(828) 698-5795 

E-Cigarettes: China’s Next Growth Industry

Amidst the growing global regulation on tobacco use and rising public awareness about the hazards of smoking, e-cigarettes are becoming a new, emerging industry. Invented by a Chinese medical researcher about one decade ago, electronic cigarettes are battery powered devices that allow users simulate smoking by vaporizing liquid nicotine (among other additives), but in fact have no tobacco. Since being first released on the consumer market in 2005, the global e-cigarette market has been growing rapidly. In the United States, e-cigarette sales have grown at an annual rate of 115 percent in the 2009-12 period. It is estimated that global e-cigarette market could increase to $10 billion by 2017 . Some analysts even predict that e-cigarette use will eclipse that of combustible cigarettes in ten years. Over 95 percent of the e-cigarettes worldwide are produced in one place: Shenzhen, China.What are the implications of the growing global e-cigarette market for tobacco use in China, the world’s largest producer and consumer of tobacco products? As it’s been covered here and elsewhere, one of the biggest public health problems in China is the widespread tobacco use. About 1.2 million people die annually as a result of tobacco-related illnesses in the country. But e-cigarette use remains a very small portion of China’s $200-billion-dollar cigarette business . Combustible cigarettes are still widely popular and readily available. Lack of market regulation and the low barriers to market entry result in fierce competition and shrinking profit margin. And despite the advertisements, e-cigarettes have not been completely safe.E-cigarettes are not yet popular in China , but the market potential for e-cigarettes is huge. If only 1 percent of China’s smoking population turned to e-cigarettes, it would mean a market of about 3.5 million e-cigarette users. In April, China banned Party and government officials from smoking in public places or during official activities. The tremendous challenges that China faces in enforcing the ban may encourage more officials to turn to e-cigarettes as an alternative, which in turn could create powerful “demonstration effect” for the ordinary people to follow suit. Furthermore, because e-cigarettes’ smoke less harmful, it is believed that this will significantly lower the health risk caused by second-hand smoke in China . As many as 740 million are regularly exposed to second-hand smoke, including 180 million under the age of 15. Finally, many of the safety risk and health problems associated with e-cigarettes are likely caused by the non-uniformity and inconsistent quality of the products (i.e., people tend to buy cheap, low-quality e-cigarettes) rather than the products themselves. In August, about 500 representatives of the global e-cigarette industry will meet in Shenzhen to unveil new technologies and discuss how to improve safety and health standards industry-wide.Global trends suggest that e-cigarette use will grow and be here to stay while supplanting regular cigarettes. This will be no different for China.Original author: Neville
  1501 Hits
  0 Comments

Liquid nicotine companies peddling notable brands like Tootsie Roll

;A person poses with an electronic cigarette, or e-cigarette.(AP Photo / Tim Ireland, PA)RICHMOND, Va. – Owners of brands geared toward children of all ages are battling to keep notable names like Thin Mint, Tootsie Roll and Cinnamon Toast Crunch off the flavoured nicotine used in electronic cigarettes.Story continues belowGeneral Mills Inc., the Girl Scouts of the USA and Tootsie Roll Industries Inc. are among several companies that have sent cease-and-desist letters to makers of the liquid nicotine demanding they stop using the brands and may take further legal action if necessary. They want to make sure their brands aren’t being used to sell an addictive drug or make it appealing to to children.The actions highlight the debate about the array of flavours available for the battery-powered devices that heat a liquid nicotine solution, creating vapour that users inhale. The Food and Drug Administration last month proposed regulating electronic cigarettes but didn’t immediately ban on fruit or candy flavours, which are barred for use in regular cigarettes because of the worry that the flavours are used to appeal to children.READ MORE: Are e-cigarette poisonings on the rise in Canada?It’s growing pains for the industry that reached nearly $2 billion in sales last year in the face of looming regulation. E-cigarette users say the devices address both the addictive and behavioural aspects of smoking without the thousands of chemicals found in regular cigarettes.There are about 1,500 e-liquid makers in the U.S. and countless others abroad selling vials of nicotine from traditional tobacco to cherry cola on the Internet and in retail stores, often featuring photos of the popular treats. Using the brand name like Thin Mint or Fireball conjures up a very specific flavour in buyers’ minds, in a way that just “mint chocolate” or “cinnamon” doesn’t.“Using the Thin Mint name – which is synonymous with Girl Scouts and everything we do to enrich the lives of girls – to market e-cigarettes to youth is deceitful and shameless,” Girl Scouts spokeswoman Kelly Parisi said in a statement.The issue of illegally using well-known brands on e-cigarette products isn’t new for some. For a couple of years, cigarette makers R.J. Reynolds Tobacco and Philip Morris USA have fought legal battles with websites selling e-cigarette liquid capitalizing on their Camel and Marlboro brand names and imagery. The companies have since released their own e-cigarettes but without using their top-selling brand names.READ MORE: U.S. officials want to regulate e-cigarettes – is Canada following?“It’s the age-old problem with an emerging market,” said Linc Williams, board member of the American E-liquid Manufacturing Standards Association and an executive at NicVape Inc., which produces liquid nicotine. “As companies goes through their maturity process of going from being a wild entrepreneur to starting to establish real corporate ethics and product stewardship, it’s something that we’re going to continue to see.”Williams said his company is renaming many of its liquids to names that won’t be associated with well-known brands. Some companies demanded NicVape stop using brand names such as Junior Mints on their liquid nicotine. In other cases, the company is taking proactive steps to removing imagery and names like gummy bear that could be appealing to children.“Unfortunately it’s not going to change unless companies come in and assert their intellectual property,” he said.And that’s what companies are starting to do more often as the industry has rocketed from thousands of users in 2006 to several million worldwide, bringing the issue to the forefront.READ MORE: How will new U.S. rules change e-cigarette business?“We’re family oriented. A lot of kids eat our products, we have many adults also, but our big concern is we have to protect the trademark,” said Ellen Gordon, president and chief operating officer of Tootsie Roll Industries Inc. “When you have well-known trademarks, one of your responsibilities is to protect (them) because it’s been such a big investment over the years.”—Michael Felberbaum can be reached at http://www.twitter.com/MLFelberbaum.Report an errorOriginal author: Gwen
  1568 Hits
  0 Comments

