The question is ‘What kind of regulation?’

Some opponents of electronic cigarettes have stated they believe those who manufacturer and sell electronic cigarettes are trying to skirt regulation by the FDA. They ask “why don’t they just go through the normal NRT process like the nicotine gum or patch?”. I will answer these questions from the perspective of one company who sells electronic cigarettes.

We are NOT opposed to regulation. In fact one of the reasons we helped form the Electronic Cigarette Association is because we believe there does need to be a certain level of regulation. This includes, among other things, how it is manufactured, how it can be marketed, proper warnings, and most certainly keeping it out of the hands of minors. Some of these regulations are easy to implement and others will take time and help from an agency such as the FDA.

We ARE opposed to becoming an NRT. We strongly believe that the electronic cigarette should be allowed to freely compete with tobacco cigarettes on the open market. As an NRT, a product must be sold in pharmacies either with or without a prescription. NRTs are often more expensive than tobacco cigarettes. NRTs come with a stop usage date…..hence the claims of “quit smoking” which is really “quit using nicotine”. Placing these restrictions on electronic cigarettes create an unfair advantage for those who sell tobacco cigarettes.

I suppose the question is; if adults can legally choose to smoke tobacco cigarettes for as long as they like, why can’t they legally choose to use electronic cigarettes for as long as they like? For those who want to make claims such as “the electronic cigarette helps you quit smoking”, then they should do the proper clinical trials to prove that, submit it to the FDA, and then go sell it in pharmacies as a quit smoking product.

We applaud Matt Salmon, President of the ECA, in this Reuters article when he said, “We understand that to protect the public, some form of regulation may be necessary, and we welcome that. Our goal, nevertheless, is to ensure committed adult smokers the freedom of a clear, better alternative and to prohibit sales to minors”.

On October 1st, we had reported in our blog post Tobacco Kills. E-Cigarettes, Not Sure. So Smoke Tobacco, Siobhan DeLancey, Press Officer at FDA, stated:

“There are no long-term studies on the health effects of just nicotine, minus the tobacco component. We know what smoking tobacco does to the body over the long term,” DeLancey said. “What we want to see are well-designed clinical studies. Personal reports are not enough,” DeLancey said.

A recently published study done in 1996 on the long term effects of inhaled nicotine is now available.

The Department of Medicine, University Hospital, Tronheim, Norway, found:

“Tobacco smoking has been reported to be associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer, particularly of the lungs. In spite of extensive research on the health effects of tobacco smoking, the substances in tobacco smoke exerting these negative health effects are not completely known. Nicotine is the substance giving the subjective pleasure of smoking as well as inducing addiction. For the first time we report the effect on the rat of long-term (two years) inhalation of nicotine. The rats breathed in a chamber with nicotine at a concentration giving twice the plasma concentration found in heavy smokers. Nicotine was given for 20 h a day, five days a week during a two-year period. We could not find any increase in mortality, in atherosclerosis or frequency of tumors in these rats compared with controls. Particularly, there was no microscopic or macroscopic lung tumors nor any increase in pulmonary neuroendocrine cells. Throughout the study, however, the body weight of the nicotine exposed rats was reduced as compared with controls. In conclusion, our study does not indicate any harmful effect of nicotine when given in its pure form by inhalation.”

Please note this study was not done on the electronic cigarette. The e-Liquid in an electronic cigarette is not pure nicotine. The e-Liquid is generally comprised of propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, water, and flavorings. No long term studies have been done to show the electronic cigarette vapor is safe to humans. The product has been used worldwide for about 5 years and in the US for over 2 years. To date there are no reported serious side effects.

If you are now wondering about the propylene glycol, studies have been done on the inhalation of propylene glycol by the EPA and “the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol.” But again, please note that this was not a study of long term, direct inhalation of PG.

It is clear that in the current quest for public health, there is some serious misinformation going on. It appears that there is a clear lack of understanding between the differences of combustion and vaporization and that it is no longer the burden of the accuser to show proof that the electronic cigarette vapor is in fact dangerous.

One “public health” organization, who we will not name, hasn’t even updated their own research links page regarding scientific studies since 2005. Considering this, it is no wonder they are trapped in a bubble and not seeing the electronic cigarette for what it is and that is an alternative to something that kills over 400,000 Americans per year.

