| |
FDA
Report Validates Previous Scientific Data. Findings Verify Claims By
Manufacturers That Electronic Cigarettes
Are Safer Than the Leading Tobacco Brand Cigarette.
On
July 22, 2009 the FDA released the results of its own independent
study of the electronic cigarette. The findings verify previous test
results (1) which
validate the
electronic
cigarette is up to 1,400
times safer than the leading brand of cigarettes.
This is GREAT news for Electronic Cigarette users.
Previous studies on the e-cig (verified by the FDA Report) only show
that electronic cigarettes contain very low levels (8.2 ng/g) of Tobacco-Specific
Nitrosamines versus 11,190 ng/g
for the leading tobacco cigarette.
|
Product |
NNN |
NNK |
NAT |
NAB |
Total |
|
Electronic cigarettes (2) |
3.87 |
1.46 |
2.16 |
0.693 |
8.20 |
|
Camel (1) |
3,100 |
1,400 |
2,800 |
150 |
7,450 |
|
Skoal
(1) |
4,500 |
470 |
4,100 |
220 |
9,290 |
|
Marlboro (1) |
4,300 |
1,800 |
4,900 |
190 |
11,190 |
(1) Laugesen
M. Safety Report on the
Ruyan e-cigarette Cartridge and Inhaled Aerosol. Christchurch, New
Zealand: Health New Zealand Ltd, 2008. (Link)
Perhaps even more important than the findings of the FDA is
what the FDA did NOT find.
The test did not
reveal any of the 60 other known carcinogens (shown below)2 that
are found in traditional tobacco products nor stated any other new
dangers or findings that could conclude that the electronic
cigarette is dangerous.
2 Known
carcinogens found in tobacco cigarettes. (NOT found in Electronic
Cigarettes)
Acetaldehyde
Acetamide Acrylamide Acrylonitrile 2-Amino-3,4-dimethyl-3H-imidazo[4,5-f]quinoline
(MeIQ) 3-Amino-1,4-dimethyl-5H-pyrido [4,3-b]indole (Trp-P-1)
2-Amino-l-methyl-6-phenyl-1H-imidazo [4,5-b]pyridine (PhlP)
2-Amino-6-methyldipyrido[1,2-a:3',2'-d]imidazole (Glu-P-1)
3-Amino-l-methyl-5H-pyrido {4,3-b]indole (Trp-P-2
2-Amino-3-methyl-9H-pyrido[2,3-b]indole (MeAaC)
2-Amino-9H-pyrido[2,3-b]indole (AaC) 4-Aminobiphenyl
2-Aminodipyrido[1,2-a:3',2'-d]imidazole (Glu-P-2) 0-Anisidine
Arsenic Benz[a]anthracene Benzene Benzo[a]pyrene
Benzo[b]fluoranthene Benzo[j]fluoranthene Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Benzo[b]furan Beryllium 1,3-Butadiene Cadmium Catechol
(1,2-benzenediol) p-Chloroaniline Chloroform Cobalt p,p'-DDT
Dibenz[a,h]acridine Dibenz[a,j]acridine Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
7H-Dibenzo[c,g]carbazole Dibenzo(a,e)pyrene Dibenzo(a,i)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)pyrene Dibenzo(a,i)pyrene Dibenzo(a,l)pyrene
3,4-Dihydroxycinnam ic acid (caffeic acid) Ethylbenzene Ethylene
oxide Formaldehyde Furan Glycidol Heptachlor Hydrazine
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene IQ 92-Amino-3-methyl-3H-imidazo[4,5-f]quinoline)
Isoprene Lead 5-Methyl-chrysene 2-Naphthylamine Nitrobenzene
Nitrogen mustard Nitromethane 2-Nitropropane N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
(NDBA) N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine (NDPA) N-Nitrosodiethanolamine (NDELA)
N-Nitrosodiethylamine (DEN) N-Nitrosodimethylamine (DMN) N-Nitrosoethylmethylamine
(NEMA, MEN) 4-(N-Nitrosomethylamino)-1-(3-pyridinyl)-1-butanone
(NNK) N'-Nitrosonornicotine (NNN) N-Nitrosopiperidine (NPIP, NPP) N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
(NPYR, NPY) Polonium-210 (Radon 222) Propylene oxide Safrole Styrene
Tetrachloroethylene o-Toluidine (2-methylaniline) Trichloroethylene
Urethane (carbamic acid, ethyl ester) Vinyl acetate Vinyl chloride
4-Vinylcyclohexene 2,6-Xylidine (2,6-dimethylaniline)
Dr. Michael Siegel
MD, Boston University states “The FDA and anti-smoking groups are
comparing electronic cigarettes to a solution of spring-fresh Maine
mountain stream water. What they need to compare electronic
cigarettes to is something known as a Marlboro cigarette.”
Dr. Siegel
continues, “In addition, recent research conducted by Dr. Murray
Laugesen and Health New Zealand, LTD. reveals that the toxic
emissions score for electronic cigarettes is much lower than that of
conventional cigarettes. In fact,
the toxic emissions score -
which is a score based on the levels of 59 priority toxicants was zero for
electronic cigarettes. In contrast, it was 126 for Marlboro and
it was no lower than 100 for any brand of conventional cigarette
tested.”
