Electronic Cigarette Facts vs FDA’s Partial Disclosure
The FDA’s latest findings that electronic cigarettes are unsafe have gained a flurry of attention from nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) advocates who say the already FDA approved NRTs pose the same risks. Worse yet are the recent side-effect warnings the FDA are enforcing be placed on popular drugs Chantix and Zyban that users are at high risk of depression, suicidal thoughts, and hostility. Smokers looking to quit have a right to be upset about the FDA trying to ban electronic cigarettes.
Concerns are beginning to rise that perhaps the FDA is not conducting these tests on electronic cigarettes with the health of the general public in mind. Why is the FDA measuring the safety of these unapproved NRTs to regular health standards instead of contrasting it to the dangers posed by smoking traditional tobacco cigarettes?
One chemical the FDA’s tests pulled out of an electronic cigarette replacement cartridge was Diethylene Glycol. I did some digging on this instead of buying directly into the FDA’s press release. The Health New Zealand study did not test for the substance. This is likely due to the fact they were testing against known carcinogens found in tobacco and the manufacturer ingredient list. Adverse effects of Diethylene Glycol, as reported by its MSDS, are lesions and other forms of damage to the liver and kidneys.
Reading further along the MSDS, I found the first aid section. In it, it advises you what to do in case of inhalation of the substance – remove yourself to fresh air, away from the source. Seeking information about the carcinogenic properties of Diethylene Glycol brought me to the toxicological information. The MSDS stated no carcinogenic suspicion now or in the future. For a human to ingest a toxic amount of DG, they would be hammering down 855.925g before being fatal. That is assuming the dose required to kill half the lab rats at 12.565g/kg could be extended to humans.
Also in the FDA’s statement concerning their findings on e-cig risks, they explained DG as the primary ingredient in anti-freeze. The EPA paints a different picture, however. They state, “Some manufacturers promote a propylene glycol based solution (vs. ethylene glycol) which is less toxic.”
Either way, no matter which ingredient is active in the suspension, the stigma of antifreeze being dangerous actually comes from the fact that it is often disposed of improperly. This is only important because during service and use of the product, heavy metals contaminate the fluid (particularly dangerous is the lead contained in the metals). Yes, straight antifreeze is toxic, but its active ingredient is Ethylene Glycol and the main hazard stems from the heavy metals absorbed in used, recycled, or improperly discarded antifreeze.
Although DG was found non-carcinogenic, there was a trace amount of tobacco specific nitrosamines (TSNAs, carcinogens) found in 1 of the 18 cartridges tested by the FDA. This was not a new finding, as the Health New Zealand report did test for TSNAs and stated clearly that these were to be expected with any solution that derives its nicotine from the tobacco plant, and of course the amount of TSNAs would increase with the amount of nicotine contained in the cartridge. On average, electronic cigarette cartridges contain 3.928Ng (also knows as parts per billion [ppb]).
The specific listing is as follows: Nitrosamines In Cartridges: 0mg ” 0.260 Ng (ppb), 6mg ” 3.068 Ng, 11mg ” 4.200 Ng, 16mg ” 8.183Ng. As indicated above, the cartridge with the highest nicotine volume contained the highest level of TSNAs. What is significant about this is that by comparison, the FDA approved NRT Nicorette Gum contains 8Ng (the same as that of the highest strength nicotine cartridge). Putting this number further in comparison, tobacco cigarettes contain approximately 1,230ppb TSNAs before burning, and moist snuff pulls in between 1,000 and 2,400ppb.
Thinking back now to our original question, “Does the FDA have the public’s health in mind during their testing?” seems to take on a new light. It becomes increasingly apparent that perhaps their bigger concern is that a NRT device has hit the market that is very effective, just as safe as currently approved NRTs, but doesn’t line their pockets.