All we ask is that those in the public health sector keep an open mind to the technology, base decisions on the most current science available, and work with the electronic cigarette industry rather than against it, to make sure smokers have all the necessary information to make a decision for themselves.

The current studies and science on the electronic cigarette is not perfect, as it never is. And yes, more testing needs to be done. And yes, in the meantime this is an alternative to smoking tobacco which kills a good percentage of it’s users.

Smoking bans have been popping up across the United States for over a decade now. There is evidence on both sides regarding the harmful affects of second hand smoke. Some studies show that second hand smoke is detrimental to those around the smoker and some studies have shown that with proper air ventilation, second hand smoke is not an issue.

Smoking bans also present a great problem to the free market where these bans are literally dictating what a business owner can and cannot do in their own private business. These bans are beginning to filtrate into private homes and cars.

Smoking is an adult behavior. Just as drinking alcohol and engaging in sexual activity are considered adult behaviors. But as we have learned over the years, shielding children from being educated in making responsible choices once they become adults, only causes children to make irresponsible choices while they are children.

So what do smoking bans really accomplish? Do they really accomplish a greater sense of public health? Do they create a distaste for “big government”? Are smoking bans backwards?

Let’s look at the history of smoking bans, in a nutshell of course. At first, anti-smoking advocates were against smoking inside because of the compact conditions and poor air movement quality. Their concern was that non-smoking workers and patrons could not get away from second hand smoke as it does have a tendency to “sit” in the air. The argument was that workers do not have a choice of where they work so they need to be protected. So they fought to have all smoking pushed outside.

It is here that the private business owners began to feel an infringement upon their rights. The local government is now telling them that they can’t allow the use of a legal product in their privately owned, adult only business.

Smoking then went outside. And business owners reluctantly complied, setting up smoking areas for their patrons, outside and at their own expense.

Then, a few years later, these same advocates were tired of having to walk through the smoke to get into non-smoking establishments so they decided to go after smoking outside. Now, not only are private business owners lacking in their rights, but smokers were also being told that as a smoker, somehow their rights are not equal to those who are non-smokers.

Now, for the non-smoking advocate who may be reading this, please don’t get upset. We definitely see your side of this. Why should someone who has no desire to be engulfed in cigarette smoke have to put up with cigarette smoke? Why should parents have to run quickly through clouds of smoke with their children in order to get past the front doors of one establishment? And for those who have quit smoking and struggle every day to stay on the wagon, why would one want to be subjected to such temptation? Recovering alcoholics are lucky because if they don’t want to go into a bar, they simply don’t have to.

But what would have happened if the anti-smoking advocates had done the exact opposite? What would have happened if their original smoking bans were to restrict all smoking on public streets and only to allow smoking in private businesses that had proper ventilation systems and were physically marked on the entrance that this is a “smoking establishment”? Would we be having the heated debates today that we are? As for the workers in such an establishment; in America they have the right to choose where they work.

One of the arguments busting this “it’s for public health” stance is the electronic cigarette. The electronic cigarette does not use combustion so therefor, does not produce second hand smoke. It produces a vapor which is similar to fog machines that even Disney parades pump into the faces of children, infants and unsuspecting adults, in mass quantities, day after day. All current testing of propylene glycol vapors, which the majority of electronic cigarette vapor is comprised of, actually suggests that these vapors are harmless. Testing done by Dr. Murray Laugensen from Health New Zealand on the e-cigarette found, “Inhaled nicotine in cigarette smoke is over 98% absorbed, and so the exhaled mist of the e-cigarette is composed of propylene glycol, and probably contains almost no nicotine; and no CO.” So why on Earth would these be included in smoking bans?

There is no evidence to date that the second hand vapor of the electronic cigarette can even be compared to the second hand smoke of a tobacco cigarette. Studies have been done since the 1940’s on propylene glycol vapors and even the EPA suggests that propylene glycol is inert with no carcinogen levels upon inhalation, hence it’s use in hospital air sanitizing systems.

The electronic cigarette is being including in smoking bans because the anti-smoking groups have decided that this isn’t about second hand smoke anymore. It is clear from the lack of research as presented on many of their websites, that they haven’t done any scientific research into the electronic cigarette and many do not even appear to have an understanding for the difference between combustion and vaporization. On one site, which we will leave as nameless for now, they state that cigarettes contain 4000 ingredients. No. Tobacco cigarettes do not contain 4000 ingredients. Tobacco cigarettes that are UNLIT contain 599 ingredients according to the CDC and the SMOKE from a tobacco cigarette contains 4000+ ingredients. There is a BIG difference between a lit cigarette and one that is sitting on a table, unlit.