CASAA comments on deeming re Paperwork Reduction Act


by Carl V Phillips Sorry for the lack of posts recently.  I have been busy.  One of the things I was busy with was those comments, which you can find here at the main CASAA blog.  It is something that … Continue reading →Original author: Carl V Phillips
  1208 Hits
  0 Comments

CASAA's Comment to OMB/OIRA regarding Paperwork Reduction Act and FDA Deeming Regulation

To:      Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

Continue reading
  1455 Hits
  0 Comments

Sweets makers work to keep names off e-cigarettes

RICHMOND, Va. --Owners of brands geared toward children of all ages are battling to keep notable names like Thin Mint, Tootsie Roll and Cinnamon Toast Crunch off the flavored nicotine used in electronic cigarettes.Now the owners of those trademarks are fighting back to make sure their brands aren't being used to sell an addictive drug or make it appealing to to children.General Mills Inc., the Girl Scouts of the USA and Tootsie Roll Industries Inc. are among several companies that have sent cease-and-desist letters to makers of the liquid nicotine demanding they stop using the brands and may take further legal action if necessary.The actions highlight the debate about the array of flavors available for the battery-powered devices that heat a liquid nicotine solution, creating vapor that users inhale. The Food and Drug Administration last month proposed regulating electronic cigarettes but didn't immediately ban on fruit or candy flavors, which are barred for use in regular cigarettes because of the worry that the flavors are used to appeal to children.It's growing pains for the industry that reached nearly $2 billion in sales last year in the face of looming regulation. E-cigarette users say the devices address both the addictive and behavioral aspects of smoking without the thousands of chemicals found in regular cigarettes.There are about 1,500 e-liquid makers in the U.S. and countless others abroad selling vials of nicotine from traditional tobacco to cherry cola on the Internet and in retail stores, often featuring photos of the popular treats. Using the brand name like Thin Mint or Fireball conjures up a very specific flavor in buyers' minds, in a way that just "mint chocolate" or "cinnamon" doesn't."Using the Thin Mint name - which is synonymous with Girl Scouts and everything we do to enrich the lives of girls - to market e-cigarettes to youth is deceitful and shameless," Girl Scouts spokeswoman Kelly Parisi said in a statement.The issue of illegally using well-known brands on e-cigarette products isn't new for some. For a couple of years, cigarette makers R.J. Reynolds Tobacco and Philip Morris USA have fought legal battles with websites selling e-cigarette liquid capitalizing on their Camel and Marlboro brand names and imagery. The companies have since released their own e-cigarettes but without using their top-selling brand names."It's the age-old problem with an emerging market," said Linc Williams, board member of the American E-liquid Manufacturing Standards Association and an executive at NicVape Inc., which produces liquid nicotine. "As companies goes through their maturity process of going from being a wild entrepreneur to starting to establish real corporate ethics and product stewardship, it's something that we're going to continue to see."Williams said his company is renaming many of its liquids to names that won't be associated with well-known brands. Some companies demanded NicVape stop using brand names such as Junior Mints on their liquid nicotine. In other cases, the company is taking proactive steps to removing imagery and names like gummy bear that could be appealing to children."Unfortunately it's not going to change unless companies come in and assert their intellectual property," he said.And that's what companies are starting to do more often as the industry has rocketed from thousands of users in 2006 to several million worldwide, bringing the issue to the forefront."We're family oriented. A lot of kids eat our products, we have many adults also, but our big concern is we have to protect the trademark," said Ellen Gordon, president and chief operating officer of Tootsie Roll Industries Inc. "When you have well-known trademarks, one of your responsibilities is to protect (them) because it's been such a big investment over the years."Original author: Keitha
  1418 Hits
  0 Comments

Sweets Makers Want Names Off E-Cigarettes

Richmond, Va. — Owners of brands geared toward children of all ages are battling to keep notable names like Thin Mint, Tootsie Roll and Cinnamon Toast Crunch off the flavored nicotine used in electronic cigarettes.Now the owners of those trademarks are fighting back to make sure their brands aren’t being used to sell an addictive drug or make it appealing to to children.General Mills Inc., the Girl Scouts of the USA and Tootsie Roll Industries Inc. are among several companies that have sent cease-and-desist letters to makers of the liquid nicotine demanding they stop using the brands and may take further legal action if necessary.The actions highlight the debate about the array of flavors available for the battery-powered devices that heat a liquid nicotine solution, creating vapor that users inhale. The Food and Drug Administration last month proposed regulating electronic cigarettes but didn’t immediately ban on fruit or candy flavors, which are barred for use in regular cigarettes because of the worry that the flavors are used to appeal to children.It’s growing pains for the industry that reached nearly $2 billion in sales last year in the face of looming regulation. E-cigarette users say the devices address both the addictive and behavioral aspects of smoking without the thousands of chemicals found in regular cigarettes.There are about 1,500 e-liquid makers in the U.S. and countless others abroad selling vials of nicotine from traditional tobacco to cherry cola on the Internet and in retail stores, often featuring photos of the popular treats. Using the brand name like Thin Mint or Fireball conjures up a very specific flavor in buyers’ minds, in a way that just “mint chocolate” or “cinnamon” doesn’t.“Using the Thin Mint name — which is synonymous with Girl Scouts and everything we do to enrich the lives of girls — to market e-cigarettes to youth is deceitful and shameless,” Girl Scouts spokeswoman Kelly Parisi said in a statement.The issue of illegally using well-known brands on e-cigarette products isn’t new for some. For a couple of years, cigarette makers R.J. Reynolds Tobacco and Philip Morris USA have fought legal battles with websites selling e-cigarette liquid capitalizing on their Camel and Marlboro brand names and imagery. The companies have since released their own e-cigarettes but without using their top-selling brand names.“It’s the age-old problem with an emerging market,” said Linc Williams, board member of the American E-liquid Manufacturing Standards Association and an executive at NicVape Inc., which produces liquid nicotine. “As companies goes through their maturity process of going from being a wild entrepreneur to starting to establish real corporate ethics and product stewardship, it’s something that we’re going to continue to see.”Williams said his company is renaming many of its liquids to names that won’t be associated with well-known brands. Some companies demanded NicVape stop using brand names such as Junior Mints on their liquid nicotine. In other cases, the company is taking proactive steps to removing imagery and names like gummy bear that could be appealing to children.“Unfortunately it’s not going to change unless companies come in and assert their intellectual property,” he said.And that’s what companies are starting to do more often as the industry has rocketed from thousands of users in 2006 to several million worldwide, bringing the issue to the forefront.“We’re family oriented. A lot of kids eat our products, we have many adults also, but our big concern is we have to protect the trademark,” said Ellen Gordon, president and chief operating officer of Tootsie Roll Industries Inc. “When you have well-known trademarks, one of your responsibilities is to protect (them) because it’s been such a big investment over the years.”Original author: Margrett
  1305 Hits
  0 Comments

