The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently published data pertaining to the dangers associated with secondhand vapor, but their claims about toxicity and exposure went unsupported.

 

In a study conducted by the CDC, published in the journal Preventing Chronic Disease, researchers provided results from their U.S. based survey. This survey was conducted in an attempt to gather public opinion about the dangers of secondhand vaping for kids. The results stated, “Overall, 5.3% of adults responded that secondhand EVP exposure caused “no harm” to children, 39.9% responded “little harm” or “some harm,” 21.5% responded “a lot of harm,” and 33.3% responded “don’t know.””

This data led the aforementioned researchers to conclude that current smokers alongside vapers were more likely to consider secondhand vapor as harmless. The researchers stated, “Current cigarette smokers and EVP users had greater odds of reporting that exposure to secondhand EVP aerosol causes “no harm” or “little harm” or “some harm” to children compared with never cigarette smokers and never EVP users. However, scientific evidence indicates that EVP aerosol exhaled into the air potentially exposes nonusers to aerosolized nicotine and other harmful and potentially harmful substances, including heavy metals, ultrafine particulates, and volatile organic compounds.”

This begs the question: is secondhand vapor actually toxic for those who breathe it in? A publication by health expert Dr. Michael Siegel stated that in spite of evidence to the contrary, what is important here is that the CDC is implying that the people who perceived little or no harm are in the wrong, and because of this the general public needs to be better educated about vaping and secondhand vapor.

Understand that the opening line to the study stated, “The US Surgeon General has concluded that e- cigarette aerosol is not harmless and can contain harmful and potentially harmful chemicals, including nicotine.”

Dr. Siegel has pointed out that this level of misinformation is going to encourage unreasonable legislation, and it is going to scare off smokers who might be vacillating about safer alternatives to traditional tobacco cigarettes. In essence, the CDC did not take into consider that, according to Dr. Siegel, “one of the major principles of environmental health, which is that the dose of exposure to a chemical is critical in assessing its health impact.” Moreover, the fact that the aerosol emitted has nicotine and other toxic chemicals in it does not mean that the vapor itself is harmful. Toxicity in these cases is contingent entirely upon, “the levels of these chemicals in ambient air under actual (real-life) conditions and the duration of exposure.”

Moreover, Dr. Siegel expounded further that, “To date, there is no evidence that there is any substantial exposure to harmful chemicals in real-life situations that most adults and children encounter. On the contrary, there is evidence that secondhand “vapor” dissipates rapidly and that exposure to nicotine and other chemicals is very low”.

What Dangers Arise from Inaccurate Claims

When inaccurate or misleading claims are made, as they were by the CDC in this instance, there are many dangers which arise. People like Dr. Siegel have in fact encouraged further education about risks associated with vaping for the general public, alongside several other health experts. Yet, inaccurate information is being spread in an attempt to exaggerate the current level of harm or increase the level of alarm toward e-cigarettes and vaping. Such behavior is not only unprofessional, but unethical. Misleading the public, whether it is because one is being paid by the big tobacco industries to do so, or because of a personal political move one stands to gain by shutting down the industry, it is still unethical and unprofessional. It is entirely unacceptable.This falsehood will not only encourage unreasonable policies, but it will steer smokers away from a proven safer alternatives that stands to potentially save their lives.

Cole-Bishop legislation is still alive. This piece of groundbreaking, bipartisan legislation has survived the tumultuous political landscape of the current American Congress. Vaping advocates the world over can breathe a sigh of relief knowing that their current battle is not over yet.

 

There has been a great deal of talk regarding HR 1136, otherwise known as the Cole-Bishop legislation. This piece of legislation was written and introduced to the Congressional floor before. It served to help establish standards for the vaping industry, and countered then-FDA attempts to stifle the growth of this great industry. With so much talk about this key piece of legislation, it is easy to see how so many readers became inundated with misinformation. But now is the time for some clarification.

So, what is it?

This bill was introduced by Congressmen Sanford Bishop, the Democrat from Georgia, alongside Tom Cole a Republican from Oklahoma. The Cole-Bishop Amendment served as a reminder to the people that the vaping community still had friends on the Hill. The amendment helped to protect options among the vaping community. Previous legislation tried to force users to only buy things on the market from 2007 going back, which would kill any ability to produce new products. This amendment known as “The FDA Deeming Authority Clarification Act of 2017’’ decided enough was enough and that the FDA could not kill the vaping industry with regulations, it should help the vaping industry instead.

Status Announcement for HR 1136

So, to begin with, let’s clear some things up. VTA members and members of the OHVTA have worked hard to get Cole-Bishop introduced into the federal budget. These same individuals have confirmed that the standalone bill has a chance of being added into negotiations for future federal budget debates. As such, this is no time to be grieving for the loss of potential growth. This is the time to focus on fighting the good fight for the vaping community.

Vape Advocates need a change. They need a victory. And this bill was originally thought of as that potential victory, before many believed it to be dead on arrival. Well, now is the time to celebrate the rebirth of this bill and the rebirth of change. For a long time vape advocates thought that HR 1136 was done for. Why? Misinterpretations, miscommunications & misunderstandings. Sure, there is still a chance that it will be defeated in the future, that it will not make it into the federal budget, or that when it finally does it will not look anything like the original bill. But these possibilities do not mean that worst is here. They do not mean the bill is dead, or that the vaping community has no chance at real change or progress. It just means that the fight is not over. Moreover, it means that many among the vaping community did not have a thorough understanding of how the American democratic process worked, and they perhaps incorrectly believed that the previous version of the bill was killed on the Congressional floor, never to be heard of again.

The truth of the matter is that many times bills are introduced and people get their hopes up. They are excited for change. Then nothing happens. That bill sits around, gathering dust, waiting for a co-sponsor. During this time people lose the last of their hope. That bill though, might still stand a chance, it might still survive. Many times bills have been considered dead, and then were revised, renegotiated, and given a new life. Older bills are often reviewed and brought back to the bargaining table in the future. It is really all about who is willing to fight for them, and who is willing to make compromises in the process.

American politics are not as simple as one might think. The legislative process is also not all rainbows and butterflies, nor pure democratic. The reality of the political situation is that most of the negotiations for bills happens behind the scenes and is reliant upon co-sponsorship, which is built out of personal relationships among those who want to see change. That said, once a bill is drafted, in order for it to really move forward, there has to be lobbying behind the scenes by special interests advocates. There have to be relationships cultivated and deals made.

Sure, this bill was among the last to be chosen but that is hardly what is most important here. Whether the bill was the first one to be picked for the team or the last one to be picked for the team, what is important is that it was picked. October was the month to look out for because it is the month when the federal budget is voted upon. It is also the time when Cole-Bishop will be selected by Congressional members to be included in the financial discussions. In order to avoid a Congressional shut down in the past, this bill had been hastily shoved onto the playing field. Regardless of what circumstances brought this to pass, the vaping community should be grateful for the opportunity.

Moving Forward

Now, the fact that it is still alive does not mean the work is done. There are lots of things left to do. Now is the time to move forward and remain optimistic about the legislation. Positive attitudes, messages of support to representatives, all of that can go a long way toward fueling the determination of special advocates lobbying on the Hill for vaping rights right now. In spite of attempts by Congress to stifle the progress of the industry, or members of Congress choosing not to support the ill, there is still hope that soon enough the Cole-Bishop bipartisan bill, HR 1136, will find its way into the federal budget soon enough. Each year that passes just means a few setbacks, but it does not mean all is lost.

Keep a Positive Attitude

With so much still up in the air, it is important for members of the vaping community to take a step back and reflect upon what their representatives in the field have to say about the issues at hand, the political landscape, and what moves need to be made going forward.

James Jarvis, the president of the Ohio Vapor Trade Association remained positive when he stated, “The fact that Cole-Bishop did not make it into the budget package should not have us hanging our heads! This was not a failure by any means, we actually were on the board and a part of the solution. This means we were getting their attention. This also means that we will now be able to see where we missed the target so we can be even better prepared for the opportunity to have Cole-Bishop added in October to that budget. We actually made it to the dance!! We have never done that before, it is unprecedented in this industry! It motivates me even more to get out there and educate them. WE are a community of winners! We are all living proof that this works….Lets get out and let them know we are still here and need their support. We made it to the goal line and now we just need a huge surge from the team to push it into the end zone! We have 5 months from today to execute the perfect drive. Let’s Go!”

Tony Abboud, the executive director of the VTA has been rather open about the future of this bill and the industry at large. He could well be considered one of the best lobbyists the vaping community has on their side and it is evident that his hard work and professionalism has already helped countless Americans and vaping businesses. Here’s hoping it will only continue to do so.

Mr. Abboud stated, “The support we received for Cole-Bishop from members on both sides of the aisle is unprecedented and sets the stage for future legislative victories for the vapor industry. VTA is committed to looking beyond the FY 2017 appropriations cycle and fighting for passage of bipartisan language to change the predicate date and address the FDA’s deeming regulation in other legislative vehicles, such as HR 1136 and the FY 2018 appropriations process which already has started. This was a significant step forward in VTA’s multi-faceted federal strategy to ensure that the vapor industry gets the relief it needs now to keep these life changing products on the market.” It will certainly take many years until everyone learns how to negotiate using the right communication skills with the right people.

To better understand the imperative role the VTA plays in all of this, just read what the Vapor Technology Association had to say about the treacherous political waters of D.C. politics:

“VTA has been working closely with Breathe Easier Alliance of Alabama (BEAA) on an administration strategy for the past couple months. Last week, we met with senior leadership at HHS emphasizing the need to re-evaluate the deeming regulation. Earlier today, Stacey Hamilton, President of BEAA and VTA Board Member, informed us that FDA sought an extension of its briefing schedule in Cyclops Vapor v. FDA so that the FDA could re-evaluate the deeming. Sure enough, this afternoon FDA announced that it is doing so in all cases and that it is going to issue guidance to defer enforcement of all future compliance deadlines for all newly deemed products by an additional 3 months so that new leadership at the FDA and the Department of Health and Human Services can have additional time to more fully consider issues raised by the final rule that are now the subject of multiple lawsuits. This is an important step forward in our D.C. efforts.”

It isn’t over until the fat lady sings…

So, let’s reiterate: The Cole-Bishop Amendment is still doing well. One of the first pieces of the bill was not included in the federal budget but the most recent installment of the bill, nonetheless, still stands. So, with a lot of continued hard work, hope, and a smidge of lucky, within the next few months one can easily imagine it being brought into the budget. This is certainly not the end of this bill and with additional support by representatives like Duncan Hunter and members of the vaping community, real change is on the horizon.

It is imperative that the vaping community be grateful toward the advocates who have come together in support of the right to vape. This type of unity is clearly powerful, and with hope in legislation still alive and kicking, it is time for users everywhere to rekindle the fire for vaping and take a stand alongside representatives.

Results from a recent air sample confirm that the amount of  toxic substances present in air where vaping is taking place are insignificant.

 

Air sampling throughout vape shops has been conducted by the California Department of Public Health. The project is part of a larger initiative designed to test air samples in vape shops around the state to determine the health impact of secondhand vape exposure.

 

Dr. Michael Siegel stated that the results for the report were only taken from small, non-ventilated vape shops. This is clearly not an accurate representation of vape shops or the air therein across the state. But this was not their only scientific sin. The study also only visited vape shops where the employees and total 13 customers were actively vaping while the sample was taking place. This is important because situations, where active vaping is going on, will produce a high level of exposure to secondhand vapor. Combined, the subject vape shops presented unfavorable conditions, something that should have stopped the publication from seeing the light of day.

 

Yet, perhaps most impressive is that in spite of these unprofessional attempts to rig the game, so to speak, the results still showed no dangerous levels of exposure to hazardous chemicals. Dr. Michael Siegel pointed out, “This study, although conducted under very high exposure conditions in a small, non-ventilated vape shop with many employees and customers vaping and clouds of vapor visible, did not document any dangerous levels of exposure to any hazardous chemical.”

The results of the study found the following outcomes in the air samples:

 Nicotine: Not detected

 Glycidol: Not detected

 Formaldehyde: 7.2 ppb

 Diacetyl: Not detected using standard method

 2,3-Pentanedione: Not detected using standard method

 Acetyl butyryl: Not detected using standard method

 Acetoin: Not detected using standard method

 Acetone: Not detected

 Ethyl benzene: Not detected

 m,p-Xylene: Not detected

 o-Xylene: Not detected

 Toluene: Not detected

 Acetaldehyde: Not detected

 Acetonitrile: Not detected

 alpha-pinene: Not detected

 Benzene: Not detected

 Chloroform: Not detected

 d-Limonene: Not detected

 Methylene chloride: Not detected

 Methyl methacrylate: Not detected

 n-Hexane: Not detected

 Styrene: Not detected

Fears of Formaldehyde

One of the things most disconcerting to readers about the results is the presence of formaldehyde. Associated with mortuaries, it is important to note that the levels detected in this study are actually consistent with normal levels found in all air indoors and outdoors. Much like radiation being present in each body, there is formaldehyde present too.

 

Dr. Siegel stated that, “This study, although conducted under very high exposure conditions in a small, non-ventilated vape shop with many employees and customers vaping and clouds of vapor visible, did not document any dangerous levels of exposure to any hazardous chemical. Nicotine exposure was essentially non-existent. Formaldehyde exposure was no different than in many indoor and outdoor environments at baseline. Acetone, acetoin, other aldehydes, toluene, benzene, and xylene were not detected. Chemicals that have been associated with “popcorn lung” were also not detected by the standard method.”

 

No Justification Found for Government Bans

The results are in—literally. The compromised standards and outcomes of this study are evidence to the fact that even in the most extreme of real-life conditions, secondhand vaping poses no significant health threats. Based on this evidence, and the other evidence out there, experts are struggling to find a reason or governments ban vaping in public spaces. Dr. Siegel pointed out that, “With regards to vaping, I just don’t see any reasonable evidence at this time that it poses any significant health hazard to bystanders.”

Data from a new study compared e-cigarette vapor to cigarette tobacco smoke confirm that there is no evidence to support that vaping products propagate cancer.

A new study conducted by BioReliance compared tumor promotion from e-cigarettes and cigarettes by using the in vitro Bhas 42 cell transformation assay. This study, funded by British American Tobacco was published in Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, measured cigarette emissions from a king size cigarette with a tobacco blend using a cellulous acetate filter with an ISO tar yield of 9.4 mg. On the other end, it measured vapor emissions from a Vype ePen that had a closed modular system, a rechargeable battery, and a replaceable cartridge with 18mg/mL of nicotine. This study, the first of a series of tests currently funded by British American Tobacco, is comparing the biological impacts of e-cigarettes to conventional cigarettes.

Now the question remains: how many more need to be completed before the findings are accepted? Similar studies have been completed by Public Health England with one by British American Tobacco. This study found that vaping was between 95-99% safer compared to smoking. Data taken from this latest research noted that cigarette smoke contained cancer-promoting agents while e-cigarettes did not. So what does this mean? That e-cigarettes are safer than combustible counterparts.

Data from the latest New Zealand study supports figures previously published in 2016 by Public Health England, showing vaping to be 95% safer than traditional smoking.

 

In a study authored by researchers Jinsong Chen, Chris Bullen and Kim Dirks from the School of Population Health, Faculty of Medical and Health Science at the University of Auckland conducted, new findings confirmed previous research. This study sought to measure the risks posed by e-cigarettes when compared to regular cigarettes. While studies of this nature have been conducted before, the entire purpose behind the scientific process and having scientific publications is to provide the field and experts therein with the opportunity to recreate published work and verify the findings. These authors did just that. The authors noted that five hazards presented average levels of exposure in traditional cigarette emissions, and only two hazards in e-cigarettes. The authors stated that, “Although some studies have identified hazardous substances in electronic cigarette (EC) liquids and emissions, there is limited information about the health risks of using ECs.”

In an effort to measure the risks, the researchers relied upon the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) health risk assessment model. The toxicants listed in their literature review are those which are most commonly associated with health problems, and only these most common toxicants were measured in the study.

In order for the researchers to evaluate the findings and measure risks, they used dose-response relationship conditions and standard-use conditions. After that all figures were compared to the international guidelines levels for each toxin.

The findings of the study reveal that e-cigarettes have less toxins and what toxins are present, are found

at a lower rate compared to regular cigarettes. The authors stated, “Our findings provide evidence that

supports the Public Health England statement but was arrived at by applying a different methodology”.

Four dangerous substances were found in e-cigarette emissions:

 Acrolein

 diethylene glycol

 propylene glycol

 cadmium

Seven dangerous substances were found in combustible cigarettes

 Acetaldehyde

 Acrolein

 Formaldehyde

 cadmium,

 CO

 4-(methylnitrosamino)- 1-(3- pyridyl)-1- butanone (NNK)

 N’-nitrosonornicotine (NNN)

Following with previous studies these researchers found that combustible cigarettes had higher emissions.

The conclusion?

“Our findings provide evidence that supports the Public Health England statement but was arrived at by applying a different methodology. Although we are aware that some smokers had been smoking for decades, the main purpose of this study is to explore whether they will be exposed to a lower risk of harm by changing to vaping. Hence, no matter how long a smoker had smoked, the probable benefits of changing his/her source of nicotine consumption from CCs to ECs for a year should be very similar. This study leads to two conclusions: that the use of ECs presents a lower risk to health than the use of CCs, and that ECs are likely to be of low health risk to the user.”

A state senator from New York has proposed legislation banning e-liquid flavors, legislation based on inaccurate facts.

 

In New York, vaping products have been on the defense. Proposals were submitted in favor of banning discount coupons for vaping products. After that the Health Commissioner wrote a letter which urged doctors to avoid suggesting vaping products as an alternative to tobacco products. Most recently, a state senator by the name of Brad Holyman, a democrat from Manhattan, has fought hard against different e-liquid flavors. He promoted this ban by saying that cigarette companies had been luring children into vaping by selling different flavors like cotton candy, gummy bear, and fruit punch. Holyman stated that these flavors only existed to get kids hooked on nicotine so that Big Tobacco would have a new generation of customers.

Dr. Michael Siegel stated that, “Instead of just telling the truth, the senator decided to lie and tell people that Big Tobacco is the culprit for marketing these flavors.”

Siegel pointed out that none of the flavors mentioned by the state senator are produced by Big Tobacco. Not a single company is producing fruit punch, cotton candy, or gummy bear flavored e-cigarettes. This use of inaccurate facts shows how the senator was trying to generate a sentiment of mistrust among the public toward Big Tobacco.

These flavors, mentioned by the state senator, are produced by independent companies with no connection to tobacco companies. Siegel suggested that, “However, that apparently does not make a good enough story to support this legislation. So instead of just telling the truth, the senator decided to lie and tell people that Big Tobacco is the culprit for marketing these flavors.” In addition to the fact that this state senator is attempting to make public laws based on incorrect information, the bigger picture is far bleaker.

It was concluded by a public health activist that aside from the fact that this proposal was based on lies, there are other reasons it is a bad idea. Studies have uncovered that what motivated adult smokers to change from deadly cigarettes to a safer e-cigarette alternative is precisely because of the many flavors available. Studies have shown e-cigarettes to be 95% safer by comparison. As such, one has to conclude that were the state senator’s proposal for banning e-liquid flavors actually be approved, the result would be a negative impact on public health; fewer smokers would be inclined to make the switch to the healthier and safer alternative.

The GOP is currently taking its new agenda out for a stroll, an agenda of sweeping deregulation and economy policy. It is thanks to Republican senator Tom Cole and Democratic senator Sanford Bishop that demands of displeased and hardworking Americans have been heard!

 

With research and news on vaping, it is evident that all of the journalists, interested writers, and even vaping information providers have focused on one piece of legislation in particular. While this one piece is critical, there is a lot more out there in Congress that people need to be made aware of. Regardless, that single amendment is a wonderful achievement and deserves some attention. It is an achievement not just for the vape industry but for the people and for Congress. The bill has another term used on it, a term that many Americans have long since stopped hoping to hear.

Bipartisan

In America, bipartisan legislation was once normal. Both sides of the aisle worked together well to get the newest legislation important or American citizens pushed through Congress. Issues related to health were issues everyone could get behind. But lately that has not been the case. America has not seen this level of partnering for some time… until now that is. Now, this newest vaping related bill was a bipartisan effort, introduced to Congress by a member of the Democratic and Republican parties respectively. Congressmen Sanford Bishop, the Democrat from Georgia, alongside Tom Cole a Republican from Oklahoma went to Capitol Hill to present a new piece of legislation for the vaping industry.

The Cole-Bishop Amendment is a reminder to the people about how a desirable goal can be achieved on both sides of the aisle. This piece of legislation is one bit of hope for the vaping community and industry at large. It is one that has the power to set precedent.

Highlights of the New Amendment

So, what is in this oh-so- important amendment? Well, this deal helped to protect options among the vaping community. Previous legislation sought to force users to only buy what was made available back in 2007 or go without. This piece of legislation changed all that. The amendment, known as “The FDA Deeming Authority Clarification Act of 2017’’is truly one of the most important pieces of hope this diverse industry has at its fingertips. FDA regulations it is fighting were trying to destroy this industry of innovation and entrepreneurs.

Opposition to Vaping Encourages Smoking

Right now many independent vape shop owners in America and eLiquid manufacturers are at odds with the political community, taking a beating. And vapers in America are not happy. To many people this lack of political support is shocking, at best. Smoking regular cigarettes brings with it an array of serious health concerns that many in the vaping community would think politicians want to stop. Moreover, it seems that a dozen or so of the U.S. public servants have no idea what is truly at stake and have opted to avoid personal research and instead simply taken a stand against e-vaping. These same political opponents are ignoring the facts and deeming FDA rule over the regulation. In reality, the people who are actively opposing e-cigarettes are really encouraging people to embrace regular smoking instead, in spite of any health concerns.

Vaping Industry Needs Cole-Bishop

This new piece of legislation came just in time. The vaping industry needed a friend on Capitol Hill and it got one. The vape community supported this bill, as well they should have, because it had the potential to amend the FDA naming for new e-cigarettes and vaping products, ensuring that the licensing and advertising guidelines therein were practical. Moreover, the results of this bill would encourage the FDA to insert product standards for the e-cigarette batteries.

Regardless of who is for and against vaping on Capitol Hill, vapers all over have to come together to support important legislation for the vaping community, especially when that legislation has to do with FDA regulations. Such gains can bring the vaping community closer together, as everyone looks toward a brighter future for the vaping industry.

It is imperative that the vape community get involved everywhere in support of local and national level legislation that supports or aides the industry. It is more important though to read the details of all current and past legislation yourself, developing your own interpretations. Deregulation can, sometimes, be a form of regulation in and of itself.

It is time for people to acknowledge what is real about e-cigarettes and the vaping industry, and to be proactive politically. There is a large scale war on vaping when there really shouldn’t be. This bipartisan effort did not see any co-sponsors early on, leaving all of the responsibility and burden on the shoulders of these two men who dared come together for the sake of the greater American good.

What they have already accomplished was impressive, to be sure. But there is still more work to be done. Solidarity between political rivals and the community at large will help this industry to really grow.

Headlines in Nature journal implicate e-cigarettes in a study on nicotine impacts and cultured smooth muscle-like cells, and many readers are being misled.

 

A new scientific article [1] hit the pages of Nature with some rather alarming information about e- cigarettes. This frightening title read: “Myofibroblast differentiation and its functional properties are inhibited by nicotine and e-cigarette via mitochondrial OXPHOS complex III“. The findings of this research were funded by a grant from China, revealing that nicotine inhibited myofibroblast differentiation. It also found that the impact of nicotine and e-cigarettes were similar.

Something is not right…

This study should raise a few eyebrows here and there. The physiological process written about, that of cellular transformation into myofibroblasts, is one which enables tissue repair and promotes fibrosis. The impact of nicotine in this area is not new and was written about in 2005 when researchers looked at the inhibition of myofibroblast differentiation [2] and found that smokers who ingested nicotine did not heal from regular wounds as quickly as nonsmokers. This study was actually a reproduction of an older study [3]. Chilean researchers found that cigarette smoke could stimulate cell survival depending on the levels of nicotine [4]. Wei Lei, Isaac K. Sundar, Irfan Rahman and Chad Lerner, who authored the current study out of the University of Rochester Medical Center (Rochester, NY, USA) bought nicotine e-liquid and used dry ice as the condensate.

What is surprising is that concerns were raised about e-cigarette nicotine when nicotine comes from so many sources beyond e-cigarettes. It comes from hookahs, snus, nicotine sprays, cigars, and of course, cigarettes. This work is intentionally misleading by failing to mention the myriad other sources from which nicotine could be derived. At the very least, the work should have mentioned this in the end of their publication, where normal scientists and researchers state limitations of the study and where future researchers could take the study one step further. It would have been better for these authors to clearly state at the end of their work that they did not compare the nicotine from the other aforementioned sources, but a future study could stand to compare all of them for the sake of determining which method of nicotine is the safest.

The authors stated that they used an unbiased approach to their work and held themselves to rigorous standards. Yet, there is not a single reference in their work to the type of e-liquid used for the experiments. This should have been stated in the very beginning, in the abstract and then again in the methodology. More importantly, they did not mention the final concentrations of CO2 or nicotine used in the medium inside of which cells were soaked. Their paper lacked any mention of relative concentrations of VG or PG within the e-liquids. Unfortunately, these are not the only sins committed.

The paper protocol does not take into account that previous research showed an eGo battery like the one they used, was able to burn e-liquid in dry puffs and release excess amounts of formaldehyde and acrolein when used with a vaping machine. Clearly, their literature review was incomplete. As was their methodology.

So many questions left unanswered

Now, one must ask how e-cigarette condensate at 0.1% or 0.25% really compare with the 100 μM or 1 mM Sigma nicotine. One must ask how much carbon dioxide from e-cigarette condensate at 0.1% or 0.25% compared to the 5% concentrate added to the medium. Finally, one must ask how impacted the pH of the medium is and whether that medium is viable for cultured cells.

Nature actually stated that in order for any work to be considered for publication, it “must be technically sound original research, without any requirement for impact or a conceptual advance.” This particular article raises questions about that, and clearly does not meet with the “strict” editorial requirements. If this study truly conformed to the “NIH standards of reproducibility and scientific rigor”, as testified by the authors, then it stands to reason that in the future, NIH studies might better serve their readers if they are held to a second round of rigor from within the international community. It should be a surprise that this level of poor work was not caught during the editorial process and removed before it was published.

Now it seems that the only solution is to demand better editorial standards, encourage another round of editing from within the community, and force scientific publications like this one to raise their standards to what was once a widely accepted level of science.

[1] Lei, W., Lerner, C., Sundar, I. K., & Rahman, I. (2017). Myofibroblast differentiation and its functional properties are inhibited by nicotine and e-cigarette via mitochondrial OXPHOS complex III. Scientific Reports, 7, 43213.

[2] Fang, Y., & Svoboda, K. K. (2005). Nicotine inhibits myofibroblast differentiation in human gingival fibroblasts. Journal of cellular biochemistry, 95(6), 1108-1119.

[3] Campanile, G., Hautmann, G., & Lotti, T. (1998). Cigarette smoking, wound healing, and face-lift. Clinics in dermatology, 16(5), 575-578.

[4] Silva, D., Cáceres, M., Arancibia, R., Martínez, C., Martínez, J., & Smith, P. C. (2012). Effects of cigarette smoke and nicotine on cell viability, migration and myofibroblastic differentiation. Journal of periodontal research, 47(5), 599-607.

Independent quality checks have been conducted for e-liquids to confirm what is written on labels, whether it is the same as what was written in samples. Researchers have answers that help paint a better picture of the future issues for e-liquids.

 

American based researchers from three institutions came together to analyze e-liquid and vapors so that they could determine a way to improve e-liquid quality. These researchers from the UN University of Maryland College Park, Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, and the University of Maryland Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Baltimore and the University of Maryland College Park have all sided for the establishment of standards in e-liquid production. Furthermore, they have argued in favor of a certified reference material, CRM.

The British Standards Institution (BSI) and the Association Française de Normalisation (AFNOR), have such standards which state that e-liquids must be composed of a well-defined recipe with specific ingredients mixed in accordance with industry protocols. In hopes of bringing some of those standards to the United States, these researchers have tested different e-liquid for impurities, stability, and the concentration of nicotine. They vaporized the liquids and analyzed the outcomes.

For the analysis, they used techniques including the Gas Chromatography Mass spectrometry (GC-MS) for organic compounds. For the physical vapor measurements they used particle sizing (Aerodynamical Particle Sizer). For metals and particle size, they used Inductively Coupled Plasma – Optical Emission Spectrometry (ICP – OES).

Another aspect of the article describes how to generate the vapor they analyzed using different techniques. There were a handful of measures performed on the e-liquid and the vapors. They include the following:

 Homogeneity tests on the reference e-liquids

 Stability tests on the reference e-liquids

 Detection of metals in the reference e-liquids

 Chemical characterization of vapor generated by the e-liquids

 Physical properties of the reference vapor

 Presence of metals in the vapor

This chemical characterization is most relevant for e-cigarette users and requires further discussion. The measurement here consisted of 16 chemicals potentially present in the e-liquids, 7 of which are considered “dangerous chemicals” and 5 of which have warning labels. Note that a lot of these are only dangerous if ingested in a normal form, not inhaled.

There were 16 ingredients screened in e-liquids and their vapor including:

 1-(p- Toluidino)-1- deoxy-beta- d-idopyranose

 4-Pyridinecarboxaldehyde,

 Nicotine,

 Nicotyrine,

 Propylene Glycol,

 2,4,7-trimethyl- 1,

 8-naphthyridine,

 1-Butanol,

 Cotinine,

 5-Methyl- 2-heptanol,

 3-(3,4- dihydro-2H- pyrrol-5- yl) pyridine (Myosmine)

 1-(4- pyridinylmethyl)-1H- pyrazol-5- amine,

 2,3-dihydro- 1H-inden- 1-one (Indanone),

 2-methyl 2-pentanol (Dimethylbutanol),

 3-Ethyl- 5-hexen- 3-ol,

 6-Methyl- 1,2,3,4-tetrahydroquinoline

These authors explained that they noticed color change in the e-liquid after one week, something they attributed to the oxidation of nicotine without actually confirming this. The alleged aging of the e-liquid requires further study to be confirmed. After all, simple color change does not necessarily mean something is wrong, or that the toxicity of the product has increased because of different chemical reactions. In fact, some users steep their e-liquids to remove certain harsher flavors associated with the liquid nicotine.

The authors at least discussed the fact that there would need to be a new cross comparison between different laboratories, different protocols, and a blank measurement for comparisons. After all, without this additional research on e-cigarettes, the industry cannot improve upon its existing product. Improvement is the goal of any product, by it cigarettes, food, or something tangible for the home.

More Questions than Answers

Now this leaves more questions than answers. How often does the coil need to be changed? What heating elements are safer? What impact do additives have once e-liquid is vaporized? How can the overall safety be improved? How long can e-liquids be kept in a tank, or cartomizer, or even a plastic bottle?

Those are just a handful of the many questions that should be answered quickly, and one day once the science behind e-liquid is mature, answers might be more readily provided and fear will no longer be the dish of the day. As it stands, the industry and media surrounding the industry seeks to paint a bleak picture where really, there is a developing one.

National Legislative Director of the Vapor Technology Association (VTA), Tony Abbound, has testified in support of vaping before the Indiana State Senate’s Judiciary Committee.

 

Tony Abbound, the National Legislative Director of the Vapor Technology Association, has addressed a committee in Indiana where he explained the current issue with regulations imposed upon the public, which have nothing to do with public health concerns.

He stated, “The problem is that the entire basis upon which the current law was promoted is essentially a ruse; a fiction created to justify the imposition of a security firm monopoly.” He continued, “Many of our member companies are manufacturers of e-liquids and vapor devices that sell in all 50 states, that is until the passage of Indiana’s current law which created a monopoly by giving ONE security company the power to choose which handful of companies it would permit to do business in Indiana.”

The VTA is a national trade association, one which is responsible for executing federal and state lobbying, alongside public affairs strategies all three of which advocate for each part of the vapor industry. The VTA represents wholesalers, manufacturers, in addition to small and large business owners all of whom have helped current smokers gain access to more effective alternatives like vaping.

Abboud pointed out that, “The problem is that the entire basis upon which the current law was promoted is essentially a ruse; a fiction created to justify the imposition of a security firm monopoly.” To the Indiana committee he pointed out how the vaping industry in the state is comprised of small businesses who started with a promising future and were crushed by legislative action in the state in addition to FDA regulations. The deeming rule from the agency has impacted these businesses and brought with it many repercussions.

Righting Past Wrongs

But all is not lost. The director added that back in 2014 Mitch Zeller, the FDA’s center for tobacco products director, became an avid anti-smoking advocate after he had learned the benefits of e- cigarettes. Zeller stated during a Senate hearing for health, education, labor, and pensions that “If we could get all those people [who smoke] to completely switch all of their cigarettes to non combustible cigarettes, it would be good for public health.”

Abboud continued that Indiana has a chance to right the wrongs of the past by taking action now and lending a helping hand to the vaping industry. In so doing, Indiana’s state government can help small businesses throughout the state to get back on the track to survival and success. By recognizing the detrimental impact of FDA legislation and state legislation of old, Indiana can take a new stance on vaping, help businesses within the industry to get back their promising future, and start aiding smokers everywhere who want to switch to a healthier alternative.