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

[jtpjc]

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?

Quite. Let's have a look at this one again, shall we?

Chinese E-liquid Manufacturing Facilities - YouTube

 

[Petrodus]

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?

Very Funny !!!

Common sense is like Deodorant
The ones that need it most ... Never us it !!

 

[DaveP]

I don't think anyone is attacking the OP. It's the article that creates an air of disrespect for vaping. Too many writers include ludicrous statements they have gleaned from articles previously published. The FDA is the biggest offender in their test of ONE juice that was seized from a shipment held at the docks during a raid. They made a big deal out of 8ng/dl carcinogens that was equal to Nicorette gum approved by the same FDA division that criticized ecig juice. The diethylene glycol detected in the same sample was traced to a contaminated batch of Propylene Glycol in China. Yes, we need to hold juice makers accountable, but the FDA seems happy with publishing the results of a single lab analysis.

If you don't conduct testing using scientific methods, you come away with erroneous results. We have to fight the rhetoric surrounding ecigs. I can't tell you the number of people who have asked me if my ecig contains anti-freeze. My vendor assures me that USP grade ingredients are used to produce my juice. If they contain antifreeze, it's the FDA's fault. They need to publish the results of routine tests of vendors' juices. If they aren't doing that, they have no right to continue complaining about a 2009 test that failed.

 

[RosaJ]

You said you've been lurking these forums to get information before you published the article. Did you speak with anyone involved with AEMSA? In case you skipped that thread, here it is:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...facturers-standards-association-launches.html

 

[aaronsoup]

Regarding "looking for conflict" to sell a story, I wouldn't say that's necessary — most of our reports ( here ) are conflict-free. My allusions to that fact were purely explaining the editorial choice on headline/subtitle — one working title was actually "why won't the FDA tell us if e-cigarettes are safe?" which I think if you take the article as a whole is really what's being asked.

I've got a couple of human-interest stories in mind for e-cigarettes that aren't likely to even touch on the safety worries. That said, having published a report on health risks, I intend to write a follow-up piece, most likely after the FDA publishes its intended rule changes. Plenty of people have pointed me in the direction of independent studies that I should look into.

Also, I've had a number of requests (not only from this forum) to look into the various groups lobbying for and against e-cigarettes, and definitely plan on doing so. You should see this article as the start of our coverage, not the final word. For the record, my public-facing email address is aaron@theverge.com — should anyone have a topic, organization, study, or comments that they feel deserves reporting on, you're more than welcome to send it along to me.

Oh, and:

..it's the FDA's fault. They need to publish the results of routine tests of vendors' juices. If they aren't doing that, they have no right to continue complaining about a 2009 test that failed.

I completely agree.

 

[Uncle Willie]

The OP is right when saying that as popularity of the PV continues to grow, which it will, more articles will be written, more attention will be focused .. and not all of it will be good .. that's the nature of the World we live in ..

Writers / reporters can and do paint with a brush that can sway one way or another .. they always have .. to be truly neutral is rare, IMO ..

 

[Petrodus]

Quite. Let's have a look at this one again, shall we?
Chinese E-liquid Manufacturing Facilities - YouTube

I remember watching that video a long time ago


I found e-cigarettes and a marketer ... a year before joining the ECF
and have been exclusively using Chinese hardware and e-liquids ever since.

My 2 cents
Made in the USA might impress the FDA and make some feel safe and secure ...
I'm not impressed. Products are products and companies here or around the world
who screw up ... will lose customers and or go out of business.

 

[aaronsoup]

You said you've been lurking these forums to get information before you published the article. Did you speak with anyone involved with AEMSA?

I lurked more out of personal interest, to be honest, looking for advice on good brands etc.. Regarding AEMSA, no, I didn't speak with anyone directly, but I used their website as a reference point on several occasions. For the article, I spoke with a couple of people from CASAA, some vendors and manufacturers, and a few independent researchers and advocates, but only ended up citing a handful or people. I do intend to involve AEMSA in future coverage, though.

 

[Renolizzie]

Aaron - I hope you continue to write and that you will have a chance to look into research that shows a lot of the more positive aspects of e cigs. There are a number of studies that are indicating that ecigs are really not going to be bad for you. The PG has been thoroughly researched and isn't harmful, VG, same thing, nicotine, not really bad for you.

Flavorings - people have been vaping for over 5 years and they are doing fine. Long term on the flavorings? A couple of issues have been addressed by the vaping community so as to keep out any flavors with "concerns" like those containing diacetyl. Someone help me out here if you think I am getting something incorrect.

There really is a fair amount of evidence on ecigs from various sources that allowed me to vape with a reasonable degree of confidence. I certainly breathe better and feel better. 30 years of smoking 2 packs a day to ecigs is an absolute accomplishment for me.

There is some evidence that nicotine is good for some medical conditions, by the way.

 

[DC2]

You should see this article as the start of our coverage, not the final word. For the record, my public-facing email address is aaron@theverge.com — should anyone have a topic, organization, study, or comments that they feel deserves reporting on, you're more than welcome to send it along to me.

