Tag: vaping

  • Public Misinformation

    Public Misinformation

    Increasing rhetoric and false statements are preventing progress in the debate about vaping.

    By Josh Church

    A new year and still the same tired rhetoric. With anti-vaping groups being dangerously considered by many as the defenders of public health, we are moving too close to something we have all seen, experienced and been defined by in the history of the United States.

    Go back almost 100 years and a shockingly similar story was just being written: In the 1920s and 1930s, a campaign utilized fear and misinformation to push for regulations in favor of those who opposed cannabis and an endless amount of other “narcotics.” The campaign was so extremely effective that it took the better part of a century for public opinion to mature intellectually. It was the age of “reefer madness.”

    When you compare the propaganda used by marijuana antagonists during the cannabis prohibition period, it is unmistakably like what we are currently seeing regarding nicotine and the wildfire of misinformation that is taking our country by force. George Santayana explained it best when he said, “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Have we not moved past allowing nonfactual propaganda and blatant misinformation to drastically influence our opinions, emotions and, most of all, our decision-making?

    It is of the utmost importance that 2019 be a year of defining the conversation among vapor industry stakeholders, advocacy groups and consumers. We must come together and create a platform based on substantiated science with the purpose of educating people inundated by bad science and opinion. It is important that we are passionate but not emotional. It is too easy to discredit information delivered in a way that could be misconstrued as combative. If we accomplish this, we may have an equal, united voice against the anti-vaping and anti-nicotine zealots.

    We must realize that there is a very large and discrete change happening on the opposing side. We have moved past the era of people and groups being able to say that e-cigarettes have not been studied for long-term health effects, or that the vapor industry exists unregulated or even that nicotine on its own is largely the cause for tobacco-related diseases. These things are blatantly untrue.

    During the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) youth cessation hearing held in January (see “Angle of Attack”), I witnessed a woman from one of these so-called public health groups stand in front of the FDA and make a statement that e-cigarettes have never been proven to help people quit smoking combustible cigarettes and that there are no long-term studies regarding the health effects of e-cigarettes.

    It was also upsetting to see the people on both sides of the aisle bringing more emotion and opinion to the table rather than factual evidence. While I wholeheartedly understand the worries and concerns from parents and administrators on the front lines of the youth initiation issue, making unsubstantiated claims benefits no one, especially youth. We are dealing with situations that have absolutely zero room for emotions. The industry and its antagonists can no longer use anecdotal evidence to back their respective opinions.

    All parties have been doing this for years, and it has gotten us nowhere. There is no longer an excuse for these types of responses. The research has been done. There are thousands of studies that have been published on e-cigarettes and vaporizers. If you truly feel you are a defender of your right to vape, please take a little time and educate yourself. Review both the good and the bad research.

    It does more harm than good when advocates promise friends and family that there is no risk involved with e-cigarettes, telling them that they are 100 percent healthy. It’s not our job to make people believe these products are without their own set of inherent risks. We must educate them with the information that is available. If we do this properly, we can help adult smokers form educated opinions about vapor products, and they can then spread their knowledge.

    It has become a consistent occurrence at many health conferences, smoking ordinance meetings and other public forums where vaping is the subject being discussed. The anti-vaping groups seemingly have nothing to lose and do anything to make sure their voices are heard.

    It’s hard to believe that there is a motive larger than the critical matter of public health. That opinion is challenged when groups of researchers, such as Stanton Glantz of the University of California, San Francisco, attack the vapor industry with false facts and fearmongering. Glantz doesn’t mention that his group received a massive amount of funding from the FDA in 2018 for research regarding e-cigarettes. He is hired to be the opposition. For example, his recent tweet: “Using e-cigarettes increases exposure to toxic chemicals. For most users: They would be better off just smoking.”

    His purely fictitious statement, directed at people who may not understand enough about e-cigarettes, causes vapers to question their choice. In fact, the statement should be considered criminal because it could cost human lives by sending former smokers back to combustible cigarettes. Yet, the FDA allows it to go on.