We are on the verge of a major paradigm shift in the Tobacco
Industry. Be ready. When the TRUTH about the health advantages of
electronic cigarettes versus their traditional counterparts is
finally embraced by health officials and the media, a major shift to
this amazing technology will
create an incredible opportunity for the inLife
Independent Distributor.
Prepare
today for the potential growth that we believe is coming.
Prominent Public Health Physicians and Tobacco
Researchers Expose Double Standard in the FDA’s Recent Study of
Electronic Cigarettes and Challenge the FDA’s Alarmist Attitude Toward
the Devices
Contact: Thomas R. Kiklas, Director of Media, inLife LLC, 949… ext 108,
tkiklas@myinlife.com
BOSTON, July 27 /Standard Newswire/ — The FDA recently went public with
misleading information about the safety of electronic cigarettes and the
marketing of the devices, not only using its clout but recruiting other
prominent organizations to demonize a product that has great public
health benefit potential.
A group of prominent doctors and tobacco researchers, including Dr.
Michael Siegel at the Boston University School of Public Health, Dr.
Joel Nitzkin of the AAPHP Tobacco Control Task Force, and Dr. Brad Rodu,
Endowed Chair, Tobacco Harm Reduction Research University of Louisville,
challenge the FDA to provide the full quantitative data of the study
upon which the FDA has based its warning against electronic cigarettes.
They are concerned that the FDA’s disingenuous targeting of electronic
cigarettes through a biased presentation of the scientific data has had
significant negative impact upon the public perception of electronic
cigarettes, when the best available evidence suggests that these have
shown that the devices offer great potential to reduce serious health
issues among traditional tobacco smokers.
In a July 22 news release, the FDA cited the detectable presence of
carcinogens and “toxic chemicals” in a “small sample” of electronic
cigarette cartridges as reason for alarm, singling out nitrosamines as
particularly toxic. What the FDA fails to inform the public is that
detectable amounts of carcinogens are also present in nicotine
replacement products such as NicoDerm CQ and Nicorette gum, both
approved by the FDA, and nitrosamines that can be also found in food
items such bacon and beer. This double standard and alarmist attitude
has had the significant and unfortunate effect of inducing hysteria
among the public, discouraging tobacco smokers from using a product
which is thought to be a significantly safer alternative to traditional
tobacco.
Regrettably, the FDA has used biased reporting of this small and
inconclusive study, the complete results of which have not been made
public, to secure the vocal support of groups such as the American
Academy of Pediatrics Tobacco Consortium, the Institute for Global
Health, and the American Lung Association in their attack on electronic
cigarettes. These researchers argue that it is absurd to consider taking
electronic cigarettes off the market when it is the conventional ones
which have been shown to be killing people. Further, the electronic
cigarette community calls for accurate and fair reporting relative to
the findings and statements of prominent medical professionals in favor
of this new and important technology and challenges the media to tell
the other side of the story.
“The FDA’s laboratory findings actually indicate that electronic
cigarettes are much, much safer than conventional cigarettes,” says Dr.
Michael Siegel. “The traces of carcinogens present are also present in
nicotine replacement products. The FDA and the anti-smoking groups have
fallen into a huge analytical trap as they have failed to ask the
appropriate question. The question they are asking is: ‘Are electronic
cigarettes safe?’ That is not the right question. The right question is:
‘Are electronic cigarettes much safer than traditional ones?’”
Dr. Rodu states, “The FDA tested e-cigarettes for TSNAs using a
questionable sampling regimen, and the methods that were so sensitive
that the results may have no possible significance to users. The agency
failed to report specific levels of these contaminants, and it has
failed to conduct similar testing of nicotine medicines that have been
sold in the U.S. for over 20 years. These are not the actions of an
agency that is science-based and consumer-focused. These
pseudo-scientific actions are clearly intended to form the justification
for banning a category of products that are probably 99.9% safer than
cigarettes.”
Dr. Joel Nitzkin speaking as individual states, “The newly adopted
FDA/Tobacco legislation will give full FDA approval to currently
marketed conventional cigarettes. The new law encourages cigarette
companies to produce new “reduced exposure” cigarettes to be marketed as
reduced exposure products, with no scientific evidence that such
reductions in exposure will reduce risk of future tobacco related
illness and death. In the context of these provisions of the newly
adopted FDA/Tobacco bill — FDA should be encouraging, not maligning the
manufacture and sale of electronic cigarettes, and working with
manufacturers to assure the highest possible quality control.”
For more information and interviews, contact:
Michael Siegel, MD, MPH
Professor
Department of Community Health Sciences
Boston University School of Public Health
617-638-5167
Email: mbsiegel@bu.edu
Joel L. Nitzkin, MD, MPH, DPA
Chair AAPHP Tobacco Control Task Force
Phone: 504 899 7893 or 800 598 2561
Fax: 504 899 7557
jln-md@mindspring.com
www.aaphp.org
Brad Rodu
Professor of Medicine
Endowed Chair, Tobacco Harm Reduction Research
University of Louisville
Phone: 502-561-7273
Email: brad.rodu@louisville.edu
http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com
Thomas R. Kiklas
Director of Media
inLife LLC
Phone: 949-250-9600 x108
Email: tkiklas@myinlife.com |
|
