(828) 698-5795 

New Survey of Adult Vapers Finds that 75% Use Non-Tobacco Flavors; Flavoring Ban Would Likely Cause Massive Migration Back to Tobacco Cigarettes

A number of policy makers - including several prominent U.S. senators - have called for a ban on e-cigarette flavorings in order to reduce their appeal to youth. Unfortunately, a new survey conducted among 10,000 adult vapers at E-Cigarette Forum suggests that such a ban would lead to a massive migration of adult vapers back to real, tobacco cigarettes.The survey found that 74.4% of adult vapers most often use non-tobacco flavors, with the majority of these preferring fruit or dessert-related flavors. Only 22.9% prefer tobacco flavoring, and an additional 2.7% prefer tobacco flavoring combined with menthol. Fruit- and dessert-flavored electronic cigarettes represent approximately half of the market among the users surveyed.The Rest of the StoryThis survey has two major implications for public health regulation.First, the results demonstrate that many adults - in fact the majority of them - do prefer flavored e-cigarettes. Thus, it cannot be assumed that just because an electronic cigarette company markets flavored products, it is intentionally trying to recruit youth users. This is a flaw that many anti-smoking advocates and groups have fallen into. Because the market appears to be dominated by flavored products, it does not logically follow that any company which is marketing flavored e-cigarettes is trying to attract kids to vaping.Second, the results suggest that a ban on flavorings in e-cigarettes would have devastating consequences for the public's health. Specifically, it would likely cause a massive migration of vapers back to the severely toxic, real, tobacco cigarettes, and with that transition, all of the associated adverse health sequelae.A further reason not to ban flavorings in e-cigarettes is that youth who experiment with these flavored products are almost certainly much less likely to progress to smoking. It is difficult to imagine a youth transitioning from a cherry e-cigarette to a Marlboro. In a sense, flavored e-cigarettes may actually be protective of youth transitioning from vaping to smoking. The tastes are so vastly different, and the e-cigarette use probably accustoms youth to a flavored taste that they are just not going to get with a real cigarette.For all of these reasons, I believe that the current evidence does not support the FDA placing a ban on flavorings in electronic cigarettes. Such an action would, ironically, have devastating overall consequences for the public's health, both among youth and adults.Original author: Michael Siegel
  1423 Hits
  0 Comments

Pseudoscience in electronic cigarette policy

Public health authorities are engaging in a worldwide campaign to restrict or even ban the free market of electronic cigarettes. In view of the obvious benefits these alternative nicotine delivery systems provide to smokers, this objective may appear irrational and in conflict with the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). However, the noble ambition […]

Continue reading
  1508 Hits
  1 Comment

Pseudoscience in electronic cigarette policy

Public health authorities are engaging in a worldwide campaign to restrict or even ban the free market of electronic cigarettes. In view of the obvious benefits these alternative nicotine delivery systems provide to smokers, this objective may appear irrational and in conflict with the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). However, the noble ambition […]

Continue reading
  698 Hits
  0 Comments

Call to Action! Pennsylvania Legislators Are Considering an Excise Tax on E-Cigarettes and Smokeless Tobacco

As Pennsylvania legislators scramble to fill a budget deficit of over $1 billion, a tax on electronic cigarettes is being considered.  Rumors are that the State may seek to impose a punitive tax of up to 60% of wholesale price on all e-cigarette products, possibly including devices.  Legislators are also considering taxing low-risk smokeless tobacco products at the same amount.  Pennsylvania is supposed to have its budget passed by June 30th, but the situation is so difficult that negotiations may push on past that date.  Legislators need to immediately begin hearing from vapers and users of reduced harm products so that we can stop this tax from becoming law.

CASAA has issued two new CQ Roll Call Campaigns for Pennsylvania to express consumer opposition to a sin tax on e-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco:

Continue reading
  2222 Hits
  0 Comments

E-Cigs and Health: Study shows e-cigarettes do not negatively affect acute heart function

Jun 26

Continue reading
  1771 Hits
  0 Comments

Glantz/Chapman: Twisting the Facts to Support Pre-Determined Conclusions

Yesterday, I reported that Drs. Stan Glantz and Simon Chapman issued defamatory attacks against Lorillard for running an inappropriate blu e-cigarette commercial (the robot sex ad). The truth is that Lorillard had nothing to do with the ad, which was produced in 2010, well before Lorillard acquired blu. The Rest of the Story Today, I reflect on what this story demonstrates about the scientific bias that is apparent in the anti-smoking movement, particularly among researchers like Dr. Glantz, who has repeatedly misinterpreted scientific studies in order to skewer electronic cigarettes.What the story demonstrates is that Dr. Glantz has a pre-determined set of conclusions about electronic cigarettes and the tobacco companies' role in inappropriately marketing these products to addict a new generation of kids. When presented with information, he jumps to an immediate interpretation and conclusion that supports his pre-determined schema. Instead of exercising critical judgment and objective evaluation of the evidence, he immediately twists the facts to support his pre-existing position. Dr. Glantz is just one example of a phenomenon that characterizes a number of researchers and tobacco control groups that are vehement opponents of electronic cigarettes for ideological, rather than valid scientific reasons.In psychology, this phenomenon is known as confirmation bias. A 2010 Boston Globe article describes this phenomenon and explains how when people are affected by this bias, they twist new facts that run counter to their position in order to fit with their pre-determined conclusions, rather than change their positions in line with the new information.  In the article, Joe Keohane writes:"Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It’s this: Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger." ...“The general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re wrong,” says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on the Michigan study. The phenomenon — known as “backfire” — is “a natural defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.”For this reason, I am discouraged about the possibility that people like Dr. Glantz and Dr. Chapman will change their minds about the potential utility of e-cigarettes if further evidence accumulates to demonstrate the benefits of these products. The science is simply not going to matter to them. Hopefully, the science will matter to the FDA.Original author: Michael Siegel
  1457 Hits
  0 Comments