E-cigarette production pushed to China from U.S. due to proposed federal regulations

Some of the leading U.S. producers of electronic cigarettes are moving their manufacturing to the United States from China in response to growing concern about quality and the prospect of tighter federal regulations.In recent weeks, some of the best-selling U.S. e-cigarette companies, including closely held Mistic and White Cloud, announced that they would move production to new, highly automated U.S. factories that would enable them to track ingredients and quality more closely. As a fringe benefit, they even expect costs to be lower than in China, the country that invented the battery-powered cartridges that produce a nicotine-laced inhalable vapor."People are concerned about quality," said Bonnie Herzog, a senior analyst at Wells Fargo Securities, who expects more manufacturing to shift to the United States."There is varying quality among all these different brands," she said. "I think regulation will standardize these products because they will be forced to improve."The shift has gained momentum since April, when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration proposed rules that would require, among other things, manufacturers that want access to the U.S. market to register with the agency and list the ingredients in their products."As a general rule, the FDA regulation will require more control over the manufacturing process," said Bryan Haynes, an attorney at Troutman Sanders, a law firm in Richmond, Virginia, that represents e-cigarette companies. He said more companies plan to move production to the United States because it "could make compliance easier."Many of these companies already produce the nicotine-laced liquid used in e-cigarettes in the United States and then ship it to China, where the battery-powered devices are assembled. Most batteries will continue to be made in China.E-cigarettes are considered a crucial business for the three major U.S. tobacco companies, which have bought or developed their own brands in recent years to offset shrinking sales of conventional tobacco cigarettes. Compliance with new U.S. regulations has become a top priority.U.S. sales of e-cigarettes are expected to outpace sales of tobacco cigarettes by 2020, in part because of the perception they are safer to smoke.Their advocates say e-cigarettes are a safer alternative to smoking traditional cigarettes since they do not produce lung-destroying tar. But there is little data about the long-term health effects of the products.Reynolds American Inc (RAI.N) is the only one of the nation's three largest tobacco companies to make its e-cigarettes in the United States, at a factory in Kansas. It currently sells its Vuse brand in two states but expects to expand nationwide this summer.Lorillard Inc's (LO.N) blu brand is assembled in China but the liquid is produced in the United States. Reuters reported earlier this week that Reynolds was in active discussions to buy Lorillard. Blu is the top selling e-cigarette brand in the country, with about half of the market share.Altria Group Inc (MO.N) makes the liquid for its MarkTen in Richmond, Virginia, and manufactures the brand in China. It also expects to sell the e-cigarettes across the United States this summer.To be sure, most e-cigarettes are still made in China. Many companies are pleased with production in China and have no plans to move their operations. NJOY, for example, produces the liquid for its NJOY brand in the United States and assembles the devices in China."We adhere to our own 'gold standard,' which covers quality control practices and tests of every NJOY product," Craig Weiss, the company's chief executive, said in an email.In May, Tarpon Springs, Florida-based White Cloud said it would move manufacturing to an automated plant in the United States that would make production much faster and more precise."We can delivery a much more uniform product because we're not reliant on someone's eye," said Rob Burton, director of corporate and regulatory affairs at White Cloud Electronic Cigarettes. The company, like many other manufacturers, has been hand-filling the liquid into the devices in its Chinese facility.Burton said White Cloud would like U.S. regulators eventually to approve the product as a medical device for smoking cessation. The new design, he said, should provide "consistent vapor delivery."John Wiesehan, Mistic's chief executive, said his company was moving production even though it was satisfied with the quality of the products made in China. He conceded, however, that there was a perception of inferior quality with Chinese-made products. "I wanted to remove that stigma," he said.Mistic officials expect to cut costs by moving production to the United States because the company won't have to ship the fluid and could reduce the number of workers it employs."You're in the beginning stages of this industry," Wiesehan said. "And we're developing standards as we speak."Original author: Margrett
  1296 Hits
  0 Comments

