TCJ on ENDS...after surfing e-cig sites

Status
Not open for further replies.

ladyraj

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 30, 2009
981
8
Cincinnati, Ohio
The tobacco control journal has an article citing various suppliers in their footnotes....mostly regarding claims made that are "unsubstantiated" and need more research. Most claims by suppliers seem to have been gathered from their websites.

Electronic nicotine delivery systems: emerging science foundation for policy

Sign In

Abstract/extract free

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/19/2/89.full?sid=20d14914-a6e1-4efc-833a-4b015d741612

Excerpts:

An additional complication is that ENDS might produce substantially higher deliveries if they are “spiked” with nicotine liquid (“juice”) available for refilling their cartridges (eg, Totally Wicked-eliquid Smoke Juice).20 ENDS refill products raise many of the same safety and effectiveness issues as ENDS. A cursory review of such products on the Internet revealed a broad range of refill products, claims and even warnings, with some admitting carcinogens and the possibility of nicotine poisoning (some appear to contain sufficient nicotine to kill many persons even if simply spilled on the skin). It would seem that where the nicotine is intended for human consumption, it should be subject to the same regulations for safety and effectiveness as drugs including standards for child-resistant packaging and labelling to minimise risk of poisoning.

The main promise of ENDS, to effectively deliver nicotine so as to substitute for cigarettes, has yet to be demonstrated scientifically for any ENDS. Claims concerning safety to users and by second-hand exposure have yet to be verified. A further complication of safety assessment is that product safety is generally assessed in the context of a benefit-to-risk assessment and the core benefits claimed by ENDS have yet to be demonstrated.

Many other public health issues posed by ENDS were not addressed by the Eissenberg and Bullen et al studies. Smoking bans and clean air advocacy are being hijacked to promote the ENDS marketing claim that the emissions are harmless and should be exempt from restrictions. One ENDS manufacturer states, “These products offer a new opportunity to retailers, bars, restaurants and other businesses, to take advantage of the new smoking-bans”.21 Such promotion could undermine the benefits of clean air laws in motivating smoking cessation and aiding those who have quit to avoid relapse. Moreover, ENDS produce emissions that can be seen and smelled, and presumably contain nicotine, propylene glycol, and carcinogen-containing tobacco extracts and other substances; however, there has been no systematic study of emissions.6 7 That is why WHO recommends that the use of ENDS in public settings should be subject to the same restrictions as those used to reduce second-hand tobacco smoke exposure under Article 8 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.22

ENDS raise many additional questions. Should claims and descriptors such as “no tar”, and “no second-hand smoke” be allowed on products whose emissions include carcinogens contained in “tar”, potential lung toxicants such as propylene glycol, and nicotine? Should statements such as those describing propylene glycol as a safe food additive be allowed when it is recognised as a toxic substance when inhaled or exposed to the skin?23 Might this category of product be an example of what is needed to augment the smoking cessation armamentarium?
----------------------------------
Yep...they'll be coming after our liquid!

Sorry the article is lengthy and has some good points but appears to center on "unproven claims" for a product that may have excellent potential. There is a call for manufacturers to do studies and demonstrate quality control while and regulating nicotine to a safe standard as yet undefined. One assumes the studies needed would quantify allowable levels of nicotine.;-)
 
Last edited:

Janetda

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Honest to Gawd, I can't understand why the manufacturers have not funded more studies. Seriously, how much can it cost to test what is in the exhaled vapor? Can we at least put that one to rest?

The nic in the liquid is a whole other kettle of worms through. I can see that being a problem. On the other hand, half the stuff I have under my sink could kill you. Gawd, this is so frustrating!

Thanks for the info Ladyraj.
 

ladyraj

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 30, 2009
981
8
Cincinnati, Ohio
Thanks for the reply Janetda, I thought the info was important because it gives us insight into what our enemies are thinking. The PV has grown by leaps and bounds this last year and have managed to clean up most of the "health claims" that got us in hot water, but even the low tar claims are being questioned.

Public Health advocates for tobacco control appear to see the benefits of the PV but want the manufacturers to engage the process before they can honestly back the intervention according to the authors of this piece.
 

SheerLuckHolmes

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 28, 2009
1,354
562
73
Tempe, Az
ladyraj,

I think it is time that we, the vaping community, step up and get this testing (at least the inards of the vapor) done. I strongly believe that the members of ECF would support and fund such a study. It might even make history. The first study commissioned by the end users for their own safety and health. That could make NEWS!