Stroke Risk Same for Menthol and Nonmenthol Smokers

Dr. Nicholas Vozoris in 2012 reported that “…smokers of mentholated cigarettes, and in particular women and non–African Americans, have significantly increased odds of stroke compared with nonmentholated cigarette smokers.” (reference here). He used National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) data to calculate odds ratios of 2.3 for all menthol smokers, 3.3 for women and 3.5 for non-African Americans. Dr. Vozoris found no increased risk for hypertension, heart attack, congestive heart failure or emphysema among menthol smokers. If the Vozoris findings on menthol and stroke were independently confirmed, they could serve as a basis for a ban on menthol cigarettes. Instead, an analysis of NHANES data by Dr. Brian Rostron (here) comes to an entirely different conclusion. Dr. Rostron found that African-American menthol smokers had a significantly lower risk for stroke (OR = 0.52, 95% confidence interval= 0.28 – 0.99) than nonmenthol smokers. “It is not clear to me,” Dr. Rostron writes, “how Vozoris obtained his findings, given that I cannot replicate his general results for stroke using the NHANES data and analyses that he specified. Moreover, the absence of observed differences in stroke prevalence among NHANES menthol smokers would suggest that methodological or analytical issues may have affected his results.”Dr. Rostron earlier showed that menthol smokers have lower lung cancer risks than nonmenthol smokers (here).Promoted by the Archives of Internal Medicine (here), the Vozoris study was covered by major news media (here and here). The journal, which changed its name to JAMA Internal Medicine in January 2013, is not publicizing the study that corrects the deficient 2012 analysis. Although medical journals cannot avoid publishing erroneous reports, editors should take all measures to correct the types of mistakes discovered by Rostron.Original author: Raquel
  1328 Hits
  0 Comments

No smoking, anywhere

The dangers of secondhand smoke are making it increasingly inconvenient for smokers to get their fix.January marked six years since Illinois became smoke-free. The initial ban, which limited the use of cigarettes in indoor public places, aimed to both decrease the prevalence of smoking, and to protect non-smokers from the dangers of secondhand smoke.But simply banning smoking indoors isn’t enough shield us from secondhand smoke, health officials are saying.Two bills to further limit smoking are making their way through the Illinois General Assembly. One aims to ban smoking in vehicles with minors. The other proposes to ban smoking on any public college campus in Illinois.Most adults agree smoking should be banned in cars with kids, according to a study by the University of Michigan last year. Yet only five states actually have a ban. That is why Sen. Ira Silverstein, D-Chicago, has proposed a bill that would ban smoking in a motor vehicle containing any passengers under age 18.The legislation states that police may not stop a vehicle only for smoking in the car with a child. Rather, police would be able to issue a citation if they had pulled the vehicle over for another violation. Violators would be fined up to $100.Kathy Drea, vice president of advocacy of the Illinois chapter of the American Lung Association, told the Illinois Senate’s public health committee that even low levels of secondhand smoke are harmful. She said the concentration of smoke in a vehicle is up to 60 times greater than in a smoky bar.But similar legislation has failed in the past, including a bill last year that proposed only banning smoking in vehicles with children under the age of 13, and a bill in 2007 that did make it to the House floor but received only 18 votes in favor of it and 91 “no” votes.Another suggested smoking ban, the Smoke-Free Campus Act, would ban smoking on all public college campuses in Illinois. The Illinois House Higher Education Committee voted 9-3 in February in support of the ban.Some college campuses in Illinois already ban smoking, such as the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and Southern Illinois University Carbondale. While the state’s 2008 ban applies to all indoor areas on campuses, in those that do allow smoking, it is sometimes permitted in the quad or parking lots. If the bill passes, smoking would be banned everywhere on campus property with the exception of moving vehicles that are traveling through campus. It would be up to individual colleges to decide how to enforce the ban.In January, a U.S. Surgeon General’s report added several conditions to the list of health problems that can be caused by secondhand smoke, including diabetes, colon and liver cancer, and strokes for non-smokers.“We don’t know everything about smoking,” Drea said. “It needs to be taken very seriously.”A purpose of both bills is to limit the amount of exposure to secondhand smoke, but Drea said the ban also aims to cause university employees and students to quit smoking.These proposed restrictions come after the Chicago City Council approved an ordinance in January to ban the use of electronic cigarettes indoors and the February announcement that CVS Caremark will no longer be selling tobacco products. Additionally, cigarette and tobacco prices have gone up over recent years in Illinois as a result of sin taxes put in place by the General Assembly.As locations to buy and smoke cigarettes decrease over time, the question lingers: is smoking becoming taboo?According to the Illinois Department of Public Health, rates have declined. While about 25 percent of adults Illinoisans smoked in 1996, only about 16.9 percent smoked in 2010. People are still smoking. They’re just running out of places to do it.Higher Education committee member Rep. Robert Pritchard, R-Hinckley, who voted in support of the campus ban bill, pointed out such a ban may cause smokers to go off campus to get their fix.“When I travel around in public buildings and I see people smoking, they’re doing that even at 10 below,” he said.Contact Lauren P. Duncan at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. No smoking, anywhereOriginal author: Halley
  1571 Hits
  0 Comments