Email sent about what Big Pharma is doing, and what the ANTZ are doing.
If you ever want it, I can dig up some stuff about the incestuous relationship between the FDA and Big Pharma.

 

[Talyon]

My right to Vape well not be stolen from me by anyone anywhere.

Please get all your facts in order before writing them in public.

Time to Vape.

I'll reserve what I really feel.

 

[turner.curtis]

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.

After reading this, I do not need to read anything further by you sir. If you allow the copy editing process to change FACTS to lies or speculation on the trivial, then what would you have me expect from you when the portion being edited is non trivial or potentially outside of the realm of your understanding? If you can not pare down maintaining the truth, then maybe you should revisit the entire article as you have now just done what the FDA and other acronyms are being accused of; spreading misinformation and speculation versus empirical evidence.

 

[Vocalek]

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 the height of irony if "tobacco flavor" is actually more harmful than more pleasant flavors such as fruit, beverage, and candy flavors. The anti-tobacco extremists have called for a ban on the pleasant flavors, only permitting "tobacco" and "menthol" flavoring. They claim that the only reason pleasant flavors exist is to lure unsuspecting children into a life of nicotine addiction. (Apparently adults only like yucky tasting flavors.)

Of course, the antis have never explained how it is that the pleasant flavors used in Nicorette products (Fruit Chill, Cinnamon Surge, etc.) do not cause nicotine addiction.

 

[Vocalek]

I'm not sure how these two answers to Aaron's questions (via email) were interpreted to mean that CASAA's agenda is to defend the e-cigarette industry.

How is CASAA funded? Is it primarily through grassroots or are corporations also involved?

We are a grassroots consumer group (CASAA - The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association) funded by people who have benefited from harm reduction. While the majority of donors have no industry affiliation, we do receive funding from some vendors of low-risk alternatives. Many of these small business owners also use the products they sell, and would not be in business had they not personally experienced the benefits of these alternatives.

What is CASAA's aim — when will you have achieved what you want?

Tobacco harm reduction will eventually reach critical mass in the US, as it has already in Sweden, at which time it will be impossible for the anti-tobacco extremists to continue to prevent smokers from switching to low-risk alternatives. Between now and then, we have to fight attempts to discourage the use of low-risk alternative through taxation and other punitive regulation.

Since characterization of our organization in the story made it appear that CASAA is an industry shill, I felt compelled to set the record straight by leaving this comment.

It is extremely inaccurate to state that CASAA’s agenda is to defend the e-cigarette industry. As our name implies, we are a grassroots consumer group (casaa.org) supported by people who have benefited from Tobacco Harm Reduction (THR). THR involves replacing the practice of smoking with use of a smoke-free alternative such as pharmaceutical nicotine products (e.g., patch, gum, lozenges, etc.), smokeless tobacco products (e.g. snus, dissolvable orbs, etc.), and e-cigarettes. Our goal is to help save the lives of smokers by educating them, the general public, legislators, and government regulators about the benefits of THR, and our advocacy efforts are focused on keeping all of these alternatives available, affordable, and effective.

 

[CES]

Why does a balanced piece of journalism have to include psuedo-science? What if the existing data clearly support minimal or no harm, especially with respect to smoking.

If i had a LOT of money and paid health associations to lobby legislators to pass laws to prevent people from falling off the edge of a flat earth, would a "balanced" article on that process actually need to pretend that there is any real possibility that the earth is indeed flat?

 

[DC2]

Balanced journalism is an excuse for not doing any real investigative journalism.

 

[rolygate]

@aaron

There are a whole bunch of problems with your article, but the most obvious faults are the headline and initial tone, which intend to scare or worry people about non-existent issues; and the repetition of the FDA fraudulent press release, which has caused us unending problems.

The facts of the FDA's lab tests are not in dispute - indeed, they point out just how safe e-cigarettes are.

1. They found that any carcinogens present are at exactly the same level as those in NRTs (if you don't know what these are, please look it up). These amounts are, in the words of Prof Rodu (the world authority on the oral pathology of tobacco consumption), a level which is "a million times lower than conceivably harmful to health". The FDA conveniently forgot to mention this.

Instead of pointing these facts out, the FDA lied about them by misrepresenting their importance in a press release which had little or no relation to the factual content of the lab tests. The FDA are liars, and to repeat their lies does not improve a journalist's reputation - it makes them look a fool.

2. Contaminants are present in anything and everything. The important element is the amount, since any toxic effect is dose-dependent. The reason you are not harmed by contaminants in your food, despite their undoubted presence, is that you might need to eat two tons of the offending item before any toxic effect could be detected. The same goes for the ecigs tested by the FDA; even though only 1 sample in 18 showed positive: you could not be harmed by the vapor (since no contamination was detected in vapor, which a journalist who did any research might consider a useful point). You would need to drink the contents of 1,000 cartomizers before experiencing any issue from toxicity. Since it is all but impossible to extract all the contents of a cartomizer without using some kind of solvent process, you would actually need to eat 1,000 cartomizers. I suggest that long before any minor contaminant had any effect, you would be dead from some other cause. The FDA conveniently forgot to mention this.

