turn back decades of work to create social norms around clean indoor air in public places. Decreasing the visibility of cigarettes in the work environment and in the media has been a major factor in denormalizing smoking behavior. Therefore, reintroduction of smoking-like activities could erode these important public health gains.

Or put another way, "we agree with ANTZ on the proper path going forward."

Though I will acknowledge that they do say in following paragraph (and I paraphrase) that if you absolutely must allow for designated area of smoking, then you ought to have one separate from smokers, as vapers could be tempted to return to smoking if made to hang out with those evil smokers.

 

[caramel]

The inability of employers to distinguish between conventional and e-cigarettes

This argument does not stand.

You can differentiate them very easily by smell. Real tobacco smoke is nearly impossible to hide. Light one at your cubicle and the whole floor will know.

It's the way employers also differentiate between alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks. Smell like booze and you're out.

And the reason why back in the days of smoking at work, you were still not lighting a fat one rolled with {other plants}.

 

[skoony]

its interesting to note that none of these policy groups,as in,zilch,zero,big goose egg and nada,
has ever asked one single vaper their thoughts on the subject.
or did i miss something?

regards
mike

 

[caramel]

You missed the fact that the government already made its mind, and most of what you're hearing now is shills creating a favorable public opinion for passing the laws.