    We have seen regulators act swiftly and effectively in other industries where a company or research group publicizes any unsubstantiated claims for health benefit, and this situation is no different. I would even say it’s more dangerous as they push people toward a product that is known to kill 50 percent of its users.

    Sadly, the whole atmosphere surrounding nicotine has become incredibly dangerous and polarizing. You can no longer have a moderate opinion toward either side of the bench. If you support an adult’s choice to be able to use vapor products, you also support addicting children to nicotine. You cannot lobby for stricter regulations for next-generation tobacco products without advocating for the complete elimination of recreational nicotine use.

    This must stop. I have reached out to many health groups as well as other organizations concerned about vapor products and youth initiation. The outreach was done with the hope of providing some understanding to what they are witnessing. With this information, we intend to make the most educated decisions on how to assist and hopefully end the reported epidemic of youth vaping.

    Too many times in this process I have been greeted with bared teeth and the same common response: “We are not letting the fox into the hen house.” While I understand the cautiousness of these groups, I also believe that they are doing an entire nation of youth a disservice by not working with the people that know these products better than anyone else.

    My hope is that one day soon we can all sit down and have an open and educated conversation to solve these important issues. We need to draw back the proverbial curtain with the hope of seeing what’s happening that is creating this problem of youth uptake. If we don’t, we will only continue to make drastic decisions based on what many consider to be anecdotal information.

    We live in an era of mass information. It’s sad that when it comes to public health regarding nicotine, we are reliving the era of McCarthyism. In today’s world, anyone and everyone can have a public forum to advance their agenda, even if it’s evil. Do we as a nation no longer question the Stanton Glantzs of the world who spew lies while standing on a stack of taxpayer money?

    It is easy to demonize “Big Tobacco” and lump everyone in the vapor industry into that box. However, the largest portion of the vapor industry is made up of businesses that have existed for fewer than 10 years. It would be irresponsible to immediately assume that all these companies operate under the same archaic agenda built by tobacco companies in the past.

    The vapor industry is young and has never been given the opportunity to prove its mission to end the death caused by combustible cigarettes. Instead, the industry carries the burden of generations of misinformation and disillusion from those vehemently opposed to the tobacco industry. E-cigarettes were created as a true alternative for adult cigarette smokers, and these products continue to be the only disruptive space for those seeking safer options than combustible tobacco products.

    Picture of Josh Church

    Josh Church

    Josh Church is the chief regulatory and compliance officer of Joyetech Group, the largest vapor industry manufacturer in the world.

  • Worlds Apart

    Worlds Apart

    Despite a shared culture and heritage, the U.K. and the U.S. find themselves at polar opposites of the spectrum in their attitudes toward vaping.

    By Maria Verven

    While there are more vapers in the U.S. than there are in the U.K., vaping is more prevalent in the U.K. when calculated as a percentage of the overall population.

    The reason? In the U.K., vaping is far less stigmatized socially, and it has been heartily endorsed by key public health organizations for “preventing almost all the harm from smoking.”

    Let’s find out the other reasons why these two countries are worlds apart.

    THE U.K.: ACKNOWLEDGING WHERE E-CIGARETTES ARE ON THE RISK CONTINUUM

    While the U.K. has imposed very strict regulations on e-cigarettes and e-liquids, key organizations including Public Health England (PHE) and the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) agree that vaping is far less harmful than smoking traditional tobacco products.

    The EU Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) provides the framework and regulations for all e-cigarettes and e-liquids containing nicotine. The TPD’s regulations outline minimum standards of safety and quality for anyone who manufactures, imports, or rebrands e-cigarettes and e-liquids.

    Among the guidelines are limits on the capacity of vapor tanks and e-liquid bottle sizes as well as restrictions on certain ingredients and coloring agents. There is a six-month approval period for new e-liquids and hardware. The TPD also regulates the allowable level of nicotine, so portable vapor devices such as the Juul that contained higher nicotine levels were not allowed (Juul Labs recently developed reduced-nicotine pods that meet the guidelines).

    Consumers and healthcare professionals can report adverse events and safety concerns to the U.K.’s Medicine and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) through a “Yellow Card” reporting system.