How can we get Smokey Joe on board with this?
 
Didn't they read the FDA report?

HSGC-MS analysis was conducted at 60°C to simulate the temperature that would be encountered during activation of an e-cigarette. Nicotine was detected in both products for all cartridges containing low, medium and high levels of nicotine but was not observed in cartridges identified as containing no nicotine. Screening for the possible tobacco specific impurities cotinine, nicotine-N-oxide, nornicotine, anabasine and myosmine was negative. β-Nicotyrine was detected in all Njoy cartridges but was not detected in the Smoking Everywhere cartridges. The sparging apparatus was used to quantify the amount of nicotine released during use of these electronic cigarettes (Table 2). Levels found were consistent with the labeling (low, medium and high); however, the cartridge labeled “no” still delivered some nicotine. The cartridges labeled “high” delivered more nicotine than the approved Nicotrol product. Repeat testing of 3 different cartridges with the same label (menthol high) gave varying results from 26.8 to 43.2 mcg nicotine/100 mL puff.

I am certainly in favor of additional testing, but to say "we don't know" what is in the vapor is simply not true.
 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
Honest to Gawd, I can't understand why the manufacturers have not funded more studies. Seriously, how much can it cost to test what is in the exhaled vapor? Can we at least put that one to rest?

The nic in the liquid is a whole other kettle of worms through. I can see that being a problem. On the other hand, half the stuff I have under my sink could kill you. Gawd, this is so frustrating!

Thanks for the info Ladyraj.
I wish it was that easy.

The Vapers Coalition has attempted to get an independent study approved (you may remember the auction a few months ago to raise funds), but you have to get a study accepted by a qualified IRB and no one would touch the proposal with the FDA accusations.

There is a lot of hoops and red tape that would surprise you, high costs not withstanding.

It's like talking to a brick wall with those people.
 

Sun Vaporer

Moved On
ECF Veteran
Jan 2, 2009
10,146
27
Florida
ladyraj,

I think it is time that we, the vaping community, step up and get this testing (at least the inards of the vapor) done. I strongly believe that the members of ECF would support and fund such a study. It might even make history. The first study commissioned by the end users for their own safety and health. That could make NEWS!

How can we get Smokey Joe on board with this?


SheerLuck--the good news here is that several Suppliers on this Fourm who have had the requisite testing done that do meet the standards. I have reviewed three of these studies and they all show very positive results. When and how these Suppliers will use their tests is their call, but I am sure they will wait for the right time. Releasing the results now, I guess is something that they can not do, for reasons not known to me.


Sun
 

Vicks Vap-oh-Yeah

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Mar 9, 2009
3,944
46
West Allis, WI
www.emeraldvapers.com
I wish it was that easy.

The Vapers Coalition has attempted to get an independent study approved (you may remember the auction a few months ago to raise funds), but you have to get a study accepted by a qualified IRB and no one would touch the proposal with the FDA accusations.

There is a lot of hoops and red tape that would surprise you, high costs not withstanding.

It's like talking to a brick wall with those people.

Interesting catch 22, isn't it? The FDA demand that scientific proof be had, yet with their alarmist stance on the product, nobody qualified will touch a study of this nature....

Imagine what all that power could accomplish if it WASN'T corrupt.
 

grimmer255

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jul 5, 2009
3,271
12
somewhere out there......
Actually that is a very interesting article. This maybe bad to say but the fact is there hasn't been any REAL testing. So what we say doesn't matter because the fact is vapors are still few compared to smokers. And smokers are few to compare to non smokers. So if non smokers see reports like this who do you think they will believe.

Until real testing is done we can't win because the numbers wont make enough dent to for people to even care. There's an old quote.... you can give a man in prison the window to everything in the world but it will still feel like prison.

We are stuck inside a box where nobody can hear us because our voices are not loud enough for anyone to hear. But if one person stood in front of a microphone that is hooked up to a huge amp with 30 speakers cranked to full.... I bet someone will hear us.

We just need to find one person who has the amp and the speakers that is willing to speak for us. In other words somebody with power and money.

just a thought
 
Actually that is a very interesting article. This maybe bad to say but the fact is there hasn't been any REAL testing. So what we say doesn't matter because the fact is vapors are still few compared to smokers. And smokers are few to compare to non smokers. So if non smokers see reports like this who do you think they will believe.

