- Status
I guess there are some short term health claims that could be regarded as true and in fact 'are' true.
Sure. They are safer and healthier than cigarettes. PG is safe to any reasonable standard to inhale. I believe those statements are absolutely true, and I know that they are absolutely supported by all available evidence.
IF asked about risks, I mention that nicotine stresses the cardiovascular system, contributing to high blood pressure, hardened arteries, and other cardiovascular disease.
I also argue that recent studies on nicotine indicate that, when considered seperate from cigarette smoke, nicotine itself is a comparable health risk to caffine. But I don't assert that as proven.
I do think artificial flavors are a potential concern, and the biggest unknown. But just as with diacetyl, we need to be basing our judgement of risk on the evidence and avoid jumping at shadows. If WE raise unwarranted fears, we could find them being thrown back at us.
Healthy. Opinion. Non-provable because it is an absolute standard.
Healthier than cigarettes. Fact. Based upon directly comparable standard, so provable. Proven by the absence of all the compounds KNOWN to cause harm in cigarette smoke, and absence of ANY substance not present in cigarettes which is even suspected to cause comparable harm.
So, no to the first, yes to the second.
So in court you could say that vaping is safer and healthier than cigarettes and the jury would find that statement true with no reasonable doubt?
The only possible reasonable doubt are these artificial flavorings.
But even then if you compare them side-by-side .... its pretty overwhelming that analogs are loaded with more toxins and ofcourse smoke.
But I would like to know more about the flavorings...
But even then if you compare them side-by-side .... its pretty overwhelming that analogs are loaded with more toxins and ofcourse smoke.
But I would like to know more about the flavorings...
MIshmash of legal ideas, there, Kate.
In court I would have no standing to testify on the safety of anything, since I have no medical or scientific background. The most I could testify to is my belief, like I did in my post.
Reasonable doubt is the standard for criminal prosecution. It's the highest standard in the court system. Most other matters follow the preponderance of the evidence test. The side with 51% of the evidence, the side that proves their point JUST a little bit more, wins.
And, yes, I think that we could meet that standard. With qualified expert witnesses, of course.
Lastly, it's doubtful there would be any jury involved. If someone were to, for example, sue for an injunction against the FDA banning e-cigs pending studies, it would be before a judge. Or maybe a panel of judges. Not sure with the FDA.
But if a jury was involved, that could help or hurt. They might be easier to convice than a judge, easier to appeal to emotion, buffalo with statistics, and generally manipulate. Course, the other side would be trying to do all that, too. So, maybe better to stick with the judge.
Getting snarky, there, Kate.
Most likely a civil tort. Standard would be preponderance of evidence. And thefirst thing they would have to prove is that they suffered health damage and that the e-cig at issue caused it.
But we're digressing.
The topic was how valid are health claims, but your list consisted solely of suspected health RISKS. I would respond that health claims are valid, but unproven, especially in relation to cigarettes. And I would suggest many of the listed "risks" are themselves unproven and invalid.
I'm sticking with "almost certainly less harmful than smoking", and I maintain that the burden of proof is on anyone who thinks vaping is more harmful than smoking to try and prove it.
No, I'm not getting snarky Leaford. Forget everything that's been said. Really what I'm trying to establish is if health claims can fairly be made and if they are would they be seen as responsible legally.
Do me a favour and have a look at the first two posts on this thread - http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-uk-regulation-sales-marketing-promotion.html
Are health claims ethical and legal?
Do me a favour and have a look at the first two posts on this thread - http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-uk-regulation-sales-marketing-promotion.html
Are health claims ethical and legal?
Sorry, I thought you were implying I could find myself in that position.
Well, that's for retailers and advertisers. I thought for this thread you were taking about what claims WE can make, or what claims are generally valid and supported by the evidence.
What claims a business can make are an entirely different matter. As a matter of public vigilence society has a right to hold marketers to a higher standard. More to the point, the FDA, FTC, and their UK equivalents can require that claims be proved to THEIR satisfaction, and following THEIR criteria. And, as is appropriate, those standards are high.
Purely on the science, I believe e-cigs can be proven safer and healthier than cigarettes. Hell, I think a simple toxicoligy report showing all the things they DON'T contain does that; but I am also sure that a safety and effectiveness trial conducted on the lines of those done for NRT would blow away all approved forms of NRT.
My worry is that they would hold e-cigs up to a higher bar than existing NRT. Or set regulations on the nicotine content, flavors, form factors, etc, and bnasically strip away everything enjoyable about them. Or rule that even if proven effective to stop smiking, that the FDA would simply rule that they are intended to maintain, not cure addiction so disallow them outright regardless of testing.
But, I don't doubt for a moment that they can and will be proven to be reasonably safe and far healthier than cigs.
Yeah, see this discussion goes on forever, it's a merry-go-round. Without proof we can only make educated guesses and have informed opinions. For/against ... unproven.
I'm specifically thinking of semantics here. I think we both agree that vaping is likely healthier than smoking and maybe even healthy so that's not what I want to go into.
What I wonder is about ethics (and in the case of traders, legalities). Is it fair to say 'this is healthier' to an uninformed person? Wouldn't it be more ethical to emphasise that it's our opinion and say something like 'I think this is healthier'?
