http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/07/comparison.html
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Comparison of Carcinogen Levels Shows that Electronic Cigarettes are Much Safer Than Conventional Ones
The FDA (and the anti-smoking groups), however, failed to do three important things:
First, they failed to disclose the levels of tobacco-specific nitrosamines that were detected in the electronic cigarette cartridges.
Second, they failed to test the control product (a nicotine inhaler) to determine the carcinogen level in that product.
Third, they failed to report the tobacco-specific nitrosamine levels in conventional tobacco products, including cigarettes.
The Rest of the Story
Because of the FDA's and the anti-smoking groups' omissions, there is a need to get the rest of the story out there to the public. And here it is, in this table:
Maximum Tobacco-Specific Nitrosamine Levels in Various
Cigarettes and Nicotine-Delivery Products
(ng/g, except for nicotine gum and patch which are ng/patch or ng/gum piece)
| Product | NNN | NNK | NAT | NAB | Total |
| Electronic cigarettes (2) | 3.87 | 1.46 | 2.16 | 0.693 | 8.183 |
| Nicotine gum (1) | 2.00 | Not detected | Not detected | Not detected | 2.000 |
| Nicotine patch (1) | Not detected | 8.00 | Not detected | Not detected | 8.000 |
| Swedish snus (3) |
|
|
|
| 2400 |
| Winston (1) | 2200 | 580 | 560 | 25 | 3365 |
| Newport (1) | 1100 | 830 | 1900 | 55 | 3885 |
| Marlboro (3) |
|
|
|
| 6600 |
| Camel (1) | 3100 | 1400 | 2800 | 150 | 7450 |
| Skoal (1) | 4500 | 470 | 4100 | 220 | 9290 |
| Marlboro (1) | 4300 | 1800 | 4900 | 190 | 11,190 |
Sources:
- Stepanov I, Jensen J, Hatsukami D, Hecht SS. Tobacco-specific nitrosamines in new tobacco products. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2006; 8:309-313. (Link)
- Laugesen M. Safety Report on the Ruyan e-cigarette Cartridge and Inhaled Aerosol. Christchurch, New Zealand: Health New Zealand Ltd, 2008. (Link)
- Wahlberg I. Tobacco-specific Nitrosamines in Unburnt New Zealand Tobaccos. Report to Health New Zealand Ltd. Swedish Match, 2004. (Link)
As these data show, the level of tobacco-specific nitrosamines present in electronic cigarettes is at the trace level. It is measurable in parts per trillion (nanograms per gram). It is comparable to the nitrosamine levels in nicotine replacement products which are approved by the FDA.
In contrast, the level of tobacco-specific nitrosamines present in tobacco products are 300 to 1400 times higher. On a weight-for-weight basis, Marlboro has 1400 times higher the level of tobacco-specific nitrosamines than an electronic cigarette cartridge. And keep in mind that these represent the levels in the cartridges and cigarettes, not in the tobacco smoke or e-cigarette vapor which are directly inhaled. Because of the much higher temperatures generated in tobacco combustion compared to propylene glycol vaporization, the delivery of these carcinogens into the vapor is expected to be much lower than into the tobacco smoke.
Moreover, there are approximately 56 other carcinogens that have been identified to be present at high levels in tobacco smoke, while there are no other carcinogens that have been identified to be present in electronic cigarettes.
Based on these data, and upon knowledge that the conventional cigarette contains at least 10,000 other chemicals, including known toxins and carcinogens, while the electronic cigarette does not, there is exceedingly strong evidence that electronic cigarettes are much, much safer than conventional ones.
This does not mean that there are not issues that need to be addressed with electronic cigarettes. The diethylene glycol that was present in one cartridge tested suggests that more widespread and systematic testing should be done to identify the extent of this problem. Testing is also necessary to determine whether the diethylene glycol actually makes it into the e-cigarette vapor/mist. The problem should be able to be addressed easily, since high-grade propylene glycol - which is almost entirely free of diethylene glycol - is readily available.
Appropriate procedures also need to be in place, if they are not already, to ensure that electronic cigarettes are not available to minors.
However, what this calls for is the FDA working with the electronic cigarette manufacturers and distributors to study the product and address the identified problems. It does not call for the FDA to ban the product or pull it from the market.
This research is not the only work that has established that electronic cigarettes are much safer than conventional cigarettes. Research conducted by Dr. Murray Laugesen and Health New Zealand Ltd. reveals that the toxic emissions score for electronic cigarettes is much lower than that of conventional cigarettes. In fact, the toxic emissions score - which is a score based on the levels of 59 priority toxicants - was zero for electronic cigarettes. In contrast, it was 126 for Marlboro and it was no lower than 100 for any brand of conventional cigarette tested.
Note that the above study actually tested the electronic cigarette vapor. This is the most relevant test, because it determines what the user actually inhales. The study found no more than trace levels of any of the 59 priority toxicants.
The study concluded: "Ruyan® V8 nicotine e-cigarette users do not inhale smoke or smoke toxicants. The modest reductions recommended in 2008 by WHO's Tobacco Regulation committee for 9 major toxicants in cigarette smoke, in line with Articles 9 and 10 of the FCTC (WHO Framework Convention Tobacco Control treaty), are already far exceeded by the Ruyan® e-cigarette, as it is free of all accompanying smoke toxicants. Absolute safety does not exist for any drug, but relative to lethal tobacco smoke emissions, Ruyan e-cigarette emissions appear to be several magnitudes safer. E-cigarettes are akin to a medicinal nicotine inhalator in safety, dose, and addiction potential. E-cigarettes are cigarette substitutes. If they can take nicotine market share from cigarettes, and that is the big question, they will improve smoker and population health. They may also have a secondary role as medicinal nicotine inhaler quitting aids. Further trials of acceptability, addiction potential, clinical safety, and quitting efficacy are needed."