There is also a big difference between vaporization and combustion. Did you know that if you burn incense in your home every day for 20 years, you are being subjected to many of the carcinogens and by products of a burning cigarette? It’s because COMBUSTION produces these harmful by-products which include some of the worst ingredients including carbon monoxide, arsenic, formaldehyde, and so on. VAPORIZATION from the electronic cigarette is not capable of making these types of by-products due to the low rate at which they heat… not burn.

The only reason to include the electronic cigarette in local smoking ordinances is because those against the electronic cigarettes usage in public are against nicotine or against the action of smoking. Both the use of nicotine AND the action of smoking are LEGAL. It’s the by-products of combustion created by a burning tobacco cigarette that should be cause for concern in regards to public health, not the action of smoking nor the intake of nicotine.

For those who are against the use of nicotine and wish to see nicotine prohibition, well, then stop forcing unsuspecting smokers to use the patch, the gum, and the nicotine inhaler and state your position for what it is; a complete banning of the substance.

For those against the action of “smoking”, be careful. Attempting to ban an action is a slippery slope.

And for those who are in this for public health, consider reversing the bans so that smoking occurs in places where adult activities take place. All places should be required to have proper ventilation and the technology is there. All workers should be required to acknowledge they understand they are working in a smoking environment. All establishments should clearly mark on their entrance that smoking is allowed. This reduces the amount of cigarette butts on the street, reduces non-smokers from having interaction with cigarette smoke, and the private business owners are able to continue offering the type of establishment the free market dictates. THIS is a win win smoking ban for all.

The American Legacy Foundation had an “open” discussion on electronic cigarettes on September 16th, 2009. Since their panel was all made up of those who have the same positions, we thought we would respond to some of the information they presented. For full disclosure, we sell electronic cigarettes. For further disclosure, American Legacy Foundation gets money from tobacco company settlements (although they will not give grants to anyone who accepts money from tobacco companies) and receives contributions from Pharmaceutical companies who make nicotine replacement products, specifically Pfizer.

If you want to watch the almost two hour panel discussion, click here. If you prefer, you can watch the excerpts below and read our responses. We attempted to ensure that any clips we provide are not taken out of context, although at times the context is obscure and contradictory, which you will find out for yourself if you watch the whole thing.

NOTE: You will often hear the panel reference ENDS or Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems which is their renaming of the electronic cigarette.

They hope this will be a lively discussion? That would imply that some of the panel members disagreed on the major points. The discussion opens with:

And ends with:

The panel is enthusiastic about agreeing with each other, I’ll give them that. But as for the opposing views, it is clear that this panel all agree on the major issue of what the electronic cigarette should be; a FDA sanctioned, pharmaceutical Nicotine Replacement Therapy.

Here is a clip of Dr. David Abrams (who is the Executive Director of the Steven A. Schroeder National Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies at the American Legacy Foundation® i.e. he works for the American Legacy Foundation) who raised questions about why the electronic cigarette companies haven’t gone the NRT route via the FDA:

First, let’s be clear; the FDA approval Dr. Abrams wants for the electronic cigarette is as an NRT for people to use to quit smoking. Therefore users would be required to eventually stop using the electronic cigarette altogether. That is one route. Another is to say that smoking is a legal activity and smokers should have the right to use electronic cigarettes as much as they have the right to smoke tobacco.

He also makes it sound very easy to get FDA approval as a NRT which is contrary to Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, Outlook 2009, available at http://csdd.tufts.edu/InfoServices/OutlookPDFs/Outlook2009.pdf which shows the average time to get approval of a new drug (which is what a new NRT would likely be classified as) is 8 years. In the meantime, they want the e-cigarette or ENDS pulled from the market and presumably smokers to go back to smoking tobacco.

This is not to mention the FDA fees associated with a new drug approval and the device approval fee. Assuming they want clinical trials, the total cost would be around 2 million not including any consulting, legal fees, and the actual cost of the testing and clinical trials. I am no expert in this field and may have overlooked some requirements or loopholes, but in any case it is extremely likely the cost is going to be more than 1 million dollars, which is out of the reach of almost all the electronic cigarette suppliers on the market right now. The electronic cigarette industry in America is predominantly small US based businesses. Yes, much of the hardware is made in China, but I challenge you to find an American retail industry that doesn’t have their products built overseas. And remember, this would all be in the name of testing a “new drug”, specifically inhaled nicotine.