E-cigarette stores gain popularity

Most PopularPublished: May 23, 2014 | Last Modified: May 23, 2014 07:58PMBy Mary Ellen Godin Record-Journal staff MERIDEN — Tyler Barrow of Middletown pulled into the parking lot of The Vapor Edge, got out of his car and took out a brass cylinder. He puffed on it, exhaling a plume of fruit-scented vapor.“I’ve been eight weeks without a cigarette,” Barrow said taking another puff. “I feel a lot healthier. I have my smell and my taste back. I can tell another smoker from five feet away.”Barrow was at The Vapor Edge to buy liquid refills for his e-cigarette. A former Newport brand smoker, he says he’s enrolled in health classes for a career in medicine and believes “vaping” has helped him avoid the harmful effects of tobacco smoking. Eventually, he’d like to stop puffing all together, but for now, he feels it’s safer.E-cigarettes deliver various levels of nicotine, sometimes none, with a heated aerosol of propylene glycol and vegetable glycerol or chemicals rather than by burning tobacco.The Vapor Edge opened earlier this month in a storefront owned by Interstate Glass at 109 Hanover St. Inside is a vaping lounge, testing flavors, battery cylinders, cables, clearomizers (mouthpieces) and liquid refills. George Bouton of Naugatuck manages the store and said the location is a good fit for the vaping community. The store draws customers from as far away as Hartford.“Most people say I’m really glad I don’t have to drive to the shore,” Bouton said.There were about four to five e-cigarette stores along the shoreline in the state until about 20 more opened in the past year, Bouton said. The Vapor Edge opened its first store in Naugatuck about a year ago, followed by stores in Bristol and Torrington. E-cigarette popularity has been slower in the East than on the West Coast and Manhattan, where there are bans on their use in public.The federal Food and Drug Administration is weighing new rules for nicotine vaporizers as the e-cig industry and public health officials battle over whether the devices should be treated as less harmful cigarettes that help smokers give up tobacco or as a gateway that will lead adolescents to a dangerous habit. Health officials also worry that they weaken the public message that no smoking is acceptable.Wallingford has two proposals for e-cigarette stores that also retail other merchandise. In response, Public Health Director Eloise Hazelwood has asked the town planner and Planning and Zoning Commission to impose a moratorium on establishments that sell only electronic cigarettes or smoking paraphernalia.In addition to heating nicotine, glycol and glycerin into a vapor that is inhaled by the user, “there are also reports that the chamber or ‘tank’ is easily manipulated and other substances may be added by the end user,” Hazelwood wrote in a letter to planning officials.She further states that the FDA announced it will begin regulating electronic cigarettes by forbidding sales to minors and requiring manufacturers to include health warnings on the devices. Hazelwood adds that e-cigarettes are widely marketed to teens and there is no clinical evidence to support that they work as a smoking cessation aid.The state legislature recently passed a bill banning the sale to minors and Gov. Dannel P. Malloy is expected to sign it.Boucher said that every responsible shop owner supports the ban on sales to minors and he spoke in favor of it in Hartford.He disagrees that marketing is aimed at young people, saying adults like the sweeter flavors just as they enjoy fruit-flavored vodka or other adult drinks. Most of the young people he sees don’t want to plunk down $40 to $50 on a vaping starter kit. A teen smoker is more likely to buy a loose cigarette for 50 cents at any number of convenience stores in the city. Those that do want to vape, Bouton refuses to sell to.But the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently reported that e-cigarette use among middle and high school kids doubled between 2011 and 2012.On the flip side of the health argument, Bloomberg Businessweek reported this week that a survey of almost 6,000 smokers in Britain trying to quit found that those who used electronic cigarettes were more likely to stop using smoking tobacco than those who used over-the-counter quitting aids or had no help at all.But the FDA will likely want to see more rigorous testing on relapsing, the variety of formulas, and long-term effects before regulating the products.Bouton said he’s ready to do battle against increased sin taxes on e-cigs and other possible prohibitions. He also said if the products didn’t stop smokers from using tobacco, the e-cigarette industry would have fizzled. In fact, he said his own doctor told him to stick with it.“What do they want people to go back to smoking?” Bouton This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. (203) 317-2255 Twitter: @CconnbizOriginal author: Gwen
  1542 Hits
  0 Comments

Reynolds expanding e-cigarette production

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Reynolds American Inc. is expanding its Tobaccoville, North Carolina, manufacturing complex as it plans national distribution of its Vuse brand electronic cigarette this summer, the company said Friday.The owner of nation's second-biggest tobacco company did not disclose the costs related to the ramp-up, which will include a multi-million dollar investment for high-speed manufacturing equipment, for competitive reasons but said the move would create more than 200 jobs over the next four years.Reynolds, based in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, launched Vuse in Colorado last June and plans the initial wave of national distribution next month.Production is currently done at a contractor facility in Kansas, but the company said more production will be needed for the foreseeable future to meet anticipated market demand. The company will carve out about 70,000 square feet of space in its existing 2 million-square-foot Tobaccoville facility. It does not publicly provide the number of employees that work at the plant that also makes its cigarette brands, including Camel and Pall Mall.The market for e-cigarettes has grown from the thousands of users in 2006 to several million worldwide and reached nearly $2 billion in sales last year. The battery-powered devices that heat a liquid nicotine solution, creating vapor that users inhale. E-cigarette users say the devices address both the addictive and behavioral aspects of smoking without the thousands of chemicals found in regular cigarettes. The Food and Drug Administration last month proposed regulating electronic cigarettes.Reynolds says the rechargeable Vuse e-cigarette has technology that monitors and adjusts heat and power more than 2,000 times per second to deliver the "perfect puff." It also has a smart light on the tip of to let users know when it's getting low, needs to be replaced or recharged."This is all about smokers getting satisfaction from these alternatives and how many smokers find that an acceptable way to enjoy nicotine instead of smoking tobacco products," Reynolds CEO Susan Cameron said at a news conference Friday with North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory. "I think we'll see this evolve and it's certainly in growth mode, but how big and how fast, we really don't know yet."The nation's biggest tobacco companies all have entered into the fast-growing electronic cigarette business as part of an industry wide push to diversify beyond the traditional cigarette business, which has become tougher in the face of tax hikes, smoking bans, health concerns and social stigma.Altria Group Inc., owner of the nation's biggest cigarette maker, Philip Morris USA, plans to expand its MarkTen electronic cigarette brand nationally during the first half of the year. Lorillard Inc., the nation's third-biggest tobacco company, acquired e-cigarette maker Blu Ecigs in April 2012. Blu now accounts for almost half of all e-cigarettes sold.___Michael Felberbaum can be reached at http://www.twitter.com/MLFelberbaum .Original author: Barry
  1439 Hits
  0 Comments

E-Cigarette Safety: Only use equipment designed for your e-cig!

In an event that is bound to set the anti-e-cig media into a propaganda frenzy, another e-cigarette-related accident has occurred – this time, in the United Kingdom, when, according to news sources, a fire broke out in a user’s bedroom from a recharging e-cigarette.

