World Health Organization warns that E-cigs are NOT a safe alternative

[mentalfloss]

Just got this from a family member, whom of course, is now spouting it like the bible. Can anyone here help me out to validate otherwise?

ARGGH... I can't post the URL!!!

 

[mentalfloss]

I have to post 10 more times in order post a URL. Can I mail the URL to someone and they post?

 

[Kate]

Hi Mentalfloss, welcome to the forum.

We have four threads about this -

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/law-e-cigarette/2508-new-report-who.html
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...t-war-war-against-cigarettes-electronics.html
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-not-safe-proven-quitting-method-smokers.html
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...524-even-engadget-website-got-news-e-cig.html

Apparently some suppliers say that WHO endorses esmoking and WHO have issued a statement saying that they do not and there is no proof that esmoking is safe. Etc.

 

[Ruby]

Unless there have been rapid developments8-o I don't think they can fully substansiate that claim yet.
There may be some health issues but I can't see e-cigs being as bad for one's health as regular cigs. 'SAFER' might be the operative word because 2 or 3 potentially harmful chemicals have got to win the day over the 4000 with a regular cig?

 

[Kate]

I think the important thing to note is the difference between 'safe' and 'safer'.

We have no clinical trials or long term toxicology reports which prove either.

 

[TropicalBob]

And THAT is the point. Thanks Kate.

Important note that Dr. Jim Loi has posted some thoughts in this topic under Law and the E-Cigarette (where all these threads should have been posted).

 

[Nazareth]

I think the important thing to note is the difference between 'safe' and 'safer'.

We have no clinical trials or long term toxicology reports which prove either.

Precisely- the WHO is goign to be trying to attack on the basis that ecigs 'aren't a safe alternative' and htey'll no doubt play up the fact that nicotine is a known cancer enhancer, but hte fact is that we all know nicotine isn't 'safe', but we also understand that esmoking is a much SAFER way to get our nicotine. The WHO and other health orgs and regulators have tried for yearsto 'outlaw' tobacco, and have failed, and I can't see how they are goign to succeed in banning a much safer product except through brute intimidation and overpowering financial bullying.

 

[Kate]

"... brute intimidation and overpowering financial bullying."

I'm afraid that isn't so unusual in the world Naz, it could well come to that.

Apart from our other ingredients, nicotine is known to be toxic. To bring a new product to the market that has known toxic effects is very, very difficult to justify. It doesn't matter how favourably it compares to cigarettes, it is something different and is not covered by the same laws. The rules are different, you cannot compare with cigarettes, you must either compare with the likes of snuff and snus or pharmacological nicotine replacement therapies.

The pharmacological route is long and expensive with many tests and reports required. The non-pharmacological route is not approved for smoking cessation or health purposes at all. We can't have it all ways, it's going to go the way of one or the other as far as I can see. Either way we will need evidence about safety before we are allowed approval.

 

[mentalfloss]

Thanks Kate. I got a little too excited there.

To me this just comes off as a means for WHO to cover their butts. Thankfully, they acknowledge that if testing shows the product to be safe they will go ahead and endorse the product.

Ironically enough, the Yahoo article I read left out a tidbit that you can find at WHO's official website:

WHO does not discount the possibility that the electronic cigarette could be useful as a smoking cessation aid. The only way to know is to test.

"If the marketers of the electronic cigarette want to help smokers quit, then they need to conduct clinical studies and toxicity analyses and operate within the proper regulatory framework," said Douglas Bettcher, Director a.i. of WHO's Tobacco Free Initiative.

The funny part to me is this: "Marketers need to conduct clinical studies and toxicity analyses and operate within the proper regulatory framework."

It's a bit unnerving. Are the marketers afraid the products won't pass or are the tobacco companies in bed with their federal governments (?) -- because if you look at the countries that currently endorse and/or carry the product, most of them aren't leaders in the tobacco industry (save the U.K.).

Conversely, it's not carried in countries that are prominently tobacco sellers, like the U.S., Greater Europe, Japan (correct me if I'm wrong on that last one.) I was surprised to see that Canada was included in that list since I figured that all of North America shied away from e-cigs, but it seems to be only the U.S. and Mexico.