©
If you're looking for a safe alternative to smoking, you'd be wise to skip the electronic cigarette - unless inhaling a toxic, bubble gum-flavored component of antifreeze sounds yummy.
The Food and Drug Administration recently ran preliminary tests on two brands of battery-powered, cigarette-shaped devices billed as safe alternatives to tobacco. The devices heat up a liquid containing nicotine and produce a vapor that can be drawn directly into the lungs. Among other things, scientists found forms of nitrosamine, a carcinogen common in real cigarettes.
The tests also turned up diethylene glycol, an ingredient in antifreeze, in some samples. It's the same chemical involved in deaths and illnesses around the world in 2007; unscrupulous toothpaste manufacturers in China used it as a cheap substitute for the thickening agent glycerine.
The Electronic Cigarette Association, a trade group representing manufacturers, says the FDA's tests of devices marketed by Arizona-based NJoy and Florida-based Smoking Everywhere were too limited to reach "any valid and reliable conclusions."
But, tellingly, the industry is reluctant to submit its products for safety approval, arguing that the agency doesn't have jurisdiction.
Many of the devices are made in China, where they're popular. But the FDA reports that there's little quality control in the manufacturing - which isn't surprising, given the multitude of problems with toys, pet food and other products imported from China.
Numerous U.S. health groups have issued warnings against e-cigarettes. The American Academy of Pediatrics has condemned the production of e-cigarettes flavored to taste like bubble gum, chocolate and various fruits - a move they say is intended to lure children and teens.
FDA officials, who contend e-cigarettes fall under their jurisdiction as drug-delivery devices, say they're contemplating further action against manufacturers. Some members of Congress are calling for a ban.
Whether it's possible to produce a safe e-cigarette remains an open question. But the FDA's recent tests indicate there are dangerous versions on the market. They, at the very least, should be yanked from store shelves.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Do some research
The lab report states that they found a chemical (diethylene glycol) at a miniscule amount of less than 1% from 1 specific cartridge from 1 specific flavor from 1 specific brand (No other cartridges had any of this chemical), the same brand that is currently SUING the FDA for stealing their shipments without authority - SmokingEverywhere (Jeez i wonder if there is a connection there)...
Less than 1% was found... WHATS THE MARGIN OF ERROR??
Secondly the other chemicals found that are apparently toxic are nitrosamine's... These are nicotine deritives that are already found and known to be in real cigarettes and these were only found in LESS than HALF of the cartridges tested.
This means that about half of the cartridges tested contained NO TOXIC SUBSTANCES and 99% tested were safer than real cigarettes. Yet they are marketing the conclusion that all ecigs are dangerous? Where does this come from... if you even read the report they specifically point out this is not their conclusion.
Read the FDA summary found here:
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm173146.htm
It states "Due to the variability among products, this analysis should not be used to draw conclusion
Tomatoes and Potatoes contain Nicotine - Ban them too ?
The FDA are being very 'selective' in what they are saying about Diethylene glycol. Sure, it is used in coolants, such as car anti-freeze. Diethylene glycol is also widely used as a humectant, a moisturizer, for tobacco, which is probably where it came from in the nicotine being used for those Ecigs, and easily eliminated if required to. BUT, it is also used in skin cream and lotions, deodorants, cough syrup, toothpaste, and mouthwash, and to make sweet wines. The nitrosamines come from flu-cured tobacco, and easily eliminated. Yes, nicotine is addictive, as is caffeine, neither of which have been causally linked to any disease. Indeed both are used to treat diseases. Anti-smokers have taken over the FDA and are now waging a similar campaign against Ecigs of obfuscation, misinformation, and outright junk science lies, to deliberately promulgate false fears by implied association in the minds of the public, based on nothing at all. The FDA lies about a lot of other products too.
Journalism at it's finest
Interesting that this publication is in Virginia,the tobacco rich state.Where are all the fine journalists these days that report FACT and not HYPE? It's all about the headlines,right?
This is nothing but a media blitz scare tactic,period.And you are contributing to this farce.The FDA has had this report for months,and could ban sales at any time,yet they haven't. Why is that? They are either doing a poor job or have been disarmed by having to justify all the nicotine replacement products they have approved that ARE on the market(which have the same chemical in them),and tobacco itself. Big pharmecuetical companies have no dog in this fight either,now do they?
The title of this article is alarming! But,reality is this.Just because a single TRACE element found in anti-freeze may be found in certain cartridges,that does NOT indicate one would be ingesting anti-freeze.
You and the FDA both are guilty of sensationalizing this report,period.
Report the truth!
With all due respect to the writer of this story, please do your homework before splattering disinformation all over this fine website.
I would suggest to your readers to go out and seek the real story.
Please do some research
Really, before your editorial board goes off half cocked on a subject you obviously know nothing it about, it might be a good idea to do some research into the products and why certain groups are in a hubbub about them.
Nicotine gum, patches, and inhalers emit far more nitrosomines than do the e-cigs and in much more concentrated forms that are delivered directly into the blood stream.
As for who is opposing them --- follow the money. Smokers who have switched are no longer paying the outrageous tobacco taxes you are so supportive of, and the pharmaceutical companies and other anti-smoker groups aren't getting anything because of a fall off in tobacco sales.
They only care about these devices because they may be out of cushy jobs and paycheck. Follow the money!
Really?
Because I thought it had to do with the perception among some people that these things were a "safer alternative" than real cigarettes. Instead of using them as a way to wean people off of cigarettes (which is what the patch, gum, etc. are intended for -- not to be used indefinitely), people might think it's ok just to switch the traditional tobacco for the e-cigarette. They're not safer, the manufacturers know they're not, and they want to get away with being able to tell people these products are ok and to sell them without any regulation.
Bonjour fermezlabouche....
Your views on NRT aside, pray tell how you've come to the brilliant conclusion that e-cigarettes are less safe than conventional tobacco analogs alone? Perhaps it was that report the FDA released a few days ago? The same FDA that approved Vioxx? (follow the money) and the one now in full control of tobacco regulation? (again, follow the money). You and the author of this article as well as the FDA and it's puppet PHD's need to "fermez la bouche" and do a bit more homework before making premature assessments based on anemic studies that have been schlepped together for the sake of disinformation. As they have done in New Zealand, proper studies through unbiased channels will soon be conducted on e-cigarettes here in North America. If indeed it is confirmed that e-cigarettes are less harmful to users and those around them (than ignited tobacco and it's ~4000+ chemicals) - then the FDA should move forward on making the product even safer by researching NRT dosage control measures and regulation for e-cigarettes. By not doing so they are effectively cutting the lifeline to potentially millions of people that otherwise benefit from them.