Instead of pointing these facts out, the FDA lied about them by misrepresenting them. The FDA are liars, and to repeat their lies does not improve a journalist's reputation - it makes them look a complete fool.


The FDA has the well-deserved reputation of being the most corrupt large government agency in the world; whether or not that is true is not important because it is without doubt the world's best example of a regulatory-captured one. I suggest that if you want to write an interesting article about how the citizens of a country are in fact income-earning units for large industries and have a lot less free will than they think, then you look up 'regulatory capture' and follow that road. At least you won't get accused of hysterical fear-mongering here - we have to fight the effects of regulatory capture every day.

The FDA works for the pharmaceutical industry not public health (and appears to act for the cigarette trade as a result), and publishes lies, misrepresentation and propaganda without restraint in the THR area. Maybe that is less interesting to your readers than a hyped-up farrago of nonexistent issues, but promoting pharmaceutical industry propaganda as you did by repeating their dross does not help anyone.

As you are in the UK you might be interested in a local site with more information on these issues. Some research there might improve the quality of your next article about ecigs:
http://www.eccauk.org/index.php/the-20-rule.html

Also try this page of quotes from the medical experts in this field, on the World Vaping Day site:
Quotes

If you are happy to pursue a career as a Sunday Sport / News of the World type of journalist (National Enquirer-style, in the USA), then have it it, dude. Otherwise learn lesson #1: ask the users first. They know what they are talking about, and don't have any commercial agenda.

 

[Petrodus]

Balanced journalism is an excuse for not doing any real investigative journalism.

 

[Fiamma]

@aaron

There are a whole bunch of problems with your article, but the most obvious faults are the headline and initial tone, which intend to scare or worry people about non-existent issues; and the repetition of the FDA fraudulent press release, which has caused us unending problems.

The facts of the FDA's lab tests are not in dispute - indeed, they point out just how safe e-cigarettes are.

1. They found that any carcinogens present are at exactly the same level as those in NRTs (if you don't know what these are, please look it up). These amounts are, in the words of Prof Rodu (the world authority on the oral pathology of tobacco consumption), a level which is "a million times lower than conceivably harmful to health". The FDA conveniently forgot to mention this.

Instead of pointing these facts out, the FDA lied about them by misrepresenting their importance in a press release which had little or no relation to the factual content of the lab tests. The FDA are liars, and to repeat their lies does not improve a journalist's reputation - it makes them look a fool.

2. Contaminants are present in anything and everything. The important element is the amount, since any toxic effect is dose-dependent. The reason you are not harmed by contaminants in your food, despite their undoubted presence, is that you might need to eat two tons of the offending item before any toxic effect could be detected. The same goes for the ecigs tested by the FDA; even though only 1 sample in 18 showed positive: you could not be harmed by the vapor (since no contamination was detected in vapor, which a journalist who did any research might consider a useful point). You would need to drink the contents of 1,000 cartomizers before experiencing any issue from toxicity. Since it is all but impossible to extract all the contents of a cartomizer without using some kind of solvent process, you would actually need to eat 1,000 cartomizers. I suggest that long before any minor contaminant had any effect, you would be dead from some other cause. The FDA conveniently forgot to mention this.

Instead of pointing these facts out, the FDA lied about them by misrepresenting them. The FDA are liars, and to repeat their lies does not improve a journalist's reputation - it makes them look a complete fool.


The FDA has the well-deserved reputation of being the most corrupt large government agency in the world; whether or not that is true is not important because it is without doubt the world's best example of a regulatory-captured one. I suggest that if you want to write an interesting article about how the citizens of a country are in fact income-earning units for large industries and have a lot less free will than they think, then you look up 'regulatory capture' and follow that road. At least you won't get accused of hysterical fear-mongering here - we have to fight the effects of regulatory capture every day.

The FDA works for the pharmaceutical industry not public health (and appears to act for the cigarette trade as a result), and publishes lies, misrepresentation and propaganda without restraint in the THR area. Maybe that is less interesting to your readers than a hyped-up farrago of nonexistent issues, but promoting pharmaceutical industry propaganda as you did by repeating their dross does not help anyone.

As you are in the UK you might be interested in a local site with more information on these issues. Some research there might improve the quality of your next article about ecigs:
The 20% Rule

Also try this page of quotes from the medical experts in this field, on the World Vaping Day site:
Quotes

If you are happy to pursue a career as a Sunday Sport / News of the World type of journalist (National Enquirer-style, in the USA), then have it it, dude. Otherwise learn lesson #1: ask the users first. They know what they are talking about, and don't have any commercial agenda.

Priceless. HURRAH rolygate, well played

 

[kristin]

Seems Aaron is no longer interested in our opinions or questions.