Vaporware: why we still don't know if e-cigarettes are safe - The Verge

[MrsAngelD]

www. theverge .com/2013/3/11/4079010/vaporware-why-we-still-dont-know-if-e-cigarettes-are-safe
[rebuild link by removing spaces]

Article Text is as follows:

The rise in e-cigarette use over the past few years has been nothing short of meteoric.
Invented in China just over a decade ago, the cigarette alternative has only recently
made its way onto American shelves, and yet one in five US smokers now claims to have
at least tried an e-cigarette.

The reasons for the swift uptake are obvious: a smoker gets their nicotine fix in a familiar
format, theoretically without the many health risks associated with tobacco. That’s the
sales pitch, at least, but there have been questions about e-cigarette safety almost as
long as they’ve existed.
.......... ............

 

[DC2]

Lively discussion in the comments section going on there...

 

[RPadTV]

I encourage everyone to leave educational comments on this article. The Verge is one of the top tech sites around (in my opinion it's the best). Its reach is enormous.

 

[DC2]

I'm STILL waiting for them to send me the email so I can verify my account.
There are a number of comments I really want to reply to.

 

[jtpjc]

Had to comment. Couldn't help myself.

 

[aaronsoup]

Hey guys, I'm the author of the article (I've lurked around these forums for some time) — if you have any questions / feedback / criticism, feel free to dole it out here.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Hi Aaron,

Don't know who wrote it, but the title and subtitle of your article are inaccurate and nonsensical fear mongering propaganda.

Based upon the dozens of published studies, unpublished studies and laboratory test results (all of which are very consistent), e-cigarettes are 99% (+/-1%) less hazardous than cigarettes.

In contrast to your article's title and subtitle, nothing is 100% safe and everything is toxic (as drinking two gallons of water will kill a person, but FDA hasn't banned water sales).

njoy didn't appeal the FDA's decision to ban e-cigarettes in 2009 (as your article claims), but rather Smoking Everywhere and njoy both sued the FDA in the spring of 2009 because Customs agents seized their products after FDA illegally banned e-cig imports. In 2010, Judge Richard Leon ruled that the FDA illegally banned e-cigs, and all 12 federal appeals court judges agreed with his ruling.

Everything that you claimed CASAA claimed (in your article) was accurate.

 

[aaronsoup]

I didn't write the headline or subtitle, but it's fair to say they're written with the intention of attracting readers to content. I agree that by simplifying a headline you can remove a nuance — what the article is really calling for is some sort of structure / regulation on e-cigarette sales. The FDA standing behind a very limited study is not helpful to the vaping community, the manufacturers, or the average joe looking to find out more about e-cigs.

I've received a ton of emails calling me an idiot, usually with a listing of the ingredients in their e-cigs / liquids. I don't believe that "tobacco flavor" is an ingredient. If we're using tobacco extracts to flavor our e-cigs, then some small amount of harmful material may come along with that. It would be great to have an independent body regularly checking up on e-cigs, forcing companies to publicly list what's harmful, and in what quantities. I think that would be a VERY good thing for the industry — if we had government-approved labels that show how less harmful e-cigs are compared to regular cigarettes, that's far more compelling than trusting a company you've never heard of.

I think it's pretty clear that I'm not harshing on vaping in general — I regularly vape off-the-shelf e-cigs when I can't smoke my regular cigs, and I'm really interested in building/crafting my own. I just think there's way too much doubt out there — the FDA is to blame for that, and that's another thing I think the article is pretty clear about.

Finally, in regards to the language used — NJoy appealed, rather than Smoking Everywhere / NJoy sued — that's really a result of the editing process. Word limits are word limits, and sometimes you need to pare down non-vital elements of a story and just give the essence. That editing process was especially harsh for this article. We've been looking to write something on e-cigarettes for a long time, and this was something of a "let's bring our readers up to speed" effort at the same time as an attempt to write something interesting and resonant on the topic. The article did very well — far better than I expected — with both our regular readership and new visitors, and I'm really interested in covering e-cigs more, not just in the context of safety. There are tons of really interesting things going on with e-cigs right now.

