And my reply...
Thank you for your reply to my previous email. I do have some points I would like to address if you don’t mind.
The majority of e-cig users are using them as recreational devices, not cessation aids, and they were created as a safer replacement for tobacco cigarettes, not as a tool for giving up smoking. Smoking cessation is a very welcome side benefit of e-cigs, not the sole purpose of them, unlike NRTs. Due to the relatively simple chemical composition of e-liquids compared to the cocktail of additives and chemicals in commercially available tobacco, it is far easier to quit from e-cigs than it is from conventional cigarettes. There are up to 100,000 chemicals in tobacco smoke, most of which still remain unidentified. The very few ingredients in UK manufactured e-liquids are already covered under several EU directives regarding food and pharmaceutical standards, and the main propellant in e-liquid (propylene glycol) is used in almost all packaged foods, and also in asthma inhalers, and theatrical/nightclub smoke machines. Professor J F Etter and Professor Michael Siegel have both recently published reports that e-liquids are far safer than cigarettes, and that “none of the more than 10,000 chemicals present in large quantities in tobacco smoke, including 40 known carcinogens, are present in the liquid or vapour from electronic cigarettes in anything greater than trace quality….they are undoubtedly safer than tobacco cigarettes”.
I would also like to suggest that 4mg concentration of nicotine in e-liquids is not sufficient to allow smokers to switch easily to e-cigs. The average cigarette contains 10 to 14mg of nicotine (of which 1mg is absorbed per cigarette). A 4mg limit would not be enough for smokers to make a total switch. Moreover, cigarettes are not proposed for regulation under these same pharmaceutical directives. Why this is, when there are many proven carcinogens in tobacco smoke and tar, and they contain more than 4mg of nicotine ? E-cigs are viewed by the majority of vapers as recreational nicotine delivery devices (a description that would apply to tobacco cigarettes), but they are being targeted as something they are not intended to be used for by these proposals.
Thank you also for providing your colleague’s comments. I would like to counter her points if I may.
The long-term effects of nicotine absorption have already been observed and recorded through studies in Sweden where smokeless tobacco (snuss) is available. Nicotine is also present in large numbers of green vegetables, tomatoes and peppers, so anecdotally the long-term use of nicotine is already in evidence through the government’s recommendation that these foods should be eaten regularly. Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos , research doctor at University Hospital in Leuven, Belgium, has stated that there is already sufficient evidence to prove that compared to cigarettes, e-cigs are far less dangerous. He is also due to publish results of three tests on nicotine delivered to the lung and its effects on cells, which he says are extremely promising.
I fully agree that health warnings, reduction/deglamourisation of advertising, and legislation to allow the sale of e-cigs to over-18s should be implemented. However, all of these points are already in place with all members of ECITA, the UK’s industry body for electronic cigarettes. What needs to happen is enforcement of these existing regulations to all UK suppliers, rather than new legislation. Perhaps a ruling that all UK suppliers MUST belong to ECITA is a more realistic approach to regulating e-cigs. As already discussed, ECITA members comply with Food Standard/Pharma grade ingredients, and the mechanical aspects (batteries, atomisers, e-liquid holders) are all covered under current Trading Standards regulations.
With these in mind, and a proposed age-limit for the use of e-cigarettes which is already adhered to by ECITA members, why would Linda McAvan’s proposal to remove flavourings have any benefit ? If under-18s are unable to buy the products, what difference does flavouring make ? Part of the appeal for smokers trying to switch to e-cigs is finding a flavour that they prefer to tobacco cigarettes. They should be treated the same way as cigarettes – as a recreational device to deliver nicotine which is readily available to people of the appropriate age.
Professor John Britten, who leads the tobacco advisory group for the Royal College of Physicians has this to say on nicotine and e-cigs – “Nicotine is not a particularly hazardous drug. It’s something on a par with the effects you get from caffeine. If all the smokers in Britain stopped smoking cigarettes and started using e-cigs, we would save 5 million deaths in people who are alive today”.
I sincerely hope that these points are something you are able to pass along. The biggest concern for the vaping public is that if we can find and are aware of all these studies that support the use of e-cigs, ratifies their ingredients, and proves their more effective results than conventional NRTs, why are the elected body who represent us seemingly ignoring them, whilst turning a blind eye to a very lucrative, but deadly, recreational device.
