FDA Says E-Cigarettes Have Carcinogens & Toxic Chemicals
Today the Food and Drug Administration announced that laboratory analysis of cartridges used in electronic cigarettes, which deliver nicotine in a propylene glycol vapor instead of tobacco smoke, "has found that they contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals such as diethylene glycol, an ingredient used in antifreeze." Six paragraphs down, we learn that the FDA tested only "a small sample of cartridges from two leading brands of electronic cigarettes" and that "these products contained detectable levels of known carcinogens and toxic chemicals to which users could potentially be exposed" (emphasis added). In a PDF file two clicks away, we learn that diethylene glycol showed up in just one out of 18 cartridges and that five cartridges contained tobacco-specific nitrosamines "at very low levels." The report does not say exactly how low, and it provides no evidence that these trace amounts pose a measurable health risk.
On his tobacco policy blog, Michael Siegel notes a salient fact overlooked by the FDA in its rush to hype the hazards of e-cigarettes: Smoking cessation products approved by the FDA as safe and effective also can contain "detectable levels of known carcinogens," a byproduct of deriving nicotine from tobacco. Yet the FDA is not trying to raise an alarm about the cancer risk allegedly posed by nicotine patches, gum, or inhalers. In fact, Siegel points out, the FDA used an FDA-approved nicotine inhaler as a comparison sample for its analysis of the nicotine levels in e-cigarette cartridges but for some reason decided not to test the inhaler for carcinogens. Siegel acknowledges that the diethylene glycol in one cartridge raises legitimate concerns about manufacturing standards, but he emphasizes that the FDA is once again perversely insisting that e-cigarettes be proven 100 percent safe even though they are substitutes for legal products, conventional cigarettes, that are indisputably far more dangerous (and that now have the FDA's imprimatur).
The rest of the FDA press release hits familiar themes. It warns that nicotine "is highly addictive"; worries that e-cigarettes "are readily available online and in shopping malls" and that they "could increase nicotine addiction and tobacco use in young people"; and complains that "these products do not contain any health warnings comparable to [those on] FDA-approved nicotine replacement products or conventional cigarettes." It also alleges that e-cigarettes "are marketed and sold to young people," by which it presumably means minors, although the only evidence it offers to support that claim is the fact that e-cigarettes are "available in different flavors, such as chocolate and mint." The statement closes by soliciting consumer complaints about "serious adverse events (side effects) or product quality problems with the use of e-cigarettes," possibly because the FDA does not have any yet and needs them to justify removing the product from the market.
It seems clear that the FDA already has decided to ban e-cigarettes and is now seeking evidence to back up that decision. This approach, which replaces science and consumer protection with puritanism and bureaucratic pigheadedness, sacrifices the interests—and possibly the lives—of smokers who could dramatically reduce their disease risks by switching to e-cigarettes.
More on e-cigarettes here.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
I agree this is pretty ridiculous on the part of the FDA, but it is just another incident in a long list of politics trumping science at the FDA. From the FDA giving preference to American drug companies over foreign drug companies in disregard for Americans health (see prozac vs. luvox - and that's not the only case); to their rejection of medical cannabis despite scientific evidence demonstrating actual health uses; to the report from FDA scientist being pressured by management to manipulate data circa 2006-07.
We need an FDA that is insulated from political motivations and oversight. The only government involvement in the agency should be funding and ethical oversight (e.g. assuring that drug panel reviewers don't have financial ties to the drug companies they are setting guidelines for - as reported by Nature). It should just be a group of well-qualified scientists isolated from political opinion and whose positions and funding aren't determined by whether Washington likes what they say. Science should always be above politics, and too often the opposite is true at the FDA.
I have found that by not inhaling smoke anymore, my health has improved. I know that I am addicted to nicotine. I also know that if the FDA bans this device, I will go back to smoking , because I obey the law and am addicted to nicotine. I will lose my re-found ability to taste my food . I will get winded by jogging or climbing stairs again. I will smell like smoke again. My teeth and fingers will become restained.
If the FDA bans this far safer and healthier method of ingesting nicotine, I will go back to inhaling 4000 harmful chemicals and 43 known carcinogens--
Instead of just nicotine, water, flavor, and PEG.
The FDA would only do this at the behest of big Tobacco( cigarettes ) and big Pharma(cessation aids)
This pis$es me off. >:|
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.