 

[DaveP]

I scanned that article and it looked familiar. It used selected comments from years old publications that cited antifreeze in ecigs and trace levels of diethylene glycol in confiscated Chinese juice. We'd all like to see extensive testing with modifications to the process where necessary to ensure safety. Wouldn't you think that this has been done somewhere ... like Lorillard? They jumped into the business with Blu. That wouldn't have happened without verification of the product. I think they are hoping to get out from under the tobacco settlement by changing the product over time. Corporations are forever and they can plan and execute those plans over time in a long range manner.

Truth is, in the 3 years I've been on this board no one has reported having a serious illness traceable to their vaping habit. Many vapers, including me have posted positive physician comments about their switch from smoking to vaping. There are nearly 100,000 members on this forum and you'd think that we'd find out about reported health issues in a sample group that size. It hasn't happened so far.

My doctor is very happy with my switch to vaping, so much that he investigated ecigs and then put pamphlets in his waiting room urging patients who smoke to try ecigs after I passed on some links and demonstrated my ecig in his examining room. He was impressed.

Personally, I'm not a bit worried about ecigs causing a health problem in my life. I'm happy to know that vaping kills harmful bacteria and viruses in my lungs and might keep me from getting the flu and other related illnesses, according to a recent newspaper article.

 

[aaronsoup]

I think that''s unfair. I did not use "selected comments from years old publications," and purposefully left out the ridiculous antifreeze links. I personally spoke with every person / company / body cited in the article. If the FDA claims look familiar, it's because its been essentially saying the same thing for the past three years.

 

[glasseye]

Maybe this link of a flavoring supplier would help you to believe that some tobacco flavors are just that. Flavors. FDA approved ingredients as well, should that be important to you. Personally, I don't have much faith in them. I've seen self-regulation in some occupations that did as well, or better than, any government approved stamp. That is of course just my personal opinion.

Perfumers Apprentice - Tobacco Flavors (no natural tobacco)

There are these too, clearly in their own category, that do use natural tobacco.

Perfumers Apprentice - Tobacco Blends, Absolutes, & Extracts

The Perfumers Apprentice (The Flavor Apprentice) is a trusted supplier for many, many people here.

 

[USinchains]

Apparently, you didn't lurk long enough to realize that it could be offensive to defend your call for regulation and conjuring of speculation by stating your use of OTC ecigs to hold you over till you can get back to your smokes. I'm glad your time in the theater and on the bus is more convenient for you, now, but most of us here had a real desire to quit, and feel like these ecigs have saved our lives, and anyone in a different position will not understand or care, nor should they be sticking their noses where they don't belong. Perhaps if they ever save your life as well, you'll be more guarded of your rights. You and every adult in the world have the right to kill yourselves and those close to you with smoke, so what is the problem with my chosen method of nicotine delivery? If I can burn it and blow it all over kingdom come, is it ok if I just shoot it up with a syringe, instead?

Frankly, I'm sick of outsiders sticking their noses into it and spreading gossip. You might think you're doing some good by opening up discussion, but you're jeopardizing my right to health by barfing out your speculation for all the sheep to lap up. Let us fight our own fight.

 

[aaronsoup]

I didn't state my personal use-case for e-cigs (as a way to cut down my tobacco intake or when I'm in the presence of non-smokers or unable to smoke cigarettes etc.) as a "defense' of my article — I'm merely explaining that I have no contempt for e-cigs, and am interested in covering non-health related aspects of vaping in the future.

It wasn't my intention to, and I don't think I did, "barf out" any speculation or spread gossip. I spoke with and cited sources from both sides of the fence in order to inform readers of a situation that's been developing (between the FDA and e-cig manufacturers) for years. There is no personal opinion on the safety of e-cigarettes injected into the article, although I've stated in comments, and elsewhere on the site, that I personally feel the vast majority are extremely safe.

I don't see how my article jeopardizes your right to your health? It's fantastic that e-cigs have helped you, and many others to quit smoking. It's not so fantastic that, because they're not regulated, manufacturers aren't allowed to market e-cigs at the millions of smokers that could give up with their help. I personally have no desire to quit, but still feel the health benefits of reducing my dependance on cigarettes. I want a situation where anybody — even "outsiders" — can pick up an e-cigarette completely understanding the (lack of) health risks, and enjoy themselves.

As an aside; you're free to your opinion, but to me, dismissing media interest with a "let us fight out own fight" frame of mind won't cut it in the long run. As e-cigs continue to rise in popularity you'll see more and more media coverage, and if that coverage is written by someone shooting for journalistic integrity, you're always going to see both sides cited. Doing what many vapers do (engaging readers in comments) seems like a great way to get your message across, but treating vaping as some sort of exclusive club to me isn't the best way to win this "fight."

