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.
In the case of inhalation, the only first aid recommended is removal from the source to fresh air. Toxicalogical information for Diethylene Glycol shows that it is not a known carcinogen, nor is it expected to be found as one in the future. In addition, the dose required to kill half of the sample of rats tested is 12.565 g/kg and 11.89 g/kg for rabbits. Assuming this can be extended to humans, an average adult male would have to ingest 855.925 g to receive a lethal dose.
Now what about the FDA’s comparison of Diethylene Glycol to the general public as the main ingredient in antifreeze? The EPA gives these statements on variations of antifreeze: “Some propylene glycol based antifreezes are less toxic to pets and humans, but antifreeze typically contains ethylene glycol as its active ingredient. Short-term toxicity is substantially lower in propylene glycol than that of ethylene glycol, especially in the case of human exposure.”
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.