Continue reading
  1838 Hits
  0 Comments

How Sad? Journal Article Needs to Remind Tobacco Control Researchers to Be Honest and Rigorous

An editorial published in the current issue of Addiction recounts the many ways in which tobacco control researchers have been dishonest with the public about the science regarding electronic cigarettes. It then discusses what needs to happen moving forward, and concludes that what is needed is for tobacco control researchers to be honest.The authors provide several examples of the dishonesty and misinformation being provided by tobacco control researchers, groups, and policy makers.Their chief example is striking: many tobacco control researchers are referring to electronic cigarettes as "tobacco products." However, e-cigarettes are not tobacco products. They contain no tobacco whatsoever.The authors write:"Many publications and statements by researchers, nongovernmental and governmental agencies and the wider mass media mistakenly refer to e-cigarettes as tobacco products. For example, e-cigarettes were referred to as tobacco products in approximately one in four abstracts about e-cigarettes at the 2014 Annual Meeting of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco in Seattle [1]. The same error can also be found in the peer-reviewed literature and in writing by influential agencies. For example, the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention website states that ‘emerging tobacco products such as e-cigarettes and hookahs are quickly gaining popularity’ [2]. While it is true that the vast majority of e-cigarettes use a nicotine containing solution that is extracted from the tobacco plant, this is similar to nicotine replacement therapies (NRT) and, unlike ordinary tobacco cigarettes,the current e-cigarettes on the market operate with ‘no tobacco, smoke, or combustion’ [3]. Furthermore, although traces of tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) have been found in some e-cigarettes, similar traces of TSNAs are present in licensed NRTs [4–7]. This mislabelling is exacerbated by national and international regulations including e-cigarettes in their tobacco regulations or proposing to do so."The authors conclude with a section entitled "What Needs to Happen?"Simply put, they argue that what needs to happen is for tobacco control scientists to start being honest, to adhere to good scientific practice, and to guide their conclusions by evidence rather than emotions.They write: "We believe that statements from the research community need to be evidence-based. While lively debates help to advance science and policy, adherence to good scientific practice is paramount. We need more rigour and oversight to ensure that interpretation of evidence is guided by data, not emotions, and that strong statements based on weak evidence are avoided. We need those reviewinggrants and research papers, and also those publishing such papers, to be accountable."The Rest of the StoryI find quite sad that an article needs to be published imploring tobacco control researchers to be honest and rigorous and to use good scientific practice and draw conclusions based on evidence rather than emotions.Is there any other area of science where the researchers have to be reminded to be honest and rigorous?While I agree with the editorial, it is quite a condemnation of the current field of tobacco control research.Original author: Michael Siegel
  1354 Hits
  0 Comments

No action, talk only at e-cigarette hearing

LOCKPORT – The Common Council held a public hearing Wednesday on a proposed special-use permit for an e-cigarette store, but it was unclear if there ever will be a vote on it.“No one would sponsor it,” Corporation Counsel John J. Ottaviano said. Since the Planning Board opposed the request, city ordinances require that a unanimous Council vote would be needed to grant the permit.Jordan Bork wants to open an electronic cigarette store in the front portion of Hairport, a salon at 343 Walnut St. Landlord Dennis J. Stachera handed in a petition with 22 signatures in favor.Planning Board member Jeffrey Tracy said at the hearing that he thinks e-cigarettes are bad. “I don’t want this temptation in my neighborhood,” he said.Stachera said, “I know six people who have quit smoking” by switching to e-cigarettes.Ottaviano said comments on the safety of the product are irrelevant to the question of whether the city should make an exception to the zoning ordinance to permit the store.He asked Bork questions about whether the e-cigarette units or the liquid nicotine burned in them are a fire hazard. Bork assured him they are not, and also promised not to allow people to lounge around the store. Bork said selling e-cigarettes to minors is illegal, and he will enforce that ban.Stachera said he walked door to door in the neighborhood and found no opposition to the store. But he also admitted the building in which the store would be located is for sale.The Council voted to pay the Bonadio Group of Amherst $13,700 for its work, which originally was to cost $7,000.The firm interviewed staff, met with officials and the Council, and drafted a report in late March that showed personnel shortages were a primary cause of the city falling behind on record-keeping, leading to incorrect financial reports.Also Wednesday, the Council voted to pay attorney David Haylett $2,400 for filling in as traffic court prosecutor from Feb. 25 until last week. That equals $200 an hour for two hours every Tuesday.Haylett took the place of Deputy Corporation Counsel Matthew E. Brooks, who was recovering from surgery, Ottaviano said. The city has two other deputy attorneys, but both also work for the county as assistant public defenders, meaning they couldn’t serve as prosecutors, even in traffic court.The Council also:• Approved a contract with Mayor Anne E. McCaffrey’s new secretary, Brandy Martucci, for a salary of $28,700 a year.• Spent $173,629 in state highway aid to buy a new front-end loader that could be used to plow snow. That brings the city’s fleet to four loaders, although two are currently broken down.• Authorized bidding for repairs to the Main Street waterline, which burst three times in front of City Hall in late April. The resulting damage left Main Street in extremely rough condition, and also left a hole in the City Hall parking lot.email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.l author: Wilbur
  1853 Hits
  0 Comments

New Study of Trajectory of E-Cigarette Use Suggests a Pattern of Decreasing Cigarette and Nicotine Addiction