    But compared with the U.S., the U.K. sees much less disruption, thanks in part to the huge increase in e-cigarette use and a regulatory environment that appears to be informed on how e-cigarettes factor into the risk continuum. In fact, e-cigarette campaigners have even been assured by the Department of Health and Social Care and the designated approval agency that they will turn a blind eye toward any advertising promoting vaping as a safer alternative.

    MEANWHILE IN THE U.S.: BANS AND INCREASING RESTRICTIONS

    The Tobacco Control Act gave the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority over all tobacco products, and in May 2016, the FDA extended this authority over all electronic nicotine-delivery systems (ENDS), including e-cigarettes and vape pens.

    Manufacturers and importers selling vapor products and e-liquids made on or before Aug. 8, 2016, were required to submit a list of all ingredients to the FDA by November 2017; small-scale tobacco product manufacturers were given another six months.

    Submission of premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) for all noncombustible products, including e-cigarettes, is due on or before Aug. 8, 2022, when manufacturers must demonstrate that marketing the new tobacco products “would be appropriate to protect public health.” The FDA claims it will consider the risks and benefits to both users and nonusers when reviewing each product’s components, ingredients, additives and health risks in addition to how the product is manufactured, packaged and labeled.

    Ironically, the FDA’s deeming regulations don’t impose the same types of specific manufacturing guidelines as the TPD. They don’t outright prohibit any particular ingredients, set maximum nicotine levels or even require the use of child-resistant packaging. Since many e-liquid manufacturers also sell across the pond, they have been engineering their products and packaging to comply with the TPD’s guidelines. In fact, many bolstered their quality-assurance measures by implementing good manufacturing practices (GMPs) and building ISO 7 state-of-the-art cleanrooms in an effort to build public confidence and to stay one step ahead of potential FDA requirements.

    Despite this, many U.S. legislators continue to express concerns about e-cigarettes and who’s using them—particularly teens—siding with the popular stance that these products are “bad.” Coupled with a huge increase in the popularity of vapor devices such as the Juul, regulators and legislators have tried to outdo each other by proposing even more forceful actions to “stem this dangerous trend, including revisiting our policy that extended the compliance dates for e-cigarette manufacturers, including flavored e-cigarettes, to submit applications for premarket authorization,” according to FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb.

    So it came as no surprise when in November 2018 the FDA announced new restrictions on the sales of flavored e-cigarettes, except those flavored with menthol and mint. They have yet to specify a timeline for implementing the new proposal, which also requires stores to have secure areas that are restricted to adults over the age of 18. Ironically, this keeps e-cigarettes off the shelves of most convenience stores and gas stations, where traditional cigarettes continue to be sold. They also proposed new age-verification standards for online retailers selling e-cigarettes.

    THE U.K.: ENDORSEMENT BY THE HEALTH COMMUNITY

    London’s Royal College of Physicians (RCP) not only endorsed the use of e-cigarettes as smoking cessation aids; it also concluded that e-cigarettes can “prevent almost all the harm from smoking.”

    “Large-scale substitution of e-cigarettes for tobacco smoking has the potential to prevent almost all the harm from smoking in society,” the RCP states. “Promoting e-cigarettes and other nontobacco nicotine products as widely as possible as a substitute for smoking is therefore likely to generate significant health gains in the U.K.”

    In fact, in the U.K., the health community is launching a new campaign to convince smokers that vaping is not only less harmful than smoking combustible cigarettes; it’s also a good way to quit. In one short video, an experiment was conducted to collect the sticky black tar that accumulates in the lungs of a heavy smoker in a jar, while showing that vaping the same amount of nicotine collects only a trace of residue.

    And last year, PHE, the world’s oldest public health commission, even recommended that e-cigarettes be made available by prescription because of how successful they were in helping thousands of U.K. citizens quit smoking. PHE even recommended that the devices be made available for purchase in U.K. hospitals.

    PHE says that although e-cigarette use did rise among young people in England, the numbers have flattened off since 2015. “There are no studies that show vaping increases tobacco use among young people in the U.K.,” said Martin Dockrell, head of the tobacco control program at PHE.