Sorry to be so narrow but this really is happening, people are saying 'this is healthy' or 'this is definitely healthier than smoking'. It's the language and implications of making true/false statements when actually we don't know anything 100%.
I'm specifically thinking of semantics here. I think we both agree that vaping is likely healthier than smoking and maybe even healthy so that's not what I want to go into.
What I wonder is about ethics (and in the case of traders, legalities). Is it fair to say 'this is healthier' to an uninformed person? Wouldn't it be more ethical to emphasise that it's our opinion and say something like 'I think this is healthier'?
Sorry to be so narrow but this really is happening, people are saying 'this is healthy' or 'this is definitely healthier than smoking'. It's the language and implications of making true/false statements when actually we don't know anything 100%.
How about "Generally believed to be healthier"? That should work for retailers. I don't think I've heard even the most outspoken naysayer suggest that they weren't!
Or just don't make claims at all. Look at Vapor4Life. No health claims at all, just this: "Our products are intended for use by current tobacco users. Please keep in mind, nicotine is an addictive substance. This product is intended as an alternative to smoking cigarettes."
And provide ammunition to those who want to ban everything. I know I come across as having little patience for overly legalistic positions, but I do accept that we have to work within the letter of the law. Prohibitionists will use any excuse - no matter how spurious - to impose their personal preferences on everyone.
No claims would be the best option for traders, I agree. Linking vaping with any health claims at all could be very dodgy for vested interests unless they're prepared to pay for the privilege and have research carried out like Ruyan.
Yes Stray, that's another concern I have. If unprovable claims are made then we could be stuffed in the case of an argument with antis.
Yes Stray, that's another concern I have. If unprovable claims are made then we could be stuffed in the case of an argument with antis.
Im used to being ignored. Passed by, or what ever....
I must admit, I thought I had , as a supplier, and in the uk, shown why certain of Kates initial arguments ( although valid points and concerns, though with a modicum of research would not have occured ). allayed those fears. - alas no.
I do admit that you have valid concerns. yet you seem to refuse or ignore the answers to some of them.
With respect to your question Are they healthy or healthier. in my honest opinion (and that is mine alone). no sane supplier would class ecigs as healthy. Nicotine is classed as a toxin and rightly so. Anything with nicotine in it is not healthy .
Are they healthier than cigarettes. then imho the answer is undoubtedly yes. but again only opinion.
Why ?
Do e-cigs produce Carbon monoxide - NO
Does ecig vapour conatin the 34 KNOWN carcinogens ( 30% of which are known to be highly genotoxic) - NO
Do e-cigs have over any of the analogues known carcingenic chemicals in them ....... NO- (unless they are seriously 'dodgy '- and that point I admit freely)
Does ecig vapour contain more than 34 chemicals -- again No
I suppose I could type the list of known chemicals and put a no by each one except when yes, then I will willingly do so. Admittedly it will be a copy paste exercise but I will do my best.
Yes I do not know all the answers.
I have never claimed that distinction. I wish I could
But I will try and fight my corner as I can.
I suppose one could say by all means go back to analagues.. and take your chances with known facts.
I mean no disrespect or offence.
Kindest regards
0ogier
I must admit, I thought I had , as a supplier, and in the uk, shown why certain of Kates initial arguments ( although valid points and concerns, though with a modicum of research would not have occured ). allayed those fears. - alas no.
I do admit that you have valid concerns. yet you seem to refuse or ignore the answers to some of them.
With respect to your question Are they healthy or healthier. in my honest opinion (and that is mine alone). no sane supplier would class ecigs as healthy. Nicotine is classed as a toxin and rightly so. Anything with nicotine in it is not healthy .
Are they healthier than cigarettes. then imho the answer is undoubtedly yes. but again only opinion.
Why ?
Do e-cigs produce Carbon monoxide - NO
Does ecig vapour conatin the 34 KNOWN carcinogens ( 30% of which are known to be highly genotoxic) - NO
Do e-cigs have over any of the analogues known carcingenic chemicals in them ....... NO- (unless they are seriously 'dodgy '- and that point I admit freely)
Does ecig vapour contain more than 34 chemicals -- again No
I suppose I could type the list of known chemicals and put a no by each one except when yes, then I will willingly do so. Admittedly it will be a copy paste exercise but I will do my best.
Yes I do not know all the answers.
I have never claimed that distinction. I wish I could
But I will try and fight my corner as I can.
I suppose one could say by all means go back to analagues.. and take your chances with known facts.
I mean no disrespect or offence.
Kindest regards
0ogier
Last edited:
Hi Oogier, I didn't ignore your post but it wasn't my intention to get into an argument about the finer points of what we know and what we don't. Thank you for giving us some good points to counter the concerns. I gave some examples of concerns I've heard about to illustrate that there is reasonable cause to doubt absolute claims about health.
I believe that since we can't be absolutely sure about the magnitude of risk no health truths are known and no claims should be made.
A pissing contest about who is best able to measure the level of risk and compare with other vices is pointless, we all have to inform ourselves and form our own opinions about how safe we think it is for us.
I believe that since we can't be absolutely sure about the magnitude of risk no health truths are known and no claims should be made.
A pissing contest about who is best able to measure the level of risk and compare with other vices is pointless, we all have to inform ourselves and form our own opinions about how safe we think it is for us.
- Status
Similar threads