If we get past the rights of smokers to choose an alternative and the time and cost associated with getting approval, we soon run into the real issue with making the electronic cigarette a nicotine replacement therapy (NRT); competing with tobacco. NRTs are sold only in pharmacies at costs outside of market influence. If you doubt this, price out some nicotine gum. So now we have a competing product with tobacco that can’t be sold where tobacco is sold, at a higher price, and with more restrictions. This will make it incredibly hard for the e-cigarette to properly compete with tobacco. Reputable e-cigarette suppliers are not asking for special treatment, but rather to have the opportunity to compete with tobacco fairly.

Lastly, there is no proof the electronic cigarette would be a good NRT. If marketers don’t make cessation claims, then why would they go through testing to try and prove something they don’t want to claim. The FDA doesn’t make Coke-a-Cola test their product for it’s effectiveness as a way to stop using caffeine. Why? Coke doesn’t want to make that claim.

Dr. David Abrams whose conclusion was that he wanted the electronic cigarette to be a NRT, at one point discusses how he believes the e-cigarette is actually a tobacco product. So I am actually not sure what he wants:

He states that all nicotine products contain traces of the same organic substances, but then reverts to a scare tactic that e-liquid may be using pesticide grade nicotine. What he doesn’t mention is that nicotine itself is a poison. Even pharmacological grade nicotine in proper doses would kill bugs. Again, the devil is in the dosage. Please note that tobacco cigarettes do not use pharmacological grade nicotine. With that said, I agree pharmacological grade nicotine should be used and in the majority of products on the market, it is being used. Current testing being done will show the actual levels of TSNAs and we will release it as soon as we have it.

This is not about zero regulation, it is about reasonable regulation. The industry is only “adversarial” because those with vested interests in competing industries are determined to take this product off the market. Those who are truly for public health should be more interested in the science behind the electronic cigarette, comparing it to tobacco cigarettes, and it’s future potential rather than with taking it off the market until someone pays the FDA.

More analysis of the American Legacy Foundations “Open” Discussion will be coming over the next week.

Congressmen Steve Buyer, from Indiana’s 4th District took the floor of the House some time ago in opposition of the new tobacco legislation (which was passed and signed by The President). He makes a very good point about tobacco usage; “It’s not the nicotine that kills, it’s the smoke that kills.” He goes on to state that “If you dry and smoke lettuce, you will end up with similar problems than if you smoke tobacco.” This gained some media attention for obvious reasons. Laughter aside, it is a valid point. Burning anything and inhaling it is inherently bad for you. Although inhaling propylene glycol and the flavoring may have problems of it’s own, one thing is certain; electronic cigarettes do not produce smoke.

Here is Steve Buyer making his speech:

And here is a humorous montage dedicated to Buyer’s speech and smoking lettuce:

Over the past couple months there have been some opponents of electronic cigarettes coming out publicly and making many false or misleading statements about electronic cigarettes. These nay-sayers often use phrases such as “we just don’t know” to further their agenda against electronic smoking. On the flip side, there are some suppliers and supporters of e-cigarettes making statements that are also not entirely true to promote the product and gain public acceptance of the technology. So, below is an incomplete list of what we do and what we don’t know about electronic cigarettes.

Here’s what we DON’T know about electronic cigarettes:

1) We don’t know that they contain carcinogens. Some e-liquid may, but some may not. The FDA tested it and found that some do, but it wasn’t clear that they were found in the actual vapor. What was clear, was that when it was found, it was in trace levels.

2) We don’t know what the long term effects are of inhaling propylene glycol (or vegetable glycerin) may be. The EPA study on Propylene Glycol states, “A review of the available data has shown propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol to be negative for carcinogenicity in studies conducted up to the testing limit doses established by the Agency; therefore, no further carcinogenic analysis is required.” and “Upon reviewing the available toxicity information, the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol.” With that said, we still can’t say for certain what the long term implications of inhaling propylene glycol are to the user.

3) We don’t know if electronic cigarettes can help someone stop smoking. We have argued many times on this blog that is is actually a poor stop smoking product because it allows the continuation of the smoking habit. It also continues to deliver nicotine which is addictive and one reason smokers keep smoking. Either way, there is no evidence that it is an effective quit smoking product.