Glantz and Chapman Falsely Accuse Lorillard of Using Robot Sex Ad to Promote E-Cigarette Use

On his tobacco blog, Dr. Stan Glantz links to a quite inappropriate advertisement for blu electronic cigarettes, attacking Lorillard for using this approach to promote e-cigarette use. He claims that this is part of Lorillard's ongoing strategy, accusing Lorillard of stooping to this low tactic to recruit youth to vaping. The ad depicts a robot having sex with a woman and then afterwards shunning a cigarette and offering an e-cigarette instead.On his Twitter feed, Dr. Simon Chapman also attacked Big Tobacco for running this ad, accusing Lorillard of "viraling" this ad "to teens."Of course, I agree with both Dr. Glantz and Dr. Chapman that the ad is quite inappropriate.The Rest of the StoryThe problem is that Lorillard did not create this ad, had no part in its development, and is not running the ad now. In fact, Lorillard has absolutely nothing to do with the ad.The truth is that the ad was created independently as part of a viral video contest. Apparently, blu did not do anything to dissociate itself from the ad. However, the ad was produced in 2010, two years before it was purchased by Lorillard. Thus, Lorillard had nothing to do with the ad.The rest of the story, then, is that Glantz and Chapman are making a false accusation. How, then, do they get away with this?The answer is that in the anti-smoking movement, you don't need to be honest and truthful. As long as your intentions are good, you can get away with lying and with making false and defamatory accusations. The ends are all that matter, and if you use defamatory means to reach those ends, it's perfectly acceptable. I, too, was disturbed by this ad and was going to write a blog post attacking it. However, it was quite apparent to me that this is not something that Lorillard would run. So before jumping to attack Lorillard, I did a little research and confirmed that it was not a Lorillard ad. In fact, it wasn't even really a blu company ad, since the company did not produce it (although they still had some association with the ad and did not disavow any relationship with it). My colleagues - Glantz and Chapman - were so excited about the opportunity to attack Lorillard for promoting e-cigarettes to youth that they failed to exercise even a minimum of due diligence in checking the facts first. (The complete story is here).In law, there is a term used to refer to what Glantz and Chapman are doing here. It is called defamation.As much as I condemn this advertisement, I also condemn the defamatory tactics that Glantz and Chapman are using to falsely accuse Lorillard of producing the ad.Original author: Michael Siegel
  1633 Hits
  0 Comments

New Study Shows that E-Cigarettes, Unlike Real Ones, Do Not Adversely Affect Acute Heart Function

A new study published yesterday in the journal BMC Cardiovascular Disorders reports that unlike real cigarettes, electronic cigarettes do not adversely affect acute heart function.(See: Farsalinos KE, et al. Acute effects of using an electronic nicotine-delivery device (electronic cigarette) on myocardial function: comparison with the effects of regular cigarettes. BMC Cardiovascular Disorders 2014, 14:78.)In the study, investigators examined measures of acute heart function using echocardiography among 36 smokers and 40 vapers, before and after using either a cigarette or e-cigarette. The researchers found that cigarette smoking adversely affected acute heart function. Electronic cigarette use had no effect on any of the measures examined.The results were summarized as follows:"This is the first study to examine the acute effects of electronic cigarette use on myocardial function. No adverse effects on LV [left ventricular] myocardial function were observed after using electronic cigarette with nicotine-containing liquid for 7 minutes. On the contrary, significant changes in diastolic function parameters were found after smoking 1 tobacco cigarette."The authors conclude as follows:"This study provides the first clinical evidence that electronic cigarettes have less acute adverse effects on myocardial function when compared to tobacco cigarettes."The Rest of the StoryThis study adds to the abundant evidence that electronic cigarette use is much safer than smoking.Given that abundant evidence, it is inappropriate for many anti-smoking advocates and groups to continue to tell the public that we don't yet know whether vaping is safer than smoking.Sadly, the FDA itself - in its proposed deeming regulations - concluded that we do not yet know enough to determine whether vaping is any more dangerous than smoking. I find it horrific that the FDA - the agency which is going to supposedly be using science to make informed, evidence-based decisions regarding tobacco products - is not sure that cigarette smoking is any more hazardous than the use of fake cigarettes that contain no tobacco, involve no combustion, produce no secondhand smoke, have much lower levels of carcinogens, and have been found to acutely improve the health of smokers who switch to them.With that conclusion, the FDA has unfortunately destroyed its scientific credibility. It has demonstrated that it will be ideology, and not science, that dictates the regulation of tobacco and nicotine-containing products in this country.  The rest of the story is that the next time you hear an organization claim that vaping may not be any safer than smoking, you will know that the group has no scientific credibility. It's just sad to think that the FDA is one of those groups.Original author: Michael Siegel
  1430 Hits
  0 Comments