It should also be noted that there is preliminary research which provides laboratory evidence that electronic cigarettes are as effective as nicotine replacement products for short-term smoking cessation (i.e., these products have been shown to provide relief of cigarette cravings at a level comparable to nicotine replacement products). This research found that electronic cigarettes are actually preferable to a nicotine inhaler in terms of helpfulness, pleasantness, and ratings of whether the smoker would use the product and recommend the product. Given the overwhelming anecdotal evidence of the effectiveness of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation, formally studying the longer-term effectiveness of these products is a research priority.
Electronic cigarettes have the potential to be a life-saving intervention for millions of smokers. The FDA and the anti-smoking groups need to embrace this product and support the appropriate testing, not remove it abruptly from the market and sentence over a million e-cigarette users to disease and even death by a return to conventional cigarettes.
599 Ingredients added to Cigarettes
This is the list of the 599 ingredients added in cigarette manufacture by the 5 major cigarette companies, as released in 1994. It is not a list of the 4,000+ chemicals released in cigarette smoke. http://pw1.netcom.com/~bcb56/1500chme.htm http://www.jandw.com/AlphaCompounds.html(601)
The Myth of the Green Cigarette
Cigarettes are the most-polluted item in the world, so needless to say, smoking is not very green. Considering that only 10 percent of cigarettes are disposed of properly, any effort to reduce the amount of waste caused by smokers is a good thing, right? That's the thinking behind makers of several brands of e-cigarettes - a trendy new smoking alternative that dispenses nicotine through vapor, rather than smoke, in a reusable, odorless cigarette-like device. E-cigarette users can "smoke" indoors without affecting others. They never need a lighter, and prevent hundreds of butts from being stubbed out on the pavement, since the device uses rechargeable batteries and refillable cartridges.
Totally green smoking is too good to be true. Turns out, the electronic smokes - which are marketed on several websites as healthier than real cigarettes - can be as harmful as traditional kind. According to an FDA press release:
Because these products have not been submitted to the FDA for evaluation or approval, at this time the agency has no way of knowing, except for the limited testing it has performed, the levels of nicotine or the amounts or kinds of other chemicals that the various brands of these products deliver to the user.
The FDA's Division of Pharmaceutical Analysis analyzed the ingredients in a small sample of cartridges from two leading brands of electronic cigarettes. In one sample, the FDA's analyses detected diethylene glycol, a chemical used in antifreeze that is toxic to humans, and in several other samples, the FDA analyses detected carcinogens, including nitrosamines. These tests indicate that these products contained detectable levels of known carcinogens and toxic chemicals to which users could potentially be exposed.
The harmful chemicals aren't the only reason for the warning. "The FDA is concerned about the safety of these products and how they are marketed to the public," said Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D., commissioner of food and drugs. The e-cigarettes are sold in malls, and the flavored nicotine may entice kids. They're also touted as "healthy," "green," and "environmental." But with the wallop of chemicals inside and the battery that will find its way to a landfill, environmentally-aware smokers are trading one bad habit for another.
Traditional cigarettes, too, will tout their green credentials. American Spirit brand uses USDA-certified organic tobacco, avoiding the pesticides that other growers use (tobacco farmers use 27 million pounds of pesticides each year). American Spirit is owned by Reynolds American, though, which diminishes its green cred.
So is there an eco-friendly way to smoke? In addition to the litter, Slate's Green Lantern urges you to consider the air pollution:
The global tobacco industry manufactures roughly 5.5 trillion cigarettes annually. Assuming that all those cancer sticks get consumed, smokers around the world spew out about 84,878 tons of fine particulate matter annually, or a little less than half of a year's worth of emissions from American on-road vehicles.
So to answer that question: no. Whether or not the well-being of the planet provides any additional motivation, it's time to quit for the sake of your own health. More on smoking here.
Reader Comments
Smoke and mirrors
If you don't rely on the FDA's Press Release and actually read the reports you can see through the smoke and past the mirrors.
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm172906.htm
Only very small amounts of the harmfull substances the media loves to mention were actually detected. The FDA admits that no conclusions can be made from the study. The only thing the E-Cigs were compared with was the Nicotrol Inhaler, NOT Real Cigarettes, Gums or Patches.
So far the chemical count between real cigarettes and E-cigarettes is about 4,000 to what? maybe 15. How can they NOT be safer than real cigarettes? With no Dead Bodies yet and if all they have found so far is in this FDA report then I will take my chances with the E-cig's.
By the way, I agree that the E-cig's are not "Totally green smoking." What if just One Forest fire fails to start this year because someone was using an E-cig and didn't carelessly toss out that smoldering cigarette butt from the window of their new Prius that has no @%*$ ash tray.
A list of harmful chemicals produced by real cigarettes
So if your going to tell us the chemicals produced by the new e-cigarettes why not put the list right next to the list of harmful chemicals produced by regular cigarettes. let us compare and decide which is worse.