 

[USinchains]

Honestly, I'm not trying to personally attack you or anything. I just want to express how it makes me as a vaper feel to see such an interest in it from the outside. I just want to be left alone. We're not hurting anyone, so why do they care, because it's not "normal"? I will never believe that any of them give a crap about my health, let alone their own. You bloggers and journalists act like it's necessary to get everything out in the open and figure out this big debacle, why not concentrate on the garbage people put in their stomachs and the fact that it's shoved down their throat in the media and on every corner? How about cell phones in cars? Pick something that is endangering you and everyone else and let me sit here and vape my e-liquid in peace without hearing a huge fuss about it. End rant.

 

[2coils]

Most of us here are defensive because the FDA has been on the offensive in its actions regarding e-cigs. They were not fair the way their study was released, omitting data, that swayed public opinion negatively toward this industry. Add the seized shipments of e-cigs, we truely have to wonder what the FDA's intent really is. Most of us are not part time vapers. We take this "fight" very seriously. I cant speak for everyone here, but IMO we dont need any more stories with shoddy titles. This will continue to spread MORE doubt in public opinion, that has already been brainwashed, because of the crappy FDA study. I personally hope someone would do some productive journalism and find out why an industry that is already saving lives is being persecuted by the one agency that is in the saving lives business.

 

[DC2]

Most of us here are defensive because the FDA has been on the offensive in its actions regarding e-cigs. They were not fair the way their study was released, omitting data, that swayed public opinion negatively toward this industry. Add the seized shipments of e-cigs, we truely have to wonder what the FDA's intent really is. Most of us are not part time vapers. We take this "fight" very seriously. I cant speak for everyone here, but IMO we dont need any more stories with shoddy titles. This will continue to spread MORE doubt in public opinion, that has already been brainwashed, because of the crappy FDA study. I personally hope someone would do some productive journalism and find out why an industry that is already saving lives is being persecuted by the one agency that is in the saving lives business.

What he said.

 

[Fiamma]

Why don't you do some real investigative reporting instead of a semi puff piece about something you are not intimately acquainted with? For example, follow the money trail and the revolving door policy between FDA and pharmaceutical houses. Follow the money trail between the pharmaceutical houses and the alphabet soup NGO's like ALA, ACS, the committee for tobacco free kids, et al. It's all there in places right down to the round dollars. Follow the money trail from pharmaceutical houses to the WHO. BIG bribes proven there to influence the outcome, which is banning e cigs world wide to PROTECT pharmaceutical profits. Look at the money that paid for so called research that was cherry picked to benefit pharmaceutical NRT's and put e cigs in an unfavorable light.

Damn right we're defensive here. We don't want to smoke, we want our safer alternative. Public opinion is easily swayed by sensational journalism. We see it every day in media pieces that regurgitate the old FDA libel and say but they aren't 'regulated'. I make my own e liquid. I damned well know what's in it.

You want to make a buck, do it at someone else's expense not off our backs.

 

[xyanide]

Not a great article, to somebody unfamiliar with e-cigs (and yourself) this makes it look like there's hardly any honest e-liquid and e-cig vendors and that they all come from scary China. You casually brush over the misleading official reports and the ethical issues related to regulation. Please rewrite it, also proofread ("aids aids"?). I mostly care about politicians/organisations/agencies sniffing out these bad articles and taking whole chunks out of context, it's pretty easy with this one.

 

[CES]

Aaron, it's great that you posted here to ask for feedback. Would you be willing to write another article- one that includes the research into the contents of the vapor, the data that shows that there's minimal if any danger to bystanders, the concept of harm reduction, the amount of misleading sound bites, the conflicts of interest by the groups that purport to have our best interests at heart, but are really following the money, and that these groups are trying state by state to restrict access to reduced harm alternatives?

I'd be willing to bet that a well researched article talking about the conflicts and the battles we're facing, why we get defensive, will get a strong response as well. If you need conflict to pull in readers, conflicts of interest by health organizations and the pharmaceutical industry should also fit the bill.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

I've had several people ask me about Chinese quality while on their I-phone and using their computer, just makes me wonder if they have a clue?