    PHE says that e-cigarettes could help many more people quit smoking. Data from its smoking cessation program showed that 65 percent to 68 percent of people who used e-cigarettes as well as nicotine-replacement therapies succeeded in quitting.

    “It would be tragic if thousands of smokers who could quit with the help of an e-cigarette are being put off due to false fears about safety,” said John Newton, PHE’s director of health improvement. “We need to reassure smokers that switching to an e-cigarette would be much less harmful than smoking.”

    MEANWHILE IN THE U.S.: FEARMONGERING PERSISTS

    Despite all of the e-cigarette studies that have been conducted, including the Drexel University study that concluded, “It’s about as harmless as you can get,” the U.S. public health community continues to fuel concern and controversy.

    Myths persist around what’s in e-liquids, despite the rigorous testing and numerous studies that have been conducted not just on e-liquids but also the resulting vapor that is produced. Undocumented, unsubstantiated reports of diacetyl, formaldehyde and other aldehydes stoke fear and spread the gross misperception that e-cigarettes are as harmful as traditional combustible cigarettes.

    Follow the money, and you’ll find that health organizations receive millions of dollars from pharmaceutical companies. So it’s no surprise that they demonized vaping and lobbied for bans, according to Bill Godshall, the founder and executive director of Smokefree Pennsylvania and a passionate advocate of vaping.

    “If you want to keep money flowing in from Big Pharma, you’ll keep hawking their products. That’s not public health information,” Godshall said.

    But by far the greatest hurdle to the industry is the FDA, according to Godshall, Gregory Conley of the American Vaping Association and other vaping advocates. Recent moves by the FDA to restrict or ban the sale of flavored nicotine pods will only serve to make it harder for adult smokers to switch to a far less harmful alternative, Conley said.

    “For many smokers, it will be much easier to pick up a pack of Marlboros or Camels—or even an unrestricted cherry-flavored cigar at a local convenience store—than it will be to make the switch to a vaping product that truly helps him or her break their desire for cigarettes,” said Conley.

    “Cigarette smokers have a human right to truthful health information and legal access to less hazardous alternatives,” Godshall said. “The FDA and public health agencies have an ethical duty to inform smokers that e-cigarettes are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes and to keep these alternatives on the market as long as highly addictive, lethal cigarettes remain legal.”

    In summary, the burdens being imposed on the U.S. vapor community by federal, state and local legislators raise serious ethical questions. Taken altogether, the bans and restrictions on vaping, scare tactics and misinformation campaigns, as well as egregiously high taxes on vapor products can potentially doom millions of people—particularly those crippled by poverty and mental illness—to a lifetime of smoking.

    All Americans have to do is look across the ocean to see how another country is providing the facts and endorsing a product that could save millions of lives.

    Picture of Maria Verven

    Maria Verven

    The original “Vaping Vamp,” Maria Verven owns Verve Communications,
    a PR and marketing firm specializing in the vapor industry.

  • Raids target vape stores in Malaysia

    Vape stores in Malaysia have been the target of nationwide raids carried out to seize nicotine-based vapes, according to the country’s Health Ministry.

    An official from the Health Ministry told The Star that the move was undertaken to monitor the nicotine content in vaping fluids. The sale and use of e-cigarettes containing nicotine are subject to the Poisons Act 1952 and Food Act 1983 under the Control of Tobacco Product Regulations 2004.

    Deputy health director-general Datuk Dr. Lokman Hakim said in a statement that action would be taken against sellers and users of e-cigarettes that contained nicotine under the Poisons Act 1952.

    Malaysian Organisation of Vape Entities president Samsul Kamal Arriffin says that more than 300 stores have been raided by the Health Ministry.

    Among the stores raided following the discovery of products containing nicotine was a vape store in Shah Alam.

    The store’s owner claims officers from the Health Ministry have confiscated more than 3,000 bottles of vape liquid worth RM100,000.

    Dr. Lokman announced Nov. 4 that the Health Ministry would intensify the campaign against e-cigarettes or vaping: “The ministry’s message to the community is do not use e-cigarettes or vaping as it is harmful to your health in the long-term,” he said.