Thank you for your reply to my previous email. I do have some points I would like to address if you don’t mind.
The majority of e-cig users are using them as recreational devices, not cessation aids, and they were created as a safer replacement for tobacco cigarettes, not as a tool for giving up smoking. Smoking cessation is a very welcome side benefit of e-cigs, not the sole purpose of them, unlike NRTs. Due to the relatively simple chemical composition of e-liquids compared to the cocktail of additives and chemicals in commercially available tobacco, it is far easier to quit from e-cigs than it is from conventional cigarettes. There are up to 100,000 chemicals in tobacco smoke, most of which still remain unidentified. The very few ingredients in UK manufactured e-liquids are already covered under several EU directives regarding food and pharmaceutical standards, and the main propellant in e-liquid (propylene glycol) is used in almost all packaged foods, and also in asthma inhalers, and theatrical/nightclub smoke machines. Professor J F Etter and Professor Michael Siegel have both recently published reports that e-liquids are far safer than cigarettes, and that “none of the more than 10,000 chemicals present in large quantities in tobacco smoke, including 40 known carcinogens, are present in the liquid or vapour from electronic cigarettes in anything greater than trace quality….they are undoubtedly safer than tobacco cigarettes”.
I would also like to suggest that 4mg concentration of nicotine in e-liquids is not sufficient to allow smokers to switch easily to e-cigs. The average cigarette contains 10 to 14mg of nicotine (of which 1mg is absorbed per cigarette). A 4mg limit would not be enough for smokers to make a total switch. Moreover, cigarettes are not proposed for regulation under these same pharmaceutical directives. Why this is, when there are many proven carcinogens in tobacco smoke and tar, and they contain more than 4mg of nicotine ? E-cigs are viewed by the majority of vapers as recreational nicotine delivery devices (a description that would apply to tobacco cigarettes), but they are being targeted as something they are not intended to be used for by these proposals.
Thank you also for providing your colleague’s comments. I would like to counter her points if I may.
The long-term effects of nicotine absorption have already been observed and recorded through studies in Sweden where smokeless tobacco (snuss) is available. Nicotine is also present in large numbers of green vegetables, tomatoes and peppers, so anecdotally the long-term use of nicotine is already in evidence through the government’s recommendation that these foods should be eaten regularly. Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos , research doctor at University Hospital in Leuven, Belgium, has stated that there is already sufficient evidence to prove that compared to cigarettes, e-cigs are far less dangerous. He is also due to publish results of three tests on nicotine delivered to the lung and its effects on cells, which he says are extremely promising.
I fully agree that health warnings, reduction/deglamourisation of advertising, and legislation to allow the sale of e-cigs to over-18s should be implemented. However, all of these points are already in place with all members of ECITA, the UK’s industry body for electronic cigarettes. What needs to happen is enforcement of these existing regulations to all UK suppliers, rather than new legislation. Perhaps a ruling that all UK suppliers MUST belong to ECITA is a more realistic approach to regulating e-cigs. As already discussed, ECITA members comply with Food Standard/Pharma grade ingredients, and the mechanical aspects (batteries, atomisers, e-liquid holders) are all covered under current Trading Standards regulations.
With these in mind, and a proposed age-limit for the use of e-cigarettes which is already adhered to by ECITA members, why would Linda McAvan’s proposal to remove flavourings have any benefit ? If under-18s are unable to buy the products, what difference does flavouring make ? Part of the appeal for smokers trying to switch to e-cigs is finding a flavour that they prefer to tobacco cigarettes. They should be treated the same way as cigarettes – as a recreational device to deliver nicotine which is readily available to people of the appropriate age.
Professor John Britten, who leads the tobacco advisory group for the Royal College of Physicians has this to say on nicotine and e-cigs – “Nicotine is not a particularly hazardous drug. It’s something on a par with the effects you get from caffeine. If all the smokers in Britain stopped smoking cigarettes and started using e-cigs, we would save 5 million deaths in people who are alive today”.
I sincerely hope that these points are something you are able to pass along. The biggest concern for the vaping public is that if we can find and are aware of all these studies that support the use of e-cigs, ratifies their ingredients, and proves their more effective results than conventional NRTs, why are the elected body who represent us seemingly ignoring them, whilst turning a blind eye to a very lucrative, but deadly, recreational device.