4) We don’t know if this is eventually something kids will try. To date, there is no evidence that any kids have tried e-cigarettes especially those who have never smoked. We fully support making electronic cigarettes an adult only product.

Here’s what we DO know about electronic cigarettes:

1) The majority of the vapor produced consists of propylene glycol, glycerin and water. There is also generally some amount of nicotine in the vapor, unless zero nicotine e-liquid is used. This doesn’t mean there is nothing bad in the vapor, it just means that we do know what is in the majority of the vapor. Further testing is under way to find out all the trace elements.

2) There is no smoke produced because there is no combustion.

3) At least some smokers find e-smoking to be a decent alternative to smoking tobacco.

4) Electronic cigarettes have been on the worldwide market for approximately 7 years with no reports of major issues from the users. There have been reports of dry throat, headaches and other minor symptoms. This does not mean that there won’t be reports of more severe issues from users, but it does mean there haven’t been any yet.

5) To our knowledge, tobacco companies DO NOT make or sell any electronic cigarettes on the market. In the United States most are sold by smaller, start up businesses.

6) Burning tobacco is the cause of upwards of 400,000 deaths per year in the United States alone and electronic cigarettes are an alternative to it.

As noted in a previous about how the new tobacco legislation effects the electronic cigarette, we noted that in order for a product to be a drug it must be “intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals”. And in order to be a new drug….it must be a drug.

So I contacted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and asked if smoking was considered a disease. At first they just sent me all the statistics about how many people smoking kills. Then they got mad I kept asking. Then I eventually received this response:

“When reviewing responses related to tobacco use that were provided by CDC-INFO, we noticed your question asking if smoking is considered a disease. As noted by CDC-INFO, smoking is a primary risk factor for many diseases. Addiction to drugs, is viewed as a brain disease by the
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). For information about nicotine addiction, please visit NIDA’s Web site at
http://www.drugabuse.gov/ResearchReports/Nicotine/Nicotine.html and
http://www.drugabuse.gov/Infofacts/understand.html”

So, according to the CDC, smoking is not a disease, but rather it may put the user at risk of getting an actual disease. Apparently they believe that NIDA is correct and being addicted to nicotine is a disease. Thus, the electronic cigarette [e-liquid] as a new drug is one that is intended to diagnosis, cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent the addiction to nicotine. Curing nicotine addiction would involve not using nicotine anymore.

UPDATE: I recently found where Norman Edelman, M.D., Chief Medical Officer for the American Lung Association stated, “Smoking is widely recognized as a disease of nicotine addiction,”

This is why Snus or dissolvables are not Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) products. They are not marketed as a way to quit smoking (quit using nicotine). They are marketed to be used indefinitely, i.e. to continue using nicotine.

The nicotine patch or gum is meant to ween the user off of nicotine until they no longer use it….thus curing them. There IS a stop usage date on NRT products.

Selling a consumer an electronic cigarette as a quit smoking device would mean it necessary to instruct the consumer to eventually move to zero nicotine e-liquid and/or to ultimately quit vaping altogether.

For those who think that the mere fact that there is a zero nicotine e-liquid available means it treats nicotine addiction; please note that there is zero nicotine Snus and even a zero nicotine patch that is apparently not an NRT, but yet does claim to help users quit smoking (quit using nicotine). Of course no drug, means no “new drug”, which means it isn’t a NRT.

If there is no stop usage date, then how can an electronic cigarette cure nicotine addiction? And how can continuing the action that got the user addicted to nicotine in the first place help cure their addiction? If smoking / vaping / using an electronic cigarette with zero nicotine is the cure, then so is smoking a zero nicotine tobacco cigarette. Oddly enough, these nicotine free cigarettes do claim to help the user quit smoking, but still they are not an NRT.

So we have products that contain nicotine, have no stop usage date, and make no quit smoking claims that are not NRTs (dissolvables, Snus)
We have products that contain no nicotine or any drugs, that do make quit smoking claims and they are not NRTs (zero nicotine patch, nicotine free cigarettes)
We have products that contain nicotine (or other drugs), have a stop usage date, and claim to help users quit smoking. These are NRTs (gum, patch, pills)

Which of these is most suitable for the electronic cigarette? To be classified as a new drug under the classification of a NRT, the product must 1) contain a drug and 2) have a stop using nicotine date or imply one with the claim of quitting smoking. Also, the American Lung Association states, “To be most effective, nicotine replacement products should be used in conjunction with a behavior change program.” (Update: we now link to the Archive.org page of the American Lung Association as it appears they recently took down this page) It is pretty obvious that electronic smoking is a continuation of the action of smoking, thus making it a rather ineffective NRT at best.

