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.;-)
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:
