Smoking is Dumb

Warnings issued by big tobacco and big pharma about the dangers of propylene glycol are not grounded in scientific reality or backed by scientific research. After a study in mice at the University of Chicago’s Billings Hospital in 1942, it was thought that propylene glycol when inhaled might cause such diseases as pneumonia and other illnesses affecting the respiratory system. To determine long term effects followup studies on money and other animals were conducted. This larger study produced results that showed no ill effects from propylene glycol in the lungs.

In a newly discovered zeal to protect the health of hte public, tobacco companies and the FDA shout “danger” when discussing propylene glycol. It’s an interesting strategy as PG has been proven safe and accepted by the FDA for years. The warnings ignore the elephant in the room. E-cigarettes are safer than tobacco. Almost anything you inhale is safer than smoking tobacco.

In e-cigarettes propylene glycol is used to dilute the nicotine and provide a solution that can be vaporized and deliver nicotine to the e-smoker. PG is a commonly used food additive and is the substance used in fog machines. It also appears on the label of ingredients of many of the food products we routinely buy.

The warnings of the dangers of PG do not come from researchers, doctors or scientific journals. Online sites issuing warnings are full of anecdotal (and seemingly imaginary) stories and are blogs often devoted to conspiracy theories. Several comments contain the statement that “propylene glycol is antifreeze”. Well, no, it isn’t. That would be ethylene glycol. Natural healing sites and anti-smoking groups are also quick to talk about potential danger of the use of PG.

A fantastic amount of information can be found online but it’s important to know who you are listening when accepting information as fact. Baby wipes contain PG and it’s difficult to imagine the FDA making claims that a product freely allowed for use on infants is now unsafe for adults. The PG delivered to the user by the best electronic cigarettes is minimal. Some e-liquid suppliers use glycerol as a base for their nicotine solution rather than propylene glycol.

Consumers are smart to closely examine ingredients in the products they eat or inhale. We have all become more educated about food additives that may cause problems even as they add healthy color. We know to check for a variety of terms when looking for low sugar product as sucrose, fructose and various “syrups” are alternate names for sugar.

The saccharin scare thirty years ago is a valuable example of the folly of acting on incomplete information and drawing incorrect conclusions. The FDA banned saccharine which was a very popular sweetener used as an additive in many packaged foods and. The FDA stated saccharin had caused cancer in mice and panic ensued. Companies lost a lot of money in changing the ingredients in their products and the public tossed out boxes of Sweet and Low which was a popular saccharin product.

To induce cancer in mice who ingested saccharin researchers had provided extremely high doses of the ingredient. The scientific “proof” offered by the FDA was rejected by the scientific community. The affected mice were given a daily dose of saccharin that could only be ingested by a human drinking 400 cans of diet cola a day for many months. Saccharin is totally available to the marketplace today.

Propylene glycol is a necessary ingredient for delivery of e-cig vapor. There is no evidence ths PG causes any danger to electronic smokers despite the efforts of tobacco companies worried about the competition.

Mary Kay Rivers has become a true expert on all facets of electronic cigarettes. Her publications about the less harmful electronic cigarettes for COPD patients and about the best electronic cigarette are very famous.

The first statements about safety concerns of electronic cigarettes were issued by the FDA in a way that suggested a government agency bowing to pressure exerted by big tobacco. For the FDA to mention banning a product before testing had been conducted is not the way that government agency usually conducts its business.

The danger of using tobacco has been scientifically documented for more than forty years. That is when warnings first appeared on cigarette packs advising users of the danger posed by smoking cigarettes. The warning language used in the U.S. is some of the weakest required in the world and only last year did the FDA decide to begin regulating tobacco products. Regulations applied to a single industry have the effect of making it harder for competitors to gain a foothold in the market. For this reason alone tobacco companies claimed to welcome new oversight by the FDA.

After various expressions of concern, the FDA banned importation of e-cigarette supplies from China. The ban was imposed in 2009 affecting the world’s biggest exporter of e-cig supplies. When announcing the ban, the FDA claimed concern that underage users would be tempted by flavored e-liquids and become addicted to nicotine. No proof or studies were offered as evidence for this concern.

In a decision handed down by a Federal Judge on January 15, 2010, the FDA was ordered to lift the import ban that affected electronic cigarettes. The FDA was criticized for aggressive efforts focused on turning a recreational product into one designated as a device or drug that could then be regulated out of existence.

The new tobacco division created last year within the FDA was formed to perform the new FDA duties of regulating the contents and marketing claims of tobacco products. The court stated the same legislation that created oversight of tobacco products would also apply to the alternative electronic cigarettes.

Responding to the court decision brought a charge from the FDA about “health issues” surrounding e-cigarettes. It appears the youth argument didn’t sway the court so a new “reason” was presented. Tobacco companies stand firmly behind the FDA efforts to eliminate electronic cigarettes. What could be better than to have a government agency strike down your competition?

Allowing the FDA to set standards and restrictions on e-cigs that are not a requirement for tobacco would create an unfair market. There would be a significant increase in the cost of e-cigarettes which would benefit tobacco producers who can’t compete with the low cost of electronic alternatives.

The court decision defined a need to scrutinize the relationships that exist between tobacco companies, pharmaceutical concerns and the FDA. Taxes from the sales of tobacco products put billions of dollars in federal and state government coffers annually. Many of the attempts to create fear of electronic smoking alternatives seem to be more concerned with the financial bottom line than with the protection of public health the FDA is charged with. Had big tobacco been the industry that introduced and promoted electronic cigarettes it is doubtful a controversy would exist.

The unusual steps taken by the FDA have created their own controversy about the focus of this government agency. The FDA has never proposed banning tobacco products to protect the health of the public. Traditionally, the FDA issues statements and warnings and takes action only after conducting full scientific testing. In the case of the FDA vs electronic cigarette manufacturers, the FDA has ignored testing to develop standards and instead has focused on finding reasons to ban a product that is arguably safer than the product it may eventually replace.

Mary Kay Rivers is an acclaimed expert on all facets of e-cigarettes. Her publications the history of e-cigarettes and about the best electronic cigarette are well-known.