E-cigarettes could stub out tobacco bonds sooner than thought

By Robin Respaut NEW YORK (Reuters) - The rapid growth of electronic cigarette sales poses a rising but under-appreciated risk to holders of as much as $96 billion of bonds tied to payments tobacco companies make to U.S. states from a sweeping legal settlement in 1998. Tobacco bonds were already forecast by many analysts to begin defaulting within the next 10 years. That's because Americans have given up smoking at a faster rate than estimated when most of the bonds were sold in the previous decade. Cigarette consumption has dropped an annual average 3.4 percent since 2000 while many bonds were structured to withstand consumption declines of only 2 to 3 percent. But as smokers swap traditional cigarettes for tobacco-free e-cigarettes and other vaping products, the smoking rate is declining even faster and analysts now predict some bonds could go into default before the end of this decade. "If the decline goes to 6 or 7 percent, it will be very quick," said Tom Metzold, portfolio manager at Eaton Vance Investment Managers. "I think that the first ones are probably five years away," he said in reference to defaults. While still a small part of the cigarette market, sales of e-cigarettes and vaporizers have already grown to be worth more than $2.2 billion from next to nothing four years ago. By some estimates, they will capture more than half the smoking market within a decade, and tobacco companies are already jockeying for leading positions as that change unfolds. "We believe consumption of e-vapor will eclipse consumption of combustible cigs over the next decade as technology improves," wrote Bonnie Herzog, analyst at Wells Fargo, who has tracked the tobacco industry for years, in a recent report. Last month, Reuters reported that Reynolds American Inc. and Lorillard Inc., the second and third U.S. cigarette makers, were exploring a merger. Lorillard's leading blu e-cigarette brand, which has roughly 50 percent of the U.S. market, is seen as one of the appeals of the deal to Reynolds. Under the Master Settlement Agreement, or MSA, struck 16 years ago between the biggest U.S. tobacco companies and 46 U.S. states, the companies make annual payments to the states using a complex formula tied to U.S. tobacco shipments. The accord ended years of litigation brought by the states, which had sought to recoup healthcare costs for treating ailments tied to smoking. The states with the highest populations, such as California and New York, are owed the most. The majority of them arranged to get much of their money up front by selling bonds and pledging the annual payments to the bond holders. The only problem is that as tobacco shipments decline, so do the payments. And sales of e-cigarettes, which now appear to be helping to accelerate the tobacco-consumption decline rate, are not counted as cigarette sales under the MSA. The outlook for tobacco bonds is so dire that a forecast last month from Moody's Investors Service predicted 65 to 80 percent were headed toward default. ALREADY AT RISK Tobacco bond analysts have blamed the decline in consumption of cigarettes on public smoking bans and new excise taxes, until now. Last year, cigarette shipments dropped by 4.9 percent, the biggest decline since the government passed a federal excise tax in 2009, a drop some blame on the rising popularity of the industry's new tobacco-free alternatives, such as e-cigarettes. "The only cause I can attribute it to is e-cigarettes," said Alan Schankel, managing director of Janney Capital Market's Fixed Income Strategy team. "I think they are having an impact." In 2013, Americans purchased 13.3 billion packs of cigarettes and 400,000 equivalent packs of e-cigarettes, versus 14.1 billion packs of cigarettes and 200,000 equivalent e-cigarettes in 2012. Wells Fargo Securities predicts the pace at which consumers switch from traditional cigarettes to e-vapor alternatives will surge in the coming years. It estimates that sales volumes for traditional cigarettes in the U.S. will decline by 68 percent over the next 10 years, while vapor cigarette sales will soar by more than 13-fold in the same period. The shift in consumer preference and the non-inclusion of e-cigarettes in the MSA "creates an incentive for tobacco manufacturers to encourage their consumers to switch to vapor products," wrote Wells' Herzog. For Eaton Vance's Metzold, the recent takeover buzz in the industry confirms to him that e-cigarettes are where the companies see their future, at least in the U.S market. "Here's your catalyst," said Metzold, who sold all of his tobacco bonds more than a year ago. "Tobacco companies are buying the e-cigarette companies." Lorillard acquired blu for $135 million in 2012, and also bought the UK e-cigarette brand SKYCIG for $49 million. Reynolds began distributing Vuse e-cigarettes in June and the No.1 U.S. tobacco company, Altria Group Inc, is soon due to roll out its e-cig brand MarkTen nationally. NOT EVERYONE'S A BELIEVER Still, not everyone is convinced about the e-cigarettes boom and the likelihood of early default on the bonds. "E-cigarettes are not a real replacement. They are another tool for people to quit smoking, but they are not a substitute. To me, it's a fad," said Dick Larkin, senior vice president and director of Credit Analysis, himself a smoker. "E-cigarettes are a threat to the MSA, but I don't think they are a material threat." And the bonds are enticing for some, largely because they're so cheap and offer juicy yields at a time when high rates of return in the fixed income market are relatively scarce. Boston-based investment firm Loomis Sayles bought tobacco bonds several years ago when they were trading at deep discounts. "I don't think you can say with 100 percent certainty that e-cigarettes will supplant normal cigarettes. How does anyone even know that?" said Steven Bocamazo, credit research manager and senior research analyst at Loomis Sayles. "They have a small market share and, while growing, it isn't the big threat that everyone is making it out to be." Tobacco-settlement debt currently counts among the highest-yielding in the municipal bond market. The Standard & Poor's Municipal Bond Tobacco Index sports an average yield to maturity of 6.24 percent for the $23.9 billion of bonds it tracks. By comparison, S&P's index for general obligation muni bonds has a yield of just 2.9 percent. But, even with a rally underway this year - the S&P tobacco bond index is up more than 13 percent - most continue to trade at distressed levels, reflecting their perceived default risk. Moody's rates around 80 percent of all tobacco bonds at "B1" - which is four notches below investment grade - or lower. "There are fund groups like ourselves, that said, 'We don't like what is going on here, we're getting out,'" said Metzold. SOME STATES SOFTEN THE BLOW The softening revenue flowing to the bonds from weakening consumption trends has prompted some states to step in to support the bonds. Earlier this month, New Jersey announced it would draw $12.5 million from reserves as a result of "insufficient tobacco settlement revenues" in April. Ohio and Virginia made similar announcements in May. To further bolster payments, some Democrats in Congress want to fold e-cigarettes into the MSA, arguing the payments gives states "a powerful tool to stop e-cigarette makers from targeting youth." (Link: http://1.usa.gov/1lDdv2k) But many states haven't spent the $100 billion received so far in tobacco settlement money on its intended use – to cover healthcare costs generated by smoking. Only 14.6 percent of the funding generated by tobacco settlement and state taxes are spent on causes recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids found. Instead, states like New Jersey, New York and New Mexico have used some of the money to prop up general fund revenues or to service debt, among other things, according to the public policy group, State Budget Solutions. Among state policy makers, the rise of e-cigarettes has caught the eyes of some but has not yet registered widely as a concern. Spokespersons for California's Department of Finance and New Jersey's Treasury Department said they were monitoring the growth of e-cigarettes and both agreed it was "premature" to forecast how the new product would affect future MSA payments. Kurt Kauffman, debt manager for the State of Ohio, said the state hadn't "reached the point of concern yet." Ohio expects to tap up to $31.5 million from a reserve account to cover a tobacco bond payment this year. "It's something that we pay attention to and have an interest in following," said Kauffman. (Additional reporting by Jennifer Ablan; Editing by Dan Burns and Martin Howell)Consumer DiscretionaryBondstobacco companiesOriginal author: Reyes
  1625 Hits
  0 Comments