In one of the first studies to examine the trajectory of electronic cigarette use over time, Lechner and colleagues have shown that extended duration of electronic cigarette use is associated with reductions in cigarette use and in the strength of nicotine used during vaping.(See: Lechner et al. Effects of duration of electronic cigarette use. Nicotine and Tobacco Research. Published online May 13, 2014. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntu061.)The methods of the study were as follows: "Individuals were recruited at e-cigarette retail locations in a large metropolitan city in the midwestern portion of the United States in July 2013. A total of 159 participants completed a brief 29-item self-report measure that assessed behaviors and perceptions of use."The results were reported as follows: "Increased duration of e-cigarette use was associated with fewer cigarettes smoked per day and differing patterns of dependence to e-cigarettes contingent upon smoking history. Additionally, increased duration of e-cigarette use was associated with increased frequency of use; however, this finding became nonsignificant when current tobacco cigarette use was accounted for, suggesting that individuals may increase e-cigarette use frequency as they decrease cigarette use. Overall, e-cigarette users tended to decrease the strength of nicotine in their e-cigarette products regardless of duration of use."The Rest of the StoryThere are three major findings -- all preliminary -- from this study.First, in contrast to what Stan Glantz is arguing, dual use does not appear to be an "adverse consequence" of e-cigarette experimentation. Instead, it appears to be a positive effect that results in a substantial reduction in cigarette consumption among smokers who would almost certainly not have quit smoking altogether in the absence of electronic cigarettes.Second, in dual users, the total amount of nicotine intake declines. The increase in electronic cigarette use over time is accompanied by a concomitant decline in cigarette smoking. Thus, overall nicotine declines.Third, e-cigarette users tend to decrease the strength of nicotine in their products, leading one to believe that overall levels of addiction to nicotine decline compared to their baseline smoking status.Combined with previous evidence, these results suggest that the natural history of electronic cigarette use over time is characterized, in general, by:a. Substantial reductions in cigarette use;b. Reduction in daily nicotine intake; andc. Movement to a lower level of overall nicotine addiction.The bottom line: it appears that the use of electronic cigarettes has tremendous health benefits not only for those who quit smoking, but also for those who become dual users. While it may take longer for these individuals to eventually get off of nicotine altogether, it appears that the switch to e-cigarettes yields a much lower level of nicotine addiction, making it easier, not harder, to subsequently cease using nicotine if they so desire.One of the main criticisms of electronic cigarettes leveled by its opponents in the tobacco control movement is that there are many dual users of e-cigarettes and tobacco cigarettes and that this has adverse public health consequences.For example, Stan Glantz argued against electronic cigarettes in a Scientific American article, claiming that: "We’ve found very high levels of dual use [traditional cigarettes along with e-cigarette use]. Very few people have switched away from cigarettes or managed to use them as a bridge to eventually go off cigarettes."While Dr. Glantz's statement that few people have switched away from cigarettes or used e-cigarettes as a bridge to eventually go off cigarettes was not science-based, but pure speculation, there are now two studies which actually examine the trajectory of electronic cigarette and conventional cigarette use among a cohort of e-cigarette users. We are able to empirically examine Glantz's dual use argument and his claim that very few smokers are using e-cigarettes as a bridge to eventually go off cigarettes.The results from these two studies demonstrate that in contrast to the claims of many anti-smoking advocates, dual use of electronic cigarettes and conventional cigarettes does not necessarily have adverse public health consequences. Instead, it appears that for many smokers, dual use serves as a gateway to decreased nicotine addiction, and perhaps ultimately to smoking cessation.The results of this study suggest that anti-smoking advocates such as Dr. Glantz are wrong in asserting that very few smokers "have switched away from cigarettes or managed to use them as a bridge to eventually go off cigarettes." Instead, there appears to be a large number of smokers who have indeed switched completely from smoking to vaping, and there also appears to be a large number of smokers who have successfully used electronic cigarettes as a bridge to complete smoking cessation.The rest of the story is that dual use is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it may for some be a gateway to smoking cessation.Original author: Michael Siegel
  1362 Hits
  0 Comments

For Smokers Only: The E-Book With Bonus E-Cig Chapter

In 1994, I published the first professional medical articles documenting that smokeless tobacco contained satisfying doses of nicotine (in the Journal of the American Dental Association, here) and was vastly safer than smoking (in Nature, here), and I proposed “that smokeless tobacco be recommended as a cigarette substitute by persons who cannot stop smoking.” (in the American Journal of the Medical Sciences, here).My scientific articles drew massive opposition. The National Cancer Institute investigated my university, claiming that my strategy was unethical (documented in Jacob Sullum’s excellent book, For Your Own Good, available here) as other medical groups launched vicious attacks. One fact was beyond contradiction: Smokeless tobacco use was at least 98% safer than smoking. While scientific evidence for tobacco harm reduction was overwhelming, smokers were completely uninformed about the lifesaving option of switching to a smoke-free delivery system. This led me, in 1995, to address smokers directly with a book, “For Smokers Only: How Smokeless Tobacco Can Save Your Life.”Recognizing the continuing relevance of this groundbreaking work, publisher Rick Newcombe of Sumner Books has just released it as an e-book, updated with a bonus chapter on e-cigarettes. From exaggerated health scares to bogus gateway claims, opponents of e-cigarettes are using the same tactics they’ve used against other smokeless tobacco products for decades. Dr. Dean Edell, physician and host of an award-winning health radio program for 31 years (here), described For Smokers Only as “credible, logical and eminently do-able.”The FDA Tobacco Product website offers as an example of “Health Fraud” (here) the suggestion “that a tobacco product is safer, less harmful, contains a reduced level or is free of a harmful substance, or presents a lower risk of tobacco-related disease compared to other tobacco products…To date, no tobacco products have met the requirements that would permit them (sic) to make claims of reduced risk or harm to users and nonusers of their regulated tobacco products.”Applying that absurd definition, I have been conducting health fraud for 20 years.Smokers, smokeless and e-cig users, get the help you deserve. Download For Smokers Only from Amazon (here), Barnes and Noble (here) or ITunes (here).Original author: Cody
  1503 Hits
  0 Comments

Second Call to Action for FDA Proposed Regulations - Consumer Comment on Paperwork Reduction Act

On Thursday, May 8th, CASAA released the Overview of its Action Plan Regarding Proposed FDA Regulations.  On May 11, 2014, CASAA released the first of several Calls to Action anticipated in CASAA's Action Plan.   This is the second Call to Action in CASAA's Action Plan.

Continue reading
  1620 Hits
  0 Comments

E-cigarettes safe; no need for S.F. to ban them

There’s a new product on the market that offers a chance to find a workable middle ground in America’s smoking debate. Called vapes, electronic cigarettes or e-cigarettes, they deliver nicotine with a big twist: Instead of burning tobacco, they vaporize – hence the nickname – a nicotine-containing liquid.Despite the uniqueness of this product, overzealous lawmakers are champing at the bit to ban e-cigarettes, egged on by career activists who see a public health threat wherever they look. Chicago and New York City have already caved to activist pressure. And now, thanks to a swift vote, Los Angeles is set to extend its blanket prohibition of public cigarette smoking to e-cigs, which emit only vapor, not smoke. But before San Francisco heads in a similar direction, voters should know the truth about e-cigarettes.First and foremost, e-cigarettes are not cigarettes and do not carry the associated harms. The American Association of Public Health Physicians has noted that smokers could reduce their risk of tobacco-related death “by 99.9 percent or better” by switching to products like e-cigarettes. That’s quite a reduction.It’s not enough, however, for the overzealous activists and officeholders who know how easy it is to mobilize knee-jerk political action against anything with the “c”-word in it.To get their way, regulators are changing the rules. Instead of having to prove that vapes are harmful before they can regulate or ban them – as is the norm with essentially all other consumer products – activists and lawmakers are demanding that consumers and businesses prove they are not dangerous before stifling restrictions can be lifted.That may seem like an exercise in wordplay, but in reality, it turns hundreds of years of established legal thinking on its head. It puts businesses in the position of proving a negative – a logical fallacy that busybody regulators and fans of expansive government are perfectly happy to exploit.This is a dangerous precedent. If businesses are not able to sell technologically advanced products – and consumers not able to benefit from the same – until they are proved unharmful, we’ll quickly succumb to unscientific and demagogic fear campaigns. Business owners will be forced to devote their time and energy to warding off baseless attacks from finger-wagging do-gooders. Commerce will be blunted and innovation will be suffocated as fewer new products are brought to market.Making the switch from smoking cigarettes to inhaling smokeless nicotine could be beneficial to smokers, ex-smokers, and nonsmokers alike. After all, many of the arguments in favor of banning smoking in places like bars and restaurants were out of concern for the health of employees and patrons. But since vapes aren’t regular cigarettes, there’s no smoke to afflict nonsmokers.San Franciscans don’t have to give in to the same scare tactics and faulty logic that turned the Los Angeles City Council against vapes. Rushing into a sweeping “solution” for a problem that doesn’t exist makes it all too likely that consumer health and common sense will soon go up in smoke.Sarah Longwell is the communications director for the Center for Consumer Freedom, a nonprofit group “devoted to promoting personal responsibility and protecting consumer choices.” Headquartered in Washington, D.C., it receives support from businesses – primarily in the food and beverage sectors – foundations, and individuals. (The credit line to this essay has been changed from the print version.) E-cigarettes safe; no need for S.F. to ban themOriginal author: James
  1594 Hits
  0 Comments

