More on e-cigarettes

Slate magazine's William Saletan has taken a look at the e-cigarette market with today's article The irrational war on electronic cigarettes.

And the Wall Street Journal and New York Times are on the e-cigarette story too. The Toronto Star wrote -- and conveniently posted a video about it back in March, before it was banned:



Back in March, the American Lung Association made its position clear:

Makers and retailers of these products have been making unproven health claims about their products, claiming that they are safer than normal cigarettes and asserting that they can help people to quit smoking. Absent scientific evidence, these claims are in blatant violation of FDA rules.

In fact, no studies have been done on e-cigarettes to date regarding their health effects or their effectiveness as cessation aids. Like the “light” and “low tar” cigarettes that tobacco companies claimed were healthier for consumers, there is no evidence to back up the claims made by e-cigarette makers. In September of 2008, the World Health Organization stated that they have “no evidence to confirm the product’s safety or efficacy.”

The American Cancer society:

The e-cigarette has no published clinical trials that suggest it might work as a way to help smokers quit. No clinical trials have been submitted to the FDA. As of early 2009, the FDA has not ruled as to whether e-cigarettes are medical devices but it is investigating. There may also be questions about how safe it is to inhale some of the flavorings and other substances in the nicotine mists into the lungs. Even substances that are safe to eat can harm delicate tissues inside the lungs.

Like other forms of nicotine, the e-cigarettes and nicotine cartridges can be toxic to children or pets. They can also pose a choking hazard.

Here in Canada, Health Canada followed suit three days after the FDA banned e-cigarettes with this media advisory, saying:

Health Canada is advising Canadians not to purchase or use electronic smoking products, as these products may pose health risks and have not been fully evaluated for safety, quality and efficacy by Health Canada.

These products come as electronic cigarettes, cigars, cigarillos and pipes, as well as cartridges of nicotine solutions and related products. These products fall within the scope of the Food and Drugs Act, and under the Act, require market authorization before they can be imported, advertised or sold. The sale of these health products is currently not compliant with the Food and Drugs Act since no electronic smoking products have been granted a market authorization in Canada.

So when I originally wrote about this, I focused on it looking dorky. Andy Nulman, who originally pointed this out to me and a bazillion other people, responded that "They are dorky, Bob! But so was the Prius when it first came out ;)"

Now I'm starting to wonder if the industry is just going about the market introduction all wrong. If the product is as innocuous as they suggest it is, why not go through the hoops of getting licenced? I don't doubt it would be costly, but if the business case is there, then why not do it?

Because it appears that they (the cig-makers, that is) have sorta blundered into the markets with the assumption that they would be welcomed. Which kinda surprises me, given that they have anti-smoking activist David Sweanor on the board of their US association. Sweanor made this point in an Ottawa Citizen piece he wrote after "snus" were banned in Canada:

"Canada currently is the victim of a "nicotine maintenance monopoly." More than five million of our fellow citizens are only allowed to satisfy their long-term nicotine demand by use of a product that will kill half of them, reduce the quality of life for most of the rest, pollutes the air for all of us and causes users to be unwilling role models for kids...Rather than attacking Imperial Tobacco for introducing a much less toxic alternative to cigarettes maybe we should welcome the opportunity to discuss a rational, health-based regulatory approach for the full range of nicotine delivery products. If in the end there is a better recognition of the limitations of a "just say no" approach to tobacco and nicotine, so much the better."

So I'm feeling kind of weird. We know cigarettes are dangerous. And we let those be sold. We don't know about these, and for some reason it appears nobody's doing the research, but they can't be sold. If the companies did the research, would it be accepted by the anti-tobacco folks? If the companies won't, who will?

And I still think they're dorky. What are your thoughts about this?

Ciao,
Bob.