Most reputable e-cigarette suppliers don’t claim it helps anyone quit smoking and there is no proof that it does. I have yet to see any manufacturer or supplier recommending a stop usage date. It can come with nicotine or not.

So an e-cigarette that contains no nicotine (or any other drug) and makes no quit smoking claims should be labeled (and regulated) as an NRT? If so it would be the only product of it’s kind.

And with nicotine e-liquid and no stop usage date, we have a product that perpetuates nicotine addiction, not cures it. The upside? Nicotine alone kills very, very, very few people (if any) but inhaling burning tobacco kills hundreds of thousands.

The Electronic Cigarette Association has just released a letter on it’s website that it will be sending to each member of Congress as well as some other public officials. In it, along with some information about the very poor job the FDA did in testing the electronic cigarette, there is important information about the position of the ECA when it comes to selling to kids. He is a quote:

“We do agree with the FDA, however; that E-Cigarettes should not be purchased or consumed by those under the legal age of smoking. We support any legislation, be it state or federal, that makes it illegal to sell e-cigarettes to children and those under the legal smoking age. We only market our products to committed long term smokers and would never want this to entice anyone who is not already addicted to nicotine to use our product.”

We at Instead Electronic Cigarette fully support the ECA’s stance and agree that it is important to keep those under the legal smoking age from purchasing electronic cigarettes or any other product that may contain nicotine.

Read the full Electronic Cigarette Association Letter To Congress

I’ve heard about the blind following of main stream media for sometime, but until now I didn’t realize how deep it ran. It runs deep.

Here are a few of the media head lines after the FDA press release on electronic cigarettes yesterday:
* Electronic cigarettes unsafe, linked to cancer – NOT TRUE – no cases or examples of electronic cigarettes causing cancer exist
* Health officials in the nation have said that the testing of two leading e-cigarette brands has shown that they contain cancer causing chemicals and other toxins, including a major compound used in antifreeze. – NOT TRUE – one cartridge from one company had diethylene glycol (DEG) in it, which is found in antifreeze
* FDA: E-cigarettes are as dangerous as tobacco cigarettes – NOT TRUE – this is crazy

Here is what they actually found:
* Out of 18 cartridges, 1 had diethylene glycol (DEG) in it at less than 1%. One.
* Tobacco specific nitrosamines (TSNA) and tobacco specific impurities were detected in both products at very low levels (taken from the FDA Electronic Cigarette Evaluation conclusion). Makes sense if the nicotine was taken from tobacco. Many FDA approved NRTs have Tobacco specific nitrosamines in them. Also, not all the samples contained TSNA.
* Since 100% of tobacco cigarettes contain multiple carcinogens and only 50% of the electronic cigarette cartridges tested contained detectable levels of carcinogens (and even then it was at “very low levels” according to the report), what is the FDA saying about it’s relative safety compared to tobacco cigarettes.

Here is what they did:
* They received the electronic cigarette test results back on May 4th, 2009.
* They postponed a scheduled press conference from May 5th, 2009 to July 23rd, 2009 at which time they released their findings.
* They tested 14 cartridges from Smoking Everywhere (including zero nicotine) and 4 from Njoy, but didn’t test zero nicotine from Njoy. The FDA has been sued by both these companies.
* They used the Nicotrol Inhaler as a “control” but didn’t test it for anything except nicotine.

For all you “journalists” here are some good questions to ask the FDA:
* Why was the report not released until now?
* Did you test any cartridges other than the 18 you published?
* Why didn’t you test the Nicotrol Inhaler for diethylene glycol or tobacco specific nitrosamines?
* Why didn’t you test the zero nicotine from Njoy?
* How many reported illness from electronic cigarettes have there been?
* How many reported deaths from electronic cigarettes have there been?
* Based on your testing, are electronic cigarettes safer and healthier than tobacco cigarettes to the user and the surrounding public? Or alternatively, are e-cigarette more dangerous or as dangerous as burning tobacco?
* Why was no American made e-liquid tested?