More nonsense about gateway effects – this time from ecig supporters


by Carl V Phillips It seems that most every researcher or pundit making claims about gateway effects — that e-cigarette use causes some people to then become smokers — has no clue about what evidence would support or contradict such a … Continue reading →Original author: Carl V Phillips
  1508 Hits
  0 Comments

Call to Action! We need Michigan vapers to immediately contact Governor Rick Snyder's office and ask him to sign Senate Bill 668.

We need Michigan vapers to immediately contact Governor Rick Snyder’s office and ask him to sign Senate Bill 668. 

Continue reading
  1440 Hits
  0 Comments

Study explores how different groups interact with media messages about e-cigarettes

Adults are widely exposed to e-cigarette marketing through the media, but those messages reach different demographic groups in different ways, according to a survey by researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago's Institute for Health Research and Policy.The study is published as a special supplement in the July 2014 issue of Tobacco Control.Eighty-six percent of those surveyed were aware of e-cigarettes, and 47 percent had seen or heard about them on television, on the radio, in print media or online. The survey of 17,522 adults was conducted online last year."These are significant findings, given how recently these products have entered the market and the fact that less than 20 percent of the U.S. population was aware of them five years ago," the study authors report.Television was the most common medium for encountering e-cigs -- two-thirds of people said they saw them on TV. Internet banner ads (14 percent), email (13 percent), Internet search engines (11 percent) and Facebook (9 percent) were other ways people encountered e-cigarette information.Passive exposure to e-cig messaging -- receiving information without seeking it -- was more likely for tobacco users, young adults, males, those with more than a high school education, and those who use social media and spend more time online."These findings may have implications for e-cigarette marketing regulation," said Sherry Emery, a senior scientist at the UIC institute and lead author of the study.Although people did report sharing information about e-cigs via Facebook, texting, email and Twitter, word-of-mouth exchange was most common, at 54 percent.The researchers uncovered important demographic differences in how people search and share e-cigarette information online.Tobacco users were five times as likely as non-users to report sharing information about e-cigarettes. Young adults were nearly twice as likely as other respondents to have shared e-cigarette information.E-cigarette users were more likely than nonusers to search for e-cig information on Facebook, and more likely than nonusers to share such information by word of mouth and on Facebook.The study also found that Latinos and Lesbian, gay or bisexual individuals were more likely than others to share e-cig information.The study is the first to explore how different groups interact with media messages about e-cigarettes, and it shows that social networking is a critical component of both formal and informal e-cig marketing."While we cannot tell from this cross-sectional work whether the differences in e-cig media consumption reflect targeted marketing, self-selection, or a combination of the two, this work suggests that closer scrutiny of e-cig marketing practices is warranted," said Emery.Source:University of CaliforniaOriginal author: Margrett
  1489 Hits
  0 Comments

7 Sins Committed by New E-Cig Users

As you’ve seen on these pages, defending the business and use of electronic cigarettes is practically a full-time job. And, as you have also seen, much of the defense comes from a lack of education on the part of the accuser.