Until real testing is done we can't win because the numbers wont make enough dent to for people to even care. There's an old quote.... you can give a man in prison the window to everything in the world but it will still feel like prison.

We are stuck inside a box where nobody can hear us because our voices are not loud enough for anyone to hear. But if one person stood in front of a microphone that is hooked up to a huge amp with 30 speakers cranked to full.... I bet someone will hear us.

We just need to find one person who has the amp and the speakers that is willing to speak for us. In other words somebody with power and money.

just a thought

There's been plenty of "real" testing: CASAA.org - Resources - Lab Reports

You just keep hearing that there's none because there is no lab reports to back up the prohibitionists' accusations.
 

Vicks Vap-oh-Yeah

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Mar 9, 2009
3,944
46
West Allis, WI
www.emeraldvapers.com
There's been plenty of "real" testing: CASAA.org - Resources - Lab Reports

You just keep hearing that there's none because there is no lab reports to back up the prohibitionists' accusations.

No....everyone keeps hearing that there're no studies, no testing, no 'proof' because the prohibitionists refuse to admit that something so wonderful could exist - it would eliminate their jobs, their power, and their agenda.

All the empirical evidence in the world won't convince them that these are effective. They cling to the wool over their eyes, refuse to have their heads dragged from the sand.

It's like trying to argue faith - they simply will discount any evidence to the contrary of their vision.......even sound and proven evidence.... because it would discount their existence.
 

JustJulie

CASAA
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,848
1,393
Des Moines, IA
No....everyone keeps hearing that there're no studies, no testing, no 'proof' because the prohibitionists refuse to admit that something so wonderful could exist - it would eliminate their jobs, their power, and their agenda.

Vicks is right. But I'll even go a step farther . . . they're not refusing to admit no tests exist . . . they're flat out lying about it to further their agenda.

Dr. Siegel's blog should be required reading:

The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: Anti-Smoking Advocates Using Misleading Claims to Promote Ban on Electronic Cigarettes
 

StormFinch

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Mar 22, 2010
2,683
4,812
Arkansas
You mean to tell me that I can go to Wal-Mart and buy a chemical to clean my shower with that I have to use rubber gloves, a face mask, long sleeves and have the window open with a fan going, but they are more worried about propylene glycol which was extensively tested in vapor form and proven safe over 42 years ago??? These. people. drive. me. nuts!

ladyraj, is there an author or authors associated with this drivel? I'm in the mood to look up contact info and send someone a few actual case studies, including the propylene study from the Journal of Pharmacology.

TESTS FOR THE CHRONIC TOXICITY OF PROPYLEXE GLYCOL AND TRIETHYLENE GLYCOL ON MONKEYS AND RATS BY VAPOR INHALATION AND ORAL ADMINISTRATION ? JPET
 

yvilla

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 18, 2008
2,063
575
Rochester, NY
ladyraj, is there an author or authors associated with this drivel? I'm in the mood to look up contact info and send someone a few actual case studies, including the propylene study from the Journal of Pharmacology.

Storm, it's no surprise at all that the first author (of two) is none other than Jack Henningfield, the prohibitionist who was recently named to the FDA's new Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee. Here is his contact information, as listed in the pdf of the article in question:

"Correspondence to Jack E Henningfield, Research and
Health Policy, Pinney Associates, 3 Bethesda Metro
Center, Suite 1400, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA;
jhenning@pinneyassociates.com"

By the way, his repeated assertions in the full article about the "toxicity" of PG, in the face of years of research and use to the contrary, is downright scary, when we consider the power he will be wielding over potential tobacco harm reduction products at the FDA!
 

grimmer255

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jul 5, 2009
3,271
12
somewhere out there......
I agree with you guys that there has been testing but I'm talking about testing that only the FDA will aprove. Without there aproval the research is meaningless and lies will keep coming.

The fact is in this case truth is only justified through means of personal agenda. The only way to fight this is to learn to play there game. Back in WW2 US ships were over run by the enemy ships. And the only way to fight them was to plant sea mines to even the odds.
Basically we need someone to have a voice for us. But we also need stradgies to put in place for the media to even the odds. Sending letters to politions helps a little but we need many different angles.
We need to find out what makes these organizations so powerful. And use that information to better our cause. And start working like they do but in a morally way. We need to gain some ground or the coast wont be clear for a long time.
 

Vocalek

CASAA Activist
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread