A new study claims that people who use vaping devices are 22 percent more likely to have high blood sugar – known as prediabetes – compared with those who have never used them. However, traditional cigarettes increase a combustible smokers risk of developing type 2 diabetes by 40 percent.
Researchers from Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University in the U.S. analyzed data from 600,000 people. They looked for links between e-cigarette use and prediabetes – a serious but reversible health condition in which blood sugar levels are higher than normal but not high enough to be diagnosed as type 2 diabetes.
To determine the association between e-cigarette use and prediabetes, the investigators analyzed 2016–2018 data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). It said to be the largest annual nationally representative health survey of U.S. adults with data on health outcomes, health-related risk behaviors, preventive services, and chronic medical conditions.
“Our study demonstrated a clear association of prediabetes risk with the use of e-cigarettes. With both e-cigarette use and prevalence of prediabetes dramatically on the rise in the past decade, our discovery that e-cigarettes carry a similar risk to traditional cigarettes with respect to diabetes is important for understanding and treating vulnerable individuals,” said Shyam Biswal, the study’s lead investigator.
The researchers state that the possible link between combustible cigarettes, e-cigarettes and prediabetes is not understood. However, nicotine, which is in both traditional cigarettes and e-cigarettes, has long been linked to a rise in blood sugar levels, according to news reports.
The results, published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, showed that current e-cigarette users are 22 percent more likely to have prediabetes compared with those who those who had never used them, while former vapers still had a 12 percent higher risk.
Prediabetes is reversible with lifestyle management, according to reports.
A new study concludes that vaping could potentially be less harmful for women then men who vape.
Loren Wold, the study’s senior author and associate dean for research operations at the Ohio State College of Medicine, believes this could be because the females produced a higher amount of an enzyme that breaks down nicotine. According to the study, humans carry a similar level of that enzyme.
Credit: J.A.
“The results were surprising. We were shocked at the amount of protection afforded to females,” Wold said. “The theory is that since the enzyme breaks down nicotine so much faster, the nicotine isn’t in the circulation as long and that may be why females exhibit protection from vaping.”
Funded as part of a $5.5 million grant awarded by the American Heart Association, the Ohio State University study looked at mice between the human equivalent of ages 12 to 30 in an effort to determine the impacts of vaping on young adults.
Researchers exposed both male and female mice to an e-cigarette aerosol mixture and found that, while heart function in male mice decreased over time, female mice remained unaffected.
Researchers are now working to determine whether the enzyme can help provide a higher level of protection to human women, according to a release from the Ohio State Wexner Medical Center. Meanwhile, researchers are conducting a similar study to determine the best ways to reduce youth addiction to e-cigarettes.
A new report from the American Consumer Institute (ACI) highlights the dangers of overregulating e-cigarettes and vaping products. Co-authored by Steve Pociask and Liam Sigaud entitled “How Regulations Endanger the Public Health: A Review of the Evidence on E-Cigarette Risks and Benefits, and Policy Missteps”, the report investigates the empirical evidence surrounding the consumer risks and benefits of using e-cigarettes and vaping products compared to using combustible tobacco products.
Credit: iQoncept
The report finds that::
E-cigarettes and vaping products, while not totally safe, are significantly safer than smoking – 95% safer by some estimates;
Studies also show these products are twice as effective in getting smokers to quit than other nicotine-based smoking cessation treatments;
Excessive regulation of e-cigarettes and vapes not only ignores the prevailing scientific consensus on health risks, but they deter cigarette smokers from switching to safer alternatives and push vapers back to the pack; and
Therefore, overregulating these proven harm reduction products will have serious health consequences for millions of American consumers who smoke.
“The overwhelming empirical research is clear and shows that federal, state, and local governments are in a misguided pursuit that eliminates a safer choice for smokers,” a release states. “This report provides much-needed clarity on an issue of profound importance for public health. As the authors note ‘informed by rigorous research, the U.S. can better chart a responsible course that encourages smokers to seek safer substitutes and quit, while protecting our youth from the dangers of tobacco products.’”
Adult smokers with no plans to quit are more likely to stop smoking if they switch to daily vaping, according to new research led by Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center.
Published in JAMA Network Open, the Roswell Park study used data collected from 2014 to 2019 as part of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study (PATH). When the researchers focused their analysis on a select group of 1,600 smokers who initially had no plans to quit and were not using e-cigarettes when the study began, they found that those who subsequently vaped daily experienced eightfold higher odds of quitting traditional cigarettes compared to those who didn’t use e-cigarettes at all.
“These findings are paradigm-shifting, because the data suggest that vaping may actually help people who are not actively trying to quit smoking,” says Andrew Hyland, chair of health behavior at Roswell Park and scientific lead on the PATH study, in a statement. “Most other studies focus exclusively on people who are actively trying to quit smoking, but this study suggests that we may be missing effects of e-cigarettes by not considering this group of smokers with limited intention to stop smoking—a group that is often at the highest risk for poor health outcomes from cigarette smoking.”
Overall, only about 6 percent of all smokers included in the Roswell Park study quit smoking combustible cigarettes completely, but the rates of quitting were significantly higher among those who took up daily e-cigarette use—28 percent of smokers quit when they started vaping daily. The association between vaping and cigarette quitting held up even after adjusting for underlying characteristics such as educational background, income, gender, ethnicity and the number of cigarettes smoked per day at the beginning of the study.
A new report finds that combustible cigarettes will become less expensive than vaping products and nearly 43,000 jobs would be lost if the proposed nicotine tax contained in the Build Back Better bill (HR 5376) were to become law. The Vapor Technology Association (VTA) funded study, The Negative Economic Impacts of the New Nicotine Tax Imposed Only on Vapor Products In the Reconciliation Bill, conducted by economist John Dunham & Associates, is being billed as a comprehensive analysis of the negative effects that the proposed tax will have on smokers, the industry and the economy.
“Our analysis finds that the bill would not create anything close to parity with cigarette taxes but, rather, would tax vapor products at a much higher rate – up to nine times higher – than the tax on a pack of cigarettes,” the report states. “The proposed nicotine tax in the Reconciliation Bill would lead to a net price increase on vapor products at retail of about 53 percent (21.2 percent for a standard two-pack of closed-system pod products and 73.5 percent for a standard 60 milliliter bottle of open system e-liquid), while the price of cigarettes and other tobacco products would remain unchanged as they would not be subject to any additional federal tax.”
The study also concludes that the proposed nicotine tax would lead to a reduction of nearly 42,800 full-time equivalent jobs and the loss of $2.2 billion in wages and benefits, negatively impact the size of the overall economy which would fall by about $7 billion and would result in states and their localities losing $620 million in taxes while the federal government attempts to generate revenues.
“A pack of cigarettes contains approximately 204 milligrams of nicotine (10.2 mg/cigarette x 20 cigarettes per pack). Applying the proposed nicotine tax of 2.78-cents per milligram to cigarettes, means that the tax on a pack of cigarettes should be $5.41, not $1.01,” the study states. “Viewed another way, the federal tax on cigarettes, if applied to their nicotine content, would only amount to less than half a penny per milligram, not the 2.78-cents Congress seeks to impose on e-cigarettes ($1.01 per pack / 204 mg of nicotine per pack).”
As defined in the bill, the proposed tax would be equal to about $2.22 on the standard closed system nicotine vapor product (such as a two pack of JUUL pods), and a $10.01 on the standard average 60 milliliter bottle of nicotine containing e-liquid used in an open system vapor device,” according to the study.
If passed, the proposed tax would also lead to a loss of about 31.9 percent of vapor product sales or 3.7 million milliliters of e-liquid consumed. Of this loss, 61.2 percent would be the result of consumers switching to other tobacco products, including combustible cigarettes. An additional 18.5 percent of these lost sales would move to the black market, according to the study.
“Modeling suggests that a large portion of consumers would react by purchasing unregulated products over the black market or make their own e-liquids,” according to the study. “These figures (which reflect a price increase resulting from the tax of 53 percent) are conservative and are not out of line with other studies examining the substitution of vapor products and combustible cigarettes when taxes are imposed.”
In the wake of marketing denial orders, many U.S. e-liquid manufacturers are turning to synthetic nicotine.
By Timothy S. Donahue
In 2015, Mitch Zeller, the director of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Tobacco Products (CTP), was asked what the FDA’s position was on synthetic nicotine. “I’ll let you figure that one out for yourselves,” he said, hinting that the agency would regulate it as a drug. Today, vaping products, especially disposable devices, using tobacco-free nicotine (TFN) are one of the fastest-growing segments on the market.
After the FDA began issuing marketing denial orders (MDOs) to companies whose premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) failed to satisfy the agency’s concern about youth use, many rejected applicants hinted that they would start using synthetic nicotine—nicotine made in a lab and not derived from tobacco—in their flavored e-liquids.
Vapor Salon, for example, announced on Facebook that it would be switching to synthetic nicotine less than 24 hours after the FDA ordered the company to remove its products from the market.
“The main purpose of this is to be outside of the FDA’s regulations with their hefty PMTA requirement, which takes full effect on Sept. 9, 2021, with needing an approved PMTA or your product can no longer be sold,” the company wrote.
In July 2020, Puff Bar announced that it would cease all online sales and distribution in the U.S. until further notice after receiving a warning letter from the FDA. However, the brand resumed sales on its website in February of this year with an altered product. To get around the ban on its products, Puff Bar began using tobacco-free nicotine. As of this writing, Puff Bar continues to hawk its products both on its website and in convenience stores around the U.S.
Meanwhile, the popular online vaping retail website Element Vape.com has at least 11 brands offering several synthetic nicotine e-liquids in different flavors, including fruits, cereals and candies. Pioneer e-liquid manufacturer Five Pawns reformulated its vape juice using synthetic nicotine even before the Sept. 9, 2020, PMTA submission deadline.
“Synthetic nicotine products still must abide by nationwide age restrictions, but the Center for Tobacco Products lacks the ability to regulate them as ‘tobacco products,’” said Greg Conley, president of the American Vaping Association. “Unless and until the FDA authorizes a sufficient number of flavored products to keep current ex-smokers off of cigarettes, we will support efforts by small businesses to keep offering their products to adult customers.”
Tony Abboud, executive director of the Vapor Technology Association, said that synthetic nicotine has been available and on the market since as early as 2014, and while the FDA and U.S. Congress could have elected to regulate synthetic nicotine at any time, they have chosen not to confront the issue.
“If it wasn’t for the innovation of the vapor industry, cigarette companies would not today be saying, ‘We want to get rid of combustibles.’ Synthetic nicotine is simply the next level of innovation, and it’s not surprising the government is behind it. The [U.S.] government is always behind companies in any industry that is technological and that innovates,” explains Abboud. “There’s no surprise here. There’s no loophole here. There’s no evasion here. The marketplace is what the marketplace is. It’s up to the government to figure out if and how it wants to catch up.”
Credit: Myvisuals
Anti-tobacco groups, by contrast, vowed to halt the spread of synthetic nicotine. In a recent letter to the FDA, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (CTFK), the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Lung Association, among other organizations, argued that e-cigarette manufacturers are using “a loophole” to avoid government regulations.
“As FDA denies marketing applications for e-cigarettes, manufacturers are exploring using synthetic nicotine in order to continue marketing their products while avoiding FDA regulation,” the letter states. “This development makes it even more imperative that FDA take immediate action against illegal, synthetic nicotine products.”
Matthew Myers, president of CTFK, said synthetic nicotine is not a safer product, and his organization has sent at least three letters since 2018 to the FDA concerning synthetic nicotine products, none of which has received a response from the regulatory agency. “It is totally designed to circumvent government regulation,” he said. “The companies that have used nicotine derived from tobacco to [now] nicotine made in a laboratory are the companies whose products have been denied because of their appeal to youth and their lack of evidence that they actually help smokers quit.”
Conley said that there is a reason the CTFK’s and other letters have gone unanswered through two different presidential administrations. “Tobacco-free nicotine was invented to eliminate trace levels of impurities that are present in traditional nicotine sources, not to evade regulation. Rather than expanding the futile war on drugs to nicotine, we believe all nicotine products should be regulated as consumer products and sold only to adult consumers 21 years and over.”
Defining tobacco products
Whether the FDA will allow products with synthetic nicotine to stay on the market remains to be seen. Despite its growing popularity, the category current operates in a regulatory void. Because the product is not derived from tobacco, it does not necessarily fall under the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act or meet the requirements of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act’s definition of a tobacco product.
When synthetic nicotine first appeared on the market in 2016, the product was marketed as a way to circumvent the FDA’s proposed deeming rule for next-generation tobacco products by at least one company. The FDA’s definition of “tobacco product” includes any product made or derived from tobacco [that is intended for human consumption], including any component, part or accessory of a tobacco product. E-liquids that do not contain nicotine or other substances made or derived from tobacco may still be components or parts and, therefore, subject to the FDA’s tobacco control authorities, according to the agency.
“However, it’s possible that a disposable, closed system device that contains an e-liquid with truly zero nicotine (or synthetic nicotine) would not be regulated by the FDA as a tobacco product if it is not intended or reasonably be expected to be used in such a fashion,” the FDA states on its website. “[The] FDA intends to make these determinations on a case-by-case basis, based on a totality of the circumstances.”
In late 2016, Next Generation Labs (NGL), the maker of proprietary TFN Nicotine—nontobacco derived synthetic nicotine liquid and crystals—noted court statements made by the FDA in the NicoPure Labs LLC v. U.S. Food & Drug Administration that seemed to confirm that products not made or derived from tobacco fall outside of the FDA’s deeming rule.
Credit: NDABCREATIVITY
TFN claimed that in a response brief to the court dated Nov. 1, 2016, the FDA had stated that not all nicotine-free e-liquids (NFLs) were subject to the deeming rule. “Assuming an NFL is not made or derived from tobacco, it is subject to the rule only if it meets the definition of a ‘component or part’—that is, if it is ‘intended or reasonably expected’ either … (1) to alter or affect [a] tobacco product’s performance, composition, constituents or characteristics; or (2) to be used with or for the human consumption of a tobacco product; and is not an accessory,” the FDA was quoted as having said.
Experts have also said that the FDA could potentially assert jurisdiction over synthetic nicotine as a tobacco product and argue that, when the legislation was written, nobody had the foresight to think about synthetic nicotine. Eric Lindblom, a senior scholar at Georgetown’s O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law and a former director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products Office of Policy, said that, in response to such moves by vapor companies, the FDA could either assert jurisdiction over synthetic nicotine as a tobacco product or push for synthetic nicotine to be regulated like any other drug.
Congress could eventually pass a nationwide ban on synthetic nicotine. A more likely scenario, however, according to industry insiders, is that individual states ban the sale of synthetic nicotine products. On May 17 of this year, the governor of Alabama signed into law Act No. 2021–453, which was backed by Altria, with that purpose in mind.
The legislation, which went into effect Sept. 1, states that “no e-liquid, e-liquid in combination with an electronic nicotine-delivery system, or alternative nicotine product that, in the case of any such product, contains synthetic nicotine or nicotine derived from a source other than tobacco may be sold or otherwise distributed” in Alabama if products have not been approved by the “FDA for sale as a drug, device or combination product.”
Abboud says vapor companies may not want to face the drug regulatory pathway. “Drug protocols are absurd, and if companies cannot even survive this PMTA process, then how would they ever possibly survive the other one?” he questioned. “Are you going to blame a company that spent millions of dollars trying to comply with [the] FDA’s opaque regulatory process, find that the FDA changed the rules at the last moment after the fact, and then and you’re going to criticize that company for doing something that’s currently lawful?”
For the time being, synthetic nicotine e-liquids will likely keep flavored e-liquids on the market despite the FDA’s efforts to remove them. However, Conley warned manufacturers against publicly advertising or celebrating their decision to switch to synthetic nicotine.
“A note to manufacturers planning to use TFN—don’t make public pronouncements about what you’re planning to do over the next month. Just do it,” he tweeted. “[The] FDA may have no respect for you, but there’s no need to blast them publicly. Plenty of harm reduction advocates can handle that.”
Sidebar
What is synthetic nicotine?
A major argument for synthetic nicotine is that it is safer than tobacco-sourced nicotine. The synthetic nicotine has no tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), the harmful, cancer-causing chemicals found in combustible tobacco products. TSNAs are formed when tobacco leaves are grown, cured, aged and processed.
Research has shown that all nicotine is highly addictive, and regardless of the form, should be consumed with caution. However, the chemical does not directly cause cancer, which instead results from inhaling the byproducts of combustion.
Whether manufactured naturally or artificially, the nicotine molecule has the same chemical structure, C10H14N2, meaning that it comprises 10 carbon atoms, 14 hydrogen atoms and two nitrogen atoms. What makes it special, independent of its origin, is that it is a “chiral” molecule: It has two stereoisomers that are mirror images of each other.
The most prevalent form is (S)-nicotine, the physiologically active variant. Its mirror isomer, (R) nicotine, also occurs in plant-derived nicotine in small amounts but is considered physiologically ineffective. Synthetic nicotine is made with a combination of niacin, ethanol, sulfuric acid and a few other chemicals.
Traditionally, a problem for the producers of synthetic nicotine has been that the production process is both complicated and expensive. As a chiral molecule, nicotine is far easier to produce as a synthetic nicotine with equal amounts of both (R) isomers and (S) isomers compared to a nearly pure (S)-nicotine.
Naturally derived nicotine and synthetic nicotine are identical on a molecular level. The differences are the individual or potential impurities. Nicotine derived from tobacco can contain potentially harmful impurities. Purification can be difficult and costly because the impurities appear structurally very similar to the nicotine molecule itself. But synthetic nicotine is virtually free of any impurities from the beginning, and none of the impurities are carcinogenic.
Currently, two types of synthetic nicotine are on the market: an (S) only synthetic nicotine and a 50 percent (S) and 50 percent (R) synthetic nicotine. In the early years of the vaping industry, the cost of the process to produce synthetic nicotine was prohibitively expensive when compared to tobacco-derived nicotine extraction methods.
Today, that’s no longer the case. Synthetic nicotine can be purchased for nearly the same price as tobacco-derived nicotine and in some instances for even less. This is due to advancements in the commercially scaled bulk production of synthetic nicotine for use in the tobacco, vaping, pharmaceutical and scientific research industries.
In November 2020, eLiquiTech, a wholly owned subsidiary of Tobacco Technology Inc. (TTI), released its recently patented SyNic synthetic (S)-nicotine. Because SyNic has greater than 99.7 percent (S), an e-liquid needs only half the amount of SyNic to create the same effect for users as current 50/50 synthetic nicotine offerings on the market.
The Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) is requesting nominations for individuals to serve as members on the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC). Nominees may be self-nominated or nominated by an organization.
Nominations received on or before Nov. 8, 2021, will be given first consideration. Nominations received after Nov. 8, 2021, will be considered as later vacancies occur.
TPSAC advises CTP in its responsibilities related to the regulation of tobacco products. The committee reviews and evaluates safety, dependence, and health issues relating to tobacco products and provides appropriate advice, information, and recommendations to the FDA commissioner.
The committee shall consist of 12 members including the chair. Members and the chair are selected by the commissioner or designee from among individuals knowledgeable in the fields of medicine, medical ethics, science, or technology involving the manufacture, evaluation, or use of tobacco products.
Members will be invited to serve for overlapping terms of up to four years.
More information on the nomination process TPSAC members is available at the Federal Register notice
Vaping products are not associated with increased heart attack incidence among people without a history of smoking combustible cigarettes, according to a new study. Published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, researchers also concluded that three previous studies claiming a link between e-cigarettes and heart disease wrongly included those who previously smoked cigarettes or were using both vaping and combustible products. One paper even included participants who had heart attacks before they had ever vaped.
“Previous researchers confused their own models’ assumptions that these risks were independent with the idea that their analyses validated the presence of independent risks,” the researchers wrote. “There is no reliable evidence that e-cigarette use is associated with ever having had a myocardial infarction among never smokers.”
Authored by Michael Siegel, a community health sciences professor at Boston University, and University of California, Berkeley, business professor Clayton Critcher, analyzed data from 175,546 respondents to the annual National Health Interview Survey from 2014 to 2019. They found that daily e-cigarette use was only associated with higher heart attack incidence among people who were also currently smoking combustible cigarettes (duel users)—and that there was no evidence at all for increased risk among vapers who had never smoked combustible cigarettes.
Credit: NDABCREATIVITY
The researchers state that the initial study had drawn its conclusions about a perceived cause (vaping) and effect (heart attack) without factoring in a key variable (smoking). Critcher and Siegel acknowledge that a more thorough analysis of previous research would have noted that e-cigarettes are relatively new, limiting the ability to assess long-term health effects and make comparisons with combustible tobacco smoking, in an article with Filter. However, the findings of previous research that e-cigarette use in of itself causes heart attacks is fundamentally flawed.
A 2018 study, also published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, claimed that daily vapers increased their odds of heart attack. However, the study only included participants who used both e-cigarettes and combustible cigarettes—none who used e-cigarettes alone. Suspicious of that methodology, a different group of researchers published a reply, arguing the importance of examining the purported link among people who had never smoked combustible cigarettes. Authors of the original study then published a reply to that reply, arguing that such a distinction wasn’t necessary.
In the meantime, two (one, two) other papers were published based on the original paper’s claims, lending further harmful legitimacy to the idea of a link between e-cigs and heart attacks, according to Kevin Garcia writing for Filter.
The second of those two papers was coauthored by the former prominent tobacco harm reduction opponent Stanton Glantz. It was retracted in 2020 for basing its claim that vaping caused heart attacks on evidence that included heart attacks from before the participants had even started vaping. Three weeks after the American Heart Association’s journal retracted the vaping study, academics and health experts began pushing for another influential peer-reviewed medical journal to retract another Glantz study.
A new paper co-authored by a majority of recognized tobacco control experts in the United Sates endorses the harm reduction benefits of vaping for adult smokers trying to quit combustible cigarettes. The group of experts state that the public image of vaping products must be improved and electronic nicotine-delivery systems (ENDS) should be promoted as a safer alternative to combustible cigarettes.
“Opponents focus on e-cigarettes’ risks for young people, while supporters emphasize the potential for e-cigarettes to assist smokers in quitting smoking. Most US health organizations, media coverage, and policymakers have focused primarily on risks to youths,” the report states. “Because of their messaging, much of the public—including most smokers—now consider e-cigarette use as dangerous as or more dangerous than smoking. By contrast, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that e-cigarette use is likely far less hazardous than smoking. Policies intended to reduce adolescent vaping may also reduce adult smokers’ use of e-cigarettes in quit attempts.”
The paper, published August 19 in The American Journal of Public Health, was led by Kenneth Warner, a professor emeritus of health management and policy at the University of Michigan and a distinguished tobacco control expert. Fifteen former presidents of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT), the leading scientific professional society focused on nicotine and tobacco, co-authored the paper.
The authors present four categories of evidence supporting vaping as a quit aid for combustible tobacco use: the results of randomized trials, which show e-cigarettes outperform other cessation methods like nicotine patches; population studies, the findings of which “are consistent with a near doubling of quit attempt success”; cigarette sales, which decrease rapidly as vaping sales increase; and the unintended consequences of policies restricting vaping, such as bans that unintentionally shot up cigarette smoking.
“The major elements of the public health community that are concerned with tobacco have been singularly focused on the risk to kids,” Warner told Alex Norcia of Filter. “They seem to truly have no interest whatsoever in adult smokers. The other piece is that you’re seeing lots of allegedly scientific papers that are raising health concerns that are unwarranted.” One such paper, which claimed that vaping increased the likelihood of having a heart attack, was later retracted.
The paper also presents “a sensible mix of policies” to boost ENDS use, including taxing traditional cigarettes higher than e-cigarettes to encourage adult smokers to switch, allowing flavored vaping products available only at vape shops, restricting advertising to limit youth initiation and reducing the nicotine levels in cigarettes while ensuring the availability of “consumer-acceptable” reduced-risk nicotine products.
“Because evidence indicates that e-cigarette use can increase the odds of quitting smoking, many scientists, including this essay’s authors, encourage the health community, media, and policymakers to more carefully weigh vaping’s potential to reduce adult smoking-attributable mortality,” the paper states.
A research initiative on the potential harmful effects of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) by Chemical Insights, an institute of Underwriters Laboratories and Georgia State University’s School of Public Health are now underway. The collaboration will characterize airborne particulate aerosols and volatile organic chemicals released during e-cigarette use and determine human exposure levels and toxicity for users and bystanders, according to a press release.
Essentra Scientific Services’ new laboratory is dedicated to testing electronic cigarettes.
“With a focus on public health and safety benefits, our research findings will identify specific particles and chemicals that infiltrate the lungs of a user so that steps can be taken to reduce human health risks,” said Marilyn Black, vice president and senior technical advisor with Chemical Insights.
The release states that one contributing factor to youth use of ENDS is the perception that ENDS are a safer alternative to cigarettes and other traditional tobacco products. “However, a series of studies have proven pulmonary toxicity in e-cigarettes and a link to negative impacts on adolescents’ respiratory health,” the release states. “ENDS lags in product safety testing for numerous proprietary liquids and aerosol delivery methods available in the expanding marketplace.”
The study will reportedly provide scientifically sound data to inform policy makers, healthcare providers, manufacturers and consumers of potential health risks and approaches for product usage and label warnings to educate consumers of potential respiratory hazards, according to Roby Greenwald, assistant professor in the School of Public Health and co-principal investigator of the study. “We’re looking at multiple liquids and aerosol delivery methods that are readily available to better understand toxicity and their impact on human health.”
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is currently evaluating the harm-reduction potential of vapor products through its premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) process. The regulatory agency has stated that ENDS are safer than combustible tobacco products, but do not come without risk.
Research findings will begin to be released in fall 2021.