Continue reading
  1539 Hits
  0 Comments

How Do Senator Jay Rockefeller and his Commerce Committee Colleagues (Barbara Boxer and Richard Blumenthal) Sleep at Night?

Last Wednesday, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Technology held a hearing on the marketing of electronic cigarettes. Several senators, including Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) harshly attacked the two electronic cigarette company executives who testified before the committee, calling them liars who are doing harm to the public and comparing them to the Big Tobacco executives of the past.According to an article at Time.com: "In a hearing Wednesday afternoon that harkened back to the famous congressional Big Tobacco hearings two decades ago, Senators on the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee eviscerated electronic cigarette executives Jason Healy, CEO of blu eCigs (owned by tobacco company Lorillard), and Craig Weiss, CEO of NJOY, leaders of the two leading e-cig brands."The harshest questioning came from Senators Richard Blumenthal, Barbara Boxer, and Jay Rockefeller: "I think we have seen this movie before," Senator Richard Blumenthal said. "It is called big nicotine comes to children near you and you are using the same kinds of tactics and promotions and ads that were used by big tobacco and proved so effective." ... "At the end of her time to question, Boxer said: “Mr. Healy and Mr. Weiss, you can con yourself. But we don’t know if this product gets people off cigarettes yet, so don’t think you are doing some great mission. Don’t say you care about kids,” said Senator Boxer. “Don’t be a part of this, because you’ll regret it.”""But the harshest words came from Senator Jay Rockefeller (D- West Virginia), who said to the executives: “I’m ashamed of you. I don’t know how you go to sleep at night. I don’t know what gets you to work in the morning except the color green of dollars. You are what is wrong with this country.”"The Rest of the StoryActually, it is the behavior of Senator Rockefeller that is what is wrong with this country. And it is Senator Rockefeller who should not be able to sleep at night.There is a part of this story that was not revealed at the hearing, and it is time to reveal it now at the Rest of the Story. While Senator Rockefeller attacks the electronic cigarette companies for targeting kids with flavored products that he claims is going to addict and harm them, he is hiding from the public the truth:1. There are, in fact, thousands of kids who are becoming addicted to flavored nicotine products which are going to eventually kill them.  2. Those products are not electronic (fake) cigarettes.3. Those products are real tobacco cigarettes.4. Those products are menthol-flavored cigarettes.5. In 2009, Senator Rockefeller sponsored and supported legislation that protected menthol cigarettes by exempting them from the flavored cigarette ban in the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.Thus, the rest of the story is that Senator Rockefeller protected Big Tobacco and helped them to continue to see the color green of dollars by voting to exempt menthol cigarettes from legislation that banned every other flavor. In other words, he sold out to Philip Morris, agreeing to this exemption that would allow Big Tobacco to continue to addict America's children with flavored cigarettes. Nearly 50% of youth smokers in the U.S. become addicted to smoking via menthol cigarettes.The bottom line is that Senator Rockefeller is a typical politician and a classical hypocrite. He is also completely disingenuous. Were he truly committed to protecting kids from addiction to flavored tobacco products, he would never have sold out to Philip Morris by sponsoring and supporting legislation that exempted menthol from the cigarette flavoring ban. Even now, if he truly cared about the actual health of children, instead of attacking the e-cigarette industry, he would have devoted his time and energy to crafting and sponsoring legislation to ban menthol from cigarettes.The truth is that Senator Rockefeller pretended to be committed to protecting the health of our nation's children, but instead, he was actually protecting Big Tobacco profits by exempting menthol from the flavoring ban. The Tobacco Act banned every imaginable flavor that was not actually being used in cigarettes (e.g., cherry, strawberry, banana, and pineaple), yet it exempted the one flavor (menthol) that was actually being used to addict children to a lifetime of smoking - a greatly shortened lifetime for many of them.This is actually what is wrong with our country: politicians who pretend to be acting in the public's interest but who are actually acting in interest of our nation's largest and most profitable corporations.And it is not the CEOs of Blu or NJOY who shouldn't be able to sleep at night, it is Senator Rockefeller. How can he sleep each night, knowing that his actions are responsible for thousands of kids who, in the past four years, have become addicted to menthol cigarettes because he failed to act responsibly and are eventually going to die prematurely because of his sellout to Philip Morris?Senator Boxer also has no business excoriating the e-cigarette executives as she, too, sold out to Big Tobacco by supporting the legislation which exempted menthol from the cigarette flavoring ban. And she, too, has failed to sponsor legislation - now or any time in the past four years - that would correct the problem now by banning menthol cigarettes.Senator Blumenthal is also a phony and a hypocrite as he, too, has failed to sponsor legislation to ban menthol cigarettes (he was not a Senator in 2009 so did not vote for the original menthol exemption).Beyond the blatant hypocrisy of Senators Rockefeller, Boxer, and Blumenthal, they are also wrong in their assertion that blu and NJOY are heavily marketing their products to kids. In fact, the evidence suggests otherwise.The most telling point is that blu does not offer its disposable products in flavors other than tobacco (classic) or menthol. Note that the disposable products are the ones that are relevant to children because they are the cheapest and most likely to be used by kids. It is very unlikely that kids are going to unleash the money required to purchase the charging kit. Blu offers rechargeable starter kits that do contain flavorings, but does not offer the disposables in flavors other than tobacco or menthol. Kids would have to shell out a minimum of $70 for the starter kit.Here are the available electronic cigarette flavors offered by blu:Disposablea. Classic tobaccob. MentholRechargeablea. Classic tobaccob. Mentholc. Java joltd. Cherry crushe. Vanillaf. Pina coladag. Peach schnappsIn contrast to Senator Rockefeller's assertion, blu is actively avoiding the marketing of candy-flavored electronic cigarettes to children, as it is not offering candy-flavored disposable electronic cigarettes. This is perhaps the clearest signal that blu is not marketing flavors to children. It should be obvious to the senators, if if they put any thought into the issue, that the best way to judge blu's intentions is to examine the differences between their starter kit flavors (the ones which require you to shell out 70 bucks) and their disposable flavors (the ones which kids are most likely to use). In fact, while the starter kit flavors do include candy varieties, the disposables do not. This is a clear sign that Lorillard is not interested in offering candy-flavored electronic cigarettes to the youth market.In fact, Blu was already offering these candy-flavored varieties prior to its acquisition by Lorillard. It is understandable while Lorillard maintained these flavors, since it wouldn't want to lose existing Blu customers. But it is telling that Lorillard chose not to extend this candy-flavored approach over to its disposable e-cigarette segment. If the senators' assertion was correct, then Lorillard would most certainly be selling candy-flavored disposable electronic cigarettes.Similarly, NJOY does not appear to be marketing to kids. The most telling point is that in its internet sales, the company does not sell flavored e-cigarettes (only traditional tobacco and menthol). And of course, if NJOY were after kids, it would certainly offer the flavored varieties online, since kids are more easily able to obtain these products online, where age verification is not required, than in-store, where it is.The truth, in fact, is that NJOY's explicit value proposition is that it is trying to eviscerate the combustible cigarette market. While NJOY has the courage and values to stand up and work for the decimation of combustible cigarettes, that is something which Senators Rockefeller, Boxer, and Blumenthal do not have the fortitude to do. Instead, they have supported the institutionalization and protection of the tobacco cigarette market and are doing everything they can to protect real cigarettes from potential competition from far safer, fake ones.How can they sleep at night?Original author: Michael Siegel
  1541 Hits
  0 Comments