New Population-Based Study Reports that E-Cigarettes Outperform NRT for Self-Assisted Smoking Cessation Among Smokers Who Choose These Approaches

A new study published online ahead of print in the journal Addiction provides evidence that electronic cigarettes may have the potential to outperform nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for self-assisted smoking cessation.(See: Brown J, Beard E, Kotz D, Michie S, West R. Real-world effectiveness of e-cigarettes when used to aid smoking cessation: a cross-sectional population study. Addiction. 10.1111/add.12623.)In this cross-sectional study, a sample of adults who smoked at any point in the past 12 months was identified from a national household survey conducted in England between 2009 and 2014. Criteria for inclusion in the study were: (1) having made a serious quit attempt in the past year; (2) having used e-cigarettes alone, NRT alone, or an unaided quit attempt during their most recent quit attempt; and (3) not having used a prescription cessation drug or behavioral counseling during their most recent quit attempt.Smoking status was then assessed at the time of the interview to determine the rates of successful quitting during the most recent quit attempt, comparing the three groups: (1) e-cigarettes only; (2) NRT only; and (3) no cessation aids. The total sample size was 5,863.The odds ratio for successful quitting for the e-cigarette group compared to subjects who used NRT was 2.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.70-2.93).The odds ratio for successful quitting for the e-cigarette group compared to subjects who used no cessation aid was 1.38 (95% confidence interval, 1.08-2.93). In the above analyses, the authors controlled for level of nicotine dependence.The study concludes: "Among smokers who have attempted to stop without professional support, those who use e-cigarettes are more likely to report continued abstinence than those who used a licensed NRT product bought over-the-counter or no aid to cessation."The Rest of the StoryThis study provides data to support the hypothesis that among smokers who choose to quit using e-cigarettes or over-the-counter nicotine replacement products (and without behavioral support), the e-cigarettes produce about a two-fold increase in the quit rate.Readers should be cautioned that this study should not be used to conclude that e-cigarettes are twice as effective as NRT for smoking cessation generally, for reasons explained articulately by Carl Phillips in his commentary on this study.Perhaps the most useful contribution of this paper is that it readily demonstrates why the approach being used by Stan Glantz to assess the effectiveness of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation is inappropriate and leads to erroneous conclusions.The main difference between this study and those touted by Glantz as showing that e-cigarettes are ineffective is that unlike Glantz's cited studies, this one actually examines cessation rates among smokers who reported using e-cigarettes for smoking cessation. In other words, Brown et al. included smokers who reported having used e-cigarettes with the intention to quit smoking. In the studies cited by Glantz, smoking cessation rates for all e-cigarette users were examined, even if a smoker just tried a puff of an electronic cigarette to see what all the hype is about.For obvious reasons, the Glantz approach is the wrong one to take, and the Brown et al. approach is correct. This study demonstrates that when you analyze the data the proper way, it appears that electronic cigarettes -- for the right smokers -- can be an effective smoking cessation tool.The key qualifier is "for the right smokers." There is a subset of smokers who try electronic cigarettes and find them satisfactory. They may then go on to make a decision to try to quit using e-cigarettes. The results of this study do not imply that if a smoker were "forced" to use e-cigarettes to quit, one would find the same favorable results.However, from a public health perspective, the relevant question is not what results one would obtain if smokers were forced to use a particular strategy, but what results are obtained when smokers make the choice to use a particular strategy. This is why Stan Glantz's approach is inappropriate.Ironically, Stan Glantz criticized the study specifically because it examined the effect of electronic cigarettes on quitting among smokers who desired to quit. According to an article in the New York Times: "Stanton A. Glantz, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said the study’s limitation was that it tried to measure the effect of e-cigarette use only among smokers who were trying hard to quit, not all smokers."By Stan's logic, we should throw out all the clinical trials upon which the established effectiveness of NRT is based because every one of these trials was designed to assess the efficacy of NRT among smokers who used these drugs with the specific intent to quit. Instead, according to Glantz's logic, we should examine the rate of smoking cessation among everyone who has ever used an NRT product. Doing that would lead to the conclusion that NRT is completely ineffective for smoking cessation.The biggest problem with Stan's approach is that when you examine e-cigarette users who are not using the product to quit, you are introducing a huge sampling bias. For example, why might someone use e-cigarettes, but not to quit? Most likely, the majority of vapers who are using e-cigarettes for a purpose other than cessation are using e-cigarettes to cut down on the amount they smoke. They are likely to derive benefits from smoking reduction. However, they are almost assuredly not going to quit smoking because they are not trying to quit, nor do they have such a desire.  The rest of the story is that if you ask the wrong question, you are going to get the wrong answer. By asking the wrong question about the effectiveness of electronic cigarettes, Dr. Glantz has obtained the wrong answer.From a public health perspective, the effectiveness of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation must be assessed by examining how effective the product is for smokers who are trying to quit. When you do that properly, this initial evidence suggests that you find out e-cigarettes are a viable smoking cessation aid for a subset of smokers.The degree to which electronic cigarettes stimulate or depress overall interest in quitting is a separate and empirically answerable question. In fact, evidence from the UK indicates that the spread of electronic cigarettes has been associated with a substantial increase in the desire to quit smoking at a population level.Original author: Michael Siegel
  1486 Hits
  0 Comments

E-Cigarettes at the Office: What’s the right protocol?