It is important to note for anyone who doesn’t know much about the electronic cigarettes, is that the e-liquid is a separate thing from the device. The e-liquid ingredient list can be reworked to make sure there are no cancer causing substances or even impurities. We need time and support to do this, not misleading press conferences. As an example, rather than propylene glycol (which is where many suspect the DEG came from), you can use food grade vegetable glycerin (VG) as the base. Another good question…..why didn’t the FDA test e-liquid with a VG base. This is a distinct advantage over tobacco cigarettes where it has been proven very difficult to make a combustible product safer or healthier.

Responsible suppliers and manufacturers in the industry are very concerned about the quality of the product and the safety of the users. But calling for a ban on electronic cigarettes because of this limited testing is like pulling all beer off the market because 1 bottle had a mouse in it.

So how did 1 sample with DEG and 5 samples with tobacco specific nitrosamines turn into “electronic cigarettes contain cancer causing antifreeze”? Presentation. Oh yeah….and lack of questions.

But why would the FDA want to skew public perception over the e-cigarette? Well, considering the very large $$$$ involved in NRTs (Nicotine Replacement Therapies) sold by the pharmaceutical and the fact that the FDA receives a lot of it’s funding through pharmaceutical companies, one could speculate that those selling competing products want total control over the market. Conspiracy theory? Maybe. But follow the money trail.

What the FDA wants to do is compare the electronic cigarette to nothing. Therefore, any issues with it are worse than nothing. They need to be compared to tobacco cigarettes. E-Cigarettes are used in the same fashion by the same group of people; tobacco smokers.

The FDA has told anyone with any adverse effects to report them by:
* Regular Mail: use postage-paid FDA form 3500 available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/HowToReport/DownloadForms/default.htm and mail to MedWatch, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852-9787
* Fax: (800) FDA-0178
* Phone: (800) FDA-1088

I agree. Those with adverse effects should report them. But the method by which they ask for feedback (the mock scientific data in press release form) makes it appear like the FDA wants issues to give them a reason to pull the e-cigarette off the market. For the sake of the thousands and thousands of e-smokers who find it a suitable alternative to burning tobacco, I hope this is not the case.

There are many things about e-smoking that are similar to traditional smoking but let’s not forget that it still isn’t actually smoking. Some argue that it is still smoking because the action of smoking is still present and although this is a valid argument, there is still no combustion, just vaporization. Thus, the term “vaping” has been introduced by many e-smokers.

Let’s first look at the similarities.

As mentioned above, electronic cigarettes allow the user to inhale and exhale a smoke like substance. This is important and why many smokers find the electronic cigarette to be a suitable alternative to tobacco. You can see the vapor go in and see it come out. You can even blow “vapor rings”.

Many electronic cigarettes look like traditional tobacco cigarettes. This is not true of all models, but of most. This adds to the smoking sensation and helps many smokers feel more comfortable with the product.

Electronic cigarettes deliver nicotine…..well most do. While it is true that you can easily use an e-cigarette with no nicotine at all, most are sold with nicotine. By the way, here is a pdf of research done on nicotine by M.A. Bozarth,* C.M. Pudiak, & R. KuoLee. Addiction Research Unit, Department of Psychology, University at Buffalo. As a side note, although nicotine is addictive, it has never shown to be cancer causing.

Now the differences.

Electronic cigarettes use vaporization, not combustion. Burning causes a chemical reaction that can produce many known cancer causing agents including tar.

The e-cigarette can be used over and over again. The cartridges are refillable using e-liquid and the battery is rechargeable. This is quite the opposite of a tobacco cigarette which is used up then tossed.

Tobacco cigarettes contain tobacco….obviously. This is not the case with electronic cigarettes. The liquid that is vaporized contains a base of propylene glycol or vegetable glycerin, water, nicotine (optional), and flavoring. Further testing of the vapor is underway to determine other compounds in the liquid and in the vapor.

It is common knowledge that smoking tobacco cigarettes causes cancer and may eventually lead to death. To date and to our knowledge, no cases of e-smoking related cancer have been reported. To date there are zero cases of e-smoking related deaths. Although there are limited studies (right now), if you would like some users opinions, visit the electronic cigarette petition.

Contrary to what many health organizations advocate, smokers do have rights…..they just don’t have the right to harm others. They do have the right to choose an alternative to a product that is sanctioned by the government and known to kill. We encourage any legal age smoker who is thinking to trying an electronic cigarette to do their research, compare the products, and make an informed decision for themselves.