Lawmakers concerned chocolate e-cigarettes may lure teens

A woman is seen here smoking an electronic cigarette. A report released this week found the number of e-cigarette companies has increased rapidly to more than 460 brands as of January 2014. Photo by Christopher Furlong / Getty ImagesA new study released in the journal Tobacco Control found that the number of electronic cigarette companies has increased and marketing tactics have shifted since 2012.As of January of this year, there were more than 460 e-cigarette brands available for purchase online, and around 7,700 flavors, including Swedish fish, roasted marshmallow and vanilla cupcake.Since the study began in 2012, an average of 10.5 brands and 242 new flavors were introduced each month.This “explosion of flavors” is new and has some lawmakers concerned about marketing tactics aimed at children and teenagers.A 2013 study released by the Centers for Disease Control said e-cigarette use is increasing among middle and high school students.California Congresswoman Jackie Speier introduced legislation on Friday to regulate e-cigarettes.“With cotton candy and gummy bear flavors and the ability to purchase e-cigarettes online, our children are still very much at risk even with the FDA’s move to regulate,” Representative Speier said in a press release.The U.S. Food and Drug Administration extended its public comment period on its proposed rule to regulate e-cigarettes through early August. If the rule is finalized, the FDA will be able to implement age restrictions on e-cigarettes and examine claims that the product reduces tobacco-related diseases.Original author: Neville
  1642 Hits
  0 Comments

Scientific claims in the FDA deeming regulation (part 4 of ???)


by Carl V Phillips Continuing from this post in this series, with p.23 (page numbers from this version of the proposed regulations): There are public health questions and concerns about currently unregulated tobacco products. Nevertheless, there are distinctions in the … Continue reading →Original author: Carl V Phillips
  1401 Hits
  0 Comments