In the salad days of the e-cig boom, nearly every vaper and vaping company boasted about our rights to “smoke wherever you want, whenever you want.”

Continue reading
  1777 Hits
  0 Comments

Electronic cigarettes help smokers quit in ‘real world,’ study finds

A new study based on real-world data from England lends support to the idea that electronic cigarettes can help smokers quit using regular cigarettes.Among a sample of 5,963 adults who tried to kick the habit without prescription medications or counseling, those who turned to e-cigarettes were about 60% more likely to succeed than those who used nicotine replacement therapy or went cold turkey. Researchers from University College London published their results online Tuesday in the journal Addiction.Electronic cigarettes are battery-powered devices that burn a nicotine solution to create a vapor resembling the smoke from a tobacco cigarette. Advocates say they promote health by providing an alternative to traditional cigarettes and the poisonous tars and carbon monoxide that come with them. Critics – including Dr. Tom Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – counter that e-cigarettes get people (especially kids) to get hooked on nicotine, increasing the risk that they will move on to regular cigarettes. Scientists and public health officials are eager to sort out the pros and cons of e-cigarettes, which are lightly regulated and increasingly popular. Surveys and clinical trials designed to measure the effectiveness of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation tool have produced mixed results.For the new study, researchers turned to data from the Smoking Toolkit Study, an ongoing survey of English smokers. They examined survey responses gathered between July 2009 (when e-cigarettes were relatively new) and February 2014 from smokers who said they tried to quit at least once in the previous year. For the sake of simplicity, they focused on three groups of would-be quitters: Those who used only e-cigarettes (8% of the sample); those who used only non-prescription nicotine replacement items like gum or patches (33% of the sample); and those who didn’t use any kind of smoking cessation treatment (59% of the sample). The raw data were strongly in favor of e-cigarettes, with 20% of those who used them saying that they had quit smoking. That compared with 10% of those who used non-prescription nicotine replacement therapy and 15% of those who went cold turkey.But the people who opted for electronic cigarettes were not the same as other smokers, so the researchers controlled for factors like age, gender, socioeconomic status and the degree of their nicotine dependence. With these factors taken into account, the researchers found that people who used electronic cigarettes were 1.63 times more likely to to quit smoking than those who opted for nicotine replacement therapy. In addition, they were 1.61 times more likely to succeed than people who didn’t use any smoking cessation aids.The study participants did not have to verify their nonsmoking status by taking a urine test or anything else, the researchers noted. But they said that given the survey’s design, people would have had little incentive to lie.The findings provide reliable information on the value of e-cigarettes “in the real world,” the study authors concluded.“E-cigarettes may prove to be both an efficacious and effective aid to smoking cessation,” they wrote. “Insofar that this is true, e-cigarettes may substantially improve public health because of their widespread appeal and the huge health gains associated with stopping smoking.”The study was funded in part by Pfizer, which makes the smoking cessation drug varenicline (sold under the trade names Chantix and Champix). In addition, four of the five researchers disclosed that they had received grants and other fees from “companies that develop and manufacture smoking cessation medications.” None of the five has a financial relationship with a company that makes electronic cigarettes.Senior author Robert West, a professor of health psychology and director of tobacco studies at University College London, is the editor in chief of Addiction. Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles TimesOriginal author: Margrett
  1524 Hits
  0 Comments

E-Cigarette Users May End Up Paying More For Insurance

hide captionA customer holds the electronic cigarette he purchased at a store in Miami.Joe Raedle/Getty ImagesA customer holds the electronic cigarette he purchased at a store in Miami.Joe Raedle/Getty ImagesPeople may think that e-cigarettes are a safer alternative to tobacco, but insurers might not agree.Tobacco use is one of just four things that insurers that sell health plans on the individual market can take into account when determining someone's premium: age, geographic location, and family size are the other three. People who use tobacco can be charged up to 50 percent more than nonsmokers.Under the rules, use of any tobacco product four or more times a week on average in the past six months could subject someone to the tobacco surcharge.But 10 states prohibit or restrict insurers from applying the tobacco surcharge in the individual market, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.So the big question will be if insurers end up classifying e-cigarettes as tobaco products. The battery-powered devices simulate cigarette smoking, producing a smoke-like vapor that usually contains nicotine and flavoring agents.The Food and Drug Administration moved toward deeming e-cigs tobacco products in April when it proposed regulating e-cigarettes, although the proposed regulations aren't as strict as those for regular cigarettes.The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services also is looking into the use of e-cigarettes and the tobacco surcharge, according to an agency official.But a lot of this will rest on the science, and the jury is still out the health effects of e-cigarettes.In a recent review of research on e-cigarettes, researchers at the University of California-San Francisco found that although the long-term health effects of e-cigarettes are still largely unknown, they emit potentially harmful substances into the air and can be a source of indoor pollution.The researchers also found that e-cigarettes actually reduce the likelihood that people will quit smoking, in contrast to advertising claims that firing up an e-cig will help people kick the habit.The potential role of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation tool has insurance coverage implications too. The health law requires most health plans to cover FDA-approved smoking cessation products and counseling without any out-of-pocket cost to consumers. The federal government recently released guidance clarifying which services and products must be covered.Since e-cigarettes aren't FDA-approved for quitting smoking — and in fact are on the brink of being labeled by the agency to warrant regulation like cigarettes — they aren't covered as a free preventive benefit under the law.Clearly more specific guidance will be needed. "The Affordable Care Act does not specify e-cigarette use for purposes of cessation coverage or tobacco surcharge application," says Catherine McMahon, policy principal at the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network. "The lack of clarity may allow health plans to try to add the surcharge for e-cigarettes."Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation.Original author: Daren
  1695 Hits
  0 Comments

Five Flavor Review

Featured Review

Video Tour of Lab