The e-cigarette boom: Study finds 466 online brands, 7,700 flavors

If you want a nicotine fix but you don't like the taste of tobacco, you've got options -- thousands of them.According to a new survey of the e-cigarette landscape, there are more than 450 e-cigarette brands online, offering nicotine products in 7,700 flavors, including graham cracker, Swedish fish and absinthe.That comes out to an average of 10 new brands and 242 new flavors of "e-juice" per month since a similar survey was done 17 months ago."The numbers were pretty startling," said Sharon Cummins of UC San Diego, one of the authors of the paper published this week in the journal Tobacco Control. "How can you even come up with 7,700 flavors?" E-cigarettes are battery-powered nicotine delivery systems. They are not regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, although that's likely to change soon. The FDA has proposed rules that would ban the sale of e-cigarettes to minors and require e-cigarette companies to list ingredients and nicotine strength. In the meantime, the e-cigarette market is projected to reach $2 billion this year.The new study looked at data collected in December and January. Fourteen research assistants were asked to spend several days scouring the Internet for websites that sell e-cigarette products directly to consumers.The names of flavors were tallied, and also grouped into flavor profiles such as tobacco, menthol, fruit, dessert/candy, alcohol/drinks and snacks/meals. The researchers also looked at the websites' claims about e-cigarettes, noting whether they suggested that e-cigarettes were less harmful than conventional cigarettes, or cheaper than regular cigarettes, or a good way to quit smoking.The findings suggest a sea change in the way e-cigarette companies are marketing their products. Newer brands were more likely to offer a wider variety of flavors than brands that were around in 2012. The newer companies were also less likely to make claims that e-cigarettes were healthier or cheaper than traditional cigarettes."It almost seems that newer brands don't want to be compared to cigarettes, which are associated with the image of cancer," Shu-Hong Zhu, lead author of the study and director of the Center for Research and Interventions in Tobacco Control at UC San Diego, said in a statement.Though the study tells us a lot about the e-cigarette market, it doesn't tell us whether e-cigarettes are helping smokers quit smoking, or if all those flavor options will entice non-smokers to start smoking."We don’t have the data to know the long-term trajectory of e-cigarettes being good or bad," said Cummins.But she and her colleagues don't necessarily think this bevy of flavors is a bad thing, for now, especially if it's luring smokers away from regular cigarettes with their poisonous tars and carbon monoxide. "If regulators clamp down on e-cigarette flavors and everyone goes back to regular cigarettes, that is a bad thing," Cummins said. For more news from the world of science, follow me @DeborahNetburn Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles TimesOriginal author: Shirlee
  1425 Hits
  0 Comments

Gamucci Launches New Scientific Products Division to Lead e-Cig Industry in Innovation and Quality

LONDON, June 17, 2014 /PRNewswire/ --The Gamucci Corporation Ltd today announced the creation of a new Scientific Products Division and the appointment of Adrian Marshall as Divisional CEO. It has been established to set the benchmark for innovation and quality in the electronic cigarette industry and to ensure Gamucci products meet future regulatory requirements.     (Photo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20140617/693125 )Adrian has a strong background and reputation in the tobacco and nicotine product sectors. He has previously held a number of senior roles with the British American Tobacco Group, including Director of BAT's Global Harm Reduction Programme, Managing Director of its nicotine products business Nicoventures Ltd, Group Head of Regulation and Corporate & Social Responsibility and Vice President Sales & Marketing in Japan.Gamucci is committed to developing electronic cigarettes that receive Marketing Authorisation from the Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the UK and other regulatory authorities in the EU and elsewhere. As an expert in the field Adrian will lead a team of specialists and expert advisors to develop new Gamucci products that will meet future regulatory requirements and provide smokers with the highest quality alternatives to tobacco cigarettes.Tony Scanlan, CEO of Gamucci, said: "This new division will set the benchmark for quality and innovation. The rest of the sector will be challenged to meet our developments, which will continue to demonstrate that Gamucci is a technology leader. The Division will enable our products to meet and exceed the demands of regulatory agencies and assure our customers that Gamucci products are of the highest quality. As head of this exciting new division, Adrian will bring a wealth of knowledge to Gamucci and will add tremendous value as a member of the Board and Management team."Adrian Marshall said: "I have been impressed with Gamucci's leadership in product design and their commitment, through their wholly owned factory, to developing and manufacturing the highest quality electronic cigarettes on the market today. I am delighted to be joining this ambitious and innovative business and look forward to working with the Board in capitalising on the many opportunities ahead."Taz Sheikh, Director and Co-Founder of Gamucci, said: "We have raised the bar a number of times since our entry into the industry in 2007. Gamucci was responsible for developing the world's first disposable cigarette in 2008 and we have proprietary core cartomizer technology, which is now widely copied and for which we have secured a UK patent. Adrian's team will help to ensure that Gamucci continues to lead the industry through innovation and quality."http://www.gamucci.com/NOTES TO EDITORS Wholly-owned by British entrepreneurs Taz and Umer Sheikh, Gamucci is a major player in the electronic cigarette sector worldwide. Headquartered in London, UK with warehouse and distribution facilities in Newbury, Berkshire, Gamucci has a wholly-owned manufacturing unit in Shenzhen China; its global sales office and back office operations in Bangalore, India; logistic centres in Europe, Asia and the USA and sales organisations in London, Ireland and Nashville Tennessee. The Gamucci Group is a pioneer in the development of electronic cigarettes, and introduced the first major brand to the European market in 2007. Its products are now sold in 55 countries worldwide.Gamucci is the sole UK patent holder (with US patent pending) for its unique cartomizer technology, which includes the integrated electronic cigarette and refill.The business currently employs some 400 staff worldwide. The majority are based in Shenzhen, China and in Bangalore, India.Gamucci was voted best electronic cigarette brand at the Consumer Choice Awards in May 2014. The awards are based on the real views of consumers, who nominate and vote for products and services themselves.Gamucci is the only electronic cigarette company in the UK to own its own factory, thereby ensuring end-to-end control of the supply chain and product integrity. Other companies in the category outsource product manufacturing to third parties.Original author: Maximus
  1647 